What's the point in denying climate change anyways? (gallon, generation, regular)
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.
Your proposal is far too reasonable. Since Trump likes to tweet at 2:00am every other day that climate change is a hoax, Trumpers fall in line and shriek "Hoax!" also along with "Fake News!" Rush Limbaugh and Faux do all their thinking for them, and they are heavily invested in keeping it that way. Really Trumpers are no different than a religious crazy who has decided that the law of gravity doesn't apply to him because God will hold him up when he steps off a cliff. Unfortunately, the law of gravity doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it's still the LAW, regardless. The same is true of the laws of thermodynamics which are actually pretty easy to understand and explain global warming quite well.
Alas, Trumpers despise science and do their best to turn science into something out of the book of Revelations. I had an Aunt who was a staunch born again who developed breast cancer. Her doctor caught it in time and could have saved her life if she would have let him. Unfortunately, my Aunt decided that God was going to cure her, and modern medicine could go take a flying leap. Well, God did try to save her by giving her a good doctor and all the progress that modern medicine has made in treating breast cancer. Yet my Aunt in effect turned her back on God instead of accepting his grace and soon succumbed to her cancer before she was even 40.
Climate deniers are no different than my aunt. We could do any number of things to lessen the impact of global warming and prevent much human suffering while we were at it. But no. And it is our grandchildren who will suffer most from our current hubris.
You keep referring to AGW as science, but your hypothesis is untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable.
You certainly can't control for other variables such as cloud cover, so where does science enter into the discussion?
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax for the sake of corporate interests or religious ideology, why not accept the science but make your case as to why laws and regulations to help combat it aren't a good idea? There are some legitimate cases that can be made on whether or not the benefit of a policy to help curb climate change would actually be effective at all and whether or not the benefit outweighs the cost (be it in terms of the deficit or a hit to the economy). It seems to me that would be more effective than trying to undermine the scientific community. I'm certain several of the responses I get will be stuff like "climate change is a leftist hoax" or something similar. However I am more apt to trust the science since its includes things we can measure over the conservative position that a deity, for whom no proof exists, controls the weather. When it comes to "scientific" reports that cast doubt on climate change, follow the money. Typically it will lead to either some corporation that benefits from lax climate laws or some religious organization.
So for those that support the free market and don't think environmental laws are necessary, why don't you frame your argument that way instead of trying to deny the science?
Because even if it is completely valid, the "solutions" the left proposes always involve a carbon tax or some other means of picking my pocket.
Taxation is the rubber stamp answer to everything in Leftist Bizzaro-World.
3 posters on here mention China is a big polluter.....and that the U.S has cleaned up it's act. That's true, but it's because we shifted our pollution to China by offshoring our industry to them and then buying the finished products from them. Based on consumption alone, the U.S is a huge...HUGE contributor to global CO2 emissions.
And the OP makes a good point. By denying the link between man-made pollution and climate change, right-wingers/climate deniers leave themselves out of the policy debates and decision making in this country and worldwide. Not only that, but we are falling behind others countries like China and Germany who are gaining an upper-hand in the in clean technology and other innovations to address this problem.
A company that I used to work for was involved in importing products from China.
When a member of our management was there touring the factory, he observed some Chinese employees disposing of solvent paint waste by dumping drums of it into a local waterway.
When he asked his guide from the factory about how they can do that, he was told "You had your industrial revolution, now we're going to have ours".
Instead of denying science and trying to convince everyone that global warming is a hoax for the sake of corporate interests or religious ideology, why not accept the science but make your case as to why laws and regulations to help combat it aren't a good idea? There are some legitimate cases that can be made on whether or not the benefit of a policy to help curb climate change would actually be effective at all and whether or not the benefit outweighs the cost (be it in terms of the deficit or a hit to the economy). It seems to me that would be more effective than trying to undermine the scientific community. I'm certain several of the responses I get will be stuff like "climate change is a leftist hoax" or something similar. However I am more apt to trust the science since its includes things we can measure over the conservative position that a deity, for whom no proof exists, controls the weather. When it comes to "scientific" reports that cast doubt on climate change, follow the money. Typically it will lead to either some corporation that benefits from lax climate laws or some religious organization.
So for those that support the free market and don't think environmental laws are necessary, why don't you frame your argument that way instead of trying to deny the science?
Nobody's denying that the temperatures have gone up. We just don't think there's much if anything that can be done about it, without taking the world economy back to the 1600's.
Climate alarmists like the op are religious zealots pushing their dogma on the rest of us. Quite ironic in this case, as the op fervently dismisses anyone else's religious beliefs.
The church of AGW, with their computer models, pray GIGO, inshalgore.
Rick Scott current GOP Florida governor (and current GOP candidate for US Senate) BANNED FL government workers from even using the words, climate change.
He compounded his denial of climate change by allowing private corporations to profit by releasing polluted water into Lake Okeechobee over the past several years under his administration.
Currently the enormous amounts of Okeechobee's green algae caused by Scott's catering to business interests, has runoff into the rivers and is feeding a horrible red tide on the west coast. Dead dolphins, manatees and even a whale (first time a whale has died in a red tide) along with literally TONS of dead fish litter the otherwise pristine shores of Sarasota and nearby areas.
While red tides are naturally occuring, scientists agree that it is the pollution in Okeechobee that has brewed this red tide into the monster it is.
I have redneck (trump) neighbors and workers in my part of Florida. They ALL fish for fun and food. I hope they turn their backs on GOP Scott this November.
Your proposal is far too reasonable. Since Trump likes to tweet at 2:00am every other day that climate change is a hoax, Trumpers fall in line and shriek "Hoax!" also along with "Fake News!" Rush Limbaugh and Faux do all their thinking for them, and they are heavily invested in keeping it that way. Really Trumpers are no different than a religious crazy who has decided that the law of gravity doesn't apply to him because God will hold him up when he steps off a cliff. Unfortunately, the law of gravity doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it's still the LAW, regardless. The same is true of the laws of thermodynamics which are actually pretty easy to understand and explain global warming quite well.
Alas, Trumpers despise science and do their best to turn science into something out of the book of Revelations. I had an Aunt who was a staunch born again who developed breast cancer. Her doctor caught it in time and could have saved her life if she would have let him. Unfortunately, my Aunt decided that God was going to cure her, and modern medicine could go take a flying leap. Well, God did try to save her by giving her a good doctor and all the progress that modern medicine has made in treating breast cancer. Yet my Aunt in effect turned her back on God instead of accepting his grace and soon succumbed to her cancer before she was even 40.
Climate deniers are no different than my aunt. We could do any number of things to lessen the impact of global warming and prevent much human suffering while we were at it. But no. And it is our grandchildren who will suffer most from our current hubris.
What things. How much money? how will you implements these changes? Tell me how you plan to save the world!
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.
