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

[nickqt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...nglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling.


From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

Wow. You're like 6 years behind on BS.

That one has been debunked a thousand time.

I think y'all are on the "it may be happening but it won't be that bad" schtick at this point.

Try to keep up.

 

[AntonioHG]

Not from what I remember. I remember that they bitched and moaned that it was an assualt on capitalism or arguments of that sort. The difference back then was the people as whole recognized that we were living in a cesspool and did not like it. IT AFFECTED US DIRECTLY. The benefits of the new laws were enjoyed in just a few years by everybody. It improved the lot of EXISTING humans and thus was sustainable.

The global warmists admit themselves that their regulations will impose hardships on EXISTING humans. They also admit that no supposed benefits will be enjoyed by EXISTING humans. Given that, how is it morally defensible to impoverish more humans, to cause more suffering and starvation today for no benefit to humans today? Using that same logic, we could wipe out the populations of 3rd world nations to prevent starvartion in the future.

You're the one with kids as well, right? I also have kids and I think about their future all the time. Who will be impoverished, starved and suffering if we try to minimize our impact? Legitimate question. I haven't read anything about the downsides.

Also, don't you think it's telling if BP comes out and says they're trying to make changes to mitigate the risk?

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corpora...-of-action-to-manage-climate-change-risk.html

 

[Spungo]

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.

Are you aware that republicans also work in cities?

A world without mass transit, where every single person drives to work, is a lovely world indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk2YRpLnmdU
I leave my place 30 minutes before work and I listen to music on the bus. It's pretty awesome.

 

[rudder]

I hereby refuse to drive my car. There will also be no heat or cooling in my house anymore. I will never ride in a dinosaur juice burning airplane again. The only lights in my house will be battery powered devices charged by solar. I have such disdain for the oil industry that I am ridding my house of plastics.

Let's stop climate change!!!!

Who is with me?

 

[JulesMaximus]

*cough

Cough... where do all our cheap goods come from? Cough cough cough...

 

[nickqt]

I hereby refuse to drive my car. There will also be no heat or cooling in my house anymore. I will never ride in a dinosaur juice burning airplane again. The only lights in my house will be battery powered devices charged by solar. I have such disdain for the oil industry that I am ridding my house of plastics.

Let's stop climate change!!!!

Who is with me?

That is exactly what people who want to decrease CO2 output are arguing for!

 

[JulesMaximus]

I hereby refuse to drive my car. There will also be no heat or cooling in my house anymore. I will never ride in a dinosaur juice burning airplane again. The only lights in my house will be battery powered devices charged by solar. I have such disdain for the oil industry that I am ridding my house of plastics.

Let's stop climate change!!!!

Who is with me?

So, we do almost nothing. Meanwhile, Europe is leading the way in this, they have geothermal heating and cooling, wind farms, high efficiency homes and businesses, low energy lighting, solar... the list goes on and on.

People there embrace it. We fight it... and each other like idiots. We're a laughing stock.

 

[bshole]

So, we do almost nothing. Meanwhile, Europe is leading the way in this, they have geothermal heating and cooling, wind farms, high efficiency homes and businesses, low energy lighting, solar... the list goes on and on.

People there embrace it. We fight it... and each other like idiots. We're a laughing stock.

Leading the way my ass.... they get all their goods from China. They offloaded all the carbon pollution to China.... like that makes any difference on a global scale. Look at the damn chart for christ's sake. All the "gains" by Western countries are more than wiped out by losses in China. So we offload all the carbon pollution to China along with all the jobs and technology. How in the fuck does this benefit mankind? It sure the fuck benefits China and hurts the Western world, that is plainly evident.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I hereby refuse to drive my car. There will also be no heat or cooling in my house anymore. I will never ride in a dinosaur juice burning airplane again. The only lights in my house will be battery powered devices charged by solar. I have such disdain for the oil industry that I am ridding my house of plastics.

Let's stop climate change!!!!

Who is with me?

The elites will love you for this as they have no intention of giving up their jet-setting lifestyle. The masses must sacrifice for their greater good.

 

[sandorski]

Leading the way my ass.... they get all their goods from China. They offloaded all the carbon pollution to China.... like that makes any difference on a global scale. Look at the damn chart for christ's sake. All the "gains" by Western countries are more than wiped out by losses in China. So we offload all the carbon pollution to China along with all the jobs and technology. How in the fuck does this benefit mankind? It sure the fuck benefits China and hurts the Western world, that is plainly evident.

That is a disingenuous perspective on why China's emissions have risen and the EU's has fallen. The Economic improvement in China has lead to a large Middle Class which have adopted a Western Lifestyle, complete with Auto ownership and increased use of Energy.

 

[bshole]

That is a disingenuous perspective on why China's emissions have risen and the EU's has fallen. The Economic improvement in China has lead to a large Middle Class which have adopted a Western Lifestyle, complete with Auto ownership and increased use of Energy.

It may perhaps be a poor argument but it certainly was not disengenuous. I believe it to be true.

I always wonder why every proposed solution to global warming involves such horribly unfair regressive consequences for the poorest in the world. Are they not doing poorly enough? Are you so removed from the destitute that their suffering doesn't signify?

I am all for renewable energy when it is affordable. German "success" involves energy that costs 3X as much for the end user than the current American pays. My energy bill would go from $200/month to $600/month if we emulated Germany. That would sting for me and would be unsustainable for the vast majority of the middle/lower income classes.


http://americanenergyalliance.org/2015/05/07/germanys-green-energy-failure/

 

[ivwshane]

When the green revolution (as in more energy from renewables than from fossil), America and Americans will be sitting with their thumbs up their asses while the rest of the world surpasses us, including china. When we finally get on the ball, instead of buying American made renewable infrastructure we will be buying from china and wondering why our economy isn't growing like theirs.

It used to be that going green was done for environmental reasons, it will soon become an economic one and once again the right will be holding back progress because they lack any sort of foresight.

 

[sandorski]

It may perhaps be a poor argument but it certainly was not disengenuous. I believe it to be true.

I always wonder why every proposed solution to global warming involves such horribly unfair regressive consequences for the poorest in the world. Are they not doing poorly enough? Are you so removed from the destitute that their suffering doesn't signify?

I am all for renewable energy when it is affordable. German "success" involves energy that costs 3X as much for the end user than the current American pays. My energy bill would go from $200/month to $600/month if we emulated Germany. That would sting for me and would be unsustainable for the vast majority of the middle/lower income classes.


http://americanenergyalliance.org/2015/05/07/germanys-green-energy-failure/

There you go with the Poor talk again. Except this time it is the "Poorest in the World". You must support various Carbon Credit schemes that would send $ to Africa and other third world places then, right?

 

[rudder]

So, we do almost nothing. Meanwhile, Europe is leading the way in this, they have geothermal heating and cooling, wind farms, high efficiency homes and businesses, low energy lighting, solar... the list goes on and on.

People there embrace it. We fight it... and each other like idiots. We're a laughing stock.

Who is fighting it? I can buy a geothermal heating and cooling system. My house is energy efficient but I can always buy a more efficient AC system. I can go buy LED bulbs. I can put solar panels on my roof. Ever drive through Kansas? The state has large numbers of wind farms.

Oh I get it.... This stuff costs money and the government should pay for it all.

 

[bshole]

Free speech suppression backfire!!

Apparently the professionals in the global climate change movement want to criminalize opposing views to their meme. Some pretty scary shit actually. RICO dates from the failed war on drugs (yet blindingly successful war on freedom).

The flap has its origins in calls from some climate advocates for the federal government to investigate industry-funded groups that have challenged climate science. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI) discussed the idea this past May in an opinion piece for The Washington Post. He noted that federal prosecutors had used the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)—originally developed to combat organized crime and corrupt unions—to sue the tobacco industry for covering up the health effects of smoking. And he suggested they could do the same to investigate fossil fuel firms that he charged were “funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.”

Last month, 20 climate scientists, led by Shukla, picked up on the idea of using RICO. In a 1 September letter to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren, they wrote that “if corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in book and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible.”

There has been a backlash to this outrage.

Last week, Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the chairman of the science panel of the House of Representatives, announced plans to investigate a nonprofit research group led by climate scientist Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He is the lead signer of a letter to White House officials that urges the use of an antiracketeering law to crack down on energy firms that have funded efforts to raise doubts about climate science.

http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2...y-ll-investigate-climate-scientist-requesting

 

[ivwshane]

Free speech suppression backfire!!

Apparently the professionals in the global climate change movement want to criminalize opposing views to their meme. Some pretty scary shit actually. RICO dates from the failed war on drugs (yet blindingly successful war on freedom).




There has been a backlash to this outrage.


http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2...y-ll-investigate-climate-scientist-requesting

Can you point out exactly where free speech suppression is being used?

 

[bshole]

Can you point out exactly where free speech suppression is being used?

Attempted.... but not successful yet....

“funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.”

Last month, 20 climate scientists, led by Shukla, picked up on the idea of using RICO. In a 1 September letter to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren, they wrote that “if corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in book and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible.”

I read environmental news religiously. Speaking of a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution, I have seen literally thousands of events blamed on global warming. Not a week goes by without some bullshit claim that global warming caused this or that. I see precious little science in the claims. I have seen hundreds of predictions fail. Etc....

For example:

“Beginning in a decade or two [i.e. by 2005], scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps…”

Did ANY scientist go back and figure out why they fucked up that prediction so misreably? Or are they just doubling down with brand new predictions of disaster?

 

[sandorski]

Free speech suppression backfire!!

Apparently the professionals in the global climate change movement want to criminalize opposing views to their meme. Some pretty scary shit actually. RICO dates from the failed war on drugs (yet blindingly successful war on freedom).




There has been a backlash to this outrage.


http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2...y-ll-investigate-climate-scientist-requesting

Did/do you oppose the application of those criteria to the Tobacco industry?

 

[bshole]

Did/do you oppose the application of those criteria to the Tobacco industry?

I oppose RICO altogether. It is one of the most disgusting pieces of law to ever exist in America. I would like to see it completely shredded.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215

Much of the growth of federal criminal procedures has been tied to the expanded use of RICO—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. RICO has succeeded in blurring the lines between state and federal law enforcement and in overturning the protections inherent in the due-process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.

In the past three decades, a veritable revolution has occurred in U.S. criminal law. It has taken place for the most part at the federal level, where the number of crimes with which individuals can be charged has grown rapidly. Once there were only three named federal criminal acts: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Now there are thousands of federal laws and regulations, and the violation of any one of them, no matter how unintentional and harmless the transgression, can lead to years of imprisonment for the convicted person (Roberts and Stratton 2000).
:
The growth of the federal criminal code has come in the wake of attempts by politicians and federal bureaucrats to “do something” about perceived crime rates, to stop illegal drug use by Americans, and to punish individuals who engage in “whitecollar” crime. In the process of expanding the federal role in identifying and prosecuting “criminal” behavior, however, the federal government has become a formidable conviction and imprisonment machine. Unfortunately, as Rosenzweig writes, many of the “crimes” and punishments can be described only as arbitrary, reflecting neither the seriousness of the offense nor the harm (if any) caused to other individuals.

Much of the growth of federal criminal procedures has been tied to the expanded use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which Congress passed without much opposition in 1970 as the centerpiece of President Richard Nixon’s “Crime Bill.” In this article, we focus on prosecutions under RICO. In many ways, this law has turned out to be a modern-day rendition of the infamous Waltham Black Act of 1723, which, according to Follett, “originally outlawed poaching in disguise or in ‘blacked’ face, but judicial interpretations soon divorced its various provisions from their original context, leading to a list of fifty or more crimes punishable by death” (2001, 21).

 

[TheSlamma]

So, we do almost nothing. Meanwhile, Europe is leading the way in this, they have geothermal heating and cooling, wind farms, high efficiency homes and businesses, low energy lighting, solar... the list goes on and on.

People there embrace it. We fight it... and each other like idiots. We're a laughing stock.

They don't embrace it, they do it cause their stuff is so expensive compared to us they have to. After traveling to Europe a dozen times I observed their goal is to be like us if they could.. which saddens me. At the human core is the need for more, more, more, consume, consume, consume.

 

[OverVolt]

Our current trajectory isn't sustainable but that doesn't have much to do with climate change.

We're going to run out of resources long before we ever feel the effects of climate change, lol.

Stupid scientists 😛.

 

[Paratus]

Our current trajectory isn't sustainable but that doesn't have much to do with climate change.

We're going to run out of resources long before we ever feel the effects of climate change, lol.

Stupid scientists 😛.

There's enough known fossil fuel reserves that the industry is banking on to take CO2 PPM over 2000. More than enough for significant sea level rise and climate change.

I'll await your inevitable ".." now that you know that.

 

[Paratus]

I oppose RICO altogether. It is one of the most disgusting pieces of law to ever exist in America. I would like to see it completely shredded.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215

It's a tool. One that has been misused quite a bit. But in this case, like the tobacco case before it, I'm fine using it to stop paid falsehoods that prey upon folks who are ignorant of the subject such as yourself.

 

[OverVolt]

There's enough known fossil fuel reserves that the industry is banking on to take CO2 PPM over 2000. More than enough for significant sea level rise and climate change.

I'll await your inevitable ".." now that you know that.

Nah BP said they have 53.3 years of reserves. We're more likely to end up as a coal economy rather than a solar economy 😛

It won't matter. We'll run out of the easy to extract oil soon enough anyway. Our way of life WILL have to change regardless.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well, I think the original Native Americans/Indians were the best environmentalists on this continent by far. And they had a sincere reverence and respect for the land that we could all learn a lot from. They migrated around throughout the seasons to keep from depleting local resources, like game animals and plants.

If you would like to read more about what this country looked like in 1492, read up on the pristine myth. You will discover that native American populations were massive before our old world diseases wiped out up to 90+ percent of them. And that they were responsible for deforestation, severe erosion due to agriculture, etc.

Some of the captains that came in subsequent voyages after Columbus, noted they could smell the great fires burning a 100 miles or more out to sea, before reaching the coast.

As new evidence emerges of how north Americans lived before Europeans invaded, it becomes clear they were not what was written about centuries later. The land and wildlife had recovered from the large population by the late 17th and early 18th century, when writers were describing the untouched, pristine, new world, that dominates the popular history of the continent.