Why are Republicans so Anti-Climate Change?

[Endus]

Im sorry but climate change is about as real As Jesus Christ, all I hear is a bunch of people saying "Trust me its real".

Nope. We're just asking you to actually look at the evidence before forming an opinion, because the evidence speaks for itself.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

You don't have to "trust me". The evidence is right there, and conclusive.

[want my Slimjim]

The epa likes to makes up tons of false claims and watses our taxpayer dollars. It's time we shut it down.

[Invrlose]

I'm no climate scientist. I don't know all the terminology by heart, and have to look them up and comprehend a lot of it on an individual basis before trying to tackle it as a whole. That said it is very difficult to just give these 30 page articles or PDFs a once through and be able to spot the particular point where the evidence is apparently happening. Forgive me for not wanting to dedicate hours or days or weeks of my life reading and learning the apparent intricacies of advanced climate science just to respond to the claim "97% of scientists agree, therefore it is a fact!" with any skepticism at all without everyone and their brother howling at me for not being a climate scientist myself and demanding that I locate the precise evidence they think exists within articles that they think are credible because they themselves apparently aren't learned enough to even attempt an explanation and so instead they resort to personal attacks as a result of me not being learned enough to be able to pinpoint the explanation within said 30 page PDF.

You said it in the first line; you aren't a climate scientist. You ask for evidence yet fail to realise the 30 page PDFs ARE the evidence. Climate scientists don't have spinner981 the know-nothing non-educated non-climate scientist in mind when publishing a paper or submitting research, they have other climate scientists in mind. What youre doing would be like asking for a string theory proof and then complaining that the math and theory is too complex, you don't want the proper 30-page research paper you just want the "proof" yet fail to realise that it IS the proof.

You probably don't feel qualified enough to argue or disagree with experts in quantum theory, rocket engineering, space travel, particle collision, etc. so I don't see why you feel qualified enough to disagree with experts in any other field. These people that study often for more than a decade, know a topic inside and out, have somehow missed something that a random know-nothing nameless avatarless guy on a gaming website thought of? Give me a break.

In conclusion, you use science for ANYTHING and it fucking works. Hop on an airplane and it gets you across the ocean. Hop on a rocket it takes you to Mars. You put so much faith in to science in every fucking aspect of your life, and reap the benefits of it, but feel like you're more qualified than professionals in their own field. Give me a break and sit down.

[want my Slimjim]

Nope. We're just asking you to actually look at the evidence before forming an opinion, because the evidence speaks for itself.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

You don't have to "trust me". The evidence is right there, and conclusive.

It's propaganda. It isn't real. It's fake.

[Sky High]

It's propaganda. It isn't real. It's fake.

welp, you have everyone here convinced. pffft

[Otimus]

Most probably do believe in it. They just don't care about it unless they can make money off of it, and they especially want to dismiss something if it could interfere with them making money.


Don't get me wrong, Democrats are just as bad. Democrats work like this: Pay it lip service. Then ignore the whole thing as much they can until they're dragged kicking and screaming into caring.

That's what Democrats do, they pretend to be progressive and liberal and care about social issues, but they really don't. They're just as scummy and money hungry as the average Republican.

Basically, if you're pinning your hopes for the future of this country on Republicans or Democrats, frankly, you're doing it wrong, and you're either oblivious, or setting yourself up for disappointment. Those parties have both been bought and sold decades ago, and it's so silly how people still think one is massively different than the other. But whatever keeps groups arguing among themselves rather than actually wanting any real change.

[Lollis]

That's what I linked because it wasn't clear what you were after and because you complained that what Endus linked was too long and that there should be a sentence somewhere he knows the location of. You obviously didn't even glance at the report because there's an entire chapter devoted to exactly how they detect and attribute it, but if you want a blurb that thoroughly explains the case for anthropogenic climate change, you're out of luck.

Basically, he wants the part of the article that says "Global warming is caused by humans because we tracked this 100 inch square of co2 and measured exactly how it kept the air heated up"

Having a science match with people like spinner is not worth it. It has been shown time and time again in multiple climate change, evolution, and vaccine threads also if I'm not mistaken. They completely disregard the scientific method, expect you to do the most basic of one on one teaching to them, and just flat out deny what you have told them when you do.

It is akin to giving a child icecream and them crying because it is slightly melted.

[Hiricine]

Well to poke fun at the topic, I think most people are anti-climate change unless they live in a cold area they hope to become warmer.

But to answer the intended question, conservatives are against and regulation or spending they can avoid, as a rule. If you could convince them of a policy that would be budget neutral and not impose regulations you could probably get most of them to cross over regardless of what they state their beliefs on the issue are.

The problem we've seen so far with proposed programs to help with climate change is that they don't prove a lot of benefit, generally the potential harm which has been reported isn't averted by any of those programs, and even the good ideas that exist tend to get shot down by the people who say they care the most, which is why you don't see any new nuclear plants being built.

If you want to make a Republican pro-climate change, find a way to produce a "Green energy" product which is more cost-efficient than coal or nuclear and sell it without any government subsidy for a profit. The answer exists outside politics.

[Invrlose]

Because it's massively overrated. Climate has always been changing. The dinosaurs had a far warmer climate than it is today and were doing just fine.

Nobody said the climate never changed before and that's a non-sequitur.

Before the earth had oxygen we had the earth covered in anaerobic bacteria. Along comes cyanobacteria which pump oxygen in to the atmosphere and completely obliterate almost all life on earth. If fucking cyanobacteria can cause mass extinction of almost all known life on earth what makes you think that humans pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 in to the atmosphere can't do the same thing? We're already seeing mass extinction going on, with extinction happening at a rate around 1000x normal background rate. CO2 levels are at something like a 15 million year high, etc. How about you take some intro college science courses.

[callipygoustp]

I never said the method was wrong, I said you do a poor job of it. Your particular brand of argumentation is neither new nor unique, you come off as some wannabe know-it-all but it's obvious to anybody with even the slightest background in science that you really are just parroting arguments that you've read elsewhere.

Love him or hate him, Endus is one of the few people on this forum that always backs up his arguments with data.

[Hooked]

When democrats get serious about pollution and littering, then we can talk about the stuff we cant see. The democrat controlled cities are absolutely filthy and disgusting. Litter, Garbage, the smell of raw sewage, used needles laying on the ground, people pissing in doorways every night. Look at all the 3rd world countries also like haitis pollution or nigerias pollution. They simply don't care and just throw their trash in water ways, in front of their shacks, anywhere without a thought in the world about it. So who exactly are we preserving this world for?.

[Elegiac]

That's what Democrats do, they pretend to be progressive and liberal and care about social issues, but they really don't. They're just as scummy and money hungry as the average Republican.

In terms of track record, no. The Democrats have a much more solid history of social welfare and progressive policy than the Republicans.

Basically, if you're pinning your hopes for the future of this country on Republicans or Democrats, frankly, you're doing it wrong, and you're either oblivious, or setting yourself up for disappointment. Those parties have both been bought and sold decades ago, and it's so silly how people still think one is massively different than the other. But whatever keeps groups arguing among themselves rather than actually wanting any real change.

I'm curious as to how you intend to change the system.

- - - Updated - - -

When democrats get serious about pollution and littering, then we can talk about the stuff we cant see. The democrat controlled cities are absolutely filthy and disgusting. Litter, Garbage, the smell of raw sewage, used needles laying on the ground, people pissing in doorways every night. Look at all the 3rd world countries also like haitis pollution or nigerias pollution. They simply don't care and just throw their trash in water ways, in front of their shacks, anywhere without a thought in the world about it. So who exactly are we preserving this world for?.

He said, having clearly never been to any big city outside of the Rust Belt.

[mickybrighteyes]

Wouldn't increase CO2 levels still cause an increase in plant growth across the globe bringing about a greater O2 levels... and... dear god...


NO... that would allow for giant spiders to actually be able to come back.

I think we need to convince the world to go green, less the giant spiders make their return.

[Wells]

Because it's massively overrated. Climate has always been changing. The dinosaurs had a far warmer climate than it is today and were doing just fine.

"People die all the time, IDK why this corpse on the floor is such a big deal Officer"

[Invrlose]

Love him or hate him, Endus is one of the few people on this forum that always backs up his arguments with data.

Except he doesn't. Most of his arguments are poor arguments. He should leave arguing about science to people who have actually studied science.

[Deleted]

Nobody said the climate never changed before and that's a non-sequitur.

Before the earth had oxygen we had the earth covered in anaerobic bacteria. Along comes cyanobacteria which pump oxygen in to the atmosphere and completely obliterate almost all life on earth. If fucking cyanobacteria can cause mass extinction of almost all known life on earth what makes you think that humans pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 in to the atmosphere can't do the same thing? We're already seeing mass extinction going on, with extinction happening at a rate around 1000x normal background rate. CO2 levels are at something like a 15 million year high, etc. How about you take some intro college science courses.

How about you do some research yourself?



It's definitely way too cold compared to the past average.

[Lollis]

Love him or hate him, Endus is one of the few people on this forum that always backs up his arguments with data.

I think that is the crux of the issue. Some people just don't want to admit that their world view is wrong.

Except he doesn't. Most of his arguments are poor arguments. He should leave arguing about science to people who have actually studied science.

He has studied science. He might not be one of the foremost climate scientists of our age but he knows his stuff, knows how the scientific method works, and perhaps most crucial of all; knows how to read.

[Invrlose]

That's a significant amount of science when it involves a wide range of specializations. You're really not even contributing to the conversation. Looking at your past posts you seem to basically just shit post everyone telling them why they're wrong but you don't seem to have any opinions of your own. Talk about parroting.

Incorrect my friend. You can even see on this same fucking page where I'm giving evidence for climate change in the proper way.

[Elegiac]

Wouldn't increase CO2 levels still cause an increase in plant growth across the globe bringing about a greater O2 levels... and... dear god...


NO... that would allow for giant spiders to actually be able to come back.

I think we need to convince the world to go green, less the giant spiders make their return.

Nah, the reason giant spiders were a thing is because bacteria and fungi that feed off decaying plant matter hadn't yet evolved to digest lignin; trees died and they effectively didn't rot, meaning all those delicious greenhouse gases were sequestered and the atmospheric O2 level was much higher.

[callipygoustp]

Except he doesn't. Most of his arguments are poor arguments. He should leave arguing about science to people who have actually studied science.

All evidence to the contrary. Really, the main thing I get from your statement is that you don't understand good rhetoric and as such denigrate it.