• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republicans: The Only Climate-Science-Denying Party In The World

Newell Steamer

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html

Of all the major conservative parties in the democratic world, the Republican Party stands alone in its denial of the legitimacy of climate science. Indeed, the Republican Party stands alone in its conviction that no national or international response to climate change is needed. To the extent that the party is divided on the issue, the gap separates candidates who openly dismiss climate science as a hoax, and those who, shying away from the political risks of blatant ignorance, instead couch their stance in the alleged impossibility of international action.
Click to expand...

Before the Free Market screeches start trumpeting:
Nor can a fealty to free-market theory alone explain the change, either. Free-market ideology traditionally recognizes a role for government when it comes to “externalities,” or actions that impose costs on others. Pollution is the most classic case of an externality — a factory whose production pollutes the air, or a local stream, should have to pay the cost. Even F.A. Hayek, in the anti-statist polemic The Road to Serfdom, conceded, “Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism.” Now, Hayek offered this concession to the role of government in the course of advocating for a pricing mechanism for externalities, rather than a crude ban. But he was recognizing that even the purest libertarians must concede the need for collective action of some kind when it comes to things like pollution.
Click to expand...

future-of-the-world.jpg

"Finally figured out a way to prevent Occupy Wallstreet from happening again - yay!"
 
Newell Steamer said:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html

Before the Free Market screeches start trumpeting:

future-of-the-world.jpg

"Finally figured out a way to prevent Occupy Wallstreet from happening again - yay!"
Click to expand...

What's in it for conservatives? Certainly not saving NYC from flooding. Not giving cities yet more money for mass transit. Not income transfers to the poor, nor limiting the ability to drive large vehicles to hold their larger families, nor some wishful thinking "Manhattan project for alternative energy" that will just line the pockets of solar panel CEOs and masses of scientific charlatans.
 
Is there a international project for energy development and infrastructure that I missed?
I'll wait until the GOP opposes the humane solution before I condemn them for it.
 
glenn1 said:
What's in it for conservatives? Certainly not saving NYC from flooding. Not giving cities yet more money for mass transit. Not income transfers to the poor, nor limiting the ability to drive large vehicles to hold their larger families, nor some wishful thinking "Manhattan project for alternative energy" that will just line the pockets of solar panel CEOs and masses of scientific charlatans.
Click to expand...

scientific charlatans...LOL
 
Jaskalas said:
Its not wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the one which is 4-5x more expensive than regular photovoltaics and lacks proper storage technology?

http://breakingenergy.com/2015/09/2...-much-without-storage-say-leading-executives/

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/the-solar-revolution-that-wasnt
The current cost of photovoltaics in the U.S. is between $1.58 and $1.80 per watt, down from more than $5 just five years ago. Though experts from the non-profit Solar Energy Industries Association insist there is no direct apples-to-apples comparison between the two technologies, a CSP plant such as Ivanpah costs about $5.61 per watt.

While the declining cost of renewables is good news, it was close to a death knell for concentrated solar power, which is now comparatively more expensive. Because CSP’s technology is simple—reflecting mirrors and metal towers—it wasn’t able to keep up with the pace of improvements in photovoltaic power. “There aren’t huge breakthroughs for steel and glass,” U.C. Davis’ Schultz says.
 
Doesn't matter what incontrovertible evidence is produced that man is a major contributor toward global warming, the deniers are willing to drown in the streets and asphyxiate themselves in order to stick with their shtick that man's complicity in global warming is a hoax.

But! Have hope. If the big business folks, who have been the main proponents and perpetrators of the campaign to deny deny deny so as to avoid taking a hit in their profit margins find a way to make a killing on the disaster they helped cause, they will then join in and admit that yes, they MAY have erred (but so what) as we all choke on the polluted air and drown in the rising seas.

We will then all unite, and make huge profits from the debacle as we commit ourselves to our own extinction.


oh yeh, forgot...............................Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....MEN!
 
tweaker2 said:
Doesn't matter what incontrovertible evidence is produced that man is a major contributor toward global warming, the deniers are willing to drown in the streets and asphyxiate themselves in order to stick with their shtick that man's complicity in global warming is a hoax.

But! Have hope. If the big business folks, who have been the main proponents and perpetrators of the campaign to deny deny deny so as to avoid taking a hit in their profit margins find a way to make a killing on the disaster they helped cause, they will then join in and admit that yes, they MAY have erred (but so what) as we all choke on the polluted air and drown in the rising seas.

We will then all unite, and make huge profits from the debacle as we commit ourselves to our own extinction.


oh yeh, forgot...............................Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....MEN!
Click to expand...

Deniers die in the flooded streets? If anything it would be those who believe in climate change dying in the flooded streets of blue cities. 9th Ward of New Orleans during Katrina or NYC during Superstorm Sandy ring a bell?
 
glenn1 said:
Deniers die in the flooded streets? If anything it would be those who believe in climate change dying in the flooded streets of blue cities. 9th Ward of New Orleans during Katrina or NYC during Superstorm Sandy ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Ah shit. Ya got me dead to rights on that one. I yield. 😉
 
tweaker2 said:
Doesn't matter what incontrovertible evidence is produced that man is a major contributor toward global warming, the deniers are willing to drown in the streets and asphyxiate themselves in order to stick with their shtick that man's complicity in global warming is a hoax.
Click to expand...


Lol. The drowning in the streets is going to take a LONG LONG LONG LONG fucking time. Perhaps centuries, more likely MILLENIA. Science my ass.... dude is CONTRADICTING objective scienticically collected data of global ocean rise and we are the science deniers?


Researchers can say that global ocean levels have risen about 19 centimeters in the last century. And the rate of rise has sped up. The 20th-century average is about 1.7 millimeters per year; since 1993 the average rate has nearly doubled — to about 3.2 millimeters per year.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The whole Republican party agenda seems to be to pillage and destroy the environment now, make a huge profit at the expense of 99% of the population, then die happy and rich with their wealthy families. And by all means, completely screw the distant future generations on Earth, because the rich won't still be there to suffer under the environmental conditions that they wrought, anyhow. Because the rich think they are going to flee this planet they destroyed just because they are rich, so don't forget that part.
 
Last edited:
SlickSnake said:
The whole Republican party agenda seems to be to pillage and destroy the environment now, make a huge profit at the expense of 99% of the population, then die happy and rich with their wealthy families, and by all means, completely screw the distant future generations, because the rich won't be there to suffer under environmental conditions that they wrought, anyhow.
Click to expand...

Let's say there was a sizable political movement dedicated to the idea of social change and spending money to mitigate the effects of "The coming Rapture". Proponents pointed to large majorities of religious scholars (it's a consensus!) who agreed the Rapture was real and the effects would be catastrophic. Furthermore, the proponents made the argument that "what's the harm in spending money on mitigating the rapture, it will make the planet a better place regardless if we do so."

Given the above, would you be OK with the other side characterizing you as someone "whose agenda seems to be to pillage and destroy God's world now, spreading sin at the expense of 99% of the population" and whatnot?
 
SlickSnake said:
The whole Republican party agenda seems to be to pillage and destroy the environment now, make a huge profit at the expense of 99% of the population, then die happy and rich with their wealthy families, and by all means, completely screw the distant future generations, because the rich won't be there to suffer under environmental conditions that they wrought, anyhow.
Click to expand...

To be quite honest, if it doesn't affect me during my lifetime, why should I care? The world ends for me on my death and yours will on your death. The environment here in Wisconsin has gotten nothing but better in my lifetime. I remember the bad old days of air you could cut with a knife and filthy waterways. If there is a pollution occurring it is completely unobservable and causes no health problems for humans.

Humanity will end some time after your death. That is incontrovertible fact. Eventually there will be no trace or evidence that earth ever existed. Why would you care if it happens 1 year, 100 years, 1 million years or 1 billion years after you die? It is going to happen and there isn't a thing man can do to prevent it. Enjoy your life today, don't waste it worrying about shit that may or may not happen after you are worm food.
 
bshole said:
To be quite honest, if it doesn't affect me during my lifetime, why should I care? The world ends for me on my death and yours will on your death. The environment here in Wisconsin has gotten nothing but better in my lifetime. I remember the bad old days of air you could cut with a knife and filthy waterways. If there is a pollution occurring it is completely unobservable and causes no health problems for humans.

Humanity will end some time after your death. That is incontrovertible fact. Eventually there will be no trace or evidence that earth ever existed. Why would you care if it happens 1 year, 100 years, 1 million years or 1 billion years after you die? It is going to happen and there isn't a thing man can do to prevent it. Enjoy your life today, don't waste it worrying about shit that may or may not happen after you are worm food.
Click to expand...

I hope you thanked a Liberal and a Californian for that recently.
 
sandorski said:
I hope you thanked a Liberal and a Californian for that recently.
Click to expand...


I thank the environmental movement for that, the OLD school environmental movement that cared PASSIONATELY about improving the lot of EXISTING humans. They accomplished a tremendous amount and we as Americans are indebted to them.

The NEW school environmental movement doesn't give a rats ass about EXISTING humans and wants to impose suffering on us for the nebulous benefit of FUTURE humans. I believe it is immoral to support harm to humans today for NO benefit for humans today and I could never support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top