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.
Why can't Conservative's accept the science and find free-market solutions to the problem? Why does almost every Conservative have to tow climate denial talking points or be considered politically incorrect if they don't? Can't you put science before politics and come up with Conservative solutions?
Why can't Conservative's accept the science and find free-market solutions to the problem? Why does almost every Conservative have to tow climate denial talking points or be considered politically incorrect if they don't? Can't you put science before politics and come up with Conservative solutions?
It's a waste of time and money. Climate change happens regardless what you and I believes in. There's nothing us humans can do to change the course of weather patterns today and for the next 500+ years. If we stop burning fossil fuel and close down all factories. It wouldn't change anything.
While all these retards keep saying the glaciers are melting away. They won't disclose or too ignorant to realize that newer ice glaciers and ice sheets are forming in parts of Antartica greater than glacier loss in the North pole.
I'm more worried about the eventual change of earth's magnetic poles than climate change. When the earth's magnetic core changes position it's gonna wreck havoc on the weather, GPS, and all electronic communication. It changes every 30k years.
It's a waste of time and money. Climate change happens regardless what you and I believes in. There's nothing us humans can do to change the course of weather patterns today and for the next 500+ years. If we stop burning fossil fuel and close down all factories. It wouldn't change anything.
While all these retards keep saying the glaciers are melting away. They won't disclose or too ignorant to realize that newer ice glaciers and ice sheets are forming in parts of Antartica greater than glacier loss in the North pole.
I'm more worried about the eventual change of earth's magnetic poles than climate change. When the earth's magnetic core changes position it's gonna wreck havoc on the weather, GPS, and all electronic communication. It changes every 30k years.
Even if you don't believe in climate change, it is still in humanity's moral and economic best interest to pursue renewable energy. So what if liberals want to subsidize renewable energy, the negative externalities of pollution mean that this is an efficient market solution - even if climate change is fake. The sooner conservatives accept this the better everyone will be.
Why can't Conservative's accept the science and find free-market solutions to the problem? Why does almost every Conservative have to tow climate denial talking points or be considered politically incorrect if they don't? Can't you put science before politics and come up with Conservative solutions?
Good questions. Most criticism of American conservatives - that they're racist, xenophobic, misogynist, fascist, etc. - is total BS. But the climate issue really does discredit them. I think many are just reacting to the hype and obvious political agenda the left has attached to it. They seem unable or unwilling to move beyond that partisan reaction and actually think about what a responsible conservative view of the issue might be.
While all these retards keep saying the glaciers are melting away. They won't disclose or too ignorant to realize that newer ice glaciers and ice sheets are forming in parts of Antartica greater than glacier loss in the North pole.
Examining 35 years of sea ice data, Parkinson has shown that increases around Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades. Earth has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 35,000 square kilometers (13,500 square miles) since 1979—the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.
“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum in September 2014, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Parkinson, who is based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”
I guess you'll have to go with the "fudged data" excuse on this one. You know these climate scientists trying to get grant money and bring down western civilization and the like.
oh gee the climate is changing, AGAIN. just like it has for the past 4.5 BILLION years. it is the height of human arrogance to think that we can control the climate. our climate is a complex and robust system that we are just scratching the surface at understanding.
the problem with a little knowledge is that it is dangerous. in all honesty we are not getting the full story from either side of the debate. rather we are getting political issues, since climate science has become a political football.
there is too much of adjusting numbers one way or another to prove one side or the other. there is too much of relying on one or two scientific disciplines and ignoring all the others. we are falling to see the evidence from the past, and we create models that are woefully inaccurate to try and show the future.
a reality check here, the planet has been much hotter in th past, and we have had much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past. it has also been much much colder in the past, to the point of being planet snowball with NO part of the earth not covered in ice.
some scientists look at venus, our sister planet, and claim that if we dont do something now, we will end up like venus. they are wrong as we are in the so called goldilocks zone. venus isnt. it is in fact much closer to the sun than we are. as a result a planet that likely had liquid water on it sometime in its past, got much hotter as our star heated up over the eons.
there will come a day when the earth does become like venus, when our star uses up its fuel and becomes a red giant, the earth will be burnt to a cinder if it survives at all.
one more thing, just about every time man messes with nature, we screw it up. so before going out and maing all kinds of changes to the economy, and making new regulations and laws, and increasing taxes, etc. lets make sure teh path we want to go down it the right one.
one more thing, just about every time man messes with nature, we screw it up. so...
... one would expect a conservative person to be wary of running a giant chemistry experiment to see what happens when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. You'd think it would be conservatives, more than others, sounding a note of caution about that but...
Why can't Conservative's accept the science and find free-market solutions to the problem? Why does almost every Conservative have to tow climate denial talking points or be considered politically incorrect if they don't? Can't you put science before politics and come up with Conservative solutions?
The punctuation and spelling errors in this short clip are typical of those blindly attending the psychological Progressive Church: incapable of critical analysis or independent research, limiting their information gathering to the Pravda pretend "news" channels, and believing every agenda they are fed without question. These people can't step outside the propaganda to see that there is NO science or logic behind the "Climate Change" scam, and that there is always another massive scam being perpetrated on the American people (the Oil Crisis of the 70s; the hole in the Ozone layer; etc.). Do we not remember that Al Gore boasted he was going to be the world's first "Carbon Credit Billionaire"? Have we not already seen endless revisions to the doomsday predictions that didn't come true, with not a single predicted catastrophe actually occurring -- other that the always-occuring natural disasters and fluctuations in weather that now are inevitably blamed on supposed Climate Change?
Funny how "Global Warming" had to be re-packaged as "Climate Change" after so many years of record-breaking cold around the world; how all proposed solutions to the hypothetical "problem" involve everybody paying more money to Big Business and Big Government; and the inconvenient fact that if the problem were real, the significant benefits of a warming climate (longer growing seasons for food crops, significantly less money wasted heating houses though long northern winters, etc.) would need to be weighed against the costs.
Think about it: would humanity do better if we had another Ice Age, or if there were more tropical landscapes to vacation to?
If you are an educated intellectual who doesn't just accept any propaganda you are fed, you already know that the much-touted 97% consensus -- referenced almost everywhere as if popularity was proof of scientific validity -- is an absurdly obvious misquote of the Cook Study review of articles on Global Warming (not "Climate Change"). Here is the actual wording of the Abstract: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW (human-caused global warming), 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." In other words, only 32.6% of the studies concluded that there was Global Warming, and it was caused by humans -- not 97%. And the 97% refers to published studies that Cook et al. reviewed, not the beliefs of 97% of "Climate Scientists" -- a career with no definition or standards of any kind, where the only paychecks come from those hoping to get richer by pushing a "solution" to the supposed impending catastrophe.
If you don't understand why some studies get published and publicized, while others that are much more scientifically rigorous are ignored, read the book "Freakanomics." Every citizen shoud understand that there is no "even playing field" when it comes to published studies and academic papers: there's plenty of money to fund (reward) those that come to a conclusion that supports a money-making agenda. And Global Warming / Climate Change, with its solutions of taxing carbon emissions and handing out taxpayer money to certain groups, has already made plenty of money for those pushing an agenda that real science doesn't support.
Why can't Conservative's accept the science and find free-market solutions to the problem? Why does almost every Conservative have to tow climate denial talking points or be considered politically incorrect if they don't? Can't you put science before politics and come up with Conservative solutions?
Climate Change (so called) and Political Correctness Mafias are tied together in an attempt by those seeking power and money...both good scams.
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.
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.
