Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences?
I mean the only reason why I can imagine it is because the congressmen are simply bought by the Oil & Gas industry and honestly just don't care about what the evidence has to say.
Right now less than 50% of all Americans are paying the bill for everything. When the majority are helping to pay the bill, then I'll have a look.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences?
I mean the only reason why I can imagine it is because the congressmen are simply bought by the Oil & Gas industry and honestly just don't care about what the evidence has to say.
first we understand that the climate has been changing for more than 4 billion years. so the first thing that truly has to be determined is, is this round of climate change truly man made, or is it, as most believe, a natural occurrence. second, if it is truly man made, and we make the changes that the alarmists want, how soon will the changes take effect? ten years, 50 years? 100 years? most experts will tell you that it will be at least 100 years before anything happens as a result of changes made. so do we destroy the worlds economy now in hopes that it would recover? for a nominal change in 100 years?
and if climate change is truly natural, then we have made changes and destroyed economies for what reason? and do you really think that once the government gains power, are you really naive enough to think that they will just decide to relinquish that power?
if it were a matter of a bit of economic hardship, to make real gains in a reasonable period of time, then i say go ahead and do it. but the reality is that the gains are going to be tiny at best, and in the very long term, and the costs associated with those gains are going to be massive in the extreme.
this isnt about climate change though, its about power and control. its about the UN controlling the world in a one world government.
Why are conservatives so rabidly against climate change?
For the record Herr von HyperionGapsteinmetzler, I love climate change....seeing the leave turn colors, then snow, then the blossoming of spring and the green of summer.
It's all good.If you think it should be sunny and 74°F 24/7 they got pills for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperionGap
I honestly don't understand why.
Uh-huh, well, then this map which comes from the fanatical right-wing United States Government NOAA will throw you for a loop....
Up for the challenge?
No climate hopey-changey supporter has ever been able to debunk it.
When you can explain why this Inter-Glacial Period is the coldest of the last 8 Inter-Glacial Periods spanning 800,000 years, then I'll seriously consider listening to what you have to say.
Why don't we split the difference?
Instead of waiting for the average global temperatures to increase 10.8°F so that it is just as warm as the last Inter-Glacial Period, let us know when global temperatures increase 5.4°F.
Think you can do that?
Watching the global warming nutters flee as fast as they can...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.