NationStates

So, I generally ascribe to the school of thought that if incompetence and malevolence can both explain a thing happening, to favor incompetence. But every now and then I enjoy inverting that and seeing what I come up with when I decide to be paranoid.

I have noticed something, Republicans are consistently, suicidally resistant to acting on climate change. I may have my disagreements with the Greens on HOW it should be addressed, but I do believe it's the height of sillyness to just ignore it.

Unless....



If you'll notice. The Republicans have a strong hold on the center states. While the Democrats have their strongholds on the coasts. What if this is actually an attempt to literally destroy the Democratic party via apocalyptic floodwaters?

Personally, I doubt it. But who knows?

If you also noticed the entire south is republican and borders the coast line. So no

I... sincerely doubt that.

More than likely, it's because liberals latched onto the idea first, and if there's one thing Republicans love, it's screwing with liberals.

Get rid of all the hippie crap, sell the idea of nuclear and hydro energy being patriotic American industries that liberals would naturally hate, and you'd see the Republican Party suddenly become very amenable to the whole combating global warming thing.

No.

If it was, it would be the stupidest plot in history.


After seeing massive damage to the cost, they would all agree drastic action must be taken and vote democrat after seeing irrefutable proof that Global Warming is real.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:No.

If it was, it would be the stupidest plot in history.


After seeing massive damage to the cost, they would all agree drastic action must be taken and vote democrat after seeing irrefutable proof that Global Warming is real.

I feel like you're being excessively optimistic. We've long since confirmed that people will deny shit that has proof right in front of them because they don't want to admit they were wrong, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

Sanctissima wrote:I... sincerely doubt that.

More than likely, it's because liberals latched onto the idea first, and if there's one thing Republicans love, it's screwing with liberals.

Get rid of all the hippie crap, sell the idea of nuclear and hydro energy being patriotic American industries that liberals would naturally hate, and you'd see the Republican Party suddenly become very amenable to the whole combating global warming thing.

Except that many liberals, myself included, love Nuclear power. It's only the stupid hippys that hate it

There won't be "apocalyptic floodwaters" like a giant tsunami.

The sea will continue to rise and encroach gradually, which will eventually turn NYC into Venice and gradually eat other coastal cities. Those people won't vanish though - they'll move inland and keep voting.

This "plot" is silly.

There is no plot. I live in Los Angeles and I do not buy into the anthropogenic global warming hoax.
Not that humans aren't screwing up the planet: deforestation, overfishing, resource exploitation, pollution, acid rain, etc. I just don't think global warming is a manmade problem. There certainly isn't a damn thing we can do about it, unlike the other more pressing matters I mentioned.

Paleocacher wrote:There is no plot. I live in Los Angeles and I do not buy into the anthropogenic global warming hoax.
Not that humans aren't screwing up the planet: deforestation, overfishing, resource exploitation, pollution, acid rain, etc. I just don't think global warming is a manmade problem. There certainly isn't a damn thing we can do about it, unlike the other more pressing matters I mentioned.

We could stop adding so much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

I mean, that's probably the number 1 action item.

Thermodolia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:I... sincerely doubt that.

More than likely, it's because liberals latched onto the idea first, and if there's one thing Republicans love, it's screwing with liberals.

Get rid of all the hippie crap, sell the idea of nuclear and hydro energy being patriotic American industries that liberals would naturally hate, and you'd see the Republican Party suddenly become very amenable to the whole combating global warming thing.

Except that many liberals, myself included, love Nuclear power. It's only the stupid hippys that hate it

Well, it just seems that the stupid hippies are the ones controlling democrat policy on this.

Galloism wrote:There won't be "apocalyptic floodwaters" like a giant tsunami.

The sea will continue to rise and encroach gradually, which will eventually turn NYC into Venice and gradually eat other coastal cities. Those people won't vanish though - they'll move inland and keep voting.

This "plot" is silly.

We'll just build a wall around the coastal cities, and make them pay for it

Sovaal wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Except that many liberals, myself included, love Nuclear power. It's only the stupid hippys that hate it

Well, it just seems that the stupid hippies are the ones controlling democrat policy on this.

Democrats =/= liberals. Those are two different things.

Thermodolia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:I... sincerely doubt that.

More than likely, it's because liberals latched onto the idea first, and if there's one thing Republicans love, it's screwing with liberals.

Get rid of all the hippie crap, sell the idea of nuclear and hydro energy being patriotic American industries that liberals would naturally hate, and you'd see the Republican Party suddenly become very amenable to the whole combating global warming thing.

Except that many liberals, myself included, love Nuclear power. It's only the stupid hippys that hate it

I realize that, and to be frank am quite happy about it.

That being said, it's fairly clear which liberals, at least in America, are the ones affecting party policy on the matter. The obsession with wind and solar is disheartening.

Thermodolia wrote:

Sovaal wrote:Well, it just seems that the stupid hippies are the ones controlling democrat policy on this.

Democrats =/= liberals. Those are two different things.

Yes, you speaketh true, -eth. However, Amy democrats are liberals, and many liberals are democrats (In the US at least)

Sanctissima wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Except that many liberals, myself included, love Nuclear power. It's only the stupid hippys that hate it

I realize that, and to be frank am quite happy about it.

That being said, it's fairly clear which liberals, at least in America, are the ones affecting party policy on the matter. The obsession with wind and solar is disheartening.

Wind and solar can work. It's just that they can't be the base power. Nuclear can be the base power and the wind and solar can make up the rest if we need more power. As those types of power are more flexible unlike nuclear

Sanctissima wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Except that many liberals, myself included, love Nuclear power. It's only the stupid hippys that hate it

I realize that, and to be frank am quite happy about it.

That being said, it's fairly clear which liberals, at least in America, are the ones affecting party policy on the matter. The obsession with wind and solar is disheartening.

But nuclear sounds scary!

Thermodolia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
I realize that, and to be frank am quite happy about it.

That being said, it's fairly clear which liberals, at least in America, are the ones affecting party policy on the matter. The obsession with wind and solar is disheartening.

Wind and solar can work. It's just that they can't be the base power. Nuclear can be the base power and the wind and solar can make up the rest if we need more power. As those types of power are more flexible unlike nuclear

Oh, they certainly work, it's just that, as you say, they can't be used as the base power, although many people seem to be under the illusion that mass producing windmills and solar panels is entirely feasible.

But yeah, nuclear + hydro as the bulk of the powergrid, plus some wind, solar and other energy sources would work well.

Unfortunately, we don't have enough nuclear fuel to power the whole world for decades, unless "let's make nuclear our main power source" also includes creating breeder reactors or something to that effect.

Build some giant solar power satellites and beam the power down. Hell, we could actually start serious research into fusion, because what we've got going now is honestly pathetic.

This is the dumbest thread I've seen this month, and I've gone to Lincolnopolis Threads.

Sovaal wrote:

Galloism wrote:There won't be "apocalyptic floodwaters" like a giant tsunami.

The sea will continue to rise and encroach gradually, which will eventually turn NYC into Venice and gradually eat other coastal cities. Those people won't vanish though - they'll move inland and keep voting.

This "plot" is silly.

We'll just build a wall around the coastal cities, and make them pay for it

We can build walls* along the coasts to prevent the flooding. It works for the Netherlands.

*I know I'm talking about dikes.

Longweather wrote:

Sovaal wrote:We'll just build a wall around the coastal cities, and make them pay for it

We can build walls* along the coasts to prevent the flooding. It works for the Netherlands.

*I know I'm talking about dikes.

Ya, but who de we not like that's rich enough to afford to pay for all of it?

Personally I can't wait for the whole runaway greenhouse gas thing.

Because then people will learn how to change the planet back into an alright place to live. Or die I guess, which is a negative so let's ignore it.

Which is the beginning of turning other planets into alright places to live.

Fossil fuels have already reached the tipping point.

T. Boone Pickens has shifted his investments most heavily in favor of wind.

Shell announces a shift away from fossil fuels.

So the climate debate is less about science or economics, and more about the GOP messing with an oppionent's shibboleths, and having fun doing so.

I've seen extreme right-wingers who really dislike middle-easterners on other forums arguing that global warming is good because it'll fry the middle east beyond human hospitality, but I'm pretty sure they're just irrelevant angry idiots on the internet. Every time I see someone planning to weaponize climate change against their enemies, I see a very serious flaw in their plan, they wouldn't kill their enemies, just drive them out of their existing homes. If California is flooded, cue a horde of Californians sweeping into formerly red states and bringing their voting patterns with them.

I actually wonder if propaganda based off this premise would work to get the right wing to realize global warming exists and we need to do something about it. Wave statistical predictions about middle eastern and african climate refugees in their faces until they respond.

Republicans and conservatives simply have a different view on how catastrophic climate change is and what would be the best method to fix it. Liberals and leftists insist that we must give the government vast powers to avert a global catastrophe (while simultaneously investing millions in beachfront property), Republicans and conservatives simply think that the free market is the best answer to this question and that a degree or two difference in a hundred years (or whatever the latest prediction is) isn't going to be the end of the world.

In other words: it's not a plot, what kind of stupid idea is that?