This is why Republicans are the most dangerous party in history. — Mikie

That's over the top.

Communists throughout the past century have an outstanding track record of perpetrating obscene amounts of state sponsored murder against their own citizens, with astounding consistency and efficiency. The republican leadership is manned by too many moldy turds to ever see it murder its own citizens as effectively as Communists have done.

That's over the top. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it isn’t.

No, it isn’t — Mikie

How so?

Chomsky says it best:

Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?

Not that I’m aware of. Is the Republican organisation - I hesitate to call it a party - committed to that? Overwhelmingly. There isn’t even any question about it.

[…]

We’re going to maximise the use of fossil fuels - could carry us past the tipping point. We’re not going to provide funding for - as committed in Paris, to developing countries that are trying to do something about the climate problems. We’re going to dismantle regulations that retard the impact, the devastating impact, of production of carbon dioxide and, in fact, other dangerous gases - methane, others.

Not hard to see. Unless of course you deny what scientists are telling us because they’re bought off… or part of an elaborate conspiracy…or pushing an “official narrative” (like reading thermometers).

But aside from that kind of idiocy, it’s easy to acknowledge.

Republicans, for all their faults, were instrumental in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't know about you, but I think that was pretty nice on their part, and it definitely counterbalances any negativity one might perceive from their policy on climate change.

On the other hand, Communism has been the vehicle from.which the worst tyrants in history have wreaked their unwanton death and destruction. The only other forces that come close to the evil of communism are Nazism, and Japanese Militarism. However, these fall short due to their obvious limited appeal (in contrast to communism which lends itself to universal appeal). Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these, and actually have much greater similarity with democrats.

Republicans, for all their faults, were instrumental in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't know about you, but I think that was pretty nice on their part, and it definitely counterbalances any negativity one might perceive from their policy on climate change. — Merkwurdichliebe

Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s.

Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these, — Merkwurdichliebe

Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.

Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with.

Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s. — Mikie

World history is always relevant to today's world, in one way or another. And 1870 isn't far off, the 13-15th amendments are active at this very time. communism also has its own historical relevance in today's world.

Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.

Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with. — Mikie

Are republicans the only ones accelerating it? You don't have to be republican to disagree. Im not a republican. It is not an obvious truth, and there are many reasons it could be denied that it is the end of the world,
which is why it needs to be presented with care if it is, in fact, the end of the world.

The fact that It is always presented with such alarmist compulsion, gives rise to very reasonable doubt in my mind. There is no need for compulsory action nor alarmist affectation, any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time. This is the great x-factor.

For you, the argument is undeniable, you assent to the evidence because it appears convincing, and consent to the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because you consider them reliable for good reason... no harm there. I do the same, only in reverse: I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing, and dissent from the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because I consider them unreliable for good reason... no harm meant. Unfortunately, all my judgment is suspended until sufficient doubts are rectified, nevertheless, both our positions are both quite understandable.

For me, the data is convincing in itself. It is the media communicating the meaning of the data to us, and the particular compulsory message they are delivering that I have issue with. I have a hard time trusting anything that gets filtered through any of the major media news outlets in such fashion. I know their game too well, it has been the same for decades. Distrust, that's what happens with liars. Let's hope this is more of the same: lying. If not, woe is us.

It’s not relevant here— at all. Red herring. — Mikie

I suppose that would include the historically accumulated data that is used to predict the future trajectory of climate change. It's all a red herring.

Unless of course you deny what scientists are telling us because they’re bought off… — Mikie

It is often claimed that the "science" produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Oil" is biased and not valid.

So what sort of "science" is produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"?

scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"? — Agree-to-Disagree

Who are they? Multi-National windmill manufacturers?

Do I need to make the argument that conspiracies of the poor and powerless are not worth worrying about?

scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"?
— Agree-to-Disagree

Who are they? Multi-National windmill manufacturers? — unenlightened

The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change.

The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”.

Well there's some Orgs spending money, but are they making money? you know like Big Oil, and Big Pharma? Show me the commercial interests distorting the science, not governments responding to a crisis. There's a big difference.

World history is always relevant to today's world — Merkwurdichliebe

It’s not relevant here— at all. Red herring.

Are republicans the only ones accelerating it? — Merkwurdichliebe

Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons.

any reasons it could be denied that it is the end of the world, — Merkwurdichliebe

I never once made that statement. Strawman.

any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time. — Merkwurdichliebe

It already has. That time is long over. We’re in the process of implementing measures to adapt to it and hopefully slow it/stop it. Sorry that you’re still stuck in the past — but that’s not my business.

I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing, — Merkwurdichliebe

You haven’t once mentioned the evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming. For one “not to be convinced” requires real effort.

Don’t try to frame this as if your conclusion isn’t foregone. No one is buying that. And no one buys that you have a clue about the evidence— which is undeniable if one actually takes a look.

What you’ve done is chosen to listen to political commentators and the manufactured doubt of the industry (which is well documented). I’ve encountered plenty like this. Dime a dozen.

So what sort of "science" is produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"? — Agree-to-Disagree

:rofl:

The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change. — Agree-to-Disagree

Most of which goes towards adaptation and resiliency. How nefarious!

The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”. — Agree-to-Disagree

Except this was from two years ago. And, incidentally, DIDN’T PASS. Would have been great if it did— it would have invested nearly $600 million in climate solutions, over 10 years, which is far less than is needed but still something.

But— again — it didn’t pass. So once again you’re just making engaging in your topical buffoonery.

No, that’s not a red herring, that’s completely relevant and important when talking about climate change and climate projections.

When talking about the statement “The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in history,” citing things the party did in the 1870s are irrelevant and a red herring. Because we’re not talking about the Republican Party from the 1870s. We’re talking about the current party.

If you can’t keep up with the conversation, better to just stifle yourself.

Here is an interesting article to read :grin:

Follow the (Climate Change) Money
(Mikie - comment on what is said, not on who said it)

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

Here are a few quotes:

In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.

A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.

Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.

If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.

I’m glad you’ve now given up on any pretext of caring about climate science and have now gone full climate denial. Awesome.

Quoting the heritage foundation and an imbecile and proven fraud like Stephen Moore for “evidence” of a global conspiracy. A new low.

Climate Change Industrial Complex.

:rofl:

But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us.

So just typical selective skepticism, trying to imply that it’s the thousands of scientists around the world who are biased, not the shills for fossil fuels like Stephen Moore and Heritage.

The funding to adapt to climate change has nothing to do with physics and climate science. And the IPCC doesn’t talk about “apocalypse.” That’s just a stupid strawman.

If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

Ohhh I see— so this mysterious evidence that the crisis isn’t happening is suppressed globally. But Stephen Moore must know what that evidence is…he’s an expert in all this, of course…and definitely someone we should be listening to on this matter.

Good god you’re pathetic.

Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is. Whatever makes you happy. Just please stop embarrassing yourself any further. Go read more of what conservative, fossil fuel funded think tanks tell you. This way you can feel special in your “skepticism.” Be well.

Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is. — Mikie

But look at the data, its science!

There are many reasons to deny. And many more.

Good data and reliable information, thanks for sharing it, and I have been reading your posts since for the last months because you provide solid facts. :up:

But look at the data, its science! — Merkwurdichliebe

He doesn't like science and evidence which cannot back up his fanaticism. The only thing he does against counter-arguments or people who disagree with him is insulting:

Good god you’re pathetic.

That’s just a stupid strawman.

It’s amazing people can be such complete dupes.

, etc.

Good data and reliable information — javi2541997

Oh? Like what?

Because so far you’ve shown excellent judgment.




Why don’t you three geniuses start a thread about how climate change is a Chinese hoax or whatever. :up:

Is this graph too hard to understand? Is it a narrative? Is it the result of scientific groupthink? Is it all based on made-up data? Is it really nothing to worry about?

It’s no coincidence that right wing/ conservative/libertarian/Christian evangelical ideology is usually at the heart of climate denial. Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.

Thus the well-qualified “skeptics” here making fools of themselves are the very same people who defend Donald Trump, who constantly harp against communism and socialism, are always whining about big government, and/or are devout Christians.

Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial.

Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well. — Mikie

:rofl:

Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial. — Mikie

From the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Mikie, thank you for showing that this statement is true. :100:

Here is an interesting article to read :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

It's not interesting. It doesn't follow the money. The only fact is that the government is spending money on climate research (and presumably on mitigation measures, but the distinction is not made). But there is no explanation of any financial incentive for anyone to persuade the government to act in this way. government is creating research, and government is creating a green industry , and these new industries are creating the crisis? It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it. Why invest in green energy rather than oil? Not a hint of a tint of an answer. No financial motive even suggested for any conspiracy.

Established financial interests can and do conspire to distort science and influence governments Oil industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceuticals, agro chemicals. Where is the financial interest in your conspiracy? There is none, because there is none you have mentioned, and there is none in the feeble article you cited. Because all the industries that might have such interests have been created by the supposed conspiracy they are supposed to have conspired to create.

It's nonsense on stilts, and straight out of the kindergarten playground of unimaginative reflecting of complaints with zero attention to good sense. It has become the tactic of first resort these days.

"The oil industry is cheating."
" No, the green industry is cheating."

The first claim is supported by motive, leaked documentary evidence, campaign funds records etc etc. The second has nothing. not even a suspect to accuse.

It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it. — unenlightened

Again, from the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money.

We definitely need to follow the climate change money. — Agree-to-Disagree

So follow it. Try not to keep going in a circle though.

Again, from the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money — Agree-to-Disagree

"Follow the money". Fantastic advice. Let's follow the money for your source.

https://climateinvestigations.org/heritage-foundation/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money.

The strength of a conspiracy theory decreases the more people you need to be in on the lie. Climate Change as a conspiracy theory needs the vast majority of the scientific community in on the lie. To think that an industry that barely even existed 3 decades ago could out-fund the oil industry into convincing all these scientists to lie - when we KNOW that the oil industry was wealthy and was willing to fund propaganda for a fact - is really super duper absurd.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=We%20now%20have%20totally%20unimpeachable,Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20Development%20funds.