re: Defend the Position: What is the GOP's real issue with Climate Change

The mother fricking climate changes all the fricking time.


It doesn't matter one mother fricking bit what we do as humans, the fricking climate is going to fricking change.

So basically, as humans, we're wasting fricking billions of dollars fighting a fricking fight that can't be fricking won.

The climate has been constantly changing for billions of years and man can’t do shite about it. This climate change scam is nothing but an attempt to steal money to fix a “problem” that is not fixable. But dumbasses out there just want to believe that the sky is falling and anything or anyone that contradicts that belief must be eliminated.

There are two billion people living in extreme poverty. I really don't care if the climate is changing over the decades. Cities can be rebuilt if the oceans rise. People can move. I'm not going to condemn two billion people to poverty.

quote:

---

Note: My personal theory is that weakening climate change is an attempt to give corporations more freedom with regards to health, sanitation, and disposal. A de-regulation scheme that will inevitably hurt the environment. It will benefit only the corporate donors and have a minimal economic impact on civilians.

---

Huh? I don't understand this. Please clarify.

quote:

---

1) Do you feel that environmental safety/Climate control is a lesser issue? If so why? 

---

Waste of money when China shits all over environment

Weather is cyclic and it does whatever it wants.

/thread

For a conservative guy I consider myself pretty environmental focused.

Things that make me skeptical of the issue as presented by the Democrats:

1a. They are fascist-like about it. They literally want to litigate/prosecute people who disagree with the "consensus" of the science. Going after companies/entities that (perhaps self-servingly) publish opposing view and research. That scares the shite out of me, and really fits in nicely with the other ways in which progressives oppose free thought/speech. Makes me want to not agree with them.

1b. The intellectual dishonesty and opportunism by the left to push the issue. The hurricanes this year after 10 years of no major landfalls and you can't go to a MSM or here a Dem speak about the hurricane without talking about man-made global warming. What about the last 10 years?

2. Is the regulation a ploy to increase fixed costs for potential polluters, thus helping the big guys that can afford it keep the middle/little guys at bay? Is that the politicians true motivation to make their friends rich?

3. How likely as an economy are we to lose ground to economies that don't play by the rules? Prisoner's dilemma.

Other than that, the science has my attention. Mostly the indirect indicators such as CO2 levels in the ice cores taken from the caps. Not as convinced of the end result or "measured" changes in temperature/sea level.

As a general rule, I do adopt the mindset that whatever the consequences may or may not be for our pollution, we should always strive to limit it. I like the idea of growing up on relatively the same planet we evolved on, and cherish the landscapes and diversity of species we have.

So in general, I'm a guy that can be convinced to get on board with the right solution, but I'm scared off by the quite frankly scary tactics of persuasion being deployed by the left.

1) I'd like to see factual statistics explaining the extent of man's effect on the climate instead of pushing through expensive regulatory practices based on an unverified boogeyman.

2) There is ALWAYS greed involved. No matter the side, no matter the issue. And that's the problem.

3) There is no endgame. If man does not affect the climate as much as Al Gore says we do, then there is nothing to do. If we do, we'll likely have the technology to reverse it by the time we have conclusive evidence anyway.

No evidence that doing what democrat claim to want will even make a difference...