Why is the climate change debate a political one in the United States?

[grover5]

We are at the tail end of the Ice Age. It cane and went, and we're seeing the resulting effects. The warming back up has slowed to a crawl. As per the Cyclical pattern, the earth should be getting colder again in the next 25 to 50 years. What I'm gonna hate most about that, is that AL Gore won't be here to witness the start of the cool down. It may have already begun.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5

Right on...don't forget the earth is flat too. I'm just stunned at the right wing ignorance in this thread. So much fear of change and actually working to make a positive change makes some crawl in to a ball of denial.

 

[grover5]

The zealots from both sides, quite frankly, are worth each other.

You don't think we should be burning fossil fuels ? So what do you propose ? Going 200 years back in development ? Building more nuclear plants ? Restricting population growth in developing countries ? How do you suggest we deal with China and India ? come on, let's have an honest discussion, not just some hippie slogans without any substance. And notice that I lean more on your side than Rush addicts.

Investment in R&D...this country loves to claim to be inventors and innovators then let's go. China is investing a ton in clean energy. Or we could cling to dead energy that only the most willfully ignorant believe isn't hurting us and actually has a future.

 

[grover5]

The zealots from both sides, quite frankly, are worth each other.

You don't think we should be burning fossil fuels ? So what do you propose ? Going 200 years back in development ? Building more nuclear plants ? Restricting population growth in developing countries ? How do you suggest we deal with China and India ? come on, let's have an honest discussion, not just some hippie slogans without any substance. And notice that I lean more on your side than Rush addicts.

I would also scrap the false equivalency shtick. It has more validity when one side isn't literally suggesting that 99% of the world's scientific community is in a conspiracy with Al Gore to make money while the oil and coal industry are victims of these vast conspirators. The sooner you dismiss the fools, the sooner a real discussion can be held by the adults.

 

[Just_Me_D]

How dare I?

Yes,

How dare you take pride in being a ignoramus

That's funny. I'm an ignoramus for not being in agreement with the climate change dogma. Okay, so be it.

, and then having the gall to try and spin it so it's somehow my fault that I have enough intelligence to understand that we are killing the very planet that we live on.

That is not what I did, and you know it. I was very specific in what I said. My focus was on you telling those who do not view the climate change issue in the same manner as you to stop posting so that they wouldn't lose any more respect or something to that effect. Anyway, it's time for me to hit the sack. Take care...

 

[kilofoxtrot]

The zealots from both sides, quite frankly, are worth each other.

You don't think we should be burning fossil fuels ? So what do you propose ? Going 200 years back in development ? Building more nuclear plants ? Restricting population growth in developing countries ? How do you suggest we deal with China and India ? come on, let's have an honest discussion, not just some hippie slogans without any substance. And notice that I lean more on your side than Rush addicts.

The carrot to change is $$$$. Example, many 3rd world countries skipped landline communication for its citizens and started with cellular. Cellular was more "advanced", but the build out for the infrastructure was cheaper by a long shot.

As developing countries mobilize their citizens, there is an opportunity for alternative industries to out compete their carbon based rivals.

The problem lies, as you have stated earlier, is convincing developed or advancing developing countries to switch to cleaner technologies. There is an economic penalty to make such a change. Ask Microsoft about Windows 8

The answer has to be an economic advantage. Strong arming will not work, and because the results of not switching is passed on to future generations and not suffered by the present. It will be hard.

Most generations will not sacrifice comforts of the present for the safety or security of future generations. (WW2 was the last generation that did IMO) Our inability to reconcile our nation's debt is a prime example.

 

[jdhooghe]

View attachment 67476

This is amazing.


The United States, currently, has this weird melding of Evangelical Christianity and Conservatism. While both are not needed to oppose the idea of Global Warming, it certainly explains why things are so very heated. You find that Conservatives more often than not support big business and the idea of cutting cheap fuel isn't very appealing. For Christianity, even though god explained to Adam in the bible that he and his descendants are stewards of the earth, they get around that by not acknowledging anything is even wrong because of their usual links to Conservatism. Conservatives tell them that they should believe X because if not, they are not good Americans. That is why you hear so much slander toward the left calling them communists and socialists and for some reason, Satan-possessed Anti-Christ dictators(my grandmother is fond of that one). So why doesn't Christianity believe the scientists instead of the Conservatives? Well because science doesn't tell Christians what they want to hear on topics such as Stem-cell research or evolution. You then have two groups who feed off one another who oppose scientists and what they believe. What do scientists believe? Global Warming.

TD;LR Conservatives go hand in hand with Big Business and Big Business hates Global Warming due to cut profits. Christians do not like scientists because scientists work on Stem-cell research for example and support ideas like Evolution. Scientists support Global Warming ergo most Christians don't believe in Global Warming. Since being an evangelical christian is positively correlated with being a Conservative, you have this doubly strong opposition to anything dealing with Global Warming.



This doesn't matter any but personally I do believe Global Warming is happening. We are seeing, from multiple sources, that the earth is heating up. There is a hole in the ozone over the poles; that does NOT happen naturally. Recent events like the 35 thousand walrus coming onto land because they can't find any ice or massive glaciers melting and the California drought. You can't get around the fact that something is happening. It has been SHOWN that the toxins we pump into the atmosphere degrade ozone which is the stuff that protects us. I don't understand how people can justify all of this as nothing. To me, it's like they are plugging their ears and saying, "na na na, I can't hear you."

This isn't some liberal conspiracy, we have nothing to gain from this. We will hurt as well as Conservatives if this continues. People and wild life on this earth will die.

EDIT: I caught my self using absolutes when I should have said "most" more. Not everyone follow the trends but the majority do.

 

[Not Quite Right]

Yes, That's funny. I'm an ignoramus for not being in agreement with the climate change dogma. Okay, so be it. That is not what I did, and you know it. I was very specific in what I said. My focus was on you telling those who do not view the climate change issue in the same manner as you to stop posting so that they wouldn't lose any more respect or something to that effect. Anyway, it's time for me to hit the sack. Take care...

You were not called an Ignoramus for being in disagreement on climate change, You were called an Ignoramus for the position on the subject you blatantly choose to take. Climate change is very real, it's effects are easy to recognize even by the simplest of people. The most brilliant minds of our time would agree, and do. Now saying that, when I encounter anyone with the stance you take on climate change, it leaves me with no choice but to believe that somewhere along the line your intellect has been seriously compromised to the point where you're willing to be spoon-feed factually incorrect drivel of Fox News & Friends/Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck. Ignorance is bliss ...

 

[sanibel]

I read it a couple of years ago. The Ice Age gas been winding down. Earth had the little Ice Age a few hundred years ago. It's steadily been getting warmer since. Up until recent years. The Sun is responsible for the ice cap issues. I don't recall how.

Although I respect your comment, I can't subscribe to it due to lack of evidence.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

For Christianity, even though god explained to Adam in the bible that he and his descendants are stewards of the earth, they get around that by not acknowledging anything is even wrong because of their usual links to Conservatism.

The same dichotomy exists for their attitude of the poor. Christ commands them to help the poor. But their links to conservatism has the opposite affect. The poor are viewed with disgust.

The retort is that the government should not help the poor, individuals should.... and in the same breath complain about the lack of Christianity's influence on government. What I have learned is, they are all for the government helping with symbolic support (displaying Christian symbols in public places, public prayer in schools, etc etc.) .... but when it comes to money, they are quite the opposite.

Religion and Politics do not mix, never have, and never will.


Serving two masters is hard.

 

[Amamba]

The carrot to change is $$$$. Example, many 3rd world countries skipped landline communication for its citizens and started with cellular. Cellular was more "advanced", but the build out for the infrastructure was cheaper by a long shot.

As developing countries mobilize their citizens, there is an opportunity for alternative industries to out compete their carbon based rivals.

The problem lies, as you have stated earlier, is convincing developed or advancing developing countries to switch to cleaner technologies. There is an economic penalty to make such a change. Ask Microsoft about Windows 8

The answer has to be an economic advantage. Strong arming will not work, and because the results of not switching is passed on to future generations and not suffered by the present. It will be hard.

Most generations will not sacrifice comforts of the present for the safety or security of future generations. (WW2 was the last generation that did IMO) Our inability to reconcile our nation's debt is a prime example.

Yes, precisely. Even WW2 didn't really happen for the sake of future generations alone, there was a clear, present threat to the European and world independence.

Someone mentioned China investing in clean energy, they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they used to be energy poor and locked out of the global oil supply chain. Now that they secured a huge energy deal with Russia, their investment into alternative means of energy may dwindle. Besides to the best of my knowledge they are not investing in cutting edge scientific research as much as in developing the products they can successfully use or sell on the global market utilizing their strength as low cost mass manufacturer, such as solar panels. They are also building dams all over their country, creating local environmental disasters but getting the hydro plant power they so desperately need. They are driven by their need for cheap energy, not necessarily clean energy.

The US has been spending money too, a lot of it went into actual research grant. But there's the same problem with cost. General Motors' Volt was, from engineering perspective, the best electric car on the market - much more practical than Nissan Leaf, much cheaper than Tesla. Much good it did them. They can't sell them even at a loss. The green types often don't have the money and would buy a far cheaper Prius instead, even though it is not nearly as "green" (I averaged 42 mpg while driving one, that's respectful but my gasoline powered sport sedan averages at 28 mpg and much more fun to drive for same money).

Nothing will be done unless it becomes a real, life-on-earth threatening issue. By which time it will be too late. At the same time, a lot is being done to reduce energy consumption every year, but it's an evolutionary, rather than evolutionary process, driven in part by regulation, in part by market conditions, just as it should be.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

So..... raise your hand if you are going to go see Interstellar in November!!

 

[A895]

I still can't get over the fact people think global warming is a conspiracy. And yes, I will be seeing Interstellar.

 

[hydrogen3]

Global warming's glorious ship of fools...


""the cultists up the ante: having evolved from ?global warming? to the more flexible ?climate change?, they?re now moving on to ?climate collapse?. Total collapse. No climate at all. No sun, no ice. No warm fronts.""

When will the madness end!?!

 

[hydrogen3]

I'll make it simple... whats the liberal conspiracy? You said it.. not me. I want you to explain it to me.

Climate-Change Conspiracy Theory..the idea that human-caused global warming is a false construct invented by the U.N. to justify government control of economies and people's daily lives—is alive and well in the United States.

That's a fact.

 

[Amamba]

Yes, and the idea that AIDS was spread amongst the 3rd world countries and our minorities by CIA is also alive and well in certain circles, and equally sane. It's hard to argue with ideas that are purely based on blind faith.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Climate-Change Conspiracy Theory..the idea that human-caused global warming is a false construct invented by the U.N. to justify government control of economies and people's daily lives—is alive and well in the United States.

That's a fact.

 

[hydrogen3]

Yes, and the idea that AIDS was spread amongst the 3rd world countries and our minorities by CIA is also alive and well in certain circles, and equally sane. It's hard to argue with ideas that are purely based on blind faith.

Do you have some evidence to the contrary? I have no evidence that they did but, who knows

 

[hydrogen3]

View attachment 67748

I'm dumbfounded that there really are so many sheeple out there. The Liberal/progressives scream "Climate change" Climate collapse"... Seriously! All we can do is try to educate the ones who will listen, review the evidence and see the truth.

Change in global temperature is natural over long periods of time. Science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature. Proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions will do nothing to help the environment and will cause significant price increases for all. Many reputable scientists support this theory.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

I'm dumbfounded that there really are so many sheeple out there. The Liberal/progressives scream "Climate change" Climate collapse"... Seriously! All we can do is try to educate the ones who will listen, review the evidence and see the truth.

One cant educate others, when one can't educate themselves.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Hydro... its pretty obvious that you are categorically opposed to Liberal/Progressives. Much of your rhetoric in this thread is based on paranoia and conspiracy theories and sweeping generalizations of your countrymen.

Keep talking.... its amusing.