Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

It's not going to happen half as fast as it fell apart, that's for sure, but why would adding to it (dividing North and South) make it any better?

Quit playing identity politics, stop caring what color or nationality or political lean someone is, Quit asking other people to pay for something that you can earn yourself, and donate your time and labor to someone who can't.

 

Not sure about "Legal" but, if human activity is responsible for changing the climate this would contribute "majorly" to weather change. To accept one is to accept the other as they go hand in hand.

There are plenty of facts that support the argument that human activity is affecting climate.

 

How can one apply 'human impact' on an event that not only has happened several times, but long prior to humans being able to produce the supposed causes of 'climate change'? (sans methane, of course)

 

I will never stop demanding that people pay into and care for the system and society that enables their wealth. The difference between you and I is that I know (as admitted here by plenty of rightists) that human beings are greedy by nature - and, that they must be compelled to contribute back to that society.

 

I don't know... you like lost causes? Penis envy?

..seems to me, that all the protests about American political savvy are exaggerated. Its like atheists, pretending to not care about God..

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. -Heywood Broun

Besides, you are making generalizations, or promoting a false narrative, that any Norwegian is more informed, astute, and can name all the capitals of every nation, while all Americans are dumb hicks, who can't even name their own president..

..granted, that seems to be the goal of the leftist run educational system, but there are still a few critically minded people left in the US.. not all are indoctrinated lemmings for progressive ideology.

 

What countries do you think climate change affects? All of them but Sweden?

 

Why point to one study when I can point to dozens?

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.W4AgY85KhaQ

 

There simply will never be political action taken by anyone center-on-the-right of this issue because of the facts you point out. It's impossible for us to change the planet with taxation, or even using greens/renewables. If they REALLY want to affect the planet, get a time machine and put green energy in the Industrial Age. That would actually make a difference.

 

BUT the WORLD leader in reducing CO2 emissions. You evidently prefer form over substance.

 

You are leaving out some key words, one being 'some'.
I guess the real difference lies in not only what you define as 'compelled', but what the 'contribution' is.

 

I can tell I know more than you about criminal law and string together a few words and make an argument regarding the actual topic of discussion if you can. Labeling my point "simplistic understanding" isn't an argument. Its the evidence you don't have one.

 

Great question. But allow me to note the logical flaw of your argument by applying your question to a different scenario. I have a water sprinkler in my yard and today my yard is wet. How do I know that the yard is wet because of that water sprinkler and not the rain which has occurred numerous times in the past year and has existed for millions of years before I existed? Well, you look for external bits of evidence.

In regards to climate change, we can study the rate of speed at which climate change has occurred in the past and compare that rate to the current rate of change. If you use ice core data and look to the last time that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere went up by 80 points (the amount it went up from 1900 to 2000), then you will see that it took approximately 6300 years. That means the current increase in CO2 is roughly 50x-75x the natural rate.

In regards to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, scientists can also study the chemical composition (specifically, the isotopes) and thereby understand and know the source of that CO2 concentration. We know that the composition of the CO2 that is currently increasing in concentration is almost exclusively the type that comes from combustion of oil and gas.

Finally, in regards to the link between CO2 and temperature, I encourage you to review this article which breaks down a whole host of potential causes for the current warming and then compares their rate of change over the past several decades to the measured warming.

 

Now that's and angle I hadn't thought of before.

 

Ok, here's my specific response to your claim.

Models provide a range of potential options whenever they predict the future. This is also know as a margin of error. If you do not ignore the margin of error, then you will see that the climate models are largely accurate.

Secondly, climate models are predicting decades into the future and take into account assumptions of human behavior and they rely on data/methods that are constantly being improved. In order to claim that the models are wrong, you must also pretend that scientists are incapable of learning from their mistakes and improving their models.

 

Taxes, and compelled means forced through taxation.

 

Actually, they exaggerated the actual effects by 3 fold and more. Outside the margin of error.

 

Link what you are referencing because I suspect you are talking about one specific model from thirty years ago.

 

So you admit that the world climate pattern has been in a cooling cycle for the past 18 years and that water vapor is by far the most significant atmospheric change agent?

 

Well since you put man in charge of climate change, time for you to explain yourself.

 

1.4 degrees and you are living in fear. MMMMmokayyyyyyy

 

No and that is a really ****ing pathetic and **** example of a strawman.

Get better.

 

I am living in fear because I am not 80 years old and I know that the warming will not suddenly stop at 1.4 degrees. Also because I care about my descendants.

 

What would you like me to explain?

 

I am unsure what I believe about destruction to the environment. I think some of it could be caused by humans. But if so, I don't think there is anything we can do about it because none of us (including myself) are willing, or in some cases able, to take the action it would require to change it. Like for instance, one car to a household.

The thing that does cause me to lean against the climate change folks is that when new evidence comes in stating that perhaps this isn't happening, or that it is getting better, or that it isn't as bad as predicted, I would think these people would be relieved and say "great, sure hope this is correct." Instead, they furiously stick to their pessimistic views and dig in their heels. Makes me think they would really rather be right than find out the world isn't being destroyed.

 

Huh?

Got him!