It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Republicans IN; Climate Change OUT

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 05:29 PM
a reply to: beezzer

Just make sure your body is repurposed to keep your carbon footprint to a minimum.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 05:36 PM
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I'm leaving my body to science. . . fiction.

Or as my will stipulates, my friends (and you know who you are) are going to steal a boat and place my corpse on it while they set it aflame and sing viking songs while wearing those horned helmets.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 05:37 PM

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: elfie

Sure, in the United States, but what about China and India, who could give a rat's ass about what Al Gore says? It's about money, period.

Actually China is moving more and more towards using renewable sources of energy. Actually it's the world's leader in using renewable sources of energy. Also India is getting started using alternative sources of energy as well.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:17 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Calm down, sweetheart. I'd put both my intelligence and comprehension levels of science against yours any day, but that's besides the point.

First, I'm an atheist, so creationists, to me, have no value in this conversation, but it's a known misdirection tactic that those without true substance use often. Way to go.

What you appear to choose to do is pick one side that you think is right, and even though you claim that you "base [your] reality on the best facts available, and remain open to new evidence," your rantings on here indicate otherwise. Maybe I'm misconstruing you, but the way you react to being called out on your apparent bias would appear to that this is not the case.

This "scientific consensus" does not exist, at least in the terms of what a true consensus means and in the numbers that you claim. You ramble about "right-wing talking points," but here you are citing AGW talking points that have been shown to be false by those truly looking at the available facts and whose reality truly remains open--both climate scientists, other scientists, and laymen alike.

So, keep up your cutesy remarks, and those of us not duped into this AGW scam will chuckle to ourselves as you do, but dealing with you appears to be like talking to an ideological wall, so, take care, and best regards.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:27 PM
a reply to: Astrocyte

Given this picture, it is boggling - though probably not surprising - that people who subscribe to the conspiracy theory notion of climate change, not only ascribe emotions, beliefs and behaviors to people that are wildly unpsychological - and thus not plausible - but they also conveniently ignore the Kochs, Shells, Exxons, BPs, and Chevrons that stand to profit from a nonsensical conspiracy movement

This is what always gets me. ATS is a conspiracy website. There absolutely is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, but that conspiracy makes a thousand times more sense as an establishment-driven ploy to deny the scientific reality of man made climate change in lieu of more consumption, more shopping, more mindless exploitation of resources that destroy the planet at every turn, but help the rich get ever richer.

It’s not rocket surgery. There is sooooooooo much evidence out there that this is exactly what is happening right now. Personally I’ve wasted a lot of energy trying to draw attention to the inescapable facts surrounding this REAL conspiracy, through threads like these for example:

You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.
Here's 100% Proof That FOX News Are Straight Up Lying, Corporate Shills.
Creationists Team Up With Climate Deniers To Take Down Science Education.
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

I also find it silly how many people still pitch climate change as this big global government conspiracy, when so many governments around the world actively engage in climate denial:

House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming
Canada's Stephen Harper Government Muzzles Climate Scientists
Coal is the future, insists Tony Abbott as UN calls for action on climate change

But despite whatever brief lucid attention these points seem to garner, the popular collective mindset always reverts back to the totally tinfoil, all-the-scientists-are-in-cahoots-so-Al-Gore-can-get-muh-tax-money fantasy.

People always think I get frustrated around here as a “believer” of climate change who can’t handle that others take a different position on the subject than I do. But far from it – I’m just embarrassed as a conspiracy theorist to watch so many other conspiracy theorists get so vividly duped on something so bloody obvious and ironic.

Your insights as a psychologist in this thread are very interesting and helpful.
I’m wondering if you have any impressions on how to communicate the subject effectively when faced with such a mountain of predisposed bias and mental gymnastics?

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:30 PM
a reply to: beezzer

I'm just guessing here, but if the man-made climate crowd took taxes off the table and came up with alternatives to solving the issue, then there wouldn't be the opposition that there is.

Redirect existing spending.
Provide tax credits to new innovations.

Instead of spending billions on a new tank or fighter, build a better engine, a water desalinization plant, or something.

I don’t think you could find a single “greenie” who would disagree with you on diverting defense spending to sustainability oriented R&D.

But as far as the tax thing goes – look, NOBODY likes taxes, why would they…?

But money makes the world go round and this is simply (unfortunately) the most pragmatic and realistic solution to a massive problem that has so much inertia in place against it.

As a staunch conservative though, I’d like to know what problem you would have with a revenue-neutral carbon tax anyway? A revenue neutral tax would reimburse every penny earned from carbon consumption right back into the pockets of taxpayers through income tax reductions.

It would have no net effect on the overall economy and in fact would level out tax brackets a bit since a consumer tax is a flat tax while income taxes are not. I thought conservatives loved this kind of thing, so I don’t even see what the problem is, other than piles and piles of propaganda nonsense that carbon tax = elaborate Al Gore scheme to punish you for exhaling.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:54 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

A carbon tax is an excuse to pollute.

It is a Ponzi-scheme that would allow business (any) to get away with murder and simply pay their way out.


Government just finds new ways to spend more.

Legalize pot throughout the nation.

The national sales tax alone would fund a new planet worth of carbon!

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:15 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Back from vacation just to respond to you Slappy ... I'm just a sucker for being called "Sweetheart."

An atheist eh? Well, join the club. I haven't encountered many atheists that use the old "well, now, what do we really mean when we say science" as a gambit, but it takes all kinds, I suppose.

If you use a typical Young Earth/Creationist argument, expect to be taken for one. Congratulations on using your own hackneyed argument.

In general, I find that when a poster on the internet takes the trouble to compare intellects or rather to proclaim that theirs is superior, it's just usually not the case. But if it helps your ego, enjoy. I am well-aware of my strengths and weaknesses.

I've provided evidence from a respected source that specifically contradicts your claim about "no scientific consensus." Unless you actually offer facts in return, you're just puffing your own opinion into something you expect us to accept as fact.

So, on my part, claim made - evidence provided. Why don't you do the same? Provide evidence.

Let us be the judge of your "intelligence and comprehension levels."

Talking points, schmalking points. You haven't moved an inch off what can be heard on Fox News et. al. virtually anytime of the day or night.

Where's the science that disproves "this AGW scam"? You're claiming to be the one who understand "real science" ... so have at it.

Prove it. Stop offering critiques of my writing style and opinions about my abilities and motivations *cough* smoke-screen *cough*, make an argument, offer your evidence, and let the readers choose for themselves.

Or, keep pontificating with no backup, continue to make unrelated personal comments, all the while claiming "superiority."


PS: Oh, by the way, don't believe your own press. Only a fool has himself for a client.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:58 PM

Perhaps one should use less 'imagination' and instead deploy some sober critical well-researched thinking less polluted by politics

That is exactly what your position is, and every single other conservative position.

I can't believe anyone could say something so hypocritical and downright foolish.

And yes climate change is indisputable. Our climate has already changed here. We have longer, drier, hotter summers and drier winters. Right now it's about ten degrees above normal temperatures here for this time of year.

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:58 PM
a reply to: beezzer

A carbon tax is an excuse to pollute.

It is a Ponzi-scheme that would allow business (any) to get away with murder and simply pay their way out.

I think you’re confusing a carbon tax with cap and trade beezzer. They are completely different beasts.

A carbon tax is exactly what it sounds like - an extra levy based on carbon footprint. Businesses would not be able to “pay their way out”, they would just be taxed the same as everyone else.


As I stated above – it is revenue-neutral.
Net change in the amount of tax.

Government just finds new ways to spend more.

The government is not allowed to spend it. Here, look – this is British Columbia’s charter on their Carbon Tax:

All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.


The money just goes right back to you. The only thing it does is create an incentive for you not to use goods and services with high carbon footprints, and use those tax savings on better alternatives instead.

In BC this has been a whopping success so far:

The latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that B.C.’s policy has been a real environmental and economic success after six years. Far from a being a “job killer,” it is a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon-constrained world.

B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America.

At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the tax). To put that accomplishment in perspective, Canada’s Kyoto target was a 6-per-cent reduction in 20 years.

Further, while some had predicted that the tax shift would hurt the province’s economy, in fact, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008.

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

So again, what’s the problem with it? Please respond with the careful, critical thinking human I know is in you, and not the mini Bill O'Reilly (or whoever) that's standing on your shoulder screaming one-liner talking points on this issue that don't even make any sense. ("Ponzi scheme" WTF lol? A carbon tax is pretty much by definition the complete opposite of what a Ponzi scheme is)

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:16 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

First, read "Don't even think about it" by George Marshall.

Then, if you want to pursue a more psychoanalytical approach, check out "engaging climate change".

Both books are immensely interesting.

As for me, thanks.

I apply a relational psychoanalytical approach in understanding what it is I'm seeing - and I more or less think this is the "end" in terms of human knowledge. By which I mean, 'classical' psychoanalysis - Freud, etc, ignores something that is fundamental.

Similarily, classical cognitive science ignores something fundamental.

Both fields have converged in the last 20 years towards a perspective which is fundamentally "constructive", or "hermeneutic", which is to say, everything that happens within an individual mind needs to be understood from the perspective of the context in which it happens; because it is the context - the thing 'out there' which shapes what occurs 'in here'; in biology, science and now psychoanalysis, individual properties are analyzed in terms of the relations that impinge upon it.

This is my basic idea of how minds work:

So you got an individual - her brain - and the "interactions" with her environment. In utero, her neurobiology is being influenced by the relevant hormonal conditions of the mother's womb; at birth, the infants mind is packed with a "soft assembly" package of basic emotional responsiveness: SEEKING, FEAR, CARE, RAGE, GRIEF, LUST and PLAY: these can be elicited in all mammals and seems to be a basic program were "built" with. Through development, particularly the first few years of life, the infants cortex is being built: and it is being built by the quality of intersubjective relating. Here, subtle non-verbal cues regulate attention, as the infant "learns how to be" by how it is related with. Vitality is very impotant; if a mother has unresolved trauma, the trauma will be unconsciously communicated by her 'way of being'; the child will learn to exist with little affectivity (emotional experience) and will experience within her the implied traumatic feelings seen in her mothers face and heard in her mothers voice. Such is the sensitivity of infant minds to emotional information.

By the time you reach adulthood, you've been largely determined by those early years of life; and then, up until around adolescence, existing relationships refine, stimulate or arrest the nature of the persons self-experience. Upon entering the teenage years, individuation is in process, where the self seeks to "feel" itself more fully and discover who he or she really is in terms of their relatedness with others (the very meaning, to me, of a "self").

So, here, in this thread, were witnessing a lot of crappy reasoning, a lot of what the developmental psychologist Peter Fonagy calls "psychic equivalence" - people unwittingly applying their thinking patterns, learned over their own psychological development, in relating: this is because the mind is highly metaphorical. This means, our minds categorize information based on meanings; and if something has personal positive meaning - that is, supports a strong feeling of self (and positive affect) it'll be "selected"; conversely, if something has negative meaning, it'll be rejected. In other situations, whats of negative meaning does not need to be consciously recognized for consciousness to "register" its significance and draw into awareness a self-state specifically designed to ward it off.

For example, I said something in this thread that apparently many members disagree with. The meaning it had for them was 'negative'; how it is negative is probably a complicated story: why did they even come to accept the frame of climate change being a conspiracy? I think, in fact, there is a whole chain of logical meaning-formations which keep certain ideas in place, and it's only by really addressing self-issues that your obsessions with certain ideas can be better understood, and then rejected.

But alas, who is going to want to talk about - or even consider - some basic personality struggle, or some other deficiency they feel, when the OVERT topic is climate change? Not many, I imagine. For me, it seems that a predilection for conspiracy thinking is often-times rooted in personal difficulties in ones own life (of course, there are exceptions, such as the legitimate 'conspiracies', such as the conspiracy you just mentioned; on the other hand, is it really a 'conspiracy' that business moguls care to sabotage public awareness about climate change? This should be expected!)

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:21 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

Any "tax" I find suspect.

But will take the time and look into it.


posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:32 PM
a reply to: Astrocyte

Interesting. I've kind of developed a weird morbid fascination with climate denier psychology, which is pretty much the only reason I ever bother engaging them on the topic these days. I’d like to discuss more but have to hit the hay for now. Will be back tomorrow though – thanks for a great discussion!

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:34 PM
a reply to: beezzer

Cool. Keep an open mind is all I ask really. Happy hunting!

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:46 PM
Inhofe--Sen Inhofe. Quoting the bible when talking about Climate change.

At least most people, I argue about climate change/man made Global warming/AGW with here site Data, studies, or have real questions...

But the bible?

We have mentally ill people running senate committees now! ARG! The Bible? On the Climate? And your heading an environmental committee????

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:03 AM
a reply to: mc_squared

I've kind of developed a weird morbid fascination with climate denier psychology, which is pretty much the only reason I ever bother engaging them on the topic these days.

That, to me, is all that's left after you're finished arguing.

Its also I think a position of wisdom; Why tax yourself with anger? Or why allow your anger to throw you into a deep cynicism about the world - as seems to happen so often with environmentalists.

You get to choose how reality will flow - at least in terms of how it impinges on you and what you can do to shape it in a constructive way.

With a meta-cognitive framework, you can address the underlying psychology - and then allow yourself to accept the unequivocal conclusion: you can't force them to accept what you're saying. This is really elementary and basic to human relations; but being so spoiled and used to getting what we want in this world: the pursuit of liberty!! we've really come, as a society and culture, to accept positions on things along cultic lines: not that this isn't a very common primitive way of relating. But, my point is, there's something better: more educated. Based on a postereori information rather than the a priori impulse to argue.

In general, this mode is sort of called "mindfulness" - I like that term because it does highlight the sort of detachment one can simultaneously feel along with the frustration that such important information is being denied. On such shallow and pathetic grounds, to boot.

To really motivate yourself to stay in this state, compassion helps. Ultimately, they can't help being where they are; no more than a child born to a crack addict depressive will have major life issues later on. So, once you can function in that way, it'll be easier to maintain an equilibrium.

As for speaking, Marshall gives a lot of useful insights. First, he tells us to avoid using certain catch-phrases or ideas salient and meaningful to conservatives or skeptics as "cliche" - in other words, to avoid predisposing him to a strong opposition by hearing you speak those words: the environment, for example. When you speak to someone who understands things differently than you, you need to appeal to his relevant cognitive framework: meanings form easier from there. So any ideas or terms or concepts which you believe might imply oppositional feelings, you need to avoid like the plague.

That's the main idea. Salesman use something like this when they talk about family, etc - personal things which one is quick to feel meaning towards. But we ironically avoid this kind-of-thinking when someone disagrees with us; our impulse is to force them to believe; by arguing; or by succumbing to insults, veiled attacks: things that will probably be picked up and used to fuel the alacrity of their counter-response.

Ultimately, though, I think this really is an issue of mindfuless. This culture we live in panders so deeply to our weakest instincts - to consume, to absorb "whats out there". If you think about it, you can imagine all organisms as 'centers' which move outwards to consume objects. Defying the 2nd law of thermodynamics, human beings are consuming, consuming, with no metacognitive awareness of how eff'd up their behavior is. How, inevitably, they will strain the limits of the system: their own bodies; or the planet we all subsist upon.

When I think about this issue - and it's a major issue for me, as it seems to be for you - I get angry and upset. But since I'm someone who reads so much about mind and body, I can't help but see this behavior from a non-linear systems dynamic perspective. The human mind - just like the human body - has parameters: you go "this" far in this direction and you will strain the system. This could be a muscle, or it could be your mind. Or, in the case of our collective impact on our shared environment, the planet.

I for one believe this continent needs a "statue of responsibility" on the west coast. Maybe, perhaps far off in the future, when we are more aware of our behaviors and have a deeper sense of the phenomenology of human being, we will feel the need to erect such a statue. Just as the libertarians of yesteryear appreciated a statue of liberty from the libertine french, i have a feeling this will happen one day. The only question is: will it be erected before we seriously damage the earths ecosystems? Or after?

The question sickens me.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:30 AM
The whole political connection to climate change and global warming seems absurd to me. But I am out of the US and am obviously out of touch.

As far as I can see, climate change is happening- statistics show it, it can be seen around me. (last winter it never got cold, this summer never dried out or got hot, my driveway looks like the grand canyon since the storm of the last three days and part of my house is flooded. My family in California shows me pictures of huge lakes they live by completely dry, and my visit to my family home showed they are living in a desert now, where it was always green hills and flowers).

Here, whether or not climate change is happening is not debated. People have different opinions on how much of that is natural cycle and how much is caused by man... but no one bothers arguing about that. It is irrelevant now. Efforts are being made to decrease the negative effects on the environment, electric cars are THE thing now (starting to see little hook ups for them at the grocery store), but no one really thinks that it will put an end to the process that is already underway.

It is just sort of the principle that we should care about our environment, and respect it- because the heart knows it to be right. It is an emotional drive. Love for the earth and for other human beings.

Emotions do not seem to be the enemy here. I think those should have had a say in things long ago, before the intellects decided money was more important than living beings.

A french author, Bernard Werber, wrote something that I am reminded of in this debate (this is my translation of it from french)
He wrote a novel illustrating the functioning dynamics of ant societies, which we could learn from.

The difference between men and ants is-
If a group is travelling along and comes to big log that blocks their path,
The men will stay there for long periods of time asking and arguing, "Whose fault is this? Who put this here?"
While ants will start asking, "How will we get over this and who will be part of the effort?" and they do it.

I kinda wonder if getting drawn into the debate on whose fault it is isn't kind of...unconstructive???
edit on 6-11-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:42 PM
a reply to: Astrocyte

“Mindfulness” is a great term. It’s pretty much the be all/end all of what I’m looking for out of people when I engage these sort of discussions.

I don’t need, or even necessarily want, them to agree with everything I say (that would be boring), but just to be more conscious of their thoughts and actions, and how those things are directly and indirectly formed and influenced - by others, by their own subliminal biases, etc.

Even with the consumption thing: I don’t think it’s explicitly the consumption itself that bothers me – I mean it’s bad any way you slice it of course - but first and foremost it’s all the mindless consumption. It’s the way people use, abuse, and rely on so many unnecessary devices, and how easily that plays into the hands of the few callous but enterprising sociopaths in our system that exploit this lack of public conscience for everything they can.

I feel if people in general could just achieve a more lucid, honest state of self-awareness within themselves, then we’d all be golden - because that state not only comes with a more conscientious level of decision making, but also a naturally enhanced humility and empathy. The better you truly understand yourself, the more likely you are to understand others, even if you don’t necessarily agree with them all the time.

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:51 PM
^But just triggering that mindfulness in certain people, like hardcore climate deniers as a prime example, is crazy daunting if not impossible. They've not only dug themselves so far in their beliefs, but they've staked so much of their egos and identities on those beliefs.

It would be one thing if it was just a matter of chipping away at their ignorance with facts and logic and sane reasoning and what not. But I find for the most part whenever you do that you are also chipping away at their very identity, and it becomes a slippery slope into complete chaos very quickly.

I've never fully understood this reaction, or at least the volatility of it. I mean to a certain extent it’s just a matter of pride and ego I guess. A lot of climate deniers have spent so much time posting goofy pictures of Al Gore and laughing at all the “libtards” who still believe in global warming, it’s probably too much to swallow the possibility of what glorious jackasses they've been making out of themselves this whole time.

But I often find it cuts even deeper than that. When you make someone question their (skeptical) beliefs on climate change, it’s like you’re opening a can of cognitive dissonance worms that makes them consider what else they might be wrong about. So many times it feels like you've pulled the rug out and shaken their entire foundation loose, and obviously that’s very hard to do in a subtle or delicate way.

Maybe I find this difficult to understand because I can’t empathize with it. But then I also don’t understand why I can’t empathize with it. The climate change issue is a huge part of my life and my identity. I found myself concerned enough with all this (with the subject of sustainability in general) that I switched careers so I could be part of the solution rather than the problem. It set me back several years to start on such a new path, and thus I have a lot "invested" in it.

And yet if I somehow found out tomorrow the whole premise was proven wrong, that all my efforts were essentially based on a fraud - I’m sure I’d be somewhat bewildered and dumbfounded considering all the evidence and physics I’m familiar with, but I really don’t think it would change much about who I am. I’d ultimately just be relieved there’s one less problem to worry about, and then still continue working to make the world better by promoting sustainability and healthy habits. Nothing would fall apart and life would just march right along.

So I really don’t understand why a bunch of wannabe internet skeptics can’t disassociate this stuff when they have little more invested in it than their anonymous internet avatars? They love to taunt what they believe are the fanatical climate alarmists whose entire world is apparently falling apart with every denier blog myth they present on sites like this, but to me it’s just classic projection bias. Says a lot more about them than anyone they think they're outing.

Maybe you can shed some light on this. I will definitely have to check out these books you recommend.

posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 06:33 PM
My problem with the democratic champions of climate change is that instead of looking toward science and technology to solve these problems they are looking to taxes and draconian environmental laws and regulations that would do little to deal with the problem, but much to enrich themselves and their cronies.

My problem with republicans is that instead of accepting the fact that climate science, while not absolute, has produced a wealth of information for us to make the determinations we have in regard to anthropogenic climate change, they have thrown it away as a "liberal tax conspiracy".

It's stupid. Of COURSE liberals are going to turn it into another method to tax the citizenry. But that doesn't mean the issue isn't real. Instead of sending a message that accepts scientific reality and champions the cause of science, technology, and industry to make a positive impact, they have deliberately painted themselves into a corner of "science denial".

Nice job Republicans!

At the end of the day neither side of the isle has addressed this issue very well.

Meanwhile industry has. Companies like Tesla are proving that these next generation technologies are viable. Every day scientists are developing novel ideas..All while the political elite do what they do.

Climate change is real. If you don't like it, too bad. No, I will not allow liberals to tax the air I breath, and impose cap and trade because it isn't a solution, it's a get rich quick scheme. I will not allow republicans to tell me that climate science is bunk just because they don't understand it and refuse to promote a regulatory agenda that would remove scientific and research restrictions that would lead to far better and more efficient energy technologies.

It's about time we stop looking to politicians to lead us in an issue that truly has no use for them at all.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in