Why are Republicans so Anti-Climate Change?

[Torto]

see the PNUD and WWF recomendations regarding climate change, how policies should be made. hell, the IPCC report has an extract specifically made for policy makers, it's about 30 pages long, and i think that endus posted it many times
anyway, there it is

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...licymakers.pdf

Bottom line is: there are fucking TONS of information regarding of waht the hell should be done right now, and what the expected costs and returns are. This is not a conspiracy, its reality

PS: here, more links for you

http://www.who.int/globalchange/publ...angechap12.pdf

http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/...tainty-setting

o...m...g....what an absolute wankfest. The World Resources Institute would have to have the most convoluted drivel I have ever had the misfortune to read. Here, let me pick out the best bits:

"In order to establish the foundations for a climate-resilient, equitable future, public officials need to take a leadership role in consolidating processes of change that extend beyond their term of office."
- this is code for doing away with elections. And you people mocked me for exposing the end game of a global UN.

"Climate change management has not necessarily been institutionalized in developing countries and cities. The inclusion of adaptation and mitigation in annual operative plans and budget allocations is perhaps the most important step a government must take in preparation for current and future climate-related impacts."
- basically entrench climate research onto the public teat.

'There is also need for the consolidation of stable research and policy teams that can apply adequate tools for social learning and proper evaluation of past, present and future risks, and of adaptation options "
- state sponsored climate change indoctrination in our schools. Although to be fair, that happens already.

The waffle just goes on and on. No mention of how to reverse climate change, but plenty of suggestions on how to adapt to the changes. Why am I not surprised.

[Zmaniac17]

Climate change is a religion for bored, rich elitists who feel the need to contribute to something to offset their guilt at being at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Its all about wealth re-distribution. There is technology out there that can extract existing carbon in the air as well as capture carbon emissions from their source. But no. The UN, Obama, Democrats and environmentalists want everyone to live like cave men and eat grass. Thats why states like California have the highest cost-of-living index in the country due to bullshit environmental laws that are business prohibitive. The only thing keeping that state afloat is Silicon Valley and maybe the wine industry. Oh and yeah Hollywood.

The future of energy is nuclear fusion. Clean, safe, powerful. Hopefully it can be achieved in this century.

It's funny how when someone says fusion nobody blinks. Even though fusion has a cost of development and time to deploy that is unknown and far off in the future. But if you mention solar, wind, biomass and fission you get a strong backlash from people saying its not economically feasible and will hurt the economy. They ignore the fact that rising fuel costs will hurt the economy even more in their life times. And they ignore that current renewables have a known cost with a reasonable time to deploy. And that cost is dropping constantly, exponentially even. This is a no brainer.

BTW California is currently keeping the United States "afloat", as you say, economically. Comparing California to nations, California has the 7th largest GDP in the world. And it has the largest GDP of any state in the union. In fact its 40% larger than the next nearest state. They are certainly not business prohibitive.

[Thepersona]

o...m...g....what an absolute wankfest. The World Resources Institute would have to have the most convoluted drivel I have ever had the misfortune to read. Here, let me pick out the best bits:

"In order to establish the foundations for a climate-resilient, equitable future, public officials need to take a leadership role in consolidating processes of change that extend beyond their term of office."
- this is code for doing away with elections. And you people mocked me for exposing the end game of a global UN.

"Climate change management has not necessarily been institutionalized in developing countries and cities. The inclusion of adaptation and mitigation in annual operative plans and budget allocations is perhaps the most important step a government must take in preparation for current and future climate-related impacts."
- basically entrench climate research onto the public teat.

'There is also need for the consolidation of stable research and policy teams that can apply adequate tools for social learning and proper evaluation of past, present and future risks, and of adaptation options "
- state sponsored climate change indoctrination in our schools. Although to be fair, that happens already.

The waffle just goes on and on. No mention of how to reverse climate change, but plenty of suggestions on how to adapt to the changes. Why am I not surprised.

because many of the effects are current and many of the future problems are pretty much set. the only thing that we can do now is reduce the damage, and adapt. and i will answer some of your answers:

For the first one. that's the point on having a worlwide agreement, because then you can push for regulations and actions across the globe. The WTO does that already (on trade). The planet accepts that AGW is a thing, so the best thing to do is to have a guideline with local adaptations.
For your second point, the part is conected to the first one. in order to have a good response, it has to be institucionalized (remember the ban of CFCs? this is the same thing)
And for your third point, Education is freaking necessary, in order to reduce the number of imbeciles who still think that AGW does not happen, and in order to make a public front, to push for conservation of the enviroment.

and look, another source, this time from a trade organization:
http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/39111309.pdf

and here is another one
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e...hallenge_e.htm

oh, and look: the republicans are the only fucking party in the developed world that denies climate change, yay!
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial

[alexw]

o...m...g....what an absolute wankfest. The World Resources Institute would have to have the most convoluted drivel I have ever had the misfortune to read. Here, let me pick out the best bits:

"In order to establish the foundations for a climate-resilient, equitable future, public officials need to take a leadership role in consolidating processes of change that extend beyond their term of office."
- this is code for doing away with elections. And you people mocked me for exposing the end game of a global UN.

"Climate change management has not necessarily been institutionalized in developing countries and cities. The inclusion of adaptation and mitigation in annual operative plans and budget allocations is perhaps the most important step a government must take in preparation for current and future climate-related impacts."
- basically entrench climate research onto the public teat.

'There is also need for the consolidation of stable research and policy teams that can apply adequate tools for social learning and proper evaluation of past, present and future risks, and of adaptation options "
- state sponsored climate change indoctrination in our schools. Although to be fair, that happens already.

The waffle just goes on and on. No mention of how to reverse climate change, but plenty of suggestions on how to adapt to the changes. Why am I not surprised.

Yeah your replies are basically what a complete and total nutjob would say.

Let me tell you what those things actually mean to a 'normal' mind.

"In order to establish the foundations for a climate-resilient, equitable future, public officials need to take a leadership role in consolidating processes of change that extend beyond their term of office."

You know how we have the U.N., the world bank, local central banks, etc, etc? What it means is not doing away with elections but instituting a body that will continue the move away from fossil fuels irrespective of political party changes. Both on a global level and on a countrywide more local level.

"Climate change management has not necessarily been institutionalized in developing countries and cities. The inclusion of adaptation and mitigation in annual operative plans and budget allocations is perhaps the most important step a government must take in preparation for current and future climate-related impacts."

It means making climate change a part of routine operational planning. So if you are building a new neighborhood, then build it so its walkable so you don't need to drive to reach everything. If new buildings are going up then make solar panels part of the local building code so when those buildings go up so do solar panels on their roofs. If buildings are going up on the coast then disallow building on locations that will be flooded due to rising sea levels in 50 years, etc, etc, etc.


'There is also need for the consolidation of stable research and policy teams that can apply adequate tools for social learning and proper evaluation of past, present and future risks, and of adaptation options "

Yeah we teach people about the world. We teach them what we know of reality. So no surprise that we'd teach them about this aspect of it. That way they don't turn out to be a reality denier like yourself.

[Deleted]

Id go with "extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof" with this one.

But lets assume climate change is real for a bit, even then all that "green energy"(ineffective and expensive way to produce energy) etc. is a scam.. it's basically private companies trying to get governments to enforce taxes and guarantee their profits. Not to mention that the 3rd world and East Asian countries don't care and keep polluting anyway, in fact their industries are growing.

I for one believe nothing should be done about climate change aside from research into better, more effective and cheaper ways to generate energy, grow meat and transportation. If it's naturally more beneficial to use these new technologies, the problem will take care of itself.

[Krille]

Because it threatens their top interest: OIL. Whether they sell it, buy it or use it in cars, OIL have always been soo important to this group of people. Many top republicans are wealthy cus of oil and have no plan B. Not a particularly difficult question if you ask me. Now the plebs that follow them are just innocent less-fortunate people thinking they are saving money by voting for the republicans. Because denying climate change is cheap.

[Hammerfest]

You think this site is my only source of information?

So you and I have had a conspiracy debate on some other site that I'm not remembering? You and I had one debate here and it was about evolution (which was kept from being banned solely because I didn't reference the Bible). As far as actual "conspiracy" discussions, you have no experience doing so with me so proclaiming how things would go in such a debate with me is baseless. You know full well what the rules here are and that such a debate hasn't been and isn't possible.

People on the ISS can literally just look out the window at any moment and verify this.

That's a cgi presentation you've presented. And not a very good one.

[Adam Jensen]

care to link that proof then? till you do I think its safe to say no it hasnt been..

Why? Endus linked proof, you called it "pseudoscience" and refused to look at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha yes very funny....

There has to be some correlation as to why the Left have embraced the AGW faith so vehemently, and those on the Right still by and large remain sensibly sceptic. The most plausible reason is that the Left can use this global fear campaign for their ultimate goals. I'm happy to hear the arguments on a scientific level, but politically you have nowhere left to go.

Why have we, the Left, embraced AGW?

Because, THIS IS THE ONLY PLANET WE HAVE. And I'd like to be able to continue to live on it, and breath clean air, drink clean water and not suffer through yearly superstorms spawned by higher global temperatures.

[JohnBrown1917]

Haha yes very funny....

There has to be some correlation as to why the Left have embraced the AGW faith so vehemently, and those on the Right still by and large remain sensibly sceptic. The most plausible reason is that the Left can use this global fear campaign for their ultimate goals. I'm happy to hear the arguments on a scientific level, but politically you have nowhere left to go.

No, thats an American phenomenon. Here its no longer a political issue, same goes for a bunch of other european countries.

[Adam Jensen]

They're both "a thing". The two terms refer to two different, but related, things.

This is such a willfully dumb argument. It's like saying "oh, is an orange a fruit now? I thought it was an orange."

And I'm getting sick and tired of hearing it. Why is it so hard to understand climate change is a part of global warming? Why does this have to be repeated ad nauseum?

[Glorious Leader]

So you and I have had a conspiracy debate on some other site that I'm not remembering? You and I had one debate here and it was about evolution (which was kept from being banned solely because I didn't reference the Bible). As far as actual "conspiracy" discussions, you have no experience doing so with me so proclaiming how things would go in such a debate with me is baseless. You know full well what the rules here are and that such a debate hasn't been and isn't possible.



That's a cgi presentation you've presented. And not a very good one.

I know i shouldnt but what the hell. If the earth isnt moving how do you explain night and day? The equinox? The changing of the seasons?

[Adam Jensen]

I know i shouldnt but what the hell. If the earth isnt moving how do you explain night and day? The equinox? The changing of the seasons?

Why are there time zones?

Why do ships appear on the horizon, sails, and then hull?

Why do sticks in the ground at different altitudes have different length/angle shadows at the same time?

And most importantly: Why the fuck would NASA go through so much trouble to "fake" a round Earth?

[JohnBrown1917]

Why are there time zones?

Why do ships appear on the horizon, sails, and then hull?

Why do sticks in the ground at different altitudes have different length/angle shadows at the same time?

And most importantly: Why the fuck would NASA go through so much trouble to "fake" a round Earth?

He thinks other planets do not exist and that gravity is not really, just the token MMO-C nutter.

[Thepersona]

No, thats an American phenomenon. Here its no longer a political issue, same goes for a bunch of other european countries.

its an non issue everywhere, except for the stupid people on the US. climate change has been accepted as fact (AGW). Why the US conservatives are so stupid is beyond me. I hope they realize their ways before its too late

So you and I have had a conspiracy debate on some other site that I'm not remembering? You and I had one debate here and it was about evolution (which was kept from being banned solely because I didn't reference the Bible). As far as actual "conspiracy" discussions, you have no experience doing so with me so proclaiming how things would go in such a debate with me is baseless. You know full well what the rules here are and that such a debate hasn't been and isn't possible.

That's a cgi presentation you've presented. And not a very good one.

err, look this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddFvjfvPnqk

its a freaking livestream of the ISS, from space. its LIVE, and with constant changes on the atmosphere, so you cant say that its cgi. And seriously, what proof do you have that earth is flat? please link me something, or at least say it, its the bible.

[Glorious Leader]

its an non issue everywhere, except for the stupid people on the US. climate change has been accepted as fact (AGW). Why the US conservatives are so stupid is beyond me. I hope they realize their ways before its too late

They arent stupid just bought and sold. Well i mean at least the politicians arent stupid they know better.

[Thepersona]

They arent stupid just bought and sold. Well i mean at least the politicians arent stupid they know better.

i know that the politicians are bought by the big oil. i'm reffering to the voters, they are fucking stupid if they cant accept AGW as fact, like the rest of the world (including conservatives)

- - - Updated - - -

You're either insane or trying too hard to troll.

i seriously hope that he's a troll. i would lose faith in humanity if its otherwise

Id go with "extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof" with this one.

But lets assume climate change is real for a bit, even then all that "green energy"(ineffective and expensive way to produce energy) etc. is a scam.. it's basically private companies trying to get governments to enforce taxes and guarantee their profits. Not to mention that the 3rd world and East Asian countries don't care and keep polluting anyway, in fact their industries are growing.

I for one believe nothing should be done about climate change aside from research into better, more effective and cheaper ways to generate energy, grow meat and transportation. If it's naturally more beneficial to use these new technologies, the problem will take care of itself.

I have three points to counter your arguments.

First: AGW IS real. it's been proven many times, by many different methods (acidification on the seas, rising temperatures, more potent hurricanes, droughts, floods, that the fucking species are moving north, or south depending on the hemisphere)

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/...acidification/
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1633.html
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/k...cosystems.html

Second, green energies at this point are cheap. in many case much cheaper than coal/oil based generation

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g-fossil-fuels

And third, the problem will not take care of itself, if nothing is done. In any way, it would get worse

[Macaquerie]

its an non issue everywhere, except for the stupid people on the US. climate change has been accepted as fact (AGW). Why the US conservatives are so stupid is beyond me. I hope they realize their ways before its too late

I think that if conservatives were actually being honest, most of them would probably admit to believe in some kind of man-made climate change, but probably just think that making the necessary changes would be too costly or too much of a hassle for them, future generations be damned.

[Wildtree]

follow the money...

and you find your answer.

[Felya]

Suprising this thread is still going. The answer is so blatant. Let me try it from the other side of the argument.

Why are scientists faking this story? Because they want grants, publicity and all the fortunes that come with it. Well, if that's motivation of scientist, then what do you think appoint of an Exxon CEO as Secretary of State mean for GOP? How about a VP who was a Halliburton CEO? To demonstrate, if we could measure the benefits gained from supported view in inches, John Holmes would have been Oil companies, while scientists would be female.

[Osmeric]

Suprising this thread is still going. The answer is so blatant. Let me try it from the other side of the argument.

Why are scientists faking this story? Because they want grants, publicity and all the fortunes that come with it.

Yeah, the idea that scientists do this for the money is hilarious.