# Climate change denialism is not a winning position **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939 "2014-06-03T17:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/101 "2014-07-06T22:38:38Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > The government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem! You’re absolutely right! The Koch Brothers, Monsanto (and all farm), and the oil company subsidies should all be cut to zero (and all special tax exemptions eliminated). Plus, the VA should be eliminated. After all, those guys are through with their service and we paid their health care then. Why should they get to suck off the federal teat now? Finally, states should only get back the amount they’ve paid in.\* \*\* \*Hint: This last thing would hurt traditionally red states a LOT more than traditionally blue states. \*\*Double hint: Doing all of these things at once would probably crash the economy of the US - whereas targeted spending cuts and targeted revenue increases would probably stabilize things. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/102 "2014-07-06T23:21:05Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > You’re absolutely right! The Koch Brothers, Monsanto (and all farm), and the oil company subsidies should all be cut to zero (and all special tax exemptions eliminated). Plus, the VA should be eliminated. After all, those guys are through with their service and we paid their health care then. Why should they get to suck off the federal teat now? Finally, states should only get back the amount they’ve paid in.\* \*\* > > \*Hint: This last thing would hurt traditionally red states a LOT more than traditionally blue states. > > \*\*Double hint: Doing all of these things at once would probably crash the economy of the US - whereas targeted spending cuts and targeted revenue increases would probably stabilize things. Sounds good, except for current Veterans who already served and had a deal with the government that it would be provided! No new VA benefits ! Great idea, not much to Intice new soldiers but I sure a healthy raise in pay wouldn’t hurt. The government should stop subsidizing everyone and everything , finish out the benefit packages they currently are responcilble for and concentrate on roads , bridges and defense of the nation! By the way, your not going to hurt the Koch brothers or Monsanto with any of those proposed ideas. Illiminating all tax exemptions would solve campaign finance, the IRS could disappear with a flat tax or even a progressive tax fixed exclusively on income amounts over a certain threshold, say 10% for everyone under $45000 and 15% for all those over with a slight variant for the transitional numbers . Super plan! ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/103 "2014-07-07T00:22:07Z")
May I ask the region of the country you live in and your general job description? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/104 "2014-07-07T00:26:47Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > You’re absolutely right! The Koch Brothers, Monsanto (and all farm), and the oil company subsidies should all be cut to zero (and all special tax exemptions eliminated). Plus, the VA should be eliminated. After all, those guys are through with their service and we paid their health care then. Why should they get to suck off the federal teat now? Finally, states should only get back the amount they’ve paid in.\* \*\* > > \*Hint: This last thing would hurt traditionally red states a LOT more than traditionally blue states. > > \*\*Double hint: Doing all of these things at once would probably crash the economy of the US - whereas targeted spending cuts and targeted revenue increases would probably stabilize things. In that case why should State populations give nearly so much money to the Federal Government in the first place? All you are doing is creating an extra level of bureaucracy. Taxes would be given to the Federal Government with one hand only for the other hand to return the exact same dollar amount back to States. All for what purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/105 "2014-07-07T00:33:25Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > In that case why should State populations give nearly so much money to the Federal Government in the first place? All you are doing is creating an extra level of bureaucracy. Taxes would be given to the Federal Government with one hand only for the other hand to return the exact same dollar amount back to States. All for what purpose? Because AMERICA! And DEFENSE! And CONSTITUTION! And FREEDOM! For the sarcasm impaired, I’m not advocating any such system. It’s more an attempt to point out that nearly everyone who wants to radically reduce spending at the Fed level is generally careful to ensure that it’s the _other_ guy’s spending that gets cut - not their own. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/106 "2014-07-07T00:51:32Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Because AMERICA! And DEFENSE! And CONSTITUTION! And FREEDOM! > > For the sarcasm impaired, I’m not advocating any such system. It’s more an attempt to point out that nearly everyone who wants to radically reduce spending at the Fed level is generally careful to ensure that it’s the _other_ guy’s spending that gets cut - not their own. Fair enough. I do see a seriousproblem though: “Double hint: Doing all of these things at once would probably crash the economy of the US - \*\*whereas targeted spending cuts and targeted revenue increases would probably stabilize things.” \*\* These targeted spening cuts and tax increases will end up in the very political battle that you warn of. I can imagine a huge pissing contest to see who and what is targeted. All of which will come down to self interest. Im always wary of targeted actions such as these. What about an across the board spending cut/tax increase instead? That way no-one drastically loses out in a newly created battle of self interest. ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/107 "2014-07-07T00:59:26Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > When this is broken down by Demo/GOP/Other, belief in AGW (with “Not sure” discarded) is 94% / 16% / 63% respectively. It would be interesting to see what the figures would have been without the question’s referencing Rubio. But in actuality the myth of global warming has no more validity than your savior coming back in the clouds next month. They have been telling us since the 70s that the sea level would rise by 3 meters before the end of the century. Century came to an end, and now they tell us that the sea level went up 7 millimeters. But in reality could anyone really measure the world wide sea level within 7 millimeters? No matter how many people believe in the fantasy doesn’t make it real. The temperature has been going down for the last 16 years, not up as the deniers of reality pretend. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/108 "2014-07-07T01:28:24Z")
> [@DingoelGringo](#): > > But in actuality the myth of global warming has no more validity than your savior coming back in the clouds next month. They have been telling us since the 70s that the sea level would rise by 3 meters before the end of the century. Century came to an end, and now they tell us that the sea level went up 7 millimeters. Sorry, that has no support at all, to demonstrate how derailed your idea there is can you point at the scientists that claimed that? You will find that none has said that. Your sources are misleading you and are blind. > [@DingoelGringo](#): > > But in reality could anyone really measure the world wide sea level within 7 millimeters? No matter how many people believe in the fantasy doesn’t make it real. Actually since 1950 the rise has been almost 150 millimeters. So you are wrong on that one too. > **[How much is sea level rising?](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)** > > \Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.\ > [@](#): > > Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there’s a real problem here it’s underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ). > [@DingoelGringo](#): > > The temperature has been going down for the last 16 years, not up as the deniers of reality pretend. Yeah, yeah, the old denier move of claiming that the scientists are the deniers, as effective as “I am rubber and you are glue” To begin with you will not find a scientific group involved on this that supports you, there is no downward trend, most you can do is a “pause” of the surface temperatures, most of the warmth has gone in the oceans, and then next the deniers claimed that that it was done to “save the theory” :rolleyes: problem is that it was mentioned before and it is one of the main reasons why the ice loss is accelerating in the shores of Greenland and Antarctica. > **[Where is global warming going?](https://skepticalscience.com/Where-is-global-warming-going.html)** > > The recent discussion on heat content got me thinking about an alternative way to communicate where all the heat content from global warming is going. Inspired by the elegant methods of Information is Beautiful, here is a visual depiction of how much... ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/109 "2014-07-07T02:12:07Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > These targeted spening cuts and tax increases will end up in the very political battle that you warn of. I can imagine a huge pissing contest to see who and what is targeted. All of which will come down to self interest. Im always wary of targeted actions such as these. What about an across the board spending cut/tax increase instead? That way no-one drastically loses out in a newly created battle of self interest. It’s a hijack (and has been done here several times already), so we should probably drop it. Suffice it to say that 1)I wouldn’t be afraid of the fight (but then again both parties are beholden to the Golden Geese) and 2)not all cuts/increases are the same - even if the dollar amounts equal out. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/110 "2014-07-07T02:21:28Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > May I ask the region of the country you live in and your general job description? If your referring to me, southwest region,retired, part time volunteer at the local VA ( two days a week) were my wife works. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/111 "2014-07-07T03:24:38Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > These targeted spening cuts and tax increases will end up in the very political battle that you warn of. I can imagine a huge pissing contest to see who and what is targeted. All of which will come down to self interest. Im always wary of targeted actions such as these. What about an across the board spending cut/tax increase instead? That way no-one drastically loses out in a newly created battle of self interest. There will never be across-the-board cuts. Either they’ll bury the details in the fine print (“These are across the board spending cuts! (Except for this multi-billion dollar weapons program that the Pentagon truly needs. And which happens to be made in my district.)”). Or one side will push for across-the-board cuts because they think it favors them politically to do so (which is just another form of self-interest). If Congress ever has enough cooperation to compromise on across-the-board cuts, they could put that same spirit of cooperation into figuring out targeted cuts that would impact both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/112 "2014-07-07T03:42:48Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > If your referring to me, southwest region,retired, part time volunteer at the local VA ( two days a week) were my wife works. So you’re fixed-income on one side and dependent on government spending on the other. And you want the government to cut spending. See my post about cuts always being targeted to the other guy. Problem is that every program impacts some other guy and he wants to keep his and cut yours. Who wins? ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/113 "2014-07-07T04:02:16Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > So you’re fixed-income on one side and dependent on government spending on the other. And you want the government to cut spending. See my post about cuts always being targeted to the other guy. Problem is that every program impacts some other guy and he wants to keep his and cut yours. Who wins? Let’s see, I want to end the VA, so my wife loses her job, and I’m fixed income?, I’m not sure that I get what your saying?her income is not relevant by the way, she is however retired Air Force tho, so it would be shitty of me to want to deny her of money she already earned I guess, not that I need it, but it is hers! ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/114 "2014-07-07T06:32:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The costs of doing nothing = X > > The cost of doing something and achieving nothing = X + the cost of the ineffectual changes. > > When you guys come up with ideas that actually work, we’ll be listening. If only the typical Republican position were _actually_ “We need more drastic climate change solutions”. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/115 "2014-07-07T11:09:26Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > If only the typical Republican position were _actually_ “We need more drastic climate change solutions”. Nice way of changing the wording of the post you were replying to. Ineffectual is not spelt d-r-a-s-t-i-c. ---
**Author:** ![Cabbage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Cabbage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabbage)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/116 "2014-07-07T11:53:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The costs of doing nothing = X > > The cost of doing something and achieving nothing = X + the cost of the ineffectual changes. > > When you guys come up with ideas that actually work, we’ll be listening. If “we” refers to the Republican party, that’s bullshit and you know it. Republicans won’t be listening to any ideas that work; they deny there’s even a problem. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/117 "2014-07-07T12:56:12Z")
They’ll listen to whatever their patrons tell them to listen to, right? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/118 "2014-07-07T21:13:30Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > The government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem! Yeah, everyone they say that until some spending they like or need is threatened with the axe. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/119 "2014-07-09T10:29:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yeah, everyone they say that until some spending they like or need is threatened with the axe. Doesn’t make it any less true! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/120 "2014-07-09T17:31:49Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > Doesn’t make it any less true! Actually, it does, if you think about it, if you can. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=7)