• 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 · Global Warming · 3 days ago
  • What are we getting by dumping $2 trillion annually into this financial rat hole called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/fund... Has mankind benefited by any means by paying all this money? Can anyone show anything tangible other than Al Gore, George Soros, the UN and similar types getting rich and powerful?
    https://canadafreepress.com/article/fund... Has mankind benefited by any means by paying all this money? Can anyone show anything tangible other than Al Gore, George Soros, the UN and similar types getting rich and powerful?
    14 answers · Global Warming · 2 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 · Global Warming · 4 days ago
  • Where is god?

    36 answers · Green Living · 5 days ago
  • Preguntas urp?

    10 answers · Green Living · 2 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 · Global Warming · 4 days ago
  • How do islands not float away?

    7 answers · Global Warming · 16 hours ago
  • Why are people so sick?!?

    I just learned that about 200 (I think) people die a year due to bulls, but 250,000 bulls are killed a year! Why are we so scared of them if those ar the stats?!
    I just learned that about 200 (I think) people die a year due to bulls, but 250,000 bulls are killed a year! Why are we so scared of them if those ar the stats?!
    8 answers · Other - Environment · 2 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 · Global Warming · 4 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 · Global Warming · 4 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 · Global Warming · 7 days ago
  • Big cat rescue?

    I’m currently in veterinary medicine school and I’m going to specialize in exotic animals such as big cats. My husband is studying to be a neurosurgeon, and our plan is to move to either Texas or Africa and start a small, 10 acre sanctuary for big cats such as lions, tigers, and cheetahs. Cheetah’s are almost... show more
    I’m currently in veterinary medicine school and I’m going to specialize in exotic animals such as big cats. My husband is studying to be a neurosurgeon, and our plan is to move to either Texas or Africa and start a small, 10 acre sanctuary for big cats such as lions, tigers, and cheetahs. Cheetah’s are almost entirely illegal to own in the US so if we decided to live in Texas, we wouldn’t be able to rescue any. But our other option is Botswana, Africa. The only reason we would move there is IF there is a possibility of rescuing injured/abandoned wild cheetahs in hopes of release, or rescuing pet cheetahs from incapable owners. I know that it is legal to own Cheetahs in Africa but I am not sure which countries. So that is my question, which countries in Africa is it legal to own Cheetahs? I’d also like to state that these animals would not be pets, I would adopt them in hopes of changing their lives for the better. I don’t support exotic pet trade
    10 answers · Conservation · 5 days 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 · Global Warming · 6 days ago