The IPCC and many other proponents of change point was to indeed acknowledge that, no one has proposed that we will stop cold turkey, only the denier propaganda tells their readers and viewers that the scientists and serious environmentalists are demanding that.
Stop being so gullible.
Well, I have seen some robotic technicians that are working on that.
And even the scientists that work with the theory were the first to point out that time travel was not likely, it is harder than it was imagined.
So you are only producing more evidence of your ignorance.
I have seen you before, so it is safer to take your say so’s in a context of being a partisan tool.
BTW many times before contrarians and deniers that I have encountered in the message board do reach for that fig leaf. What I have seen is that they are not willing to fully come as supporters of science and tell their morbidly denier fellows to take a hike, because they do know that their peers will vote them out of the island.
Many historians and researchers have found out that opposition to the science and the changes needed is mostly based on tribalism and powerful interests that are affecting the media and the Republican party.
Wow, that is some next-level trolling. And this is the sort of thing that science deniers think is a reasonable alternative to actually engaging with scientific facts.
They’ve been encouraged to think that being anti-science is a bold expression of political astuteness and independent thinking, rather than just a lazy embrace of ignorance. So responding to scientific facts with pointless obfuscation seems to them like striking a blow for their cause.
This strategy wasn’t new back in the days of the heliocentrism controversy, when, e.g., Luther sneered at the new cosmology with remarks like
So what are your proposed solutions? I mean, if you don’t deny the scientific findings that anthropogenic global warming is going to have many significant impacts on climate and the environment, then you presumably recognize that humans are going to have to come up with ways of alleviating and coping with those impacts.
Is your “solution”, like that of many people decrying alleged scientific “alarmism” nowadays, simply to rely on the fact that you personally are probably going to be dead before the impacts of global warming become very severe, and therefore you personally don’t need to worry much about it?
I wonder that too, inscrutable is also showing ignorance when he does not know that his position is also a common one, (a usual fall back after finding that the usual points that deniers use do not work) and in Skeptical Science has been pointed as equal to the 3rd stage of denial.
So either #3 or #4. And it usually means no solution to speak of.
Thank you, GIGObuster and BrainGlutton; I’m pretty confident that you’re correct, but I’d really like to see how inscrutable responds in his own words.
Beats the hell out of me. I never opened that other thread, and I only decided to check this one out because FXMastermind is gone, and I thought it would be safe.
Um…you are of course aware that domestic oil production has soared during the Obama administration, right? That the number of oil rigs is way, way up? That petroleum net imports are the lowest in over 20 years? Obama didn’t cut Big Oil’s throat; he’s given them a hot towel shave.
Well, from this thread and others here, the “solution” seems to be to simply get those Evil Republicans to believe in AGW. Might be possible, but do you honestly think that enough people would actually give a damn, and be willing to change their lifestyle, give up their jobs, homes, HVAC, transportation, etc. ? Would they accept government mandates/taxes that make energy use so expensive that it be rationed? Are there billions of third-worlders that want to advance to a first-world lifestyle?
As usual you rely on the denier (and usually republican) propaganda that affirms that the current way of living is going to end, in reality it will change , but not as bad as the real fear mongers are telling us.
[QUOTE]
Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed the real fear mongers are the denier ones that use FUD to prevent the change.
The reality is that Republicans are only thinking on fossil fuel jobs, not the jobs of everyone else, and that is why many other corporations like Citibank do not want to follow the few misguided corporations that ignore that preserving the environment also preserves jobs and humans too.
So what are your proposed solutions? I mean, if you don’t deny the scientific findings that anthropogenic global warming is going to have many significant impacts on climate and the environment, then you presumably recognize that humans are going to have to come up with ways of alleviating and coping with those impacts.