This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

This was posted in another thread and I believe it is relevant to this discussion.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: jrod

The irony is that the real reason the public terminology was rebranded is so people like that would go around saying stuff like "climate change? climate changes all the time - it's obviously just a natural cycle!!"

Frank Luntz himself explains the exact reasoning right here at the 2:47 mark:

I don't think even Luntz realized just how well this strategy would ultimately work though. Especially when you factor in the added bonus that it also caused these very same oblivious parrots to turn right around and then exclaim "remember how they used to call it global warming lolol"

[snip]

It's why we have leaked memorandum showing this has been their target audience since the very beginning:

This is truly how certain elected officials look at the climate change problem. Facts are not important and can be boring and not easily remembered. What is important to them is what people believe and what they can make people believe. A good story told right is much more believable than boring scientific rhetoric.

a reply to: jrod

What is important to them is what people believe and what they can make people believe.

Sort of.
What is important to "them" is what will preserve what they have. Consequences be damned as long as it costs me nothing.

OF COURSE the climate on planet earth changes, and CONSTANTLY changes...

a reply to: Kromlech
And?
That means that we have nothing to do with the changes we are seeing?
That mean those changes will have no impact on our lives?
That means those changes should be ignored?

What, exactly, is your point?

It's been going through climate changes over 6 billion years. Cutting back on hairspray and cow farts won't halt the cycle.

a reply to: Kromlech

It's been going through climate changes over 6 billion years.

Interesting, since the Solar System seems to be about 4.5 billion years old.

Cutting back on hairspray and cow farts won't halt the cycle.

Cow farts and hairspray aren't the problem. The combustion of millions (not billions) of year old carbon compounds is.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jrod

Consequences be damned as long as it costs me nothing.

Pretty much.

It really is frustrating to see politicians who have no regard for the consequences and environment keep getting elected over and over again. It is freaking amazing how the masses will vote against their interests over and over again. The problems with our elections(USA) already has it's on subforum.../end rant

So does NOAA say that? What are you saying?

a reply to: fernalley
Does NOAA say what?
To whom are you replying?

We are entering a new Dark Age. Science will be feared, religion revered.

I live in an area where I have seen first hand how conservation efforts have improved my immediate environment over the past 25 years. I have seen my skyline turn from a dull brown to a brilliant blue, and all thanks to environmental regulations. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is the almighty dollar.

a reply to: angrypsycho1977

All that matters is the almighty dollar.

Depends on your point of view.
Seems that some think that if it hurts their wallet it's automatically wrong.
Seems that some think that if someone else figures out a way to help their wallet it's automatically wrong.

How's that again?
To me it seems a lack of creative thinking. A denial of the concept of enlightened self interest.

The world is not a zero sum game.

originally posted by: Kromlech
OF COURSE the climate on planet earth changes, and CONSTANTLY changes...

Sure, due to change many animals and plants went extinct... sure, earth is still spinning, but many of those are not alive... doesn't this make you to wonder will we survive?

Does any of you ever watch TV? There is this thing called news... sometimes is filled with stuff like this...

a reply to: SuperFrog

doesn't this make you to wonder will we survive?

No. I don't think this particular problem will eradicate humans.
I do think that it will make life less pleasant (understatement) for our children and theirs.

originally posted by: angrypsycho1977
We are entering a new Dark Age. Science will be feared, religion revered.

I live in an area where I have seen first hand how conservation efforts have improved my immediate environment over the past 25 years. I have seen my skyline turn from a dull brown to a brilliant blue, and all thanks to environmental regulations. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is the almighty dollar.

You need to look no further than Mexico to see that is true. Mexico historically has been about 10 years behind the US in EPA regulation for economic reasons. They were still burning high sulfur fuels in 2006.



Mexico also keeps their vehicles on the road longer so the average age of the vehicles is older.
The smog in Mexico city in the early 90's was so bad the UN dubbed it "the most polluted city on the planet."

Even in Mexico the air quality has improved in just a few years through stricter EPA adoption.

At the start of the original dark ages they removed knowledge from the public, for example disappearing the library at Alexandria. This time around a modern Nietzsche might observe that our politicians are turning the rope that connects the Übermensch into smokable hemp.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SuperFrog

doesn't this make you to wonder will we survive?

No. I don't think this particular problem will eradicate humans.
I do think that it will make life less pleasant (understatement) for our children and theirs.

Exactly why I say preparedness is what we should be concentrating on.

Coastal cities are probably not such a great idea considering Earth's history of drowning them. (Alexandria, Egypt and Heracleion, Egypt to name a couple)

There are things we can and should be doing to help our future generations prepare for the worst that the Earth can throw at us. And that's where our efforts should be concentrated. If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, I bet the Earth would STILL warm up.

Time to reforest the planet, IMO.

Research scientists need jobs... so if I were a research scientist, I would gladly decry 'global warming' if it meant the difference between a paycheck or not. a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: masqua

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
This is what happens when you make science dependent on the state.

Contrary to popular opinion, not all scientists live in America.

Other countries don't have governments that scientists rely on for funding?

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Not all governments are so anti-science as America is quickly becoming.

a reply to: Phage

It was decried as incorrect I sate it is,and the record temperatures were not an isolated incident The WHOLE world was affected as were MOST of the US.

a reply to: elfrog
Research scientists need jobs... so if I were a research scientist, I would gladly decry 'global warming' if it meant the difference between a paycheck or not

You are simply mindless parroting a talking point of the Oil/Coal cartel and Republican party. There is no evidence, no facts, and no sound logic that back up your sentence.

Here is the reality, the research scientists who come up with the notion of global warming and human induced climate change get paid very little, while those who come the rhetoric that they claim 'debunks global warming' get paid much better than the scientists.