Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

Money....power.
If they were really worried about CO2, they'd support building 100 new nuke plants.

Sure, as long as you would agree to store the spent nuclear waste down your pants for the next 3000 years.

We could use your head, lots of empty space.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A reasonable person is able to infer logically that melting Ice, warming oceans and other observable events are happening, and that human behavior must be ruled out

No. Logic demands that human behavior must be proven as the cause. Otherwise, you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

That's probably not possible given our temporal perspective. We just haven't been observing long enough to reach those conclusions, and damn sure won't be here long enough to sit around and wait.

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

But seriously, who defends pollution that has no redeeming social value? It's a little like crying the blues about "losing my trans fats" -- who the hell's gonna miss it?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant --

CO2 is not a pollutant.

If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

And then we've wasted trillions on "green energy".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Climate change is real. It just isn't what they describe it to be.

 

[mamooth]

No. Logic demands that human behavior must be proven as the cause.

And it has been. We see the stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and the increase in backradation. There are no natural explanations for these direct observations. They are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

 

[BluesLegend]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

You are completely wrong, start there geesh.

 

[Pogo]

A reasonable person is able to infer logically that melting Ice, warming oceans and other observable events are happening, and that human behavior must be ruled out

No. Logic demands that human behavior must be proven as the cause. Otherwise, you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

That's probably not possible given our temporal perspective. We just haven't been observing long enough to reach those conclusions, and damn sure won't be here long enough to sit around and wait.

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

But seriously, who defends pollution that has no redeeming social value? It's a little like crying the blues about "losing my trans fats" -- who the hell's gonna miss it?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant --

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

And then we've wasted trillions on "green energy".

-- And?

 

[hipeter924]

According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.

No, the vast majority of conservatives get no money out of it. Most conservatives deny it because solely because their political cult told them to do that. A few at the top are influenced by the vast sums of cash, and they hand out the orders to those below. Any conservative who doesn't obey gets banished from of the herd, so they all fall in line.

In contrast, the rational people -- a category that cuts across all political persuasions all across the world -- ignore the politics, and go with the facts and data. If the leaders of the Democratic Party suddenly denied global warming, it would have no influence on how the rational people see the science.

Being anti-science is a rite of passage for the GOP.

They have four ways to do this:

1) Believe that the world is less than five thousand years old, that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and deny the clear evidence all around us to the contrary.
2) Rage against stem cell research, and attack it, despite the potential to allow people to walk again, and all those lovely things that make people happy.
3) Attack abortion procedures throughout the county, so that we revert to the middle ages method of drowning babies in barrels or flooding orphanages with unwanted babies.
4) Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas favored by corporate GOP donors.

You can't be a GOP electoral candidate without doing/believing one of the four, so the GOP tends to scare off a lot of people.

Rage against stem cell research, and attack it,

Adult stem cells are really cool. Getting useful tools from them all the time.
Embryonic stem cells, from what I've seen, haven't worked and have killed the recipients, in several cases.

Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas

Feel free to stop emitting CO2 at any time. You could start with your computer.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

That said, I think that C02 limits will not halt climate change as it is naturally occurring too - regardless of whether man made pollutants have a major impact.

What would make more sense is moving towards renewables, recycling, energy efficient homes, and cleaning up the rivers and oceans. But with China and India using non-renewables and creating a lot of pollution, it is difficult to make it happen worldwide.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A reasonable person is able to infer logically that melting Ice, warming oceans and other observable events are happening, and that human behavior must be ruled out

No. Logic demands that human behavior must be proven as the cause. Otherwise, you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

That's probably not possible given our temporal perspective. We just haven't been observing long enough to reach those conclusions, and damn sure won't be here long enough to sit around and wait.

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

But seriously, who defends pollution that has no redeeming social value? It's a little like crying the blues about "losing my trans fats" -- who the hell's gonna miss it?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant --

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

And then we've wasted trillions on "green energy".

-- And?

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.
Short term memory loss?

-- And?

Wasting trillions to not fix a non-problem leaves you with less money to fix other problems.
Real ones.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.

No, the vast majority of conservatives get no money out of it. Most conservatives deny it because solely because their political cult told them to do that. A few at the top are influenced by the vast sums of cash, and they hand out the orders to those below. Any conservative who doesn't obey gets banished from of the herd, so they all fall in line.

In contrast, the rational people -- a category that cuts across all political persuasions all across the world -- ignore the politics, and go with the facts and data. If the leaders of the Democratic Party suddenly denied global warming, it would have no influence on how the rational people see the science.

Being anti-science is a rite of passage for the GOP.

They have four ways to do this:

1) Believe that the world is less than five thousand years old, that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and deny the clear evidence all around us to the contrary.
2) Rage against stem cell research, and attack it, despite the potential to allow people to walk again, and all those lovely things that make people happy.
3) Attack abortion procedures throughout the county, so that we revert to the middle ages method of drowning babies in barrels or flooding orphanages with unwanted babies.
4) Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas favored by corporate GOP donors.

You can't be a GOP electoral candidate without doing/believing one of the four, so the GOP tends to scare off a lot of people.

Rage against stem cell research, and attack it,

Adult stem cells are really cool. Getting useful tools from them all the time.
Embryonic stem cells, from what I've seen, haven't worked and have killed the recipients, in several cases.

Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas

Feel free to stop emitting CO2 at any time. You could start with your computer.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

That said, I think that C02 limits will not halt climate change as it is naturally occurring too - regardless of whether man made pollutants have a major impact.

What would make more sense is moving towards renewables, recycling, energy efficient homes, and cleaning up the rivers and oceans. But with China and India using non-renewables and creating a lot of pollution, it is difficult to make it happen worldwide.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

How else are you going to reduce your CO2 output?

 

[Pogo]

A reasonable person is able to infer logically that melting Ice, warming oceans and other observable events are happening, and that human behavior must be ruled out

No. Logic demands that human behavior must be proven as the cause. Otherwise, you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

That's probably not possible given our temporal perspective. We just haven't been observing long enough to reach those conclusions, and damn sure won't be here long enough to sit around and wait.

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

But seriously, who defends pollution that has no redeeming social value? It's a little like crying the blues about "losing my trans fats" -- who the hell's gonna miss it?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant --

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

And then we've wasted trillions on "green energy".

-- And?

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.
Short term memory loss?

Ever learn to read? It clearly doesn't say "CO2", "CO1", "CO3", "carbon", "dioxide" or any element at all.

Wasting trillions to not fix a non-problem leaves you with less money to fix other problems.
Real ones.

Back to the literacy test -- the premise was earth changes that in that case are beyond our control, in which case "we're all fucked" -- in which case it matters not what you "waste money on".

And again, the worst thing that could happen is you cleaned up in case what you cleaned up was degrading the place, and now you have a cleaner space.

I understand personal responsibility is like Kryptonite to a Randbot.

By the way -- learn how to use the quote feature. Break a brain sweat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Logic demands that human behavior must be proven as the cause. Otherwise, you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

That's probably not possible given our temporal perspective. We just haven't been observing long enough to reach those conclusions, and damn sure won't be here long enough to sit around and wait.

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

But seriously, who defends pollution that has no redeeming social value? It's a little like crying the blues about "losing my trans fats" -- who the hell's gonna miss it?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant --

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.

And then we've wasted trillions on "green energy".

-- And?

Didn't say it is. Fabricate much?

So you take a theory -- here's a pollutant that looks like it might be driving it -- and clean up. If the theory doesn't hold up -- so what? You've cleaned up a pollutant -- what's been lost? If it turns out there's a trend and it's not man-made, we're all fucked anyway.
Short term memory loss?

Ever learn to read? It clearly doesn't say "CO2", "CO1", "CO3", "carbon", "dioxide" or any element at all.

Wasting trillions to not fix a non-problem leaves you with less money to fix other problems.
Real ones.

Back to the literacy test -- the premise was earth changes that in that case are beyond our control, in which case "we're all fucked" -- in which case it matters not what you "waste money on".

And again, the worst thing that could happen is you cleaned up in case what you cleaned up was degrading the place, and now you have a cleaner space.

I understand personal responsibility is like Kryptonite to a Randbot.

By the way -- learn how to use the quote feature. Break a brain sweat.

Ever learn to read? It clearly doesn't say "CO2", "CO1", "CO3", "carbon", "dioxide" or any element at all.

Do you remember what you wrote? Theory....driven by a pollutant.
We're not talking about AGW? CO2? LOL! WTF are you talking about then?

the premise was earth changes that in that case are beyond our control, in which case "we're all fucked"

The Earth has changed before, plenty of times, we managed to survive.

And again, the worst thing that could happen is you cleaned up

We've already decided CO2 is not a pollutant. Why would you clean it up?

 

[hipeter924]

According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.

No, the vast majority of conservatives get no money out of it. Most conservatives deny it because solely because their political cult told them to do that. A few at the top are influenced by the vast sums of cash, and they hand out the orders to those below. Any conservative who doesn't obey gets banished from of the herd, so they all fall in line.

In contrast, the rational people -- a category that cuts across all political persuasions all across the world -- ignore the politics, and go with the facts and data. If the leaders of the Democratic Party suddenly denied global warming, it would have no influence on how the rational people see the science.

Being anti-science is a rite of passage for the GOP.

They have four ways to do this:

1) Believe that the world is less than five thousand years old, that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and deny the clear evidence all around us to the contrary.
2) Rage against stem cell research, and attack it, despite the potential to allow people to walk again, and all those lovely things that make people happy.
3) Attack abortion procedures throughout the county, so that we revert to the middle ages method of drowning babies in barrels or flooding orphanages with unwanted babies.
4) Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas favored by corporate GOP donors.

You can't be a GOP electoral candidate without doing/believing one of the four, so the GOP tends to scare off a lot of people.

Rage against stem cell research, and attack it,

Adult stem cells are really cool. Getting useful tools from them all the time.
Embryonic stem cells, from what I've seen, haven't worked and have killed the recipients, in several cases.

Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas

Feel free to stop emitting CO2 at any time. You could start with your computer.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

That said, I think that C02 limits will not halt climate change as it is naturally occurring too - regardless of whether man made pollutants have a major impact.

What would make more sense is moving towards renewables, recycling, energy efficient homes, and cleaning up the rivers and oceans. But with China and India using non-renewables and creating a lot of pollution, it is difficult to make it happen worldwide.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

How else are you going to reduce your CO2 output?

- By using my power company, that gets its power from nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, and very little coal (if any).
- Recycling what I can.
- Selling used or broken products on eBay rather than throwing them in the rubbish.
- Buying organic and free range products, which use less carbon emissions than large scale factory farms.
And so on...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, the vast majority of conservatives get no money out of it. Most conservatives deny it because solely because their political cult told them to do that. A few at the top are influenced by the vast sums of cash, and they hand out the orders to those below. Any conservative who doesn't obey gets banished from of the herd, so they all fall in line.

In contrast, the rational people -- a category that cuts across all political persuasions all across the world -- ignore the politics, and go with the facts and data. If the leaders of the Democratic Party suddenly denied global warming, it would have no influence on how the rational people see the science.

Being anti-science is a rite of passage for the GOP.

They have four ways to do this:

1) Believe that the world is less than five thousand years old, that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and deny the clear evidence all around us to the contrary.
2) Rage against stem cell research, and attack it, despite the potential to allow people to walk again, and all those lovely things that make people happy.
3) Attack abortion procedures throughout the county, so that we revert to the middle ages method of drowning babies in barrels or flooding orphanages with unwanted babies.
4) Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas favored by corporate GOP donors.

You can't be a GOP electoral candidate without doing/believing one of the four, so the GOP tends to scare off a lot of people.

Rage against stem cell research, and attack it,

Adult stem cells are really cool. Getting useful tools from them all the time.
Embryonic stem cells, from what I've seen, haven't worked and have killed the recipients, in several cases.

Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas

Feel free to stop emitting CO2 at any time. You could start with your computer.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

That said, I think that C02 limits will not halt climate change as it is naturally occurring too - regardless of whether man made pollutants have a major impact.

What would make more sense is moving towards renewables, recycling, energy efficient homes, and cleaning up the rivers and oceans. But with China and India using non-renewables and creating a lot of pollution, it is difficult to make it happen worldwide.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

How else are you going to reduce your CO2 output?

- By using my power company, that gets its power from nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, and very little coal (if any).
- Recycling what I can.
- Selling used or broken products on eBay rather than throwing them in the rubbish.
- Buying organic and free range products, which use less carbon emissions than large scale factory farms.
And so on...

You're awesome.
I can feel the planet cooling already.

 

[Zander]

We were warned by the hysterical ninnies at the UN's IPCC that if CO2 concentration ever passed 350ppm, well. we'd simply be DOOMED!! Sea levels would rise by 20 feet!! ! Polar ice caps would melt!! puppies would be drown!! we'll have over 100 million refugees!! boo hoo boo hooo!!!

CO2 concentration is now over 400ppm and we've had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.... yawn......

 

[Wry Catcher]

Could it be that... no no it couldn't be... well maybe... could it be that liberals ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE?!!!

No nvm it HAS to be about politics. Because with conservatives, it's ALWAYS about politics and they don't understand anything else. God will take care of the world with his magic anyways right?

You've skipped a small portion of the OP that makes the difference.

according to conservatives

I do believe climate change is real. Conservatives don't. Therefore they blame liberals for making things up for a mysterious reason that nobody knows. What is this reason? Is it greed, is it lust for power? What do conservatives tell us in order to persuade general public climate change is a bubble.

I believe those who benefit from coal and oil are the main force behind those who deny climate change, and the role the Industrial revolution has had upon our environment.

Propaganda works very well on the biddable, the willfully ignorant and those President Lincoln called out as some of the people who can be fooled all of the time.

A reasonable person is able to infer logically that melting Ice, warming oceans and other observable events are happening, and that human behavior must be ruled out; yet no one has yet offered a well constructed hypothesis on climate change which eliminates pollutants produced by industry as a cause.

I believe those who benefit from coal and oil are the main force behind those who deny climate change,

Those who benefit from cheap, plentiful energy. That'd be pretty much everybody.

As usual, your effort to be glib failed. Energy isn't "cheap" when all of the elements of its production and final sale, including taxes are considered. But your usual simplistic opinions/posts never include a panoptic approach. Surely it benefits the owners, producers, directors, managers and preferred stock holders; the rest of us get to clean our beaches, rivers and bays while the oil and coal industries runs ads pretending they give a damn about anyone or anything but profit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Could it be that... no no it couldn't be... well maybe... could it be that liberals ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE?!!!

No nvm it HAS to be about politics. Because with conservatives, it's ALWAYS about politics and they don't understand anything else. God will take care of the world with his magic anyways right?

You've skipped a small portion of the OP that makes the difference.

according to conservatives

I do believe climate change is real. Conservatives don't. Therefore they blame liberals for making things up for a mysterious reason that nobody knows. What is this reason? Is it greed, is it lust for power? What do conservatives tell us in order to persuade general public climate change is a bubble.

I believe those who benefit from coal and oil are the main force behind those who deny climate change, and the role the Industrial revolution has had upon our environment.

Propaganda works very well on the biddable, the willfully ignorant and those President Lincoln called out as some of the people who can be fooled all of the time.

A reasonable person is able to infer logically that melting Ice, warming oceans and other observable events are happening, and that human behavior must be ruled out; yet no one has yet offered a well constructed hypothesis on climate change which eliminates pollutants produced by industry as a cause.

I believe those who benefit from coal and oil are the main force behind those who deny climate change,

Those who benefit from cheap, plentiful energy. That'd be pretty much everybody.

Yeah, sure. Brother's Koch benefit, as so the preferred stock holders in Exxon, Chevron, etc and the hoi polloi benefit since the cost of energy can never be budgeted for, as these two industries operate like cartels.

"Gee, we need to increase our profits to keep the stock holders happy, tell Joe to shut down a refinery and we can jump up the cost per gallon by $1.l7 a gallon over the next few months"

"Now watch this drive"

 

[hipeter924]

Being anti-science is a rite of passage for the GOP.

They have four ways to do this:

1) Believe that the world is less than five thousand years old, that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and deny the clear evidence all around us to the contrary.
2) Rage against stem cell research, and attack it, despite the potential to allow people to walk again, and all those lovely things that make people happy.
3) Attack abortion procedures throughout the county, so that we revert to the middle ages method of drowning babies in barrels or flooding orphanages with unwanted babies.
4) Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas favored by corporate GOP donors.

You can't be a GOP electoral candidate without doing/believing one of the four, so the GOP tends to scare off a lot of people.

Rage against stem cell research, and attack it,

Adult stem cells are really cool. Getting useful tools from them all the time.
Embryonic stem cells, from what I've seen, haven't worked and have killed the recipients, in several cases.

Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas

Feel free to stop emitting CO2 at any time. You could start with your computer.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

That said, I think that C02 limits will not halt climate change as it is naturally occurring too - regardless of whether man made pollutants have a major impact.

What would make more sense is moving towards renewables, recycling, energy efficient homes, and cleaning up the rivers and oceans. But with China and India using non-renewables and creating a lot of pollution, it is difficult to make it happen worldwide.

Don't need to give up a computer and go live in a jungle, to recognize that climate change is a fact of life.

How else are you going to reduce your CO2 output?

- By using my power company, that gets its power from nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, and very little coal (if any).
- Recycling what I can.
- Selling used or broken products on eBay rather than throwing them in the rubbish.
- Buying organic and free range products, which use less carbon emissions than large scale factory farms.
And so on...

You're awesome.
I can feel the planet cooling already.

It isn't if you lived in China, as your lungs would be swimming in toxic coal dust, and heat from factory production would make it hell without AC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive"

The above is an abstract and the article has been cited by other articles, all included in this link:

Modern Global Climate Change

 

[Wry Catcher]

Facts and challenges sure chase away the deniers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The leftwingers are the new Flat Earth Society... they believe anything... damn the science!!! I believe it therefore it is so!!!