The right wing nuts think climate change is a big hoax

And then they whine about how nobody takes them seriously

This is what I have to say about the matter. I've been to china, writing everything off as a hoax and continue doing our worst to the environment is a really good and shitty way if you want a slow and agonizing death.

@kaealy said:

This is what I have to say about the matter. I've been to china, writing everything off as a hoax and continue doing our worst to the environment is a really good and shitty way if you want a slow and agonizing death.

you can't give these idiots an inch, otherwise you're indirectly supporting their crackpot conspiracy theories

Who cares what they think?

The US fed gov't has done little on this front in the past 10 yrs.

In the same timeframe, the US has lowered emissions on a proportionate basis by more than almost every other country.

These are the facts. Capitalism and basic economics are the primary reasons, combined with some state level interventions.

Coal is on the rapid decline. Wind and solar are rapidly decreasing in cost. NG is already more competitive than coal. Every auto manufacturer has multiple electric vehicles on the way. Volvo is the first to announce that they will no longer produce internal combustion only vehicles in 3 yrs.... meaning they will only produce electric or hybrids.

This is happening while simultaneously gov't's across the planet have been cutting artificial subsidies to many forms of green energy vs peak subsidies of 5-10 yrs ago... why? Because green is rapidly dropping in cost and subsidies are not as required.

Capitalism is rapidly reaching the point where gov't agreements/policies are irrelevant. The market is going to solve this before Trump or any other US politician wakes up or matters.

Yes, we know. They're dumb.

We know this. Why are you making a thread about it?

Well, it's pretty clear environmental policy and regulations hinder the profits of big business, and the Republican party fights for big business and the rich, not surprising why the party wants what they want, I don't know why their base does as I imagine most of them aren't rich or big business.

@lamprey263: this is why right here, most Republican/conjobs are similar to the characters in this show:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=toL1tXrLA1c

Yup, come to Alberta. We're FULL of climate change deniers.

Never mind the fact we are one of the most viable locations for solar on the planet, and would be no worse for wear if we stopped putting all of our damn eggs in one basket, by riding the oil and gas wave.

Climate change is real. Man made climate change is where the the data and numbers were altered to produce a desired outcome. Before you state 97% of all scientists support climate change as it exists that number comes from a survey in which 10,000 surveys ere sent out 700 responded 97% of the respondents supported the man made climate change 3% did not and 9300 did dot respond you can't say 97 % of scientists support climate change.

It will take time. There aren't many countries that have tried like Norway to promote electrical vehicles and get people to change. But it isn't enough. Our impact there is small in worldwide view.

There are many coal power plants that has to be shut down, and those aren't easily replaced by green energy or nuclear. Yes we have come far, but we still got a long way to go. Luckily the politicians have less and less to say about it, and can't really affect it unless they go in for actively stopping it.

I agree with you. Groups like Friends of Science say hi. We even have provincial politicians that are openly climate change deniers.

Everything you spout it nonsense. Please give us your sources.

You kind of answered your own question yes?

Anyone voting or concerned with the issue should. Because it potentially leads to the issue of..........

The problem is we have groups of people in power, who remain in power because of a similarly thinking voter base. And all of these people don't understand that these things are not an opinion. They don't understand that they can say "i do not believe in climate change" all they want, but the second they do this they cannot be taken seriously and should be removed from the conversation. The fact that they are not being removed from the conversation is the real problem.

Well, there is a big hoax surrounding ideas concerning climate change.

You may have missed my point. It doesn't matter what deniers say or whether any particular gov't agrees or disagrees. The marketplace has spoken and there is no going back, in large part because of the massive downward progress in the cost curve.

As renewables adoption is no longer primarily a political issue there is no need to care what the minority say. On any given issue there are always clued out minorities of people. What matters is whether their voices will actually matter, which they don't.

Power gen has already been altered. Light transport is about to be altered. Industry is the 3rd major driver and half of that will be addressed by changes in the first two.

Never underestimate the power of the marketplace. Once a technology breaches the cost curve barriers there is no stopping it.

No i got your point, you're simply not applying that these things do matter and they do alter society and events (often for the worse) and they affect hundreds of millions of people. Just because you can say eventually we will hit a point or we are pointed in a direction, does not mean these things do not matter.

Case in point. One of the things you mentioned in your first post i responded to was:

The US fed gov't has done little on this front in the past 10 yrs.

In the same timeframe, the US has lowered emissions on a proportionate basis by more than almost every other country.

These are the facts. Capitalism and basic economics are the primary reasons, combined with some state level interventions.

When you say something like "the US has lowered emissions on a proportionate basis by more than almost every other country." are you applying that most first world countries didnt have the emissions we did? That we had some of the highest in the world and emissions that were/are embarrassingly high? That a nation that once lead the world in science and technology was then hindered by fake capitalism and science denial? The fact is, this should not be true, we should not have had these emissions to begin with had we followed science and technology the way smarter countries who don't deal with the denial did. So to suggest these things do not matter because eventually we might get there, is to completely ignore the reality of the situation. Its to brush aside or ignore the interest of a nation and progression in technology and safety of our health and blah blah blah. Yes, it all matters and it all matters at every turning point and stage. Dont pretend that the details don't matter.

There is no topic that is more conservative than climate change -- but opposing it does follow the conservative mantra (just look at Theodore Roosevelt and his environmental conservation)

Capitalism is NOT a good way to protect us against climate change, while the free market will eventually move towards renewables. The more capitalist states does so at a slower rate. The US still pollutes at an absurdly high rate.

Innovation, science, technology and well implemented regulations are the key. Some countries, such as iceland have already cut fossil fuel consumption to 15%. The US is lagging terribly behind. Don't let a few good years change the fact that the US is much slower at adopting renewables than countries like china (who are looking more and more like they are going to be a leader in this field), sweden and iceland.

Then you have countries like Norway who for uses hydro power for most industry and homes.

Yup, that is also what Sweden (my country) uses heavily of.

Be warned, a lot of far right fringe blogs (Breitbrat, dailywire, etc.) are propagating this fake study:

http://archive.is/vsRuS

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

It's not even peer reviewed or published, and most data is spun:

http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

Low IQ scumbags. Party before planet.

You got way more windpower than we do I think.

If I bother I will read through it...

Edit: The research report claims that there have been made so many adjustments to the historical data of temperatures that scientists regularly use that the data should be thrown away. And thus any research using this as a basis is also crap. Some of the arguments presented shows that number of summer daily records are rather lower than expected in the last decade compared to 1927-1956 in cities like Detroit and NYC Central Park.

I don't know where to begin with in arguing against that...

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

@zaryia: Wow... just wow.

That reminds me of the stupid that occured last year where skeptics called a bunch of scientists out for upgrading their tools later on in the experiment and then adjusting the results accordingly.

Coal and oil is where the money is at. I don't think any amount of global warming proof will change that. Either they run out of coal and oil or clean energy becomes mainstream.

Mainstream as in readily available for the public. For example batteries can be sold, marketed as clean energy.

I don't have the resources to build solar panels but I could buy a battery. Instead of charging my phone via an outlet streamlined to a CO2 power plant. Graphene batteries are eco friendly.

This is the where the main debate should be. Not this ridiculous denial. At least here, an honest debate can be held.

That said, Solar Panels and solar power in general, is getting cheaper and cheaper. In some parts of the world, solar is already cheaper than coal, and it should catch up in most, if not all parts of the US within the next 10 years. That doesn't solve all the probems with solar (such as if the sun goes down during an extended period such as an eclipse. But ultimately, I feel nuclear, especially thorium power is where Trump should invest rather than a dying coal industry. You don't want to be cheaper than coal, you want to be cheaper than natural gas.

Thorium could be an option. But you need infrastructure for it as well. So it is a costly option, but in a 100 year perspective, perhaps the most stable one.

Costly indeed, but the world is going to have to move away from coal... as it becomes less and less viable. Thorium Nuclear Power plants are perhaps the best transitional fuel source until solar power becomes truly the best energy source.

Nature would be taking care of the climate change without us just fine. We might speed it up by a few years at best but all it takes is a single volcano eruption to completely outdo anything humans have contributed.

This anecdote about volcanoes spewing more CO2 than man made sources has been proven laughably wrong time and time again.

@horgen: @Maroxad: I heard good things about thorium how it's eco friendly and powerful. All of this makes me want to start a DIY clean energy project. And there's an incentive to do so, The Residential Renewable Energy tax credit.

Fixed.