Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.


Mad Mike

Recommended Posts

Admiring the tenacity with which people have been taught that "China is a bigger country than us, (and therefore we should not even set goals for ourselves which we aren't even held to)".  

 

It's an argument which they won't even fully state.  It's just "China is bigger than us", with no attempt at a "therefore" attached to it.  (Because there isn't a "therefore" they can attach, without looking stupid.)  But it sure is tenaciously clung to.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Yeah, the bits that end up under the sea will likely be cooler.

 

How many jobs would you estimate will be lost if the earth ceases to support human life? 

 

Also worth noting research and investment in renewable energy is creating jobs. Many more people in the US work in the renewable energy sector than coal/oil/gas.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052017/infographic-renewable-energy-jobs-worldwide-solar-wind-trump

 

 

Actually, that would result in a labor shortage so we'd actually see a decrease in unemployment.

 

it seems to me what that link is saying is we put more resources into renewable energy but get less energy out :-/.

 

i mean, if it employs more people than coal but produces less energy, that makes it inefficient....

Edited by RedskinsMayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

But what are China's targets?   They will still be polluting more then us, right?

 

And can you tell me how the earth warming now is any different then previous times....hasn't the temperature gone in cycles?

As measured by Co2 overall emissions China does pollute more than the US. Per capita the US is BY FAR more polluting than China.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WTL_ObFlCfA

 

As for the earth warming just read this thread, there are lots of links and references. Or use Google and do your own research on unbiased academic sources. The summary is this - man made global warming is real, it's happening and it does threaten human life on this planet (at least as we know it). 

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Actually, that would result in a labor shortage so we'd actually see a decrease in unemployment.

 

True. I suppose technically unemployment would be zero. Than again so would employment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

2)  How is the current climate warming different from previous warming cycles?   

 

I believe it's the rate of warming that is both different and alarming, compared to previous cycles.

 

Also, if it was not caused by us, there are still plenty of things to consider/do because it is happening. Refusing to believe it is happening, as most of the right does, makes it impossible to do any of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand, you have people who believe a book of stories about a person who could walk on water and turn water into wine.  On the same hand, you have people who don't believe that humans influence the earth's mean temperature in the face of countless scientific studies proving otherwise.

 

Interesting case of belief systems overriding facts.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

On one hand, you have people who believe a book of stories about a person who could walk on water and turn water into wine.  On the same hand, you have people who don't believe that humans influence the earth's mean temperature in the face of countless scientific studies proving otherwise.

 

Interesting case of belief systems overriding facts.

 

I think I'd go a bit further in my description of what some people choose to pretend that they don;t believe.  

 

They don't believe that CO2, a gas which was shown in the laboratory to cause the greenhouse effect, 150 years ago, when humans dump a half a billion tons a year into the atmosphere, every year for 100 years straight, can possibly have an effect on the environment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I think I'd go a bit further in my description of what some people choose to pretend that they don;t believe.  

 

They don't believe that CO2, a gas which was shown in the laboratory to cause the greenhouse effect, 150 years ago, when humans dump a half a billion tons a year into the atmosphere, every year for 100 years straight, can possibly have an effect on the environment.  

 

Keeping it simple for the sake of simplicity, but yeah.  Also, it doesn't touch on other ways we are harming the environment.  Polluting of rivers and streams.  Pollutants other than CO2 like NOx or fine particulates (soot, etc) that also negative impact our environment as well.

 

 

To NOT want to be the world leader in these aspects is asinine to me and righteously un-American.  One thing that makes us American is that we want to be the world leaders in EVERYTHING.  Well, everything except for the stuff that republicans would like us to do poorly at like environment, health care and education just to name a couple things off the top of my head.  Hey, but at least we've got a badass military so that's cool, right?

 

Speaking of cool.  Someone on the last page literally said that we went to the moon to be cool.  Wrong.  We went to the moon to be better than the ****ing USSR.  Russia.  Same Russia who is currently getting felated (I made that word up I think, but it's funny) by our sitting president.

 

Why take a back seat on global warming and the environment?  We should be the nation that all other nations look up to in this respect.

Edited by Springfield
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

i mean, if it employs more people than coal but produces less energy, that makes it inefficient....

 

Weve spent about 200 years making use of fossil fuels as energy sources more efficient. If we continue to invest and at the current pace of development renewables will soon outstrip fossil fuels in both percentage of energy developed and efficiency. We really have no choice but to do that if we want to survive as a species.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

Yeah, the bits that end up under the sea will likely be cooler.

 

 

 

certainly, though other places as well as currents and wind patterns shift

 

 

ya know ,the reason they shifted to climate change from global warming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

But what are China's targets?   They will still be polluting more then us, right?

 

And can you tell me how the earth warming now is any different then previous times....hasn't the temperature gone in cycles?

 

Again, based on per a person or GDP produced, China already emits less CO2 than us.  China is already more efficient than us and has taken on building the next generation of nuclear power plants, which will likely keep them there.  This is equivalent to some country that has a smaller population than us saying, well we shouldn't do anything because the US will still be polluting more than us.

 

The largest changes in Earth's climate are due to changes in orbital patterns.  These cause climate change on scales of time frames of thousands of years.  Not decades and are not expected to be causing warming any way.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

Based on our knowledge the current rate at which the climate is changed on a global level is unprecedented.

 

Again, we have a choice.  Continue with the status quo that leaves us of putting tons of money into our military and costing us the lives of US citizens to keep the Middle East stable or look for a better way.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the progress that's been made in the last twenty years, my lord, putting a solar system in a new build costs as much as a conventional system. It's cheaper to install a system in an existing building. The problem is that there exist businesses trying to wring more profit, like leasing the system and tying into the grid. If I ever built a system, I'd never tie into the grid, because somehow they'll make you pay. And they are trying to restrict what you can do with your property, like no catchment systems, wind systems (although I can see restrictions on towers that can impact other properties), solar systems and tie ins to the grid, and no group systems because they term them a small utility. 

 

All this is to support profit generating utilities. The key word is profit of grid systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Going to the moon was cool and proved we were better than russia, and didnt increase our deficit.

 

Increasing regulations to lower co2 emmisions cost jobs and funding clean energy special interests increases our deficit. It's also boring, like Al Gore.


The space program cost money, no?  Where did those costs go?

 

Also, if reducing our fossil fuel usage allows us to withdraw from the Middle East and related conflicts, then there is good reason to believe that alternative energy will actually reduce our deficit.

 

How much did the two Iraq wars cost us?  Did they not increase our deficit?

31 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Weve spent about 200 years making use of fossil fuels as energy sources more efficient. If we continue to invest and at the current pace of development renewables will soon outstrip fossil fuels in both percentage of energy developed and efficiency. We really have no choice but to do that if we want to survive as a species.

 

I will point out that I don't think the extinction of the human species is really an issue here.  I seriously doubt that climate change will even cause the down fall of the US federal government.  That doesn't mean it won't cost us a lot and shouldn't be prevented.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:


The space program cost money, no?  Where did those costs go?

 

Also, if reducing our fossil fuel usage allows us to withdraw from the Middle East and related conflicts, then there is good reason to believe that alternative energy will actually reduce our deficit.

 

How much did the two Iraq wars cost us?  Did they not increase our deficit?

 

I will point out that I don't think the extinction of the human species is really an issue here.  I seriously doubt that climate change will even cause the down fall of the US federal government.  That doesn't mean it won't cost us a lot and shouldn't be prevented.

 

perhaps extinction is hyperbole - but it will cost life and drastically impact standards of living if not prevented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump budget proposes cuts to the alternative energy research:

 

"But despite the language, there's an apparent contradiction when it comes to the administration's actions. Some environmental advocates say while the Trump administration is promising to continue to lead the world in energy innovation, it is at the same time proposing cutting the very federal programs that fund clean energy innovation research intended to combat climate change.

 
For instance, Trump's proposed 2018 budget would slash $3.1 billion from energy research programs at the Department of Energy. That's 18% less funding than last year.
 
The Energy Department's own website says the agency has played an " important role" in energy innovation. The agency's website also describes its research and development mission for clean energy: "The Department catalyzes the transformative growth of basic applied scientific research, the discovery and development of new clean energy technologies and prioritizes scientific innovation as a cornerstone of US economic prosperity."
 
All of which raises the question, if the administration feels innovation is the most effective way to combat climate change, why would so many of these energy innovation research programs be identified for cuts?"
 
 
 

Bloomberg promises $15 million dollars to climate change 
 

(That should off set some private jet flights, right?)

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/02/news/michael-bloomberg-trump-paris-climate/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Also, if reducing our fossil fuel usage allows us to withdraw from the Middle East and related conflicts, then there is good reason to believe that alternative energy will actually reduce our deficit.

 

 

we can easily get by w/o ME oil now....since we quit listening to those encouraging it.

Problem is we still will fight all over the globe despite no need for oil.

 

LSF talks about we are going back 50 yrs, the problem is 50 yrs ago we crippled domestic production and turned to ME oil and fairy tales.:P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, twa said:

 

we can easily get by w/o ME oil now....since we quit listening to those encouraging it.

Problem is we still will fight all over the globe despite no need for oil.

 

LSF talks about we are going back 50 yrs, the problem is 50 yrs ago we crippled domestic production and turned to ME oil and fairy tales.:P

 

 

 

Our oil is not our own, unless you are advocating the US oil supply.  "Our" oil is sold on the global market and price increases due to Middle East instability will affect the larger US economy.  Same thing for Russian oil.   The increase in US oil production had little to do with the drill-baby-drill crowd, restraints on drilling, opening up more areas to drilling, or anything like that.  We aren't generating more oil because the government opened up some lands that were closed to drilling before.

 

Exxon and ect. might make it, but that's different than us, if by us you mean the US.

 

Or were you advocating for nationalization of the US oil supply?

 

It is tied mostly to better technology that has allowed drilling in areas that before were not economically advantageous before (which the government helped fund).

 

 

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:


The space program cost money, no?  Where did those costs go?

 

PeterMP. That was a different time. We were not running a budget deficit then. We are now.

 

 

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Also, if reducing our fossil fuel usage allows us to withdraw from the Middle East and related conflicts, then there is good reason to believe that alternative energy will actually reduce our deficit.

 

How much did the two Iraq wars cost us?  Did they not increase our deficit?

 

Two wrongs make a right?

 

 

4 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The GOP voting base most certainly did make Trump President. I'll concede that those people aren't true Republicans even though that's not what you meant.

 

 

 

Well, honestly, if the democrats put forth even a marginally acceptable candidate, thats who would be president now. President Trump was able to literally say anything and still get elected.  The GOP and DNC voting base ALWAYS vote a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...