There is no climate emergency

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,786
6,385
1
I think we should be concerned about climate change regardless if the change is due to natural variation or man.

The question is what to do. We can do things like build higher sea walls, cut fire breaks in the forrest, and avoid building in flood basins. Those things make sense. We can also continue to invest in alternative energy sources. I'm OK with that too.

I'm not OK with severe regulations on fossil fuels that hurt our economy and standard of living. Spending hundreds of $billions on things that might reduce global temperatures by 9/10,000th of 1% makes absolutely no sense.

We should be investing very heavily in energy innovation and government incentives - what will change the shape of carbon emissions is people running “to” a clean energy technology rather than “from” fossil fuels.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,147
5,653
1

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
14,820
13,899
1
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,786
6,385
1
I believe we should put a special tax on all registered D's for supporting this b.s.

We do. Republicans are in heavily subsidized tax brackets / income brackets. Frankly, 95% of you need to STFU and let the people paying the bills have the conservation
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
14,820
13,899
1
We do. Republicans are in heavily subsidized tax brackets / income brackets. Frankly, 95% of you need to STFU and let the people paying the bills have the conservation
Wrong….

Income​

Financially, Republicans fare better than either Democrats or Independents, and tend to identify themselves as such. Republican candidates gain a significantly higher percentage of votes from individuals with incomes over $50,000 per year, and the advantage increases along with the income level, to a height of 63 percent of individuals earning $200,000 or more a year supporting Republicans. This level is the direct inverse of individuals earning less than $15,000 a year, who support Democrats at 63 percent and Republicans at only 36 percent.

Republicans also express a much higher level of satisfaction with their personal financial situationthan either Democrats or Independents. Before the U.S. economy’s downturn, an all-time high of 81 percent of Republicans expressed satisfaction with their personal financial situation. That number dropped to 61 percent in 2009, but it is still significantly higher than the corresponding 52 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Democrats. A much larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats also identify themselves as “haves” versus “have-nots.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,786
6,385
1
Wrong….

Income​

Financially, Republicans fare better than either Democrats or Independents, and tend to identify themselves as such. Republican candidates gain a significantly higher percentage of votes from individuals with incomes over $50,000 per year, and the advantage increases along with the income level, to a height of 63 percent of individuals earning $200,000 or more a year supporting Republicans. This level is the direct inverse of individuals earning less than $15,000 a year, who support Democrats at 63 percent and Republicans at only 36 percent.

Republicans also express a much higher level of satisfaction with their personal financial situationthan either Democrats or Independents. Before the U.S. economy’s downturn, an all-time high of 81 percent of Republicans expressed satisfaction with their personal financial situation. That number dropped to 61 percent in 2009, but it is still significantly higher than the corresponding 52 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Democrats. A much larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats also identify themselves as “haves” versus “have-nots.”

No. That poorly researched piece was based on old and cherry-picked data. Here's how you can check it. Go find a wealthy zip code and then go find what portion of that zip code votes Democrat. High incomes are big time Democrats. Take my zip code. The median family income is $200K and it went 85% Biden in 2000
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
14,820
13,899
1
No. That poorly researched piece was based on old and cherry-picked data. Here's how you can check it. Go find a wealthy zip code and then go find what portion of that zip code votes Democrat. High incomes are big time Democrats. Take my zip code. The median family income is $200K and it went 85% Biden in 2000

You’re joking. So rather than using a real study, you want want to determine the nationwide composition of voters by a particular party by viewing a single zip code????
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,786
6,385
1
Your joking. So want want to see the nationwide composition of voters by a particular party by going to a single zip code????

I have no idea what you just tried to say. There's been a massive party re-alignment over the last 20 years. wealthy no longer vote Republican
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
14,820
13,899
1
I have no idea what you just tried to say. There's been a massive party re-alignment over the last 20 years. wealthy no longer vote Republican

You’re joking. So rather than using a real study, you want want to determine the nationwide composition of voters by a particular party by viewing a single zip code????
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
14,820
13,899
1
I have no idea what you just tried to say. There's been a massive party re-alignment over the last 20 years. wealthy no longer vote Republican

Sorry, but you’re the party of welfare recipients.

The slums of Chicago, Philly, and Baltimore vote D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
6,255
10,677
1
It's funny how I used to think TJ was crazy for saying climate change was a hoax.

Did you really think it wasn’t a hoax?

Could you not see the ridiculousness with which the propagandists approached the issue?

Climategate was amazing in its shameful ness.

PSU tarnished their own reputation amongst real scientists by the way they misled Lindzen about their inquiry into fraudster Michael Mann
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
32,297
39,438
1
Did you really think it wasn’t a hoax?

Could you not see the ridiculousness with which the propagandists approached the issue?

Climategate was amazing in its shameful ness.

PSU tarnished their own reputation amongst real scientists by the way they misled Lindzen about their inquiry into fraudster Michael Mann
What can I say, I used to be pretty naive -- I believed in our trusted institutions. And then I started looking into the issues and never looked back.
 
  • Love
Reactions: psuted

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,916
8,912
1
Too much of anything is bad. Water is essential for life, but flooding isn't good and too much water and you drown. too much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad.
Without looking it up do you know how much CO2 is in the air. Take a guess. Now look it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion