Will Republicans take climate change seriously if they win in 2024?lternative to gas vehicles

[F1fan]

Per the first amendment the government has no business imposing this personal belief on those who don't believe in it.

There is personal belief like religion that should NOT be imposed, and then there are models in science ice based on facts and data that should be accepted by all citizens. We see republicans push their religion but deny science. Absurd and mentally unsound.

 

[Shaul]

Have you ever heard of "lip service"? Parties often claim that they support certain things in their platform but when they get in office there are some parts of the platform that they work against. The Republicans have lately been far from "conservative" when it comes to the ecology.

Basically you hate Republicans and have closed your mind to anything they could say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Basically you hate Republicans and have closed your mind to anything they could say.

Nope. Please. why do you continually have to make yourself look so foolish? When you rely on personal insults you will lose almost every debate.

What you just did was to take an action that one takes when they cannot support their own side. The facts are that right now the Republicans are anti-environment. They were not always this way. It was under Nixon that the EPA was formed. The Republicans used to be pro-worker. Again under Nixon OSHA was formed. Now they tend to oppose any movements that help either the environment or workers. The party is ill.

 

[F1fan]

So the vast majority of votes say we the people cannot trust republicans in being responsible for the climate. So why would anyone vote for a party that is not trusted to manage a crucial priority for the whole planet? It seems like deliberate sabotage of life and well being for humans.

 

[F1fan]

Basically you hate Republicans and have closed your mind to anything they could say.

You say this on a day that Trump said that he would pardon all the criminals who attacked the Capitol on Jan 6. This illustrates why republicans are losing elections.

 

[Shaul]

Nope. Please. why do you continually have to make yourself look so foolish? When you rely on personal insults you will lose almost every debate.

What you just did was to take an action that one takes when they cannot support their own side. The facts are that right now the Republicans are anti-environment. They were not always this way. It was under Nixon that the EPA was formed. The Republicans used to be pro-worker. Again under Nixon OSHA was formed. Now they tend to oppose any movements that help either the environment or workers. The party is ill.

I have already posted the Republican Party platform regarding the environment. It contradicts what you wrote. You wrote that parties say one thing but do another once elected. I pointed out that meant you would be closed minded to anything the Republicans would say. Take your pick. Either you had it wrong that their words can’t be trusted or that you are open minded to what you understand are lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already posted the Republican Party platform regarding the environment. It contradicts what you wrote. You wrote that parties say one thing but do another once elected. I pointed out that meant you would be closed minded to anything the Republicans would say. Take your pick. Either you had it wrong that their words can’t be trusted or that you are open minded to what you understand are lies.

So what? Their platform does not mean squat if they do not follow it. This has been explained to you and you had no answer for it.

You are projecting again when you call others close minded.

 

[F1fan]

I have already posted the Republican Party platform regarding the environment. It contradicts what you wrote.

No, the platform you posted contradicts what republicans actually say and do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Republican Party is the true party for conservation and sound environmental policy. Excerpts from the Republican Party Platform make this clear.

“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success.”

“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation.”

And there is a clear lie in their platform. No one is relying on radical environmentalists. They are relying on reasonable ones. Did you forget that Trump was pro-coal? Coal is the dirtiest fuel out there. There is no "clean coal". It ruins the environment when it is mined. It ruins it more when it is burned. These days you cannot support long term fossil fuel use and claim to be concerned about the environment. Do you believe what any lying fool says just because it is written down? You need to develop some critical thinking tools.

“Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.”

It already is. So once again they are lying. They are implying that this is not the case. What they are trying to do is to justify their advocation for the raping of the environment. This is just a platform and there are already clear lies and obfuscations in it.

“We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.”

Really? Then why didn't Trump have present any such ideas while he was the President? Why did he push for policies that made the environment worse? It looks like this is another lie by the Republicans.

If you want to learn about the environment and how we know that Republican policies harm it I will be glad to help you. As I pointed out earlier the last environmental Republican was Nixon. If he had not done that stupid Watergate stunt he would probably be looked back on as a very good President.

 

[F1fan]

Really? Then why didn't Trump have present any such ideas while he was the President? Why did he push for policies that made the environment worse? It looks like this is another lie by the Republicans.

Shaul won't remember, but Obama had set new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles when he was president, and when Trump took over he overturned these standards. Car companies actually complained because they had already begun design and investments in more fuel efficient engines. Didn't Trump do his homework, or was he trying for a cheap shot against Obama, which backfired?

Smart and well informed people know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shaul won't remember, but Obama had set new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles when he was president, and when Trump took over he overturned these standards. Car companies actually complained because they had already begun design and investments in more fuel efficient engines. Didn't Trump do his homework, or was he trying for a cheap shot against Obama, which backfired?

Both.

Smart and well informed people know.

One does not need to be all that smart to realize that the Republicans are bad new when it comes to the environment.

 

[Heyo]

So why would anyone vote for a party that is not trusted to manage a crucial priority for the whole planet?

1. Being older than 60. The worst effects don't get to you.
2. Being a Christian. (That kind who believe in Jesus returning any day now.)
3. Being in panic (that the socialists will win).
4. Being uneducated. (I.e. not understanding the threat from climate change and that it is possible to mitigate the worst.)
5. Being a fatalist. "We can't do anything, anyhow."
6. Being a hedonist. "I don't want to sacrifice my comfort (now)."
7. Being a Christian. (The kind who think that all people are bad and won't do anything because everybody else won't do anything.)
8. Being rich. You can escape the disaster to greener pastures and the more money you make now, the more comfortable your retreat will be.

Need more?

 

[F1fan]

1. Being older than 60. The worst effects don't get to you.
2. Being a Christian. (That kind who believe in Jesus returning any day now.)
3. Being in panic (that the socialists will win).
4. Being uneducated. (I.e. not understanding the threat from climate change and that it is possible to mitigate the worst.)
5. Being a fatalist. "We can't do anything, anyhow."
6. Being a hedonist. "I don't want to sacrifice my comfort (now)."
7. Being a Christian. (The kind who think that all people are bad and won't do anything because everybody else won't do anything.)
8. Being rich. You can escape the disaster to greener pastures and the more money you make now, the more comfortable your retreat will be.

Need more?

The notable thing about your list is the lack of any moral duty or concern. This seems to be part of the unsaid platform of the republicans. Shaul posted the platform he found but as we can see it is not an honest statement. Anyone can see it is not honest. Oddly Shaul surely can see it is dishonest, but posts it as if we will take the statement at face value and ignore what we observe republicans doing. Who is the fool? Not the honest, not the thinkers.

 

[Heyo]

The notable thing about your list is the lack of any moral duty or concern.

Because they don't have any. Well except for "the economy". Serious climate control isn't cheap and every $ spend there is missing elsewhere, e.g. subsidiaries for oil companies.

This seems to be part of the unsaid platform of the republicans. Shaul posted the platform he found but as we can see it is not an honest statement. Anyone can see it is not honest. Oddly Shaul surely can see it is dishonest, but posts it as if we will take the statement at face value and ignore what we observe republicans doing. Who is the fool? Not the honest, not the thinkers.

Shaul is on my ignore list.

 

[Truth in love]

There is personal belief like religion that should NOT be imposed, and then there are models in science ice based on facts and data that should be accepted by all citizens. We see republicans push their religion but deny science. Absurd and mentally unsound.

The "science" is very often more fiction. The idea that anything labeled science and agreed upon by a small group of self appointed experts allows for the micromanagement of any persons life is a theocracy without the integrity to admit it.

 

[F1fan]

The "science" is very often more fiction.

This illustrates my point. Who is the authority that knows climate science better than the climate scientists that it can be dismissed? It is ignorant republicans who are pandering to their fossil fuel donors. And then we see the ignorant right wing base follow the right wing disinformation.

The idea that anything labeled science and agreed upon by a small group of self appointed experts allows for the micromanagement of any persons life is a theocracy without the integrity to admit it.

So by your way of thinking there is no such thing as an expert in any science. So to hell with everything.

This is why republicans can't be trusted in government. They don't accept science, and reject experts, so are unable to represent the interests of citizens.

 

[Truth in love]

This illustrates my point. Who is the authority that knows climate science better than the climate scientists that it can be dismissed? It is ignorant republicans who are pandering to their fossil fuel donors. And then we see the ignorant right wing base follow the right wing disinformation.


So by your way of thinking there is no such thing as an expert in any science. So to hell with everything.

This is why republicans can't be trusted in government. They don't accept science, and reject experts, so are unable to represent the interests of citizens.

If the science is really all that compelling why is force needed?
The reality is that the data keep showing us that our "climate crisis" is within the normal variations of the Earth. However there is no money or power in not prancing the public.

For the record I am not a Republican. I am someone who has watched this issue for many years. The intimidation of the public through scare tactics and repeated fraud are unacceptable and hardly science. My rights are determined by some sobs in their elitist club.

 

[fantome profane]

The "science" is very often more fiction. The idea that anything labeled science and agreed upon by a small group of self appointed experts allows for the micromanagement of any persons life is a theocracy without the integrity to admit it.

What do you mean by "self appointed"?

 

[Truth in love]

What do you mean by "self appointed"?

"Climate Science" is a tiny club of like minded folks who share a select set of beliefs. They are not elected, yet they often demand to have as or more power in our lives than elected officials.

 

[Yerda]

"Climate Science" is a tiny club of like minded folks who share a select set of beliefs.

There are tens of thousands of people with phds in fields ranging from mathematics, physics, geosciences and oceanography working on climate research.

The real deep irony here is that the people, like yourself, who accuse climate scientists of "groupthink" know less than nothing about it and are regurgitating false claims they picked up from anti-science media outlets.

They are not elected, yet they often demand to have as or more power in our lives than elected officials.

Can you names the people involved and the dates these demands were made?