nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
making sure that people feel victimized to the point that they actually are victimized, of course
Climate change has turned into a religion complete with a book of revelations, a pope, bishops, clergy, and the faithful who do the missionary work to convert. Hell they even have Papal indulgences for those who sin(consume fossil fuels) which can be purchased(carbon credits sold by the church's leaders) which absolves them of their sin and guilt.
And now you have Climategate which is imploding the credibility of the movement. It is going to be hard to convince anybody on the right we should be taxed to the hilt for their church.
And now you have Climategate which is imploding the credibility of the movement. It is going to be hard to convince anybody on the right we should be taxed to the hilt for their church.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
The prisons aren't big enough for this one. And we'll need to build lots of cells on both sides of the aisle.
I'm not for or against 'climate change'. I'm against the solutions the lefty eco-kooks provide which always seem to involve taxing me more, taxing away my freedoms, and making it easier for business to do business elsewhere.
JeepinEd
Senior member
- Dec 12, 2005
- 869
- 63
- 91
My political views fall right in line with yours.
I'm all for alternative energy, drive a Hybrid and actively participate in cleaning up our environment. With that said, I have serious issues with no just the theory of MMGW, but the way it is being used to reduce our freedoms and tax us into poverty.
Living in California, I have seen attempts to ban certain colored vehicles, fine or jail people for driving with under-inflated tires, raise gasoline taxes in order to force people to use mass transportation, the list goes on and on.
Our air resources board has implemented retroactive emissions standards that must be met by diesel powered vehicles used in construction, transportation and farming. These companies have to retrofit new engines or dump their $100K + vehicles for scrap value. I've already seen many companies go out of business because of these regulations, which, like MMGW are based on very questionable data.
It really has become a religion, where anecdotal stories end up as scripture followed by the leaders and if you show any signs of disbelief, you are labeled a denier (heretic) and are ostracized. You are being forced to donate more of your taxes and give up your sinful CO2 emitting ways in order to fight the evil MMGW.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
Can't believe nobody else has quoted this. You're exactly right.
1. Why support something that's still under a good amount of debate and controversy, even outside of the political world? Making decisions with inaccurate/incomplete information is never the right thing to do.
2. They have to separate themselves from the left somehow. Seems like right now it's health care and climate change.
3. The proposed solutions so far have been pretty shaky. Some of them threaten our economy and personal freedoms while producing questionable results.
How about you start here?
http://gop.com/index.php/learn/who_we_are/
From the actual Republican Platform from the same site.
Last edited:
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
prime example of the right's behavior right here.
unless those individuals choose to get married to someone of the same sex, have an abortion, smoke a little dope, or a position other than missionary with the lights off.
Last edited:
The big push for action on global warming / climate change or whatever other names the eco-religious fanatics want to come up with has nothing to do with actual science or the environment, it has to do with pushing a political agenda. The left wing nutjobs figured out that the general population was concerned about the damage we might be doing to the climate and decided it would make a perfect opportunity to use global warming as the vehicle to push their radical agendas.
Nobody on "the right" is against cleaning up the environment or reducing pollution, they are against solutions that involve massive government involvement and increases in taxes for no legitimate purpose.
Nobody on "the right" is against cleaning up the environment or reducing pollution, they are against solutions that involve massive government involvement and increases in taxes for no legitimate purpose.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
Keep trying.
I forgot to add the unfaithful even have a religious label of "denier".
I see repeated in this forum statements like "the science isn't settled" and the issue is "hotly disputed." This is a misreprentation of the state of this issue in the scientific community, and the misrepresentation has become a meme, so often repeated that it has become widely believed among much of the general public.
The real truth is that there is a sliver minority position among climatologists that is skeptical of AGW. This is no different than any other area of science where there is an emerging consensus. If memory serves, general relatively was challenged for decades, at first by a significant minority, then a vanishingly small minority. The problem here is that, for political and economic reasons, the views of the minority have been amplified among the general public to create the impression that there is a large scale controversy which actually does not exist. The present state of affairs among scientists in this area is that there is an overwhelmingly large consensus, and there remains a slow burn debate between the consensus view and the minority view, which goes on as data continues to be gathered year after year. This will continue, as well it should.
The hard right will never agree that there is AGW, ever, no matter what the state of scientific evidence, or the degree of scientific consensus, for reasons which other posters have already explained.
The more interesting issue is why there is skepticism in the moderate right and among about half the independents out there. Polling suggests that about 35% are under the impression that there is a major debate in the scientific community over this and that the issue isn't settled. This is more or less the "skeptics" crowd. Still another group, about 15% of the population, knows that there is scientific consensus but rejects it because they believe the scientific community is perpetrating a scam or a hoax on the public. This is more or less the "denial" crowd.
The real issue with the skpetics crowd IMO is that they are just unaware of the true state of scientific consensus on the issue. The propaganda of the right and big oil has gone mainstream. Oil companies pour money into right wing think tanks who write misleading articles about what is going on in the scientific community. Denialist bloggers and pundits further fuel the misrepresentations.
But the real problem here is probably the MSM. In their quest for "balance" and "objectivety," they give virtually the same amount of exposure to a tiny minority viewpoint than they do to the majority. If the minority is 3% of climatologists, then in theory they should be getting about 3% of the media exposure, or certainly no more than 10-20% if you really want to bend over backwards. However, that is not the case. Rather, because the issue is so politically controversial in the lay world, the media seems to think that they need to elevate the exposure of a minority scientific viewpoint or else be perceived as biased themselves. The way this matter is covered in the media fuels the false impression of a lack of consensus.
The only solution to this is to make people aware of what the true state of this issue is in the scientific community. Trying to debate the science among lay people is an exercise in futility. No one in the conservation understands the science well enough, and it becomes a series of talking point, soundbites, and cherry picked quotations of scientists that goes nowhere, and it only gets worse when the people involved have just enough knowledge of science to sound like they know what they are talking about, but not enough to actually know what they are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
- wolf
The real truth is that there is a sliver minority position among climatologists that is skeptical of AGW. This is no different than any other area of science where there is an emerging consensus. If memory serves, general relatively was challenged for decades, at first by a significant minority, then a vanishingly small minority. The problem here is that, for political and economic reasons, the views of the minority have been amplified among the general public to create the impression that there is a large scale controversy which actually does not exist. The present state of affairs among scientists in this area is that there is an overwhelmingly large consensus, and there remains a slow burn debate between the consensus view and the minority view, which goes on as data continues to be gathered year after year. This will continue, as well it should.
The hard right will never agree that there is AGW, ever, no matter what the state of scientific evidence, or the degree of scientific consensus, for reasons which other posters have already explained.
The more interesting issue is why there is skepticism in the moderate right and among about half the independents out there. Polling suggests that about 35% are under the impression that there is a major debate in the scientific community over this and that the issue isn't settled. This is more or less the "skeptics" crowd. Still another group, about 15% of the population, knows that there is scientific consensus but rejects it because they believe the scientific community is perpetrating a scam or a hoax on the public. This is more or less the "denial" crowd.
The real issue with the skpetics crowd IMO is that they are just unaware of the true state of scientific consensus on the issue. The propaganda of the right and big oil has gone mainstream. Oil companies pour money into right wing think tanks who write misleading articles about what is going on in the scientific community. Denialist bloggers and pundits further fuel the misrepresentations.
But the real problem here is probably the MSM. In their quest for "balance" and "objectivety," they give virtually the same amount of exposure to a tiny minority viewpoint than they do to the majority. If the minority is 3% of climatologists, then in theory they should be getting about 3% of the media exposure, or certainly no more than 10-20% if you really want to bend over backwards. However, that is not the case. Rather, because the issue is so politically controversial in the lay world, the media seems to think that they need to elevate the exposure of a minority scientific viewpoint or else be perceived as biased themselves. The way this matter is covered in the media fuels the false impression of a lack of consensus.
The only solution to this is to make people aware of what the true state of this issue is in the scientific community. Trying to debate the science among lay people is an exercise in futility. No one in the conservation understands the science well enough, and it becomes a series of talking point, soundbites, and cherry picked quotations of scientists that goes nowhere, and it only gets worse when the people involved have just enough knowledge of science to sound like they know what they are talking about, but not enough to actually know what they are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
- wolf
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
No, you are pushing the view that it's pretty much a done deal and that anyone who believes otherwise is a loony denier. There are plenty of experts who do not concur with the views on MMGW, and there are even more experts who correctly say they don't really know specifically what impact humans have on the warming trend --- assuming there really is a warming trend, which is now also disputed.
This is very far from settled, and even if it was, like I posted earlier, it's not really about the environment anyway, the eco-nuts are using it as a vehicle to push a political agenda, and the whole MMGW movement has to be seen from that perspective.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
No offense but this post reaks of 'whyyyy won't people agreee with meee geeeeeez' ended with a link to Wikipedia....classic
At any rate, more and more frequently lately there are more people contesting global warming. While you frame it as its a minority that's slowly shrinking, its really going the other way...an increasing number of people are skeptical.
Actually no, there aren't more scientists opposing global warming today than there was before. There are considerably fewer. The fact that you use the term "people" instead of scientists is telling, however. Public opinion polls about an area of science mean fuck-all about the actual state of the science.
No, I am not concerned about anyone agreeing with "me." I am not a scientist. I am a layperson. I am unable to have an independent and informed view of the subject. Accordingly, my own opinion means squat, and no one should trust my personal opinion on this subject any more than they should trust yours. The trouble is that there are precious few people who seem able to admit that of themselves.
- wolf
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter