59% Republicans: Climate Change Is Occurring

[michal1980]

Why is change bad?

If change is not bad, and the world is changing, then why fight it? Why is the left so stuck on keeping things as they are?

 

[JSt0rm]

Humans just dont care. If we had 1000 year life spans then you would find people giving a shit about the future on a individual level. Even the horror that is plastic will break down in a relatively short 1000 years (of course causing horrible damage to the ecosystem in the meantime).

The other issue is people interpreting the bible to mean they should use the earth as they see fit and believing the end times are near. None of this is conducive to a sustainable future. Maybe we lost in a evolutionary sense. Hopefully some other sentient creature out there is better then us.

 

[Eli]

We are capable of caring, but we are incredibly short sighted. I hear you on the 1000 year lifespans. That would definitely help.

We have evolved to live one day at a time and that is a big problem now that we actually need to start thinking long term. And I don't mean next week, I mean 100 or 1000 years from now....

 

[JSt0rm]

We evolved to care about our immediate tribe. Even to the point of self sacrifice (which is a evolutionary trait that is a double edged sword for sure). It takes a lot of higher thinking to get to the point where you can have empathy for all humans. Something that appears to be fairly rare on this planet.

 

[Roflmouth]

Maybe conservatives are just those liberals who are the slowest to figure things out.

Considering conservatives are able to get photo IDs, a Herculean task that constantly eludes liberals, you might have things backwards.

 

[Roflmouth]

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?

Excuse me, you're not a climate scientist, so according to the rules invented by idiot liberals, you're not qualified to speak on it.

 

[shira]

If change is not bad, and the world is changing, then why fight it? Why is the left so stuck on keeping things as they are?

So you agree that if we create new laws to induce changes in greenhouse-gas-producing behavior by industry, that's good, because change is not bad, right? I mean, why fight it?

And if science determines that smoking is very harmful to human health, then there's no point it trying to reduce smoking. I mean, why fight it?

 

[crashtech]

I find it a shame that the cutting remark has almost entirely replaced the thoughtful response in online dialogue. The upside as it pertains to this discussion is that renewables are nearing the price point where they are attractive not just to the environmentalist, but to the pragmatist as well. The sooner we can get China on board, the better off we will be, as far as hedging our bets against possible (but as yet unsure) negative outcomes.

 

[disappoint]

Maybe conservatives are just those liberals who are the slowest to figure things out.

I should become a conservative. I'd be the smartest one of all of them, with high levels of smartness and all that. They'd be taken aback how I knew things 10 years ago they are only finding out about now.

Of course if I open my mouth now they'll think I'm crazy for another 10 years until they catch up. hehehe hahaha

Humans just dont care. If we had 1000 year life spans then you would find people giving a shit about the future on a individual level.

We are capable of caring, but we are incredibly short sighted. I hear you on the 1000 year lifespans. That would definitely help.

Hey did you guys know there is a mouse in a lab somewhere in the good ole US of A that doesn't age?

Not saying it will live forever, or that the same thing can be done in humans, at least not yet, but they found the 'aging gene' and managed to switch it off. Just puttin that out there. If you wanted a glimmer of hope or something. Shhhh...the thinkers are thinking...:hmm:

 

[shira]

I find it a shame that the cutting remark has almost entirely replaced the thoughtful response in online dialogue. The upside as it pertains to this discussion is that renewables are nearing the price point where they are attractive not just to the environmentalist, but to the pragmatist as well. The sooner we can get China on board, the better off we will be, as far as hedging our bets against possible (but as yet unsure) negative outcomes.

I'm pretty confident that fossil-fuel alternatives will effectively put the fossil-fuel industry out of business. But that's going to take several decades, and over those decades atmospheric CO2 levels are going to continue to rise. We started 2015 with CO2 levels at 400 ppm, and I've seen projections of 550 ppm by 2050 and greater than 1000 ppm by 2100 if countries do nothing. So waiting for renewables to "naturally" end CO2 emissions doesn't appear to be an acceptable solution.

 

[crashtech]

I'm pretty confident that fossil-fuel alternatives will effectively put the fossil-fuel industry out of business. But that's going to take several decades, and over those decades atmospheric CO2 levels are going to continue to rise. We started 2015 with CO2 levels at 400 ppm, and I've seen projections of 550 ppm by 2050 and greater than 1000 ppm by 2100 if countries do nothing. So waiting for renewables to "naturally" end CO2 emissions doesn't appear to be an acceptable solution.

Your confidence level depends on faith in projections of future events that all involved do not share. So count on the more pragmatic, modest scenarios re CO2 reductions coming to pass, while hoping that the worst-case climate outcomes do not emerge. I would think that even true believers would have to admit that our current prognostications have fairly large error bars.

 

[JSt0rm]

I should become a conservative. I'd be the smartest one of all of them, with high levels of smartness and all that. They'd be taken aback how I knew things 10 years ago they are only finding out about now.

Of course if I open my mouth now they'll think I'm crazy for another 10 years until they catch up. hehehe hahaha





Hey did you guys know there is a mouse in a lab somewhere in the good ole US of A that doesn't age?

Not saying it will live forever, or that the same thing can be done in humans, at least not yet, but they found the 'aging gene' and managed to switch it off. Just puttin that out there. If you wanted a glimmer of hope or something. Shhhh...the thinkers are thinking...:hmm:

If that could be done it would be great and I would be first in line. We still die though. Even eternal life would end frozen in darkness as the last star burned out.

 

[pcgeek11]

Every republican that I know has always believed that the climate changes. It has always changed and it will continue to do so.

The sticky part is how much man has to do with it? ( very little IMO )

And what can we do about it? ( Nothing more than we already are IMO )

The climate will continue to change regardless of what we do or attempt to do.

 

[glenn1]

I'm pretty confident that fossil-fuel alternatives will effectively put the fossil-fuel industry out of business. But that's going to take several decades, and over those decades atmospheric CO2 levels are going to continue to rise. We started 2015 with CO2 levels at 400 ppm, and I've seen projections of 550 ppm by 2050 and greater than 1000 ppm by 2100 if countries do nothing. So waiting for renewables to "naturally" end CO2 emissions doesn't appear to be an acceptable solution.

Fortunately you're not the arbiter of what's an "acceptable solution." If the world had listened to your stupid ideas we would have never even gotten to the point where fossil-fuel alternatives were a viable substitute absent huge subsidies in perpetuity. Thank goodness smarter people than you were around to save you from yourselves.

 

[Paratus]

Every republican that I know has always believed that the climate changes. It has always changed and it will continue to do so.

The sticky part is how much man has to do with it? ( very little IMO )

And what can we do about it? ( Nothing more than we already are IMO )

The climate will continue to change regardless of what we do or attempt to do.

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)

 

[OverVolt]

Let me ask you a question.

WHY. DOES. THE. ANSWER. HAVE. TO. BE. SHORT. TERM?

It's a complex long-term problem. Why can't our short term answer be to begin working a long term solution, broken down to smaller financially reasonable steps.

Thats ironic because the liberals are the ones who can't plan for the long term. Just look at the major democratic cities and their pension funds.

 

[dank69]

59% of Republicans? More like 100% of RINOs.

 

[soulcougher73]

 

[Paratus]

Thats ironic because the liberals are the ones who can't plan for the long term. Just look at the major democratic cities and their pension funds.

This opinion has what to do with my comment?

 

[Lash444]

Every republican that I know has always believed that _________ has always changed and it will continue to do so.

The sticky part is how much we had to do with it? ( very little IMO )

And what can we do about it? ( Nothing more than we already are IMO )

The ________ will continue to change regardless of what we do or attempt to do.


Fill in the blank with your topic of the day into the Republican Deniability Mantra.

 

[desy]

Sorry Shira
I don't think we can find easy replacements for Oil, I've been looking for a long time.
Maybe something that can crack Hydrogen cheaply but nothing on the horizon that's as cheap or scalable and that's the problem, the world burns through 30 Billion Barrels a year.
I do agree we need to transition but I don't see a painless way to do it for our cushy NA lifestyle. However the hope I have is we waste an incredible amount and should be able to scale back and learn to live with whatever shows up as the replacement

 

[michal1980]

I wonder how many libs actually agree with the environmentalist from india.

"For the sake of the world's future, American lifestyle can no longer remain non-negotiable," froths India's leading environmentalist, Sunita Narain."

http://theweek.com/articles/584216/why-climate-justice-india-west-each-others-throats


how many of them are willing to lower our current standard of living in a race to the bottom so we MIGHT slow temperature growth by a fractional amount.

 

[Blackjack200]

59% of Republicans? More like 100% of RINOs.

There's only one true Republican left and he's started to doubt even himself.

 

[crashtech]

I for one am holding my breath, waiting for fusion power to save us all!

 

[Jaskalas]

"For the sake of the world's future, American lifestyle can no longer remain non-negotiable," froths India's leading environmentalist, Sunita Narain."

http://theweek.com/articles/584216/why-climate-justice-india-west-each-others-throats

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.