• Does the right fear new energy?

    12 answers · 18 hours ago
  • Given that it was the left who traditionally viewed progress as negative, why does the right fear new energy sources?

    Best answer: Conservatives are averse to change or innovation and prefer to hold onto traditional values. In general these are nice people and when you sit down with them and explain the advantages and disadvantages of a new gadget they generally will learn to love the idea, providing that it is something beneficial to... show more
    Best answer: Conservatives are averse to change or innovation and prefer to hold onto traditional values. In general these are nice people and when you sit down with them and explain the advantages and disadvantages of a new gadget they generally will learn to love the idea, providing that it is something beneficial to them.

    The problem is that there is a lot of scaremongering going on by unscrupulous politicians, for example they want you to fear the caravan and by the news media, for example, there is a war on Christmas. On sites like yahoo this fear is amplified by Russian bots and no normal dialogue is possible. And sadly, a lot of people here don't seem to understand the difference between left and right as your question shows.

    Most people in the US (74%) think that we should use solar as much as possible, a realistic point of view. Big oil is trying to scaremonger by arguing that 100% renewable is not technical feasible, that it does not make practical sense and even that we have to live in caves by candle light. That message is clearly failing and I have seen no adds for "clean coal" for quite some time. Those adds made me laugh and I wouldn't be surprised they were taken to court for false advertising.

    Getting back to the 74% of the people who think that we should use solar as much as possible and assuming an even split and that all progressives agree with that concept (not all do), about half of the conservatives do agree. So your question is flawed on many levels.

    And to those laissez faire libertarians who want to remove subsidies, lets start by removing all of the direct and indirect subsidies (all 5.4 trillion dollars) to big oil.
    18 answers · 4 days ago
  • Humans, why can't you realize the immigration crisis is caused by runaway global warming?

    Best answer: Because imbeciles like Trump don't want to admit that they have a part in it.
    Best answer: Because imbeciles like Trump don't want to admit that they have a part in it.
    8 answers · 11 hours ago
  • How do islands not float away?

    12 answers · 2 days ago
  • What are we getting by dumping $2 trillion annually into this financial rat hole called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    Best answer: Redistribution seldom has good benefits. It punishes those that produce and rewards those that don't. The left's search for equality generally has the opposite results and their tactics result in a few very wealthy and powerful and they tend to drag everyone else down. Those trillions would have been... show more
    Best answer: Redistribution seldom has good benefits. It punishes those that produce and rewards those that don't. The left's search for equality generally has the opposite results and their tactics result in a few very wealthy and powerful and they tend to drag everyone else down. Those trillions would have been better in the pockets of the taxpayers they were stolen from. It isn't all redistribution. Some of it goes to groups that help keep the exaggeration going. For that, the state needs to fund "studies", but they typically don't fund studies that don't produce useful outcomes. They fund those studies that show there is harm.
    16 answers · 3 days ago
  • Which has caused more deaths, Global Warming, or the false belief in Global Warming?

    Best answer: I think you need to say anthropogenic global warming because it gives the dishonest alarmist an excuse to blame anything on something that would happen with or without our emissions. Many people die of cold related deaths and I have heard arguments that it exceeds heat related deaths. It could be argued that GW... show more
    Best answer: I think you need to say anthropogenic global warming because it gives the dishonest alarmist an excuse to blame anything on something that would happen with or without our emissions. Many people die of cold related deaths and I have heard arguments that it exceeds heat related deaths. It could be argued that GW has saved more lives than any increase mortality from slightly more intense storms. They like to blame more intense storms on our CO2 emissions even though that is debatable and their shrill predictions don't really match reality.

    We have increased food production and a nicer more moderate climate. History shows that those times are correlated with prosperity and health and that seems to the be case currently. We have the added advantage of carbon fertilization as well. Since good news makes alarmists head spin around like an un-exorcised Regan, they spew out other fake crisis like sea level rise, drought, mosquitoes, etc. All those fake crises result in fake deaths.
    18 answers · 5 days ago
  • It's 12 degrees. Is this another example of global warming?

    Best answer: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one. Remember? Al Gore said there wouldn't be any ice at the North Pole by 2014. And another 'gentleman' claimed that by that time kids wouldn't know what snow was. Ha! Ha! This year some of the Colorado ski resorts have had the earliest openings (in October) ever.
    Best answer: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one. Remember? Al Gore said there wouldn't be any ice at the North Pole by 2014. And another 'gentleman' claimed that by that time kids wouldn't know what snow was. Ha! Ha! This year some of the Colorado ski resorts have had the earliest openings (in October) ever.
    19 answers · 5 days ago
  • Is World War 3 the cure to Global Warming?

    Best answer: Nuclear winter is a harsh medicine
    Best answer: Nuclear winter is a harsh medicine
    13 answers · 5 days ago
  • Did Al Gore state, suggest or imply that the North Pole would be ice free by about 2014?

    Best answer: “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” said Gore That seems like a suggestion or implication to me. Most of us at the time rolled our eyes whereas many... show more
    Best answer: “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” said Gore

    That seems like a suggestion or implication to me. Most of us at the time rolled our eyes whereas many alarmist's eyes were bulging in alarm as they ran around like Chicken Little warning us of ice free Arctic which you would have to be a trained Chicken to fear anyway. Some of them still sing those Chicken Little songs.

    It is a problem when you try to exaggerate for a political cause. The exaggerations tend to catch up to you when the predictions fall flat.
    9 answers · 5 days ago
  • Will global warming make Antarctica habitable?

    Best answer: Well, as others have pointed out, Antarctica is already habitable. Not only do animal species live there but we humans have a permanent presence on the continent with our scientific stations. However, if you look around the coast and use some of the worst case projections of a 7C rise in temperature by 2200, then... show more
    Best answer: Well, as others have pointed out, Antarctica is already habitable. Not only do animal species live there but we humans have a permanent presence on the continent with our scientific stations.

    However, if you look around the coast and use some of the worst case projections of a 7C rise in temperature by 2200, then parts of Antarctica will begin to resemble parts of Norway and Sweden where there are villages.
    19 answers · 1 week ago
  • Please tell what your thoughts are on climate change and then tell your belief or non-belief in God. The more details, the better.?

    Best answer: "Climate change" aka "global warming", is a lie put out there to control populations. Those that scream the loudest about it, have private jets and mansion estates. That should tell you all you need to know. Don't be deceived by worldly "authorities". -----. The truth is that... show more
    Best answer: "Climate change" aka "global warming", is a lie put out there to control populations. Those that scream the loudest about it, have private jets and mansion estates. That should tell you all you need to know. Don't be deceived by worldly "authorities".

    -----.

    The truth is that Jesus loves you and wants to bless your life freely :) Most of all, Jesus wants you with Him forever, and not in hell. The truth is that every belief except one will lead to eternal torment in the lake of fire for every person. Because nothing pays for our sins except the death and blood of Jesus, the sacrifice of Jesus that is already accomplished by Him . Jesus loves you! The truth is that Jesus is God, and Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins in full, and then Jesus resurrected from the dead. Nothing else pays for our sins, not works, not deeds, not religions. So the only way to heaven and to avoid hell, is by believing in Jesus for eternal life (John 6:47), without adding any of your own works (Romans 4:5). Believe in Jesus to take you to heaven, and you will be in heaven, no matter what, guaranteed. That easy, thanks to Jesus! Tell Jesus that you thank Him that you will be with Him in heaven when you die, because you believe in Jesus! It is too late to be saved, after death.
    34 answers · 1 week ago
  • Is this statement about the UN_IPCC true? And even if true, is the assured outcome really scientifically correct?

    Best answer: Obviously it isn't true. If it is a review and recommendation body, it is political body. It will review what is thrown at it by its biased paid groups and sift through what might be useful. It will then try to spin it to push their agenda. It is a ploy to get the ignorant to think it is a scientific... show more
    Best answer: Obviously it isn't true. If it is a review and recommendation body, it is political body. It will review what is thrown at it by its biased paid groups and sift through what might be useful. It will then try to spin it to push their agenda. It is a ploy to get the ignorant to think it is a scientific organization when in fact it is purely political and its politics are leftist. It was formed to try to take advantage of the exaggeration of the threat of CO2 to push redistribution, increased taxes, and centralized control. GC gave a good synopsis of IPCC's purpose. I think they could discuss natural change but the fact is that wouldn't help their Cause so they try to minimize any natural causes and grossly exaggerate man-made causes. They also exaggerate the negative effects and minimize any positive effects. I suppose you could argue that it is true that it is review and recommendation body but that implies it isn't biased and that is why I say "not true".
    10 answers · 7 days ago
  • Which is more likely to be true?

    "“If left unchecked, the damage caused by climate change will cause untold human suffering and significant damage to the U.S. economy,” Schumer wrote to Trump on Dec. 6." OR "“If left unchecked, the damage caused by illegal immigration will cause untold human suffering and significant damage to... show more
    "“If left unchecked, the damage caused by climate change will cause untold human suffering and significant damage to the U.S. economy,” Schumer wrote to Trump on Dec. 6." OR "“If left unchecked, the damage caused by illegal immigration will cause untold human suffering and significant damage to the U.S. economy,” Schumer wrote to Trump on Dec. 6.
    10 answers · 7 days ago
  • What evidence is there that China will lower its greenhouse gas emissions?

    Best answer: There is no evidence that China will lower its emissions because they have agreed with Obama to increase them dramatically. Their agreements are worthless anyway but they didn't even pretend to care about reducing emissions. They'll take money if we give it to them and they will be very happy if we... show more
    Best answer: There is no evidence that China will lower its emissions because they have agreed with Obama to increase them dramatically. Their agreements are worthless anyway but they didn't even pretend to care about reducing emissions. They'll take money if we give it to them and they will be very happy if we decrease ours because that will make them more economically competitive but they aren't going to reduce CO2 emissions anytime soon.
    21 answers · 1 week ago
  • Why do oil countries have a higher per capita global warming emissions?

    The list is topped by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait.
    The list is topped by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait.
    14 answers · 1 week ago
  • Do advocates for climate change have evidence for human-caused climate change? Or do they just commit the *** hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

    Best answer: There s no credible quantifiable evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming. The ADVOCATES are in three classes: (1) Those that are really duped because of low IQ or they are too lazy to think for themselves. (2) Those that know it is BS (Bad Science) but need the... show more
    Best answer: There s no credible quantifiable evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    The ADVOCATES are in three classes:

    (1) Those that are really duped because of low IQ or they are too lazy to think for themselves.

    (2) Those that know it is BS (Bad Science) but need the money that Soros and Steyer pay out or for other personal reasons which are usually evil.

    (3) Then those who know it is a con game but want to gain power or riches. These are obviously greedy self serving individuals who have numerous times demonstrated their lack of compassion for humankind or the physical Earth. Their end agenda is totalitarianism with them in control: Don't believe me? Just look at their stated objective:

    It is this “recasting of American values” that is precisely what attorney and environmental activist Daniel Sitarz, the author of the authoritative version of Agenda 21, referred to when in 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, he stated:
    “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

    See what I mean?
    18 answers · 2 weeks ago