The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[Pete7469]

Do you honestly think that is the goal?

I think that's nuts. The very wealthy have nothing to gain by killing off all their customers/cash cows.

They have a lot to gain by perpetuating disbelief in order to keep their status quo of raping the planet for all she's worth .... but not out of killing off everyone else.

The people who are always wailing about over-population are all bed wetting liberals.

It takes a completely insane sociopath to appreciate the idea of wiping out billions of people, which is suggested by people like Yuko Ono who calls things like the Georgia Guidestones " a stirring call to rational thinking". Why anyone would trust people with a liberal perspective towards "human resources" defies logic.

So you have heard of that concept, have you? I only learned of it about a week ago. I don't buy into it at all but apparently some do. With proper management this planet can substation three times as many people. Without proper management and the capacity one person can be one person too many.

Amazing how we evolved and populated the entire planet without any management at all...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We don't believe the bullshit coming from the enviroNazis who can't even decide what to call their movement... One day it's global warming, then global cooling, then climate change now climate chaos.

What utter bullshit... only a retard would buy this crap.

 

[Zander]

He asked you a question...Answer it how you understand it. Asking for examples wont change your perception of it

It's too vague a question. ...give an example or shut the fuck up.

Are we destroying the planet is too vague?

Planet. Destroy.

You're right, who can figure that out?

If it's so easy- provide an example. I'll wait.

 

[RandomVariable]

These mindless bed wetters live in the country that has developed the cleanest manufacturing facilities in the world, at great costs to ourselves and for no other reason than to pacify these mindless bed wetters.

It has worked so well they've had to invent bullshit problems like GW to continue their drive at destroying all of our industry. That's what it's all about, or they would demand something be done about the ecological disaster areas that have developed in the third world.

This is not a contest we should be having. Legislation specifically written to protect, if that is what it can be called at this point, water in places like West Virginia who have coal mining polluted water was blocked by the Republicans in the Republican controlled House last month. Poor families have members dying from this stuff. Explanation? The real kicker is they vote Republican in much of these parts, except they vote about Benghazi, not water.

Which Pollution Is More Deadly: China's Air or West Virginia's Water? - The Wire
Philip Bump. Jan 16, 2014 11:43AM ET

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's too vague a question. ...give an example or shut the fuck up.

Are we destroying the planet is too vague?

Planet. Destroy.

You're right, who can figure that out?

If it's so easy- provide an example. I'll wait.

No problem, answer the question as you understand it and I'll be happy to.

 

[KNB]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

When you come up with a solution for it besides the standard leftist statist methods of more government, more taxes, less freedom, and less prosperity let us know.

Until then AGW proponents are nothing but a bunch of watermelons.

Perhaps if you stupid fucking Americans could read, you'd already have the answer.

Less government (fewer trigger-happy SWAT monkeys):

Less taxes (you get a tax credit based on how much you grow):

More freedom (less jailtime for people who should be supporting our troops):

More prosperity (by replacing the majority of foreign imports):

How does this reverse the Greenhouse Effect? Because Cannabis stalks and seeds can be locally turned into transportation fuel in every state, leaving the oil in the ground where it can't poison life. Deforestation will also end because the USDA reported in 1916 that industrial hemp can supply four times more paper per acre than trees.

So the oil stays in the ground where it isn't burned and becomes CO2, and the trees stay in the ground to take in more CO2, plus the tall fields of Cannabis that are once more growing all over the planet will take in even more CO2.

 

[blackhawk]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

 

[KNB]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

Maybe superficial American consumers should stop buying so much plastic Chinese shit at Wal-Mart so that China produces less plastic shit which in turn creates more pollution? Considering that China's pollution can be seen from space.

And there's a field of plastic debris in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the United States.

And the planet loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.

And you're still spending $2b/wk after more than a decade trying to win in Afghanistan where the CIA trained the Mujaheddin in guerrilla tactics specifically to create an endless, unwinnable war.

Do Conservatives have any ideas on how to fix any part of this mess? No. Conservatives can't even admit that there is a mess. Conservatives want to get back into power so that they can create even more of a mess.

 

[bendog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

There are actually several very good reasons for making the planet practically uninhabitable for all but the very wealthy. For the very wealthy that is.

Do you honestly think that is the goal?

I think that's nuts. The very wealthy have nothing to gain by killing off all their customers/cash cows.

They have a lot to gain by perpetuating disbelief in order to keep their status quo of raping the planet for all she's worth .... but not out of killing off everyone else.

It's an oversimplification. The economic effects of climate change are already being factored in by multi-nationals and insurers, the US DOD and to a lesser extent political govts. Nevertheless, some industries (like coal and petroleum e.g. Koch Industries) have profit driven by activities that the vast wealth of data indicates contributes to climate change. So, thanks in part to Citizens United, they have "free speech to lie." But, to say the GOP doesn't do science, that is NOT an oversimplification, and it's a reason why it's more and more difficult to vote gop, certainly in national elections.

What we have in the US is the realization by multi-nationals that society is politically paralyzed to take steps to mitigate the change (even assuming that's still possible, and it probably isn't, so all we can do is mitigate the effects, e.g. build dykes around Norfolk). But, given that the gop's walk away from science no longer has any effect on multi-nationals because the dems politically lost the battle, multi-nationals base their alligence on other factors, like labor, wages, taxes, etc.

 

[marsnow]

We should start planning for backup plan 2: mars. Thankfully Elon Musk has already begun that. As long as the GOP doesn't obstruct him, then all will be well. :-0

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

When you come up with a solution for it besides the standard leftist statist methods of more government, more taxes, less freedom, and less prosperity let us know.

Until then AGW proponents are nothing but a bunch of watermelons.

Perhaps if you stupid fucking Americans could read, you'd already have the answer.

Less government (fewer trigger-happy SWAT monkeys):

Less taxes (you get a tax credit based on how much you grow):

More freedom (less jailtime for people who should be supporting our troops):

More prosperity (by replacing the majority of foreign imports):

How does this reverse the Greenhouse Effect? Because Cannabis stalks and seeds can be locally turned into transportation fuel in every state, leaving the oil in the ground where it can't poison life. Deforestation will also end because the USDA reported in 1916 that industrial hemp can supply four times more paper per acre than trees.

So the oil stays in the ground where it isn't burned and becomes CO2, and the trees stay in the ground to take in more CO2, plus the tall fields of Cannabis that are once more growing all over the planet will take in even more CO2.

Considering I am perfectly fine with pot legalization, your rant has no bearing on me.

Also go fuck yourself you foreign toad. Also, if you want to smoke pot, just say so, making up all this wunder-crap about hemp and such makes you look like idiots.

 

[blackhawk]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

Maybe superficial American consumers should stop buying so much plastic Chinese shit at Wal-Mart so that China produces less plastic shit which in turn creates more pollution? Considering that China's pollution can be seen from space.

And there's a field of plastic debris in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the United States.

And the planet loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.

And you're still spending $2b/wk after more than a decade trying to win in Afghanistan where the CIA trained the Mujaheddin in guerrilla tactics specifically to create an endless, unwinnable war.

Do Conservatives have any ideas on how to fix any part of this mess? No. Conservatives can't even admit that there is a mess. Conservatives want to get back into power so that they can create even more of a mess.

What a long and rambling way of saying absolutely nothing.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

You're right, why should we take the lead? What good will that do? Influence others to join us...pbbbbfft yea right /sarcasm

 

[bendog]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

You're right, why should we take the lead? What good will that do? Influence others to join us...pbbbbfft yea right /sarcasm

It's more of the gop line. "We can't act alone, and our competititors would have an advantage"

But there was never a call to act unilaterally. We, led by the GOP, walked away from any possible multi-national effort to form a common front. Having removed any possibility of forming a common front, the gop now declares the lack of a common front is a reason to do nothing.

Thank you chief justice john 'not jay' roberts

 

[MarcATL]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

The more he speaks, the more of a jackass he looks like.

Every appearance he makes he looks more and more ignorant.

The bastard couldn't walk that initial appearance and statement back fast enough. However, you can't balance appealing to the ignorant far right of your base and the rest of the sane Americans at the same time.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

It's an oversimplification [that the very wealthy are killing off everyone else by way of climate change]. The economic effects of climate change are already being factored in by multi-nationals and insurers, the US DOD and to a lesser extent political govts. Nevertheless, some industries (like coal and petroleum e.g. Koch Industries) have profit driven by activities that the vast wealth of data indicates contributes to climate change. So, thanks in part to Citizens United, they have "free speech to lie." But, to say the GOP doesn't do science, that is NOT an oversimplification, and it's a reason why it's more and more difficult to vote gop, certainly in national elections.

What we have in the US is the realization by multi-nationals that society is politically paralyzed to take steps to mitigate the change (even assuming that's still possible, and it probably isn't, so all we can do is mitigate the effects, e.g. build dykes around Norfolk). But, given that the gop's walk away from science no longer has any effect on multi-nationals because the dems politically lost the battle, multi-nationals base their alligence on other factors, like labor, wages, taxes, etc.

The embedded quotes were going deep, so I tried to provide the context in the brackets.

With China now far out producing the United States in Carbon Dioxide emissions, is there anything anyone proposes to do about Climate Change on a true global scale?

I am not a denier... it's real, it's bad, it will affect the poorest on the planet first by way of reducing fresh water supplies and rising sea levels, all of that is true.

What I have not heard anyone talk about ever is what they actually hope to accomplish globally. China now out produces the US in terms of global damage. India is not far behind. Unless a solution includes these two very populous nations, as full responsible members, this global problem will continue unabated.

I've heard people say they are speaking about the problem "globally" but they are always careful to omit any reference to developing economies.

We in the US can all shut off our cars and central air, but that won't put a dent into the damage being done by the rapidly developing economies.

I think that we should regulate our own pollution for our benefit. The situation in Charleston, WV demonstrates plainly that regulating the pollution of our own industries is to our own benefit. We need to strengthen the EPA for our own American benefit.

But if we are going to seriously tackle Climate Change, we can't walk on eggshells around the developing economies.

 

[MarcATL]

He asked you a question...Answer it how you understand it. Asking for examples wont change your perception of it

It's too vague a question. ...give an example or shut the fuck up.

Are we destroying the planet is too vague?

Planet. Destroy.

You're right, who can figure that out?

He can't answer the question because he knows the answer is a resounding "NO!" And that would dismantle his partisan talking points. You see.

 

[bendog]

It's an oversimplification [that the very wealthy are killing off everyone else by way of climate change]. The economic effects of climate change are already being factored in by multi-nationals and insurers, the US DOD and to a lesser extent political govts. Nevertheless, some industries (like coal and petroleum e.g. Koch Industries) have profit driven by activities that the vast wealth of data indicates contributes to climate change. So, thanks in part to Citizens United, they have "free speech to lie." But, to say the GOP doesn't do science, that is NOT an oversimplification, and it's a reason why it's more and more difficult to vote gop, certainly in national elections.

What we have in the US is the realization by multi-nationals that society is politically paralyzed to take steps to mitigate the change (even assuming that's still possible, and it probably isn't, so all we can do is mitigate the effects, e.g. build dykes around Norfolk). But, given that the gop's walk away from science no longer has any effect on multi-nationals because the dems politically lost the battle, multi-nationals base their alligence on other factors, like labor, wages, taxes, etc.

The embedded quotes were going deep, so I tried to provide the context in the brackets.

With China now far out producing the United States in Carbon Dioxide emissions, is there anything anyone proposes to do about Climate Change on a true global scale?

I am not a denier... it's real, it's bad, it will affect the poorest on the planet first by way of reducing fresh water supplies and rising sea levels, all of that is true.

What I have not heard anyone talk about ever is what they actually hope to accomplish globally. China now out produces the US in terms of global damage. India is not far behind. Unless a solution includes these two very populous nations, as full responsible members, this global problem will continue unabated.

I've heard people say they are speaking about the problem "globally" but they are always careful to omit any reference to developing economies.

We in the US can all shut off our cars and central air, but that won't put a dent into the damage being done by the rapidly developing economies.

I think that we should regulate our own pollution for our benefit. The situation in Charleston, WV demonstrates plainly that regulating the pollution of our own industries is to our own benefit. We need to strengthen the EPA for our own American benefit.

But if we are going to seriously tackle Climate Change, we can't walk on eggshells around the developing economies.

True, but the only way to approach China is by uniting the G-8. Russia of course is now on it's own course with it's only goal being Putinism, or a cult of personality which Russians excel at, and they excel at little else, btw.

The gop successfully ended any opportunity to do that.

I wasn't arguing a course of action. I was arguing that the gop succeeded in taking money from various industries that benefit from activities that probably contribute to climate change, and destroying any possibility of ameliorating the effects by changing activities of the industries.

 

[RandomVariable]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

We have to do something ourselves before we ask others to do something even if it is only passing legislation. And this does have to be a global effort, although not a 'new world order'. Everyone something to gain if they do and something to lose if they don't.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why is the warming only happening in the oceans in the past decade?