Republicans IN; Climate Change OUT

Maybe if Al Gore hadn't been wrong on EVERY SINGLE PREDICTION more people might be apt to believe man is causing permanent harm to the planet. For those of us old enough remember in the 80's when acid rain was predicted for our future? And then in the 90's when the hole in the ozone layer was going to doom us all? Soon climate change will join those failed theories.

a reply to: thesaneone

Why, taxing coal-fired power plants out of existence, and levying a "carbon tax" on everyone, and contracting Al Gore's company to implement all these new regulations, of course.

That should reverse it real good.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Would love to see the names of these organizations that have funded these scientists, I wonder how many of them have interest in green products? $$

The hole in the ozone layer still exists, so does acid rain.

LOL ..Global warming/climate change .oooooo Hey go live in Vancouver for a year and you will get the gray sky effect there for 1/2 the year .Or head north and live in the dark for extended periods of time .Do you think that we will loose the 4 seasons here in Canada where winter is the longest one and there would be no need for spraying because ,well it's usually cold . If you go look at where people go for vacations you just might find that it's usually to warmer places .We like heat and can handle it much easier then the cold . Chicken Little rubbish is what it is .

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Astrocyte

It's really easy ...

One side has "we don't know; we just don't know!"

The other side has scientific research, not to mention, gigabytes of data from, you know, actual measurable and objective studies.

What does the other side have? Belief and for many, The Bible.

Let's see ... let's evaluate this ... math or Methuselah?

What to pick ... what to pick?

I seem to remember the MODELS for those programs are not on the up and up. Meaning they are operating with a flawed program. Also there are alot of scientist who participated in th e initial studies but were censored/removed.

Also you do know that the bible does not actually state a numerical amount of years. You are arguing your faith in science yourself are you not? HAvent humans been wrong before? Remember at one time almost all scientist thought earth was the center of th e universe.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You know, I find it amusing that my attempt to get people to "to think about a world of white skies" has only brought us back to point: debating the sciences

And since being brought to point entails analyzing how it is someone can so comfortably ignore a sheer consensus within a field - with a very minor - 3% - of detractors, this is perhaps not surprising; and I think, goes to show my point: people cannot think what is outside their epistemological framework.

The human mind is amazing this way.

Imagine the information read as being 'tagged' (this is only an imagination, no such process actually occurs) by our brains as a category. In reality, it's just that some things are emotionally salient: a sub-cortical eruption interacts with a situational cue. Together they elicit the subjective experience we have. No thought emerges of "I can't think about that" but that is essentially what occurs when something with an opposing meaning to what is personally meaningful to you enters your consciousness. The mind now organizes itself around defense: a more subtle and abstract example of what our bodies do: information with contrary meaning holds the promise of being 'affecitively destabilizing". So the mind runs after its meanings, defends them like a monkey with a stick. And all the logical rigor that's developed by more astute minds - scientists, philosophers - which generally guides us to sound conclusions, is overlooked.

I think we should continue to look at alternative energy sources.

Electric cars. When they make an affordable one, I'll be first to buy it.

Solar, wave, wind, geo-thermal energy? All for it.

Recycling? I'm all for it.

I'm not convinced that climate change is man-made.

But that doesn't matter.

I think common sense proposals for our environment will only benefit all of us.

a reply to: jjkenobi

You know, when you consider this situation from the perspective of "who benefits" - the evidence is overwhlemingly on the side of the right.

It's simple: existing businesses, particularly those heavily invested in fossil fuel industries, will lose their power.

How? A carbon tax PUNISHES these industries for engaging in a business that damages our planets atmosphere.

Those on the left, conversely, how would they benefit? I hear lots of talk about money but this is the carbon TRADE model, not the carbon tax model. The carbon tax model is pretty straight forward. Governments tax fossil fuel industries for every barrel of oil, natural gas or coal produced. The money collected is reinvested into renewable energy industries (as tax incentives) while a portion is returned to the public at the end of the year as a check.

Given this picture, it is boggling - though probably not surprising - that people who subscribe to the conspiracy theory notion of climate change, not only ascribe emotions, beliefs and behaviors to people that are wildly unpsychological - and thus not plausible - but they also conveniently ignore the Kochs, Shells, Exxons, BPs, and Chevrons that stand to profit from a nonsensical conspiracy movement: indeed, the kochs fund the tea party: as well as a ridiculous exhibit at the smithsonian that implies humans will "merely adapt" to a hotter world.

Forget the fact that human evolution took 200,000 years to get to where we are: and forget that fact that evolution takes place in a context. A world with less life and less productivity will therefore provide less material for constructive evolution.

Will we "evolve" if we do nothing? Probably. But i'd prefer the term "devolve" to highlight the entirely negative and tragic nature of it; it would be the true "fall" from grace that Christianity speaks of.

That anyone can even consider this course without sanely assessing the source of the increased c02 - its place in the regulation of temperature - and our predictive contribution to present Co2 levels by mining and burning natural Co2 deposits, also, sadly, supports my thesis that this attitude people assume is fundamentally rooted in a subjective way of relating as "I and It".

Even though were all human, and the concept of 'theory of mind" should hold for most of us, we've ignored the conditions that must exist for us to relate sensibly to one another.

a reply to: beezzer

I think we should continue to look at alternative energy sources.

Agreed we put nowhere near enough money into researching alternative energy sources. Eventually the oil is going to run out and it's better to have it before that happens instead of waiting till the last minute.

Electric cars. When they make an affordable one, I'll be first to buy it.

Tesla is making a cheaper version but states are passing laws to where they won't be able to sell them in their states. Right now they are leasing the model S for 777 a month. Give it time and even cheaper cars will come out or you can just convert a car yourself.

I'm not convinced that climate change is man-made.

Climate change isn't man made it is natural but man has had an impact on it. Just think about it for the last 300 years we have been dumping millions of tons of pollution (and that number has been growing geometrically since the beginning) into the atmosphere. There is no way this has been happening and there not have some kind of side effect.

I think common sense proposals for our environment will only benefit all of us.

The environment can live without people but we can't live without the environment.

a reply to: buster2010

Wow. A post of yours I actually fully agree with.

Cool.

If the franchise market wasn't seeking an un level playing field, we'd see swift progress with Tesla's market penetration and reduced prices.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Climate change is a very expected to be profitable scam so no, Republicans will not shut down the scam as they can cash out on it now that the public has been conditioned with scaremongering of an apocalyptic future.

a reply to: beezzer

I thought being right was more important. Now I am confused.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: beezzer

I thought being right was more important. Now I am confused.

lolz

Now I'm simply pushing for things that would actually help the climate and environment.

I am not for carbon-tax-credit-schemes.

Giving more money to government won't help the environment.

Spending money on innovation, private sector money on new types of energy?

I'm all for.

Government gave us the DMV.

Lord help all of us if we ctually put it in charge of the environment. R or D.

a reply to: beezzer

I realize the economic impact that a change from gasoline to hydrogen would have, but it's inevitable. I do firmly believe that the oil reserves we have in the US are vast and those in power are buying up the rights to that in order to grab the last of the "big oil $" ahead of that, or some other alternative fuel.

And that leads me to the conundrum that has plagued me since I could earn my own money. How much is "enough"?

a reply to: network dude

I'm old.

I'll probably be dead long before we have to worry about it.

My kids?

They better learn how to use electric cars. . . . .

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

why, they are going to tax the climate into submission.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

New laws can be enacted to help better protect the environment, or at least a willingness to apply the ones already on the books. So you're not convinced of the anthropogenic contribution to the current warming cycle, that's all well and good for you. What happens when the oceans become so warm that frozen methane begins to melt?

I'm not certain that a scheme of carbon credits is the best approach to curbing greenhouse gasses. We have to start somewhere, though. Giving substantial tax credits for making "green" home improvements like better insulation, use of Led lighting, installing solar panels or wind turbines, more efficient appliances (tax credits are quite paltry now), supporting companies like Tesla instead of enacting roadblocks, and supporting large scale wind turbine projects for the generation of electricity could all help in the long run.

a reply to: elfie

Sure, in the United States, but what about China and India, who could give a rat's ass about what Al Gore says? It's about money, period.

I'm just guessing here, but if the man-made climate crowd took taxes off the table and came up with alternatives to solving the issue, then there wouldn't be the opposition that there is.

Redirect existing spending.
Provide tax credits to new innovations.

Instead of spending billions on a new tank or fighter, build a better engine, a water desalinization plant, or something.