Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Tubbsalot]

Such as? Aside from the stereotypical ideas of massive corporations who sell oil etc. (there is as much money to be made out of green technologies as there is doing whatever it is enemies of environmentalists do)

I really don't see those who disbelieve the ideas of what science says as a serious threat to the global responses.

Well, obviously most of the stuff we can do to limit the extent of climate change is quite expensive. Electric cars, solar panels, wind farms, etc. So it's never going to have an easy ride, even in a world where everyone accepts it's A Thing. It was always going to be about how we traded off our quality of life - dealing with it now hurts us immediately but helps us later.

Now you could say that we could have a pretty decent democratic resolution to that problem, because people generally have some concern for future as well as the present. But that resolution would depend on people giving an honest opinion as to how they think this trade-off should be balanced. If we have 33% of the population who thinks there shouldn't be any trade-off at all because climate change doesn't exist, that enormously skews the democratic response toward insufficient measures (as though it weren't already skewed enough by the higher priority we put on the present).

The extreme right-wing in Israel don't make up more than 10% of the population, but they're the keystone that keeps the settlements being built in contravention of UN resolutions.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, first I asked for a source. (Which you didn't provide, so we can safely assume you pulled it out of your ass.)
Then I parodied you, so yeh, no rational thought there.
Then I pointed out that you saying there is a conspiracy makes you sound EXACTLY like a creationist.
Then I stated as a result you have lost any credibility.
Do you want to try another response or are you going to be incapable of understanding this post too?

I still don't understand what you're rambling on about. Something about creationism conspiracies.

You said there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent among scientists.
That is EXACTLY what creationists claim.
I asked you for a source. It isn't rambling if you are being coherent. See, You are the one who believes in science conspiracies, so i'll give myself the benefit of the doubt here and assume it's you being obtuse and not me being unclear.

[Zephie]

I still don't understand what you're rambling on about. Something about creationism conspiracies.

You said there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent among scientists.
That is EXACTLY what creationists claim.
I asked you for a source. It isn't rambling if you are being coherent. See, You are the one who believes in science conspiracies, so i'll give myself the benefit of the doubt here and assume it's you being obtuse and not me being unclear.

So you're saying the scientists are creationists? What?

[Ostroeuropa]

You said there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent among scientists.
That is EXACTLY what creationists claim.
I asked you for a source. It isn't rambling if you are being coherent. See, You are the one who believes in science conspiracies, so i'll give myself the benefit of the doubt here and assume it's you being obtuse and not me being unclear.

So you're saying the scientists are creationists? What?

No, i'm saying YOU are being exactly like a creationist.
You claimed that there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent. That is exactly what creationists also claim.

[The Grand World Order]

You said there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent among scientists.
That is EXACTLY what creationists claim.
I asked you for a source. It isn't rambling if you are being coherent. See, You are the one who believes in science conspiracies, so i'll give myself the benefit of the doubt here and assume it's you being obtuse.

isn't it obvious

there's a conspiracy by the eco-nazis, they control the internet with Anonymous hackers so there can't be any sources

the only way to fight it is by harassing, attacking, and bribing climatologists on an industrial scale so they'll disprove the econazi lies, as the True American Patriots the GOP^TM have been doing.

[DaWoad]

Such as? Aside from the stereotypical ideas of massive corporations who sell oil etc. (there is as much money to be made out of green technologies as there is doing whatever it is enemies of environmentalists do)

I really don't see those who disbelieve the ideas of what science says as a serious threat to the global responses.

Well, obviously most of the stuff we can do to limit the extent of climate change is quite expensive. Electric cars, solar panels, wind farms, etc. So it's never going to have an easy ride, even in a world where everyone accepts it's A Thing. It was always going to be about how we traded off our quality of life - dealing with it now hurts us immediately but helps us later.

Now you could say that we could have a pretty decent democratic resolution to that problem, because people generally have some concern for future as well as the present. But that resolution would depend on people giving an honest opinion as to how they think this trade-off should be balanced. If we have 33% of the population who thinks there shouldn't be any trade-off at all because climate change doesn't exist, that enormously skews the democratic response toward insufficient measures (as though it weren't already skewed enough by the higher priority we put on the present).

The extreme right-wing in Israel don't make up more than 10% of the population, but they're the keystone that keeps the settlements being built in contravention of UN resolutions.

it actually skews even more heavily than the numbers would suggest because the extremists are the ones who vote every time on every ballot and are those who are always, always heard (if only because they shout louder).

[Zephie]

Such as? Aside from the stereotypical ideas of massive corporations who sell oil etc. (there is as much money to be made out of green technologies as there is doing whatever it is enemies of environmentalists do)

I really don't see those who disbelieve the ideas of what science says as a serious threat to the global responses.

Well, obviously most of the stuff we can do to limit the extent of climate change is quite expensive. Electric cars, solar panels, wind farms, etc. So it's never going to have an easy ride, even in a world where everyone accepts it's A Thing. It was always going to be about how we traded off our quality of life - dealing with it now hurts us immediately but helps us later.

Now you could say that we could have a pretty decent democratic resolution to that problem, because people generally have some concern for future as well as the present. But that resolution would depend on people giving an honest opinion as to how they think this trade-off should be balanced. If we have 33% of the population who thinks there shouldn't be any trade-off at all because climate change doesn't exist, that enormously skews the democratic response toward insufficient measures (as though it weren't already skewed enough by the higher priority we put on the present).

The extreme right-wing in Israel don't make up more than 10% of the population, but they're the keystone that keeps the settlements being built in contravention of UN resolutions.

The thing that really baffles me is people are so vehemently defending the global climate change stance, but most of them won't do anything to actually help fix it. It starts with us, but people expect the government just to solve the problem. And the government has a long history of doing the OPPOSITE. What's the government going to do with tax dollars taken from carbon taxes? Congress gets dumb ideas like tracking how many miles you drive your vehicle and what other nonsense, when they're the ones facilitating the environment that allows oil companies to shut down competing energies.

[Ostroeuropa]

You said there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent among scientists.
That is EXACTLY what creationists claim.
I asked you for a source. It isn't rambling if you are being coherent. See, You are the one who believes in science conspiracies, so i'll give myself the benefit of the doubt here and assume it's you being obtuse.

isn't it obvious

there's a conspiracy by the eco-nazis, they control the internet with Anonymous hackers so there can't be any sources

the only way to fight it is by harassing, attacking, and bribing climatologists on an industrial scale so they'll disprove the econazi lies, as the True American Patriots the GOP^TM have been doing.

Oh look. the only other person to read the post understands it perfectly. Maybe it's YOUR problem zeph.

But yeh, these "There is a conspiracy to stifle dissent" people are anti-science luddites.

[Zephie]

So you're saying the scientists are creationists? What?

No, i'm saying YOU are being exactly like a creationist.
You claimed that there is a conspiracy to stifle dissent. That is exactly what creationists also claim.

A global climate change conspiracy to stifle religion?

[Gauntleted Fist]

So if we're going to get all up in arms about climate change, does anyone here seriously believe that governments that depend on keeping their people happy are going to seriously crack down on industrial waste in a manner that will, y'know, work?

So I'm going to take that as a no. Welp.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

So I get cranky when the young 'uns start acting up instead of listening to those who are older and wiser. *cough*

(Image)

well now that's just terrifying. Appologize elder one, I'll just go slowly crazy now, ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Fhtagn to you to. Still be glad I can't reminisce like so of the really elder ones here!

Anyway - the point is pretty simple regarding this thread. The situation is clearly serious and the last thing that is needed is more noise to signal ratio. Hence having people who bring nothing to the table of any value they get removed. Why should that be any different in this situation? All that these deniers bring is big business objections to their creation of short term wealth for the few. Fuck that. We are facing a global situation that will bite us on the ass. As it is we are having issues with even the basics to sustain life (food and water). This really is serious business and having crotch sniffers at the table does nothing but cause delay and creates further circumstances for us to fuck ourselves in the not too distant future - a future by which the likes of the Koch brothers will be dead and buried and will have no further concern for humanity. Not that they did in the first place. Have concern for the rest of humanity that is.

So yes. There comes a point when people are not willing to deal with the issues and instead parrot big business in the name of profits they must be sidelined. End of fucking story.

[Tubbsalot]

The thing that really baffles me is people are so vehemently defending the global climate change stance, but most of them won't do anything to actually help fix it. It starts with us, but people expect the government just to solve the problem. And the government has a long history of doing the OPPOSITE. What's the government going to do with tax dollars taken from carbon taxes? Congress gets dumb ideas like tracking how many miles you drive your vehicle and what other nonsense, when they're the ones facilitating the environment that allows oil companies to shut down competing energies.

There are plenty of people who recycle and take public transport and do all the things you're supposed to do as a greenie, but the fact is they're just not important. Greens are a fraction of the population, and the population's contributions to emissions make up a fraction of the total. If you want to make any perceptible dent in emissions you need to target the three main emitters - transport, industry and power. And the government is the only entity with the ability to make the sort of sweeping changes which need to be made there - especially in the latter two.

And as for the government, my government is planning to use the taxes from emissions trading to subsidise households, compensating for the resulting increase in electricity prices and so on. We'll still be paying more overall, but that's the price of reducing emissions - I'd say they're dealing with it in a very admirable fashion.

And even if they weren't, "the government might not do it right, so let's just lie down and die" has never been a viable argument.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

So if we're going to get all up in arms about climate change, does anyone here seriously believe that governments that depend on keeping their people happy are going to seriously crack down on industrial waste in a manner that will, y'know, work?

So I'm going to take that as a no. Welp.

Well that's why the deniers need to be sent to their rooms because they've been rather naughty.

[Costa Alegria]

Well, obviously most of the stuff we can do to limit the extent of climate change is quite expensive. Electric cars, solar panels, wind farms, etc. So it's never going to have an easy ride, even in a world where everyone accepts it's A Thing. It was always going to be about how we traded off our quality of life - dealing with it now hurts us immediately but helps us later.

This is because the technology, more or less, is in it's infancy and such products will become cheaper once production methods have been improved and demand increases.

The extreme right-wing in Israel don't make up more than 10% of the population, but they're the keystone that keeps the settlements being built in contravention of UN resolutions.

If recent polls are anything to go by, the majority of Israelis still support the incumbent government of Netanyahu and his coalition which have expressed support for settlements. They'd still win the votes necessary to govern after the legislative elections next year.

[Zephie]

well now that's just terrifying. Appologize elder one, I'll just go slowly crazy now, ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Fhtagn to you to. Still be glad I can't reminisce like so of the really elder ones here!

Anyway - the point is pretty simple regarding this thread. The situation is clearly serious and the last thing that is needed is more noise to signal ratio. Hence having people who bring nothing to the table of any value they get removed. Why should that be any different in this situation? All that these deniers bring is big business objections to their creation of short term wealth for the few. Fuck that. We are facing a global situation that will bite us on the ass. As it is we are having issues with even the basics to sustain life (food and water). This really is serious business and having crotch sniffers at the table does nothing but cause delay and creates further circumstances for us to fuck ourselves in the not too distant future - a future by which the likes of the Koch brothers will be dead and buried and will have no further concern for humanity. Not that they did in the first place. Have concern for the rest of humanity that is.

So yes. There comes a point when people are not willing to deal with the issues and instead parrot big business in the name of profits they must be sidelined. End of fucking story.

OK. So what are you doing about it?
Do you drive, get driven, take public transportation powered by fossil fuels? Do you use electricity from a source that exhausts greenhouse gases? Do you eat food products made in factories that exhaust greenhouse gases? Is the Internet provider you're using to access the Internet run by green electricity?

[Biomechatronics]

Climate change cannot be fought.

Also electric cars, solar panels or wind farms must be built and constantly renovated. Yeah, environmentaly friendly... right... Not to mention all the great environmentally friendly stuff, that's in the batteries.

Funnily enough, environmentalists (neoluddites) in my country are against solar panels and wind farms as well.

So, why should we disenfrachise the so called climate change deniers, when climate change cannot be fought and actually is not an issue at all?

[Gauntleted Fist]

And as for the government, my government is planning to use the taxes from emissions trading to subsidise households, compensating for the resulting increase in electricity prices and so on. We'll still be paying more overall, but that's the price of reducing emissions - I'd say they're dealing with it in a very admirable fashion.

This actually sounds like a decent solution. It will never be implemented in my country, then.

I would like to see nuclear and solar power take over as the main generators of electricity here, though I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I also don't think we'll ever be able to get sufficiently serious with industrial pollution as long as we have the belief among the Republican party that industry regulation is the devil.

[Zephie]

The thing that really baffles me is people are so vehemently defending the global climate change stance, but most of them won't do anything to actually help fix it. It starts with us, but people expect the government just to solve the problem. And the government has a long history of doing the OPPOSITE. What's the government going to do with tax dollars taken from carbon taxes? Congress gets dumb ideas like tracking how many miles you drive your vehicle and what other nonsense, when they're the ones facilitating the environment that allows oil companies to shut down competing energies.

There are plenty of people who recycle and take public transport and do all the things you're supposed to do as a greenie, but the fact is they're just not important. Greens are a fraction of the population, and the population's contributions to emissions make up a fraction of the total. If you want to make any perceptible dent in emissions you need to target the three main emitters - transport, industry and power. And the government is the only entity with the ability to make the sort of sweeping changes which need to be made there - especially in the latter two.

And as for the government, my government is planning to use the taxes from emissions trading to subsidise households, compensating for the resulting increase in electricity prices and so on. We'll still be paying more overall, but that's the price of reducing emissions - I'd say they're dealing with it in a very admirable fashion.

And even if they weren't, "the government might not do it right, so let's just lie down and die" has never been a viable argument.

People are already taxed enough. I'm not paying any more taxes. People are so highly taxed in the U.S. it's bordering indentured servitude. You get stipends for food and housing.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are plenty of people who recycle and take public transport and do all the things you're supposed to do as a greenie, but the fact is they're just not important. Greens are a fraction of the population, and the population's contributions to emissions make up a fraction of the total. If you want to make any perceptible dent in emissions you need to target the three main emitters - transport, industry and power. And the government is the only entity with the ability to make the sort of sweeping changes which need to be made there - especially in the latter two.

And as for the government, my government is planning to use the taxes from emissions trading to subsidise households, compensating for the resulting increase in electricity prices and so on. We'll still be paying more overall, but that's the price of reducing emissions - I'd say they're dealing with it in a very admirable fashion.

And even if they weren't, "the government might not do it right, so let's just lie down and die" has never been a viable argument.

People are already taxed enough. I'm not paying any more taxes. People are so highly taxed in the U.S. it's bordering indentured servitude. You get stipends for food and housing.

Noone is proposing you pay the tax.
They are saying the companies must.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Fhtagn to you to. Still be glad I can't reminisce like so of the really elder ones here!

Anyway - the point is pretty simple regarding this thread. The situation is clearly serious and the last thing that is needed is more noise to signal ratio. Hence having people who bring nothing to the table of any value they get removed. Why should that be any different in this situation? All that these deniers bring is big business objections to their creation of short term wealth for the few. Fuck that. We are facing a global situation that will bite us on the ass. As it is we are having issues with even the basics to sustain life (food and water). This really is serious business and having crotch sniffers at the table does nothing but cause delay and creates further circumstances for us to fuck ourselves in the not too distant future - a future by which the likes of the Koch brothers will be dead and buried and will have no further concern for humanity. Not that they did in the first place. Have concern for the rest of humanity that is.

So yes. There comes a point when people are not willing to deal with the issues and instead parrot big business in the name of profits they must be sidelined. End of fucking story.

OK. So what are you doing about it?
Do you drive, get driven, take public transportation powered by fossil fuels? Do you use electricity from a source that exhausts greenhouse gases? Do you eat food products made in factories that exhaust greenhouse gases? Is the Internet provider you're using to access the Internet run by green electricity?

[Gauntleted Fist]

People are already taxed enough. I'm not paying any more taxes. People are so highly taxed in the U.S. it's bordering indentured servitude. You get stipends for food and housing.

I'm pretty sure you won't have a choice if the US, state, or local government tells you to pay them more in taxes. In fact, you might not even be aware of it happening. This is especially true if it's companies passing on the cost of extra taxes to consumers.

And the tax rate in the US is actually not all that high.

[Zephie]

OK. So what are you doing about it?
Do you drive, get driven, take public transportation powered by fossil fuels? Do you use electricity from a source that exhausts greenhouse gases? Do you eat food products made in factories that exhaust greenhouse gases? Is the Internet provider you're using to access the Internet run by green electricity?

Yeah, roll your eyes at me, just how you roll your 4 wheel tonka truck that is killing the planet with the 6th most abundant resource in the Universe.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yeah, roll your eyes at me, just how you roll your 4 wheel tonka truck that is killing the planet with the 6th most abundant resource in the Universe.

I'd really appreciate you removing your snout from my crotch. Thank you.

[Zephie]

Yeah, roll your eyes at me, just how you roll your 4 wheel tonka truck that is killing the planet with the 6th most abundant resource in the Universe.

I'd really appreciate you removing your snout from my crotch. Thank you.

I'm measuring the carbon footprint of your flatulence. I'm almost done.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I'd really appreciate you removing your snout from my crotch. Thank you.

I'm measuring the carbon footprint of your flatulence. I'm almost done.

No originality seeing as I already did the methane gag. Zephie - must try harder but most likely will ultimately fail in a ball of flame.