59% Republicans: Climate Change Is Occurring

[Fern]

Ru-oh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...so-sure-about-climate-change-even-republicans



However, GOPers are still reluctant to do anything about it. I mean, why create a better world to prevent something that might not exist?

Seems completely irrelevant to me.

After all the debate on GW most now understand that the climate changes continually, whether it be from cold to warm (various ice ages) or from arid to wet (e.g., the Sahara Desert). Why wouldn't most people answer 'yes' to the generic question of whether climate changes?

The real question is are we the cause and, if so, can anything be done about it? The article doesn't seem to touch on this important aspect.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

Ultimately it's true. Think of consumerism.
How many billions of disposable items we dig up, manufacture, sell, use, and throw away. Think of the amount of untouched land / resources required to produce this each year. Every year that follows, the remaining resources grow smaller.

Inevitability dictates a simple truth, it will come to an end. One way or another.
And it's far worse a challenge to the human race than even CO2.

Its horrible. People have a mindset to throw away thigns after a year or 2. Or only getting 5 years out of a washer and dryer. Globalization is fucking the planet up as we move large amounts of cheap disposable goods around the globe.

I was posting in a thread where people scoffed at the idea of buying expensive boots/shoes that can be resoled as needed. The logic was we can buy boots for $50 and throw them away. No need to spend $400. Never mind that over the lifetime the $400 boots last as long as 8 pairs of $50 boots and dont have the same environmental impact. Its really bad. My suggestion is to not have children.

 

[crashtech]

The real, real, question is, what is going to happen because of the as yet small amount of anthropogenic climate change we've observed thus far? Science can't yet accurately predict the future of a system as complex as Earth's climate.

 

[JSt0rm]

The real, real, question is, what is going to happen because of the as yet small amount of anthropogenic climate change we've observed thus far? Science can't yet accurately predict the future of a system as complex as Earth's climate.

Your right but the resistance to "stop shitting up the world with unneeded chemicals and filth" is pretty alarming considering we only have one of these. We shouldn't need science to tell us not to destroy our home.

 

[JSt0rm]

here is a cool animation about how we treat this planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU

 

[crashtech]

Your right but the resistance to "stop shitting up the world with unneeded chemicals and filth" is pretty alarming considering we only have one of these. We shouldn't need science to tell us not to destroy our home.

With that particular motivation, we can easily find plentiful targets that need attention, leaking waste dumps, tailings piles, etc. Adding sites to the Superfund and earmarking more money for cleanups are a far more logical use of money and clout at this time. I personally feel that humans are in far more danger from dioxins and other industrial chemicals than they are from the slow steady rise of CO2, given the evidence so far.

Without China on board, any effort to significantly cut CO2 is not going to succeed, anyway. So until very obvious and concrete evidence of any harm caused by excess CO2 presents itself, the First World is doing pretty much all it can. Solar in particular is ready for prime time and I think we are nearing a turning point where more reductions in CO2 emissions are possible without resorting to overtly authoritarian solutions.

 

[JSt0rm]

With that particular motivation, we can easily find plentiful targets that need attention, leaking waste dumps, tailings piles, etc. Adding sites to the Superfund and earmarking more money for cleanups are a far more logical use of money and clout at this time. I personally feel that humans are in far more danger from dioxins and other industrial chemicals than they are from the slow steady rise of CO2, given the evidence so far.

Without China on board, any effort to significantly cut CO2 is not going to succeed, anyway. So until very obvious and concrete evidence of any harm caused by excess CO2 presents itself, the First World is doing pretty much all it can. Solar in particular is ready for prime time and I think we are nearing a turning point where significant reductions in CO2 emissions are possible witout resorting to overtly authoritarian solutions.

But we have a lot of conservatives who actively resist solar for "reasons". To the point that we dont even have a solar industry here. Like we could of gone into solar big time decades ago and been the biggest providers of solar tech on the planet but no. No funding for early solar projects means everything is from china.

The only way to stop people from doing things that are harmful over the long term is government regulation. All superfund sites should be paid for by those industries that created them in the first place. Why have the tax payer on the dime for such things?

 

[JSt0rm]

I mean whatever it doesnt even matter in the long term. I think as a species we are a missed opportunity.

 

[michal1980]

here is a cool animation about how we treat this planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU

So the solution is to get rid of humans. Nothing else you can get from watching that video.

 

[JSt0rm]

So the solution is to get rid of humans. Nothing else you can get from watching that video.

It would help to get ride of 6.5 billion of them. The real problem. Or we should all use less, consume more intelligently and have real conversations about how many humans we expect the planet to hold.

 

[flexy]

Do you need statistics spawning over thirty years, showing a correlation between car accidents and drunk driving to determine if drunk driving is dangerous?

what is going to happen because of the as yet small amount of anthropogenic climate change we've observed thus far? Science can't yet accurately predict the future of a system as complex as Earth's climate.

It DOESN'T MATTER what the outcome of whatever studies is whether man-made climate change is real or not.

The actual relevant issue at hand here is whether influence by man is negatively affecting the environment. (Keywords: Pollution, toxins, ozone hole, rain forest etc.)

The outcome of any "climate change real?" studies won't make pollution of air/water all of a sudden a non-issue, it won't make CO2 emissions "healthy" or show that destroying rain-forests is "beneficial".

 

[crashtech]

It would help to get ride of 6.5 billion of them.

Why the "them" and not "us?" Are you not human, or just not volunteering to set an example?

 

[JSt0rm]

Why the "them" and not "us?" Are you not human, or just not volunteering to set an example?

You expect me to commit suicide to save the planet? Is that what you are asking?

Im not talking about killing forcefully 6.5 billion humans. Im just saying the world would be better off with less pressure on the environment.

The most polluting thing you can do in your entire life is have a child. I wont have children. That is my sacrifice.

 

[crashtech]

@flexy, I've already stipulated that "it's real." The issue is knowing in advance what all the outcomes will be.

@JSt0rm, it was kinda a tonque-in-cheek comment, I just found it funny that you used a pronoun that excluded yourself from humanity.

 

[JSt0rm]

@flexy, I've already stipulated that "it's real." The issue is knowing in advance what all the outcomes will be.

@JSt0rm, it was kinda a tonque-in-cheek comment, I just found it funny that you used a pronoun that excluded yourself from humanity.

I assume its obvious I'm part human. :sneaky:

 

[mect]

why is change bad?

Change isn't necessarily bad. Bad change is bad. Like rising oceans that will put most major population centers under water. Decreased snow packs in the mountains leading to insufficient water for crops in the summer is a bad change (not to mention no skiing in the winter). Extreme weather events including more and more intense hurricanes is a bad thing. Most of the changes scientists are forecasting as a result of climate change are bad changes. If they were good changes, I'd agree, we don't need to worry.

 

[zinfamous]

Ru-oh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...so-sure-about-climate-change-even-republicans



However, GOPers are still reluctant to do anything about it. I mean, why create a better world to prevent something that might not exist?

Eh, it's because some 50-70% of this country still seem to believe that their god created the planet for them.

So, sure climate change is happening, but it's God's will so nothing we can or should do about it.

Which, frankly, is a terrifying consideration for those of you that aren't so irrational.

 

[zinfamous]

why is change bad?

Aren't you supposed to be conservative?

:hmm:

 

[OverVolt]

Eh, it's because some 50-70% of this country still seem to believe that their god created the planet for them.

So, sure climate change is happening, but it's God's will so nothing we can or should do about it.

Which, frankly, is a terrifying consideration for those of you that aren't so irrational.

No they don't.. Its more like 50-70% of internet users who read too much huffington post think there are way more dumb small town folks than there really are.

I supposed the big pro tip is that they come from small towns with 1,000 population.

 

[pcgeek11]

The problem is this isn't like having an opinion about a book or a movie where there's no right answer and no real impact to holding that opinion. This is having an opinion on something that is scientifically provable as true or false.

In this case your opinions are provably wrong. It's no different than anti-vaxxers holding the opinion vaccines cause autism or conspiracy theorists holding the opinion we never landed on the moon.

Virtually all scientists, climate and otherwise know you're wrong. Most of the country knows it too. Hell even Exxon in the 70's knew your opinion was wrong. The problem is what little has been done to combat the problem has to be done over people, such as yourself, who are wrong.

There's nothing admirable in continuing to hold false opinions just to be part of the group. (IMO)

Nope. The climate changes and man cannot stop it. Keep beating your head against the wall.

 

[Paratus]

Nope. The climate changes and man cannot stop it. Keep beating your head against the wall.

Let's address your rebuttal point by point.
1) uh huh.
2) no one is trying to stop it just removing our influence which hurts us.
3) I don't have to bang my head on the wall. EPA just started regulating CO2. US outputs of CO2 are down while GDP has gone up. China is playing ball. Wind and solar are increasing exponentially while cost have come down. Fuel efficiency is up. Etc

So don't worry the adults will take care of the problem like they always do.

 

[zinfamous]

No they don't.. Its more like 50-70% of internet users who read too much huffington post think there are way more dumb small town folks than there really are.

I supposed the big pro tip is that they come from small towns with 1,000 population.

admittedly, polling is primarily dependent on the type of participants that are willing to miss their 30 minutes of Wheel of Fortune and answer some stranger's question over the phone.

Yes, so maybe the isolated people with "nothing better to do"?

 

[zinfamous]

Nope. The climate changes and man cannot stop it. Keep beating your head against the wall.

And some people wonder why this country sucks at innovating now.

hmm.

50 years ago:
President: "There is this huge fucking moon out there and I want to FUCKING GO THERE!"
US: "Fuck Yeah!"

Today:
President and shittons of scientists smarter than you: "We are killing ourselves and our planet, and here are some ways to address it, and we need to figure out some other ways."
You and your friends: "No, it's God's will. Let's just go to sleep and let shit happen."

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And some people wonder why this country sucks at innovating now.

hmm.

50 years ago:
President: "There is this huge fucking moon out there and I want to FUCKING GO THERE!"
US: "Fuck Yeah!"

Today:
President and shittons of scientists smarter than you: "We are killing ourselves and our planet, and here are some ways to address it, and we need to figure out some other ways."
You and your friends: "No, it's God's will. Let's just go to sleep and let shit happen."

So true. Kennedy even put a time frame "by the end of the decade" and it was viewed as a challenge to beat.

I couldn't find Sam Kinisons moon challenge quote but this one sums up the time (hidden not work appropriate)

Spoiler

My favorite president, John F. Kennedy. Charming guy, great president. Fucked Marilyn Monroe. President of the United States and fucked Marilyn Monroe. What do you want?! I know some people give him shit about that, yeah like you wouldn't have. No you'd have been too busy studying the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Yeah you wouldn't have wanted a piece of Marilyn, not you, no. Yeah you're too patriotic, fuck you, you'd have done her. You'd have been just like JFK. You'd have been there in the Oval Office, Marilyn across the desk, your dick up her ass, lookin' out at the Washington Monument going: "You know, it doesn't get much better than this, does it? President of the United States. Dick in Marilyn Monroe. My finger on the fucking button telling the fucking Russians to get their missiles out of Cuba in twelve hours. It doesn't get better than this."

Today we'd start with bickering about the cost, then move to its impossible then we'd set up a special committee to investigate NASA that would end up asking Kennedy if he had relations with Ms. Monroe.

 

[Sonikku]

Please tell us, what is your victory?

I'm guessing total victory for the plant for you libs would look like this:

no more dirty evil humans polluting the place.

No more terrorists or big gubnit or welfare.