Inside the Mind of Climate Denial

[growingforfun]

Why are you pretending to be a liberal?

Why are you pretending not to be in love with trump, you really seem to be. You act like your in middle school, and if you were I'm sure that in a few months you an trump would be dating an if you were rejected youd call him a slut or something hahaha
Jesus dude grow up

 

[Justin-case]

And nobody was surprised when he didn't except for about half the dems, so 25% of people were totally shocked, and 75% of people saw it coming.

@ttystikk @Padawanbater2 @schuylarr this intolerant liberal thinks Bernie actually lost and that three quarters of the voting population saw it coming, discuss.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why are you pretending not to be in love with trump, you really seem to be. You act like your in middle school, and if you were I'm sure that in a few months you an trump would be dating an if you were rejected youd call him a slut or something hahaha
Jesus dude grow up

why are you pretending to be a liberal?

 

[UncleBuck]

why are you pretending to be a liberal?

 

[ttystikk]

why are you pretending to be a liberal?

Why don't you go first.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why don't you go first.

is putin right when he said the gas attacks were fake?

 

[Fogdog]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Duckworth

Thanks for attempting to continue the conversation by presenting a candidate.

She seems like a good person an her history helps her but shes not going to have what it takes to win in 2020.

Good try though, shes just way too hardline dem to get the Republican votes, and she kinda looks like low hanging fruit for a lot of jokes we all know would get made.

We aren't going to win by attracting Republican votes. Haven't you seen the numbers for supporters? Even sucking Putin's dick and promising the first born of every white US family as sacrifice to Putin's pet demon -- live and on TV -- didn't shake their support for him.

I don't see how Gabbard's very strong Progressive(TM) policies are going to be any more attractive to the right. Seems she is pandering to the 3 or 4% of the remaining Bernie fans.

I'm not sold on anybody right now. I prefer Duckworth's record to Gabbard's.

We don't even know who is going to run in 2020. Seems foolish to settle so soon.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm clearly not saying that and never said that. But it's going to talk more than just another senior citizen with the same old low energy rhetoric to beat a president going for re-election.

I don't want another of the old guard either. I think a good candidate who represents core Democratic values can win regardless. Operative word is good candidate.

Looking at that list I put together, there isn't a single Republican who could support even a few of them. You do recall that the contest went down to some very slim margins in a very few states in order to win the Electoral college for Trump despite his not winning a majority in the 2016 election. Don't you?

If you aren't saying we have to reject those Democratic core values in favor or Republican right wing policies then what the hell are you saying when you claim Democrats have to attract Republican voters to win?

 

[Buddha2525]

Why are you defending the fossil fuel industry lobbyists?

No, I'm defending the poor. Let's assume climate change exists. If we examine who pays the brunt of the bill, it's the poor.

In the consumption function, as you earn more, your propensity to consume decreases. The poorest of our nation consume all and can't save.

So even though to people like us, it doesn't matter, to the poverty stricken every little bit helps.

When I looked at my electric bill, I notice a charge for "nuclear rod disposal fee," which means, "climate change tax."

When I do my DMV registration, there are fees for "clean air," which again means, "climate change tax."

Even though my car is a PZEV and besides electric cars, pretty much I output zero co2 with my car, yet I have to get a smog check, "climate change tax."

When I go to the grocery store, they charge a $0.10 fee per bag, "climate change tax."

A landlord has to pay taxes on property, he offsets those charges by increasing rent to the impoverished tenant, "climate change tax."

When you fill up at a gas station, a huge chunk of that per gallon price is federal and state taxes, along with winterizing and summerizing the gas, all those are, "climate change taxes."

I could go on and on.

Now who causes most of this climate change, you guessed it more than all people on the planet, fictitious entities known as government and "personhood" corporations cause the most damage by pollution and carbon emissions. Yet government and corporations have loopholes to paying those taxes. So besides being a mooch for not paying taxes, they increase their prices they do have to pay for climate change taxes, which includes them having to spend more on regulation compliance, is passed on the the impoverished consumer as yet another climate change tax in the form of a higher priced good or service.

So no, I'm not defending fossil fuel lobbyists. I'm demonizing and calling out the true villains, corporations and government who stick it to the little guy so they can live the bourgeoisie lifestyle.

I therefore have to ask you, why are do you like screwing over poor people because you're not poor so don't feel the pain they do? That kind of makes you an asshole, huh?

I'm actually trying to figure out ways to get rid of capitalism, and replace it with a more fair system where workers, not corporations nor government own labor.

I'm going to post a thread soon here on a rejected article I wrote for my employer on this very subject. As a free gift to all, even you.

So tell me, what are you doing to help fight the corruption that causes climate change in the first place? Hmmm?

 

[Fogdog]

No, I'm defending the poor. Let's assume climate change exists. If we examine who pays the brunt of the bill, it's the poor.

In the consumption function, as you earn more, your propensity to consume decreases. The poorest of our nation consume all and can't save.

So even though to people like us, it doesn't matter, to the poverty stricken every little bit helps.

When I looked at my electric bill, I notice a charge for "nuclear rod disposal fee," which means, "climate change tax."

When I do my DMV registration, there are fees for "clean air," which again means, "climate change tax."

Even though my car is a PZEV and besides electric cars, pretty much I output zero co2 with my car, yet I have to get a smog check, "climate change tax."

When I go to the grocery store, they charge a $0.10 fee per bag, "climate change tax."

A landlord has to pay taxes on property, he offsets those charges by increasing rent to the impoverished tenant, "climate change tax."

When you fill up at a gas station, a huge chunk of that per gallon price is federal and state taxes, along with winterizing and summerizing the gas, all those are, "climate change taxes."

I could go on and on.

Now who causes most of this climate change, you guessed it more than all people on the planet, fictitious entities known as government and "personhood" corporations cause the most damage by pollution and carbon emissions. Yet government and corporations have loopholes to paying those taxes. So besides being a mooch for not paying taxes, they increase their prices they do have to pay for climate change taxes, which includes them having to spend more on regulation compliance, is passed on the the impoverished consumer as yet another climate change tax in the form of a higher priced good or service.

So no, I'm not defending fossil fuel lobbyists. I'm demonizing and calling out the true villains, corporations and government who stick it to the little guy so they can live the bourgeoisie lifestyle.

I therefore have to ask you, why are do you like screwing over poor people because you're not poor so don't feel the pain they do? That kind of makes you an asshole, huh?

I'm actually trying to figure out ways to get rid of capitalism, and replace it with a more fair system where workers, not corporations nor government own labor.

I'm going to post a thread soon here on a rejected article I wrote for my employer on this very subject. As a free gift to all, even you.

So tell me, what are you doing to help fight the corruption that causes climate change in the first place? Hmmm?

Climate change affect the poor more than anybody else. They live in the areas that will be flooded, when available they supplement their diet using food from forests and local fisheries, they are in no position to drill new wells or water purification plants in areas that turn to desert.
Economic studies show that the poor in the already warmer regions of the Southern US will take the largest hit in the US due to effects of climate change on lower productivity, lower crop yields and rise in crime due to loss of jobs. For some of the poorer countries in the world the loss in productivity is projected to be greater than 40%.

You seem to be saying that the cost will be borne by the poor when in fact renewable energy used in an intelligent way will reduce the costs and delivery of energy by generating power at the site rather than through transmission lines

There is no doubt that climate change due to human industrial activity is real. The only question remaining is how long do your "villainous corporations and governments" take to reduce emissions to level off and reduce climate change. Do you say we should go on until all fossil fuels are burned up? Do you have any idea what the effect on the environment will be if that happens?

I do as much as most in terms of activism, maybe more, through vote, my membership in a local water shed council and political contributions are guided by how a politician votes on environmental issues.

I'm not really interested in any media that doesn't come from a peer reviewed source by a scientist or other professional who has a reputable background on the subject, so please don't post your dilettante musings on my behalf.

I'll just leave this article with you. Rather than post an amatuerish and unqualified opinion, why don't you critique this article? You might learn something. The article is from the economist, published last year.

Climate change and inequality
The rich pollute, the poor suffer
Link attached here

 

[Buddha2525]

I'll just leave this article with you. Rather than post an amatuerish and unqualified opinion, why don't you critique this article? You might learn something. The article is from the economist, published last year.

Climate change and inequality
The rich pollute, the poor suffer
Link attached here

That it's boring, has a lot of numbers, and says a bunch of what ifs. No one cares. They just glance at it, then move on. That's if they can get past the horrible title.

This article is how you write a true fluff piece to get people to cry and have sympathy. By shaming your side they didn't care about their own that they flipped on you. This article is correct. People don't care that getting rid of coal mines is for the greater good, only that they lost their own job. People are selfish. The first thing is to appeal to their selfishness. You don't appeal to people by giving them abstract ideas, and then convince them with Vulcan logic. That's what's wrong with many on the left like you. That's the real reason Trump won, and you still ask yourself, "why!"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-lifelong-democrats-voted-for-trump-and-arent-sorry

A baker, a mechanic, and a former union rep, all from the Rust Belt or Midwest, all Democrats, and all fed up with the status quo, say they voted for Trump and would do it again.

That's called a hook. What your article does is say, "ok, next article!"

 

[Fogdog]

That it's boring, has a lot of numbers, and says a bunch of what ifs. No one cares. They just glance at it, then move on. That's if they can get past the horrible title.

This article is how you write a true fluff piece to get people to cry and have sympathy. By shaming your side they didn't care about their own that they flipped on you. This article is correct. People don't care that getting rid of coal mines is for the greater good, only that they lost their own job. People are selfish. The first thing is to appeal to their selfishness. You don't appeal to people by giving them abstract ideas, and then convince them with Vulcan logic. That's what's wrong with many on the left like you.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-lifelong-democrats-voted-for-trump-and-arent-sorry

A baker, a mechanic, and a former union rep, all from the Rust Belt or Midwest, all Democrats, and all fed up with the status quo, say they voted for Trump and would do it again.

That's called a hook. What your article does is say, "ok, next article!"

Sorry you can't understand math. Also, the ways of the physical world aren't influenced by public opinion. Climate change will produce great hardship on the poor while the wealthy will be just fine.

The work was published in Scientific American. Not fluff at all.

The article of the Daily Beast doesn't really have anything to do with what we are talking about.

 

[growingforfun]

Looking at that list I put together, there isn't a single Republican who could support even a few of them. You do recall that the contest went down to some very slim margins in a very few states in order to win the Electoral college for Trump despite his not winning a majority in the 2016 election. Don't you?

I know you said your young an this is your first look into politics.. but this is what happens every election... theres even a name for those states.... SWING STATES. IRS increadably well known.

You dont realize it, but your hard to talk to because your so pedantic an dont really have the experiance.

 

[Fogdog]

I know you said your young an this is your first look into politics.. but this is what happens every election... theres even a name for those stares.... SWING STATES. IRS increadably well known.

You dont realize it, but your hard to talk to because your so pedantic an dont really have the experiance.

You said I was young. I gave you no personal information other than my opinions on a few politicians.

Yes, I'm pedantic. I stick to facts and try not to be swayed by other peoples appeal to emotion. Not sorry. Just put me on ignore if you prefer.

 

[growingforfun]

You said I was young. I gave you no personal information other than my opinions on a few politicians.

Yes, I'm pedantic. I stick to facts and try not to be swayed by other peoples appeal to emotion. Not sorry. Just put me on ignore if you prefer.

You dont have to tell me your age outright. I guessed you were 18-22, and you pretty much accepted that. You also said you couldn't remember the bush years. Leaves it pretty clear.

Hahaha at least you agree your being pedantic! Rofl jesus fucking christ...

 

[Buddha2525]

Sorry you can't understand math. Also, the ways of the physical world isn't influenced by public opinion. Climate change will produce great hardship on the poor while the wealthy will be just fine.

The work was published in Scientific American. Not fluff at all.

That was my point. People want fluff. They don't want math. There's tons of people like me who do understand math. But, who also think math is boring and want to have feel good article for once. Practically no one reads Scientific American. But tons of people read Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, The Root.

But the thing is, when you're preaching to the choir, you don't get others. Trump was a Barnum. He got his main crowd, but sucked in enough of you guys to win.

Why don't you understand that most people in the US are liberal. The only way Republicans ever win is by conning your side to vote, and lulling the rest not to vote.

Your side would do much better if they would bullshit better. They already bullshit enough.

 

[Fogdog]

That was my point. People want fluff. They don't want math. There's tons of people like me who do understand math. But, who also think math is boring and want to have feel good article for once. Practically no one reads Scientific American. But tons of people read Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, The Root.

But the thing is, when you're preaching to the choir, you don't get others. Trump was a Barnum. He got his main crowd, but sucked in enough of you guys to win.

Why don't you understand that most people in the US are liberal. The only way Republicans ever win is by conning your side to vote, and lulling the rest not to vote.

Your side would do much better if they would bullshit better. They already bullshit enough.

Are we talking about the effects of climate change on the poor or public opinion?

The physical world doesn't respond to public opinion. Human caused climate change is real, it's already evident in effects around the world and the effects are only going to get stronger over time.

Yes, Republicans have had their way recently. The reasons for that have little to do with liberal rhetoric and more to do with demographics shifting to greater diversity. The aging, shrinking white racist-leaning population is clinging to their entitled status in this country. This is probably too complicated for you but I'll just send you a link to an article that looked at various factors that affected people's votes in the 2016 election. Climate change policy had squat to do with Trump's and Republican wins in that election. It's barely going to register this year or in 2020.

Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President:
The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism
link attached here

If you say the article is fluff I'll laugh.

 

[Fogdog]

I know you said your young an this is your first look into politics.. but this is what happens every election... theres even a name for those states.... SWING STATES. IRS increadably well known.

You dont realize it, but your hard to talk to because your so pedantic an dont really have the experiance.

I'll just follow up on your statement regarding swing states. Yes, Democrats lost the election because very narrow losses in a few swing states swung the electoral college to Trump. We need to fix that but the EC is not germane to our current conversation. I don't really have to answer for how people in rust belt states -- the swing states -- voted. All I can say is that in my opinion and as shown in recent special elections around the country that the hardline GOP has apparently shifted the sentiment of the vote nationwide. Districts that had very large margins of victory for Trump are either giving the win to Democrats or produce very small margins of victory to Trump-supported Republicans today. The kinds of shifts in voting sentiment towards Democrats that we've recently seen -- between 10% and 20% shift towards Democrats -- translate into huge wins for Democrats if those shifts hold through the November mid-term election. This is all happening while Democrats stick to their core values that I listed in my earlier post. There is no need for Democrats to become more like Republicans. What we've recently seen is that a good Democratic Party candidate can win on core Democratic party values and align their positions to what the people of their district want.

It's quite irrelevant to me what Republicans say. I only vote according to my own values which fortunately tends to match the core values of the Democratic party. I always vote in primaries for the Democratic Party candidate I feel best matches my values. My candidate in the primary almost never wins, but I vote my conscience regardless. In the fall, I vote for the best liberal candidate which in my lifetime has always been a Democrat.

Personally, I think everybody ought to vote their conscience in the primaries and tactically in the general election. It's up to the candidate to convince people to vote for them.

 

[Buddha2525]

Are we talking about the effects of climate change on the poor or public opinion?

The physical world doesn't respond to public opinion. Human caused climate change is real, it's already evident in effects around the world and the effects are only going to get stronger over time.

Yes, Republicans have had their way recently. The reasons for that have little to do with liberal rhetoric and more to do with demographics shifting to greater diversity. The aging, shrinking white racist-leaning population is clinging to their entitled status in this country. This is probably too complicated for you but I'll just send you a link to an article that looked at various factors that affected people's votes in the 2016 election. Climate change policy had squat to do with Trump's and Republican wins in that election. It's barely going to register this year or in 2020.

Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President:
The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism
link attached here

If you say the article is fluff I'll laugh.

But that's not what happened. Even your ultra leftist liberal Daily Beast knows the truth. It wasn't "racism and sexism," the reality is your own had enough of you calling them those things.

It's very funny you will accept votes from the "uneducated sexist whites" who've voted since Kennedy to Obama for Democrat presidents, but then you insult them during the Trump campaign.

How doesn't it make sense that if you had shut up about bathrooms, white privilege, and sexism, you would've kept those "stupid patriarchal gringos" voting for your cause until the day they died?

This is how your former Democrat lovers now feel about you.

"“My party, the party that was supposed to be the party of the working guy, the guy I stood up for and worked for all of my career, was no longer part of this new ascending Democratic coalition. Blue-collar America essentially had the door shut in its face,” he says."

"The enduring self-identity of the mining life is part of the mystery of Luzerne that reporters and pundits and national Democrats missed when calculating who a Luzerne County voter is, according to Harry. They made the same mistake in places like this around the country.

Throughout and after the 2016 campaign, national news outlets were full of derision for this easy-to-spot hard-core type of Trump voter. “Trump owes his victory to the uninformed,” screamed a piece in Foreign Policy magazine two days after the election, under the unnuanced headline “Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally.” It became formulaic for analysts who did not understand the Trump voter to ascribe their motivations to either economic desperation or a lack of intelligence, or both. “Why are white, uneducated voters willing to vote for Trump? Job unhappiness to be sure, but I would posit that it is also because they have not been adequately educated to understand just how dangerous a President Trump would be to the Constitution,” wrote one Newsweek pundit.

Those insults say more about their writers than the Luzerne County voters who too many journalists, sitting an easy drive away in their New York bureaus, did not come to meet. The common analytical inaccuracy of describing Trump supporters as unthoughtful rubes is driven as much by the lifestyles of the analysts as the intellect of those analyzed."

 

[growingforfun]

I'll just follow up on your statement regarding swing states. Yes, Democrats lost the election because very narrow losses in a few swing states swung the electoral college to Trump. We need to fix that but the EC is not germane to our current conversation. I don't really have to answer for how people in rust belt states -- the swing states -- voted. All I can say is that in my opinion and as shown in recent special elections around the country that the hardline GOP has apparently shifted the sentiment of the vote nationwide. Districts that had very large margins of victory for Trump are either giving the win to Democrats or produce very small margins of victory to Trump-supported Republicans today. The kinds of shifts in voting sentiment towards Democrats that we've recently seen -- between 10% and 20% shift towards Democrats -- translate into huge wins for Democrats if those shifts hold through the November mid-term election. This is all happening while Democrats stick to their core values that I listed in my earlier post. There is no need for Democrats to become more like Republicans. What we've recently seen is that a good Democratic Party candidate can win on core Democratic party values and align their positions to what the people of their district want.
.

Honestly if think anything has changed your mistaken. But there wont be any way to prove that to you until 2020 when the votes are counted.
You can be happy with only the bluest of hardline dems. And you'll learn that many people call that extremism.

At any rate... I'll again say this is a perfect time to keep your eyes open and learn as much as you can. Hopefully you remember as much of this as possible. I've been exactly where you are trust me, I may sound a little condescending or whatever like I'm being a dick to you, but I've been where you are an felt how your feeling. For me it was in the bush years. I bet you'll have this same exact conversation with a young Democrat the next cycle in 16 years. (6 more years of trump then 8 of Democrat then after 2 years of Republican)