Because other govts gain from redistribution of American wealth
Climate Change
- Thread starter dadika13
- Start date
Because other govts gain from redistribution of American wealth
Climate change isn't a left vs. right issue and f anyone trying to make it that.
So the scientists are getting a cut from the corps doing the hiring? The scientists getting grants are sharing the profits with the other 99% of the scientific community not getting the grants who look at the same data and form the same conclusions? The scientists are lying to create jobs? We’re talking hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe for decades with absolutely NO financial stake in convincing u one way or the other and you want me to believe they’re allllllllll conspiring. Lol.
As if thats incredulous enough lets compare this to the money made by corps and entities who profit from convincing u NOT to believe in man made climate change
Oil companies and subsidiaries
Car manufacturers
Opec
Saudi arabia
Russia
How many forbes 500 companies are there u think that profit from denying climate change vs those that profit from allegedly trying to alter it? So if we follow the $ like you’re advocating its evident theres far more profitability in denying cc than promoting it.
Welcome to the 9/11 truther, pizza gater, com trail geo engineering, flat earther club.
Once again, i dont expect trump to be a scientist on the matter, most politicians cant form an educated opinion on gw or anything scientific based on their knowledge and education alone. But it does show me hes either not getting sound advice on matters or hes just ignoring it.
Also all religions, although cult might be a better term for most of those.
You also forgot birthers
I readily admit the climate is changing. Where we differ in belief is the cause of the change.
I think the difference is that I don't pretend to know the cause of the change, I listen to expert after expert deduct reasoning based on facts. The vast majority of these experts conclude that humans are causing the climate to change in completely unnatural and extreme ways that will have a massive impact on our lifestyle in the near future.
Again, not listening to the vast majority of experts on something backed by facts is an extremely dangerous proposition.
You don't have a father-in-law scientist,who is also not a part of this giant conspiracy, to decipher it for you, either.
I have already stated my position. I know someone a lot smarter than me when it comes to things like this and he says no conclusive proof as to the cause of climate change, and he is predisposed to go the other way on something like this.
Oh, I imagine plenty of scientists feel the same way. But the media won't tell you their opinions, because promoting fear, regardless the topic, is in the media's best interest.
And this isn't a conspiracy in the slightest. Just a bunch of people acting in their personal best interest and those interests happen to align.
Look, I don't care what y'all believe. Just don't make me change my behavior involuntarily and we're good.
I honestly think some people made their decision on climate after Trump made his position felt.
You have a point. If you had a debate about what is the best pizza or best ice cream and it fell into right/left slots you would wonder why..
I think it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that 7 billion people inhabiting the earth would have some effect on the climate. I will acknowledge that. That's why I stated, this is the cost of living.
I suppose that's a good way to look at it. The follow up questions would be:
- how much of the behavior of these 7 billion could be modified?
- what would be the resulting effect on climate?
- how much would all of that cost?
1 - little to not at all
2 - minimal if it moves the needle at all
3 - too much for my liking
Climate change = the cost of living.
It goes back to the argument that climate change should not be a left/right thing yet idiots are making it one.
How the hell do you know the resulting effect will be "minimal if it moves the needle at all"
Sure. But lots of these types of discussions are steered in this direction because the media and politicians win when people chose sides.
Bottom line is no one is really interested in fixing anything for the common good for common good’s sake alone.
If you accept that behavior can be changed very little, doesn’t it follow that resulting effects will be minimal at best?
I agree there - I just expect that most rational Americans make their decision based on what they read from people who know this stuff, not politicians or CNN.
I disagree that people aren't interested in fixing anything for common good. I think this terrifies a lot of people and they genuinely want to help for the sake of the future of the planet. Do most large scale organizations see it that way? I'm sure they don't. But there are a lot of people in the scientific community who actually care for the right reasons.
I just wish the deniers knew how stupid they sound. We already have the technology to eliminate a lot of our carbon emissions, which the data suggests would have a massive effect on mitigating manmade climate change. There’s no reason not to implement it, unless you’re in the oil/gas industry, then you want to keep paying crackpots to convince idiots that “the climate is always changing” so we shouldn’t just carry on fukking up the one planet that we know can sustain human life.
Also similar arguments made in regards to Marijuana being terrible for you.
And again for the record, I acknowledge climate change.
Just for the sake of this argument, what if we concede that the deniers are stupid. Or in other words, lets agree that a lot of carbon emissions are pumped into the environment / air.
When you say "we" in your post above, I assume your "we" refers only to evil capitalist America and its corporations.
Or does your "we" pertain to ALL countries, ALL planet inhabitants, including China and India, who are factually, real scientific measurements based, proven to be a significantly larger contributor to the emissions than US?
I assume your "we" doesn't include China and India because a general reflex of the left is:
1) America -and especially capitalistic America is always bad
2) Other lesser developed less responsible than America countries are always good
3) Facts and science be damned if they refute your preconceptions on 1) and 2) above
note: does 3) above really sound like science? or more like some "cult / religion?"
4) Since US has no viable way to convince or encourage the primary polluters (China, India, Europe) to change.....
a) Let's just continue to shame and blame the very minor polluters (US) -
b) who by the way are going much further in reducing their already relatively small emissions than the major polluters / offenders whose pollution levels are actually increasing -
c) because it just feels good for some to hate on America and capitalism - again facts and science be damned.....
d) when in reality America is the most responsible developed country in the world, and is responsible on the accord of its own moral compass, (not strong armed by UN, Kyoto, etc)
e) and American capitalism has done more to improve the health and well-being of all inhabitants of the world, than the combination of all other economic and social systems combined, since the beginning of time.
Or in short: when I hear people spout to me about global warming, I just want to say:
"I won't even make any arguments that the deniers make. But if you really discuss the issue and its main causes, and causers, America and its citizens and companies are the wrong audience. Learn to speak Chinese and go tell it to China. Get the most blatant polluters to change. Good luck. Any changes in America, that it isn't already pursuing will have little to no effect on the environment.
Til then, the arguments shaming and blaming America and capitalism are extremely agenda-driven, with a frightening level of science-free, fact-free ignorance to boot. Like a cult or religion"
Do you acknowledge that human use of fossil fuels is a huge contributing factor to the extreme climate change?
Anyone who is conscious can acknowledge that the climate changes.
Wtf are you talking about? I’ve never seen so many ridiculous assumptions made in one post.
But for the record, “we” was referring to mankind.
I guess it depends on what you'd consider to be a "huge contributing factor". I'm not a scientist, so honestly I have no idea personally (and I'd venture to say no one on here can make the determination themselves either). I tend to believe the majority scientific opinion that humans are a contributing factor, the extent of which doesn't seem to be as clear. The timelines til doom don't seem as clear (they seem to all be conveniently far enough in the future that those stating them won't be alive to answer for them if they're wrong).
So I think that reducing carbon emissions and use of fossil fuels will almost certainly benefit the environment. But I also think that some degree of skepticism is always a healthy response to groupthink.
Now, whether we should actually move forward in reducing the carbon emissions and fossil fuels - that all depends on whether the benefits to the environment outweigh the costs (time, money, and inconvenience) of making the switch. If they do, then let's go for it. If they don't, then let's not.
Similar threads
