• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do so many people "deny" manmade Global Warmng?

No. I would disagree. We can and should do more. Other nations have done a lot, but they need to do more as well.
why it means nothing if the biggest contributor doesn't do anything.
The Climate Crisis is nothing we can argue our way out of. It is a serious threat to the future of humanity. The scale of the threat cannot be over-estimated.
this is just alarmism and it means nothing there is no crisis.
If we do too much, so what? Lots of jobs are created. New technology is created. Unknown benefits await.
necessity is the mother of invention. So unless there needs to be new technology created there won't be. So the only way to make it need to happen is through government Force. What we lose is our independence our economy and our industry we've lost a lot of that already because of this it just moved to China where they don't care.
If we don't do enough, what is the result? Catastrophe. A future of great suffering and loss of human life.
most likely not. The catastrophe was supposed to happen at least 12 times in my life you only get to cry wolf so many times before people stop believing you
 
why it means nothing if the biggest contributor doesn't do anything.
this is just alarmism and it means nothing there is no crisis.
necessity is the mother of invention. So unless there needs to be new technology created there won't be. So the only way to make it need to happen is through government Force. What we lose is our independence our economy and our industry we've lost a lot of that already because of this it just moved to China where they don't care.
most likely not. The catastrophe was supposed to happen at least 12 times in my life you only get to cry wolf so many times before people stop believing you

Denier talking points and lies.
 
why it means nothing if the biggest contributor doesn't do anything.
Actually it does accomplish something. It puts us in a position of not having to do anything but convince the biggest competitor to follow suit. Our bargaining position would be weakened if we won't do it ourselves.

this is just alarmism and it means nothing there is no crisis.
Actually it is following the body of science. And if there is a crisis and we take steps to limit destruction, then our descendants get to enjoy as much that the world has to offer as we currently do.

Actually it means far more to today's young (such as Greta) because they will experience the destruction first hand. If we do nothing, that would be in jeopardy. The wise choice is to err on the side of the worst case. After all, the worst thing that could happen is we move toward a whole bunch of new industry, learn new things, and create a bunch of new jobs and then find out decades later that we didn't have to do that after all. But if we assume the best case and do nothing, and then the destruction comes, then it becomes far more costly.

necessity is the mother of invention. So unless there needs to be new technology created there won't be. So the only way to make it need to happen is through government Force.
What force? No force is required. It's not like environmental regulations are enforced at government gunpoint.

What we lose is our independence our economy and our industry we've lost a lot of that already because of this it just moved to China where they don't care.

Independence gradually slips away as the world advances anyway. The USA is totally dependent on world trade and shipping containers of goods for our lifestyle.

Our economy would actually improve; because the act of taxing the super-rich more and redistributing that wealth into society in the form of government jobs and contracts for private industry jobs, creates consumer demand and thus secondary job creation. Any large government operation generates a booming local economy. Puerto Rico knows that. They went bust when we pulled our military bases outta there.

The Green New Deal is more of a job creator than a job destroyer. And they are better, safer jobs than fossil fuel jobs.

The opposite of this fear of hurting the economy is actually true.

It will cost more at this point to do nothing than it will to enact the Green New Deal.


How do you like your rising insurance rates? Insurance companies have to pay claims on all these natural disasters such as floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms, etc. When insurance companies have more claims, they raise rates. If you insure any property or an auto you may have noticed those rising rates. That is going to become far more pronounced if we have more disasters caused by climate change.

And what's to worry? The general public need not pay an extra dime of taxes. The super-rich are so rich that they can afford to fund all we need to do. And I'm sure the shrewd ones there will figure out how to make plenty of money on the GND. So no need to have a concern about protecting the billionaires. They will be just fine.

most likely not. The catastrophe was supposed to happen at least 12 times in my life you only get to cry wolf so many times before people stop believing you
That sounds like an exaggeration.
 
Right wing media has brought out distrust for science and academia in general......Working class conservatives believe any kind of progressive thinking is just an extension of BLM and the gay agenda......in short, it is ignorance
 
I don't. If you look at the daily weather reports over the last 70 years for any given date they are remarkably stable.
Um yeahh no.
 
Starting off with adverse remarks again I see, then when I respond in kind I will be the bad guy, right? Please keep this civil, instead of flamebaiting me. You're lucky I'm not in the mood to retaliate. You use "stupid," "denialist." can we speak like adults please?
Yeah, whatever... I gave up caring about your whining with all adverse remarks, name-calling, and flame-baiting you have done to me over the years. You are such a hypocrite about this.
Maybe you should consider facts I have pointed out before. If you limit the scope to temperature, you are right in general. Light colored aerosols do reflect the sunlight and possible some non-visible light back away from the earth. The soot however captures photons far better than greenhouse gasses do and act in a similar matter of then releasing the heat in any direction. The total effect of course depends on the levels of the aerosols.
Now wait a minute here... are you talking about soot or aerosols? Soot, overall, is a warm forcing, but aerosols are, overall, a much larger cool forcing. Do you know the difference?
Do you realize you make a habit of this? Taking any single variable a person speaks of make it the absolute... This might work well for less inteligent people, but all your attempted trickery does to me is piss me off and show me you really don't know how to debate the point with science. How many times have I stated this is a very complex issue. A single variable will tug on the end effect one way or another, but aerosols are by no means a large atmospheric forcing agent.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Aerosols are actually one of the biggest forcings caused by man. And it is mostly a negative forcing. But Soot all by itself is just a relatively small warm forcing. For someone who constantly claims he knows so much about the science of climate change, you sure do get your facts wrong on a regular basis.
When you resort to name-calling at the opening, you already lost. You're getting better, but you are still an amateur in this field.
Saying that something you said is stupid is not name-calling. I don't know why you can't seem to comprehend this fact.

And as a matter of fact, I have proven you wrong numerous times over the last few years and can, and have, cited numerous examples. You, on the other hand, haven't proven me wrong even once. And I'm still waiting for you to cite even one instance where you think you have.
 
Actually it does accomplish something. It puts us in a position of not having to do anything but convince the biggest competitor to follow suit. Our bargaining position would be weakened if we won't do it ourselves.
no really what it does what it has done is just move all the manufacturing to them. They aren't our competitor.

All the laws and stuff we've made to make people comply has caused manufacturing to move where they don't have to comply to those laws. They are not going to follow our lead they are going to take advantage.

Actually it is following the body of science. And if there is a crisis and we take steps to limit destruction, then our descendants get to enjoy as much that the world has to offer as we currently do.
I've been indoctrinated with this garbage for 30 years there's always a crisis just around the corner. According to you people they're supposed to end like over a dozen times by now.
Actually it means far more to today's young (such as Greta) because they will experience the destruction first hand. If we do nothing, that would be in jeopardy. The wise choice is to err on the side of the worst case. After all, the worst thing that could happen is we move toward a whole bunch of new industry, learn new things, and create a bunch of new jobs and then find out decades later that we didn't have to do that after all. But if we assume the best case and do nothing, and then the destruction comes, then it becomes far more costly.
people who have been selling this gloom and doom for decades what I wish I could see is good at thunberg yet 65 years old talking about how stupid she was to fall for this nonsense

What force? No force is required. It's not like environmental regulations are enforced at government gunpoint.
yeah generally it's done through fine making sure there are no competitors for the biggest fish in the pond and they're rich and I was just to pay the funds so it's nothing. If anything it's more like government regulated price fixing everything


Independence gradually slips away as the world advances anyway. The USA is totally dependent on world trade and shipping containers of goods for our lifestyle.

Our economy would actually improve; because the act of taxing the super-rich more and redistributing that wealth into society in the form of government jobs and contracts for private industry jobs, creates consumer demand and thus secondary job creation. Any large government operation generates a booming local economy. Puerto Rico knows that. They went bust when we pulled our military bases outta there.
this type of greeny weenies that support this idiocy live in States like Washington and California and these states have the most regressive tax code there is. Take Washington for example Bill Gates and Jeff bezos pay 3% of their income in Texas there's a person like we me would pay closer to 30%.

Nobody should ever listen to you people about this stuff you talk about texting rich but you are very much against it.
The Green New Deal is more of a job creator than a job destroyer. And they are better, safer jobs than fossil fuel jobs.
no the green New deal was more of an economy destroyer written by a nincompose if you support that kind of nonsense it means you possess no knowledge and there's no point in further discussion
 
Isn't it amazing how that happened and the left blames everyone but themselves? We over regulate industry to the point we can no longer cost effectively manyfacture here, and lose family wage jobs. The left is them more than happy to blame us for global problems, that are happening elsewhere. They demand $15 hr minimum wages, when what they need to do is realize we need to bring clean manufacturing back here, and stop buying from countries that pollute the earth.

They don't seem to get it though, and blame the right.
Do you really not know why so many companies moved to China? It wasn't just about lax environmental regulations. It was also about lower wages. Are you unaware of what Walmart was doing to manufacturing in the US? They were literally forcing companies to move there are lose their sales. Go look up what they did to Rubbermaid and how they almost put them out of business because they didn't want to move their factories to China. Go look up how the Bush Jr. administration was actively pressuring compananies to move to China.

If anything the right deserves lots of blame.
 
Do you really not know why so many companies moved to China? It wasn't just about lax environmental regulations. It was also about lower wages. Are you unaware of what Walmart was doing to manufacturing in the US? They were literally forcing companies to move there are lose their sales. Go look up what they did to Rubbermaid and how they almost put them out of business because they didn't want to move their factories to China. Go look up how the Bush Jr. administration was actively pressuring compananies to move to China.

If anything the right deserves lots of blame.
Actually no it isn't the right that advocates for higher wages. It isn't the right that advocates for all of the expenses and hiring people.

China doesn't care about their people if they get hurt at work they're easy to replace because they have too many people.

It is in Walmart that did this it was us. And I don't mean you personally I mean everyone that shops at Walmart.

Also the left is trying to make the us more like China where we have too many people.

They are importing them in droves from South of the border and possibly all over the world.

100% of the problems you are complaining about are exacerbated by the left
 
no really what it does what it has done is just move all the manufacturing to them. They aren't our competitor.

All the laws and stuff we've made to make people comply has caused manufacturing to move where they don't have to comply to those laws. They are not going to follow our lead they are going to take advantage.

I've been indoctrinated with this garbage for 30 years there's always a crisis just around the corner. According to you people they're supposed to end like over a dozen times by now.
people who have been selling this gloom and doom for decades what I wish I could see is good at thunberg yet 65 years old talking about how stupid she was to fall for this nonsense

yeah generally it's done through fine making sure there are no competitors for the biggest fish in the pond and they're rich and I was just to pay the funds so it's nothing. If anything it's more like government regulated price fixing everything


this type of greeny weenies that support this idiocy live in States like Washington and California and these states have the most regressive tax code there is. Take Washington for example Bill Gates and Jeff bezos pay 3% of their income in Texas there's a person like we me would pay closer to 30%.

Nobody should ever listen to you people about this stuff you talk about texting rich but you are very much against it.
no the green New deal was more of an economy destroyer written by a nincompose if you support that kind of nonsense it means you possess no knowledge and there's no point in

Denier blather.
 
Actually no it isn't the right that advocates for higher wages. It isn't the right that advocates for all of the expenses and hiring people.

China doesn't care about their people if they get hurt at work they're easy to replace because they have too many people.

It is in Walmart that did this it was us. And I don't mean you personally I mean everyone that shops at Walmart.

Also the left is trying to make the us more like China where we have too many people.

They are importing them in droves from South of the border and possibly all over the world.

100% of the problems you are complaining about are exacerbated by the left

Conspiracy blather.
 
no really what it does what it has done is just move all the manufacturing to them. They aren't our competitor.

All the laws and stuff we've made to make people comply has caused manufacturing to move where they don't have to comply to those laws. They are not going to follow our lead they are going to take advantage.

I've been indoctrinated with this garbage for 30 years there's always a crisis just around the corner. According to you people they're supposed to end like over a dozen times by now.
people who have been selling this gloom and doom for decades what I wish I could see is good at thunberg yet 65 years old talking about how stupid she was to fall for this nonsense

yeah generally it's done through fine making sure there are no competitors for the biggest fish in the pond and they're rich and I was just to pay the funds so it's nothing. If anything it's more like government regulated price fixing everything


this type of greeny weenies that support this idiocy live in States like Washington and California and these states have the most regressive tax code there is. Take Washington for example Bill Gates and Jeff bezos pay 3% of their income in Texas there's a person like we me would pay closer to 30%.

Nobody should ever listen to you people about this stuff you talk about texting rich but you are very much against it.
no the green New deal was more of an economy destroyer written by a nincompose if you support that kind of nonsense it means you possess no knowledge and there's no point in further discussion

What you apparently do not understand is that it is CAPITALISM that moved American jobs to China.
 
Right wing media has brought out distrust for science and academia in general......Working class conservatives believe any kind of progressive thinking is just an extension of BLM and the gay agenda......in short, it is ignorance
That's not how I see it. It's not a distrust for the science, but rather a distrust of the lies surrounding what the science says. I see the ignorance of your side.
 
That's not how I see it. It's not a distrust for the science, but rather a distrust of the lies surrounding what the science says. I see the ignorance of your side.
See? That is where science and opinion part. You don't like what the data tells us so you think you are free to interpret it differently. That is not science. That is partisan politics and there is no politics in science.

CqDaw2JXYAA_0Cy.jpg
 
See? That is where science and opinion part. You don't like what the data tells us so you think you are free to interpret it differently. That is not science. That is partisan politics and there is no politics in science.

CqDaw2JXYAA_0Cy.jpg
Are you saying there is only one way to interpret data? Limiting it to one choice is not science.

The politics is when government organizations like the IPCC incorrectly claims what the science states.
 
Are you saying there is only one way to interpret data? Limiting it to one choice is not science.

The politics is when government organizations like the IPCC incorrectly claims what the science states.

Be more specific.
 
Are you saying there is only one way to interpret data? Limiting it to one choice is not science.

The politics is when government organizations like the IPCC incorrectly claims what the science states.
Where, exactly, is the IPCC incorrectly interpreting the science of climate change?
 
No. I would disagree. We can and should do more. Other nations have done a lot, but they need to do more as well.
I don't recall what its called in economics, but as we have already reduced our impact dramatically. It takes increasingly more money to reduce a small part of what remains. If you want us to spend more money, it would be better spend on subsidizing other countries and providing them with newer technology.
The Climate Crisis is nothing we can argue our way out of. It is a serious threat to the future of humanity. The scale of the threat cannot be over-estimated.
How do you know it is a "serious threat to humanity." Can you see the future?

Please don't state opinion as fact. Its a very negative attribute to do so. You just make yourself look bad.
If we do too much, so what? Lots of jobs are created. New technology is created. Unknown benefits await.
And our grandchildren inherit an ever increasing debt that may someday explode this nation into catastrophe. I hope I die before that happens.
If we don't do enough, what is the result? Catastrophe. A future of great suffering and loss of human life.
Prove your contention please.
 
See? That is where science and opinion part. You don't like what the data tells us so you think you are free to interpret it differently. That is not science. That is partisan politics and there is no politics in science.

CqDaw2JXYAA_0Cy.jpg
The world was supposed to end over a dozen times according to do called "science."

You only really get one false doomsday prediction before you have no credibility anymore. The climate "scientists" have dozens. They are less credible than Harold Camping.
 
The world was supposed to end over a dozen times according to do called "science."

You only really get one false doomsday prediction before you have no credibility anymore. The climate "scientists" have dozens. They are less credible than Harold Camping.

Loss of credibility = psychological projection.
 
The world was supposed to end over a dozen times according to do called "science."

You only really get one false doomsday prediction before you have no credibility anymore. The climate "scientists" have dozens. They are less credible than Harold Camping.
Correction. According to their "political" science.
 
Back
Top Bottom