Do you believe that we are now or will soon be overpopulated?

[Flopper]

You know the other time in history when the climate was changing and many species were becoming extinct? Answer: every single period of history, all the damn time.

That is true but there is a difference now. The global rate of species extinction is already tens to a hundred times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years. The fast disappearance of the rain forest is responsible for most of the rapid extinction. That's because there are so many species there that exist no where else and it's disappearing so rapidly. 78 million acres are lost every year! More than 20 percent of the Amazon rain forest is already gone.

 

[Slyhunter]

You know the other time in history when the climate was changing and many species were becoming extinct? Answer: every single period of history, all the damn time.

That is true but there is difference now. The global rate of species extinction is already tens to a hundred times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years.

So what. It's called Evolution.

 

[Flopper]

You know the other time in history when the climate was changing and many species were becoming extinct? Answer: every single period of history, all the damn time.

That is true but there is difference now. The global rate of species extinction is already tens to a hundred times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years.

So what. It's called Evolution.

No, it's called Extinction.

 

[Slyhunter]

You know the other time in history when the climate was changing and many species were becoming extinct? Answer: every single period of history, all the damn time.

That is true but there is difference now. The global rate of species extinction is already tens to a hundred times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years.

So what. It's called Evolution.

No, it's called Extinction.

Evolution the old die so the new can thrive.

 

[sealybobo]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

So you are denying that global warming and cooling are natural side effects of nature and solar activity. You are the neanderthal.

No I'm not denying that the planet warms and cools without man made climate change adding to what already occurs naturally.

By the way, every day I post more evidence that there are too many humans on this planet.

Microplastics Have Invaded Some Of The Planet’s Most Remote Places | HuffPost

Plastic trash is everywhere. And it’s not going away.

We need to cut the population in half. I did my part. I didn't have any kids. Breeders should be taxed not encouraged to have more children.

Now you can argue with the scientists but most of us will take their word for it not yours. Not the GOP's and not the corporate polluters and their lobbyists.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as “climate drivers”)

Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality

Solutions within our reach
We are the cause, we are the solution.

Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

We cannot avoid some level of warming caused by the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. But, with aggressive measures to reduce emissions and adapt to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 calls for a reduction in emissions worldwide enough to keep global warming under the dangerous threshold of 2°C. We can reach that goal through immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions like adopting technologies that increase energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe the dumbass democrat animals are just trying to justify their love of abortions by harping on this false crisis.

 

[Meister]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

So you are denying that global warming and cooling are natural side effects of nature and solar activity. You are the neanderthal.

No I'm not denying that the planet warms and cools without man made climate change adding to what already occurs naturally.

By the way, every day I post more evidence that there are too many humans on this planet.

Microplastics Have Invaded Some Of The Planet’s Most Remote Places | HuffPost

Plastic trash is everywhere. And it’s not going away.

We need to cut the population in half. I did my part. I didn't have any kids. Breeders should be taxed not encouraged to have more children.

Now you can argue with the scientists but most of us will take their word for it not yours. Not the GOP's and not the corporate polluters and their lobbyists.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as “climate drivers”)

Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality

Solutions within our reach
We are the cause, we are the solution.

Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

We cannot avoid some level of warming caused by the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. But, with aggressive measures to reduce emissions and adapt to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 calls for a reduction in emissions worldwide enough to keep global warming under the dangerous threshold of 2°C. We can reach that goal through immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions like adopting technologies that increase energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).

I just need to say that I too, have had no children. But, I never have referred to those who
did as, "breeders". Were you brought up in a kennel, Dawg?

You have failed to answer my question......What temperature increase has your science
attributed to man and how much to the natural cycle?
Should be easy to find in all those studies you parrot.

 

[Likkmee]

Grant asylum AFTER spay/neuter has been performed

 

[sealybobo]

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

So you are denying that global warming and cooling are natural side effects of nature and solar activity. You are the neanderthal.

No I'm not denying that the planet warms and cools without man made climate change adding to what already occurs naturally.

By the way, every day I post more evidence that there are too many humans on this planet.

Microplastics Have Invaded Some Of The Planet’s Most Remote Places | HuffPost

Plastic trash is everywhere. And it’s not going away.

We need to cut the population in half. I did my part. I didn't have any kids. Breeders should be taxed not encouraged to have more children.

Now you can argue with the scientists but most of us will take their word for it not yours. Not the GOP's and not the corporate polluters and their lobbyists.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as “climate drivers”)

Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality

Solutions within our reach
We are the cause, we are the solution.

Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

We cannot avoid some level of warming caused by the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. But, with aggressive measures to reduce emissions and adapt to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 calls for a reduction in emissions worldwide enough to keep global warming under the dangerous threshold of 2°C. We can reach that goal through immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions like adopting technologies that increase energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).

I just need to say that I too, have had no children. But, I never have referred to those who
did as, "breeders". Were you brought up in a kennel, Dawg?

You have failed to answer my question......What temperature increase has your science
attributed to man and how much to the natural cycle?
Should be easy to find in all those studies you parrot.

Then find them. Don't make me do your work for you. I'm already mad that I wasted the time posting what I already posted to you. And I knew it wouldn't make a bit of difference. I knew you would come back with a question that doesn't prove anything.

How about all of it? Because if it weren't for man made global warming, we would be in a cooling down period. But we aren't. Instead we are heating up. So the planet should be going into an ice age.

And I'm not a scientist. Scientists say you are wrong. ALL scientists say you are wrong. At least the ones who specialize in this stuff. The ones that disagree are paid lobbyists.

It's not the world scientists who are all in collusion with each other and lying to us so they can keep their funding. That's a conspiracy theory on the grandest of scales. Imagine how many people would have to be in on it.

But we know the GOP are lying and we know who they are lying for. We listen to their carefully crafted words as their arguments change. Today they say they aren't denying man made global warming, but then in the next breath they do deny it. So they are not being intellectually honest and you are still swallowing the deniers arguments even though the GOP aren't even denying it anymore. THey are but they are being careful not to call it a hoax because they know it is not.

Now they are saying things like,

1. How much is man responsible?
2. Is there anything that we can do about it?
3. Why does the USA have to when other countries don't?
4. Who's going to pay for it?

In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies

John Barrasso, a Republican Senator from uranium-rich Wyoming, with President Trump in 2017. Mr. Barrasso has introduced a bill to promote nuclear power that he frames as a climate solution.

When John Barrasso, a Republican from oil and uranium-rich Wyoming who has spent years blocking climate change legislation, introduced a bill this year to promote nuclear energy, he added a twist: a desire to tackle global warming.

Mr. Barrasso’s remarks — “If we are serious about climate change, we must be serious about expanding our use of nuclear energy” — were hardly a clarion call to action. Still they were highly unusual for the lawmaker who, despite decades of support for nuclear power and other policies that would reduce planet-warming emissions, has until recently avoided talking about them in the context of climate change.

The comments represent an important shift among Republicans in Congress. Driven by polls showing that voters in both parties — particularly younger Americans — are increasingly concerned about a warming planet, and prodded by the new Democratic majority in the House shining a spotlight on the issue, a growing number of Republicans are now openly discussing climate change and proposing what they call conservative solutions.

“Denying the basic existence of climate change is no longer a credible position,” said Whit Ayers, a Republican political consultant, pointing out the growing climate concern among millennials as well as centrist voters — two groups the G.O.P. will need in the future.

 

[sealybobo]

Every question Republicans ask about global warming are designed to distract from solving the problem. They are obstructionists on this issue because corporations don't want to pay to go green. It's so obvious.

Let's be honest: real sustainability may not make business sense. There can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies have made an effort to become more environmentally friendly, also known as “going green.” Reasons for going green can include achieving better public relations, tapping into the growing green market or even because the company may simply feel it is the right thing to do to help protect the environment. Greening a company can involve changes to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, use safer, non-toxic chemicals in products, protect ecosystems, or all of the above. However, there can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

• 
  
  
  • Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

The Switch Can Be Expense
It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. The cost reductions in energy savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion costs. In some locations, however, tax benefits are provided that can help companies offset the costs of making the switch.

Even switching energy suppliers – purchasing wind-power electricity, say, rather than conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant – can mean paying a premium price for the green energy source.

Pushes Up the Price of Products
In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to higher costs in your production process or elsewhere in your facility. A furniture manufacturer who switches suppliers to buy only sustainably harvested wood will likely have to pay a premium price for his lumber. The larger costs either have to be passed along to customers in terms of higher prices or have to come at the company's expense in terms of a smaller profit margin on its products.

 

[Meister]

Every question Republicans ask about global warming are designed to distract from solving the problem. They are obstructionists on this issue because corporations don't want to pay to go green. It's so obvious.

Let's be honest: real sustainability may not make business sense. There can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies have made an effort to become more environmentally friendly, also known as “going green.” Reasons for going green can include achieving better public relations, tapping into the growing green market or even because the company may simply feel it is the right thing to do to help protect the environment. Greening a company can involve changes to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, use safer, non-toxic chemicals in products, protect ecosystems, or all of the above. However, there can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

• 
  
  
  • Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

The Switch Can Be Expense
It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. The cost reductions in energy savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion costs. In some locations, however, tax benefits are provided that can help companies offset the costs of making the switch.

Even switching energy suppliers – purchasing wind-power electricity, say, rather than conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant – can mean paying a premium price for the green energy source.

Pushes Up the Price of Products
In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to higher costs in your production process or elsewhere in your facility. A furniture manufacturer who switches suppliers to buy only sustainably harvested wood will likely have to pay a premium price for his lumber. The larger costs either have to be passed along to customers in terms of higher prices or have to come at the company's expense in terms of a smaller profit margin on its products.

That's what I thought.....even with the big bold font you couldn't answer the questions.
Your science isn't that good, Sillybooboo.

 

[sealybobo]

Every question Republicans ask about global warming are designed to distract from solving the problem. They are obstructionists on this issue because corporations don't want to pay to go green. It's so obvious.

Let's be honest: real sustainability may not make business sense. There can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies have made an effort to become more environmentally friendly, also known as “going green.” Reasons for going green can include achieving better public relations, tapping into the growing green market or even because the company may simply feel it is the right thing to do to help protect the environment. Greening a company can involve changes to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, use safer, non-toxic chemicals in products, protect ecosystems, or all of the above. However, there can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

• 
  
  
  • Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

The Switch Can Be Expense
It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. The cost reductions in energy savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion costs. In some locations, however, tax benefits are provided that can help companies offset the costs of making the switch.

Even switching energy suppliers – purchasing wind-power electricity, say, rather than conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant – can mean paying a premium price for the green energy source.

Pushes Up the Price of Products
In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to higher costs in your production process or elsewhere in your facility. A furniture manufacturer who switches suppliers to buy only sustainably harvested wood will likely have to pay a premium price for his lumber. The larger costs either have to be passed along to customers in terms of higher prices or have to come at the company's expense in terms of a smaller profit margin on its products.

That's what I thought.....even with the big bold font you couldn't answer the questions.
Your science isn't that good, Sillybooboo.

Better than yours. That’s why your side lies and misleads. Confuses, distracts, denies facts, avoid facts,

But your side is slowly coming around

 

[Meister]

Every question Republicans ask about global warming are designed to distract from solving the problem. They are obstructionists on this issue because corporations don't want to pay to go green. It's so obvious.

Let's be honest: real sustainability may not make business sense. There can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies have made an effort to become more environmentally friendly, also known as “going green.” Reasons for going green can include achieving better public relations, tapping into the growing green market or even because the company may simply feel it is the right thing to do to help protect the environment. Greening a company can involve changes to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, use safer, non-toxic chemicals in products, protect ecosystems, or all of the above. However, there can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

• 
  
  
  • Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

The Switch Can Be Expense
It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. The cost reductions in energy savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion costs. In some locations, however, tax benefits are provided that can help companies offset the costs of making the switch.

Even switching energy suppliers – purchasing wind-power electricity, say, rather than conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant – can mean paying a premium price for the green energy source.

Pushes Up the Price of Products
In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to higher costs in your production process or elsewhere in your facility. A furniture manufacturer who switches suppliers to buy only sustainably harvested wood will likely have to pay a premium price for his lumber. The larger costs either have to be passed along to customers in terms of higher prices or have to come at the company's expense in terms of a smaller profit margin on its products.

That's what I thought.....even with the big bold font you couldn't answer the questions.
Your science isn't that good, Sillybooboo.

Better than yours. That’s why your side lies and misleads. Confuses, distracts, denies facts, avoid facts,

But your side is slowly coming around

It's just weird that with all the science, they haven't figured out the most important 'fact'.
How much does Man contribute to Global Warming compared to the Natural Cycle?
Now, why don't you use some big font to make yourself more relevant, Einstein.

 

[sealybobo]

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

So you are denying that global warming and cooling are natural side effects of nature and solar activity. You are the neanderthal.

No I'm not denying that the planet warms and cools without man made climate change adding to what already occurs naturally.

By the way, every day I post more evidence that there are too many humans on this planet.

Microplastics Have Invaded Some Of The Planet’s Most Remote Places | HuffPost

Plastic trash is everywhere. And it’s not going away.

We need to cut the population in half. I did my part. I didn't have any kids. Breeders should be taxed not encouraged to have more children.

Now you can argue with the scientists but most of us will take their word for it not yours. Not the GOP's and not the corporate polluters and their lobbyists.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as “climate drivers”)

Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality

Solutions within our reach
We are the cause, we are the solution.

Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

We cannot avoid some level of warming caused by the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. But, with aggressive measures to reduce emissions and adapt to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 calls for a reduction in emissions worldwide enough to keep global warming under the dangerous threshold of 2°C. We can reach that goal through immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions like adopting technologies that increase energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).

I just need to say that I too, have had no children. But, I never have referred to those who
did as, "breeders". Were you brought up in a kennel, Dawg?

........

It’s generally only angry homosexuals who use terms like that.

I’m the exception to the rule. Just like you the conservative republican public school union worker with a pension us citizens have to pay

 

[dannyboys]

I helped over populate the Earth, so I have done my duty...

Because of this issue I have become a liberal Republican. I believe we are overpopulated and I believe their policies will discourage people who can't afford kids from having them.

Just like Miss Karma 'Mother Nature' is never wrong.
Put enough rats in a confined place and eventually they will begin literally eating eachother.
Take my advice.
Do NOT EVER eat ANY type of meat in China in fifty years.

 

[sealybobo]

Every question Republicans ask about global warming are designed to distract from solving the problem. They are obstructionists on this issue because corporations don't want to pay to go green. It's so obvious.

Let's be honest: real sustainability may not make business sense. There can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies have made an effort to become more environmentally friendly, also known as “going green.” Reasons for going green can include achieving better public relations, tapping into the growing green market or even because the company may simply feel it is the right thing to do to help protect the environment. Greening a company can involve changes to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, use safer, non-toxic chemicals in products, protect ecosystems, or all of the above. However, there can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

• 
  
  
  • Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

The Switch Can Be Expense
It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. The cost reductions in energy savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion costs. In some locations, however, tax benefits are provided that can help companies offset the costs of making the switch.

Even switching energy suppliers – purchasing wind-power electricity, say, rather than conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant – can mean paying a premium price for the green energy source.

Pushes Up the Price of Products
In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to higher costs in your production process or elsewhere in your facility. A furniture manufacturer who switches suppliers to buy only sustainably harvested wood will likely have to pay a premium price for his lumber. The larger costs either have to be passed along to customers in terms of higher prices or have to come at the company's expense in terms of a smaller profit margin on its products.

That's what I thought.....even with the big bold font you couldn't answer the questions.
Your science isn't that good, Sillybooboo.

Better than yours. That’s why your side lies and misleads. Confuses, distracts, denies facts, avoid facts,

But your side is slowly coming around

It's just weird that with all the science, they haven't figured out the most important 'fact'.
How much does Man contribute to Global Warming compared to the Natural Cycle?
Now, why don't you use some big font to make yourself more relevant, Einstein.

The climate change debate has been a part of politics in Washington for decades now, but polling from 2018 shows that there may be a consensus emerging from the American public. A range of surveys show more people believe it is happening and more people believe humans are responsible.

If you expect those changing views to lead to action in Washington, however, think again. In the places where it counts, where laws and regulations are made, the feelings concerning what should be done about climate change are much more divided.

Why? Corporate lobbyists and Republicans. Conservatives protecting corporate profits. And they have duped their loyal followers, usually religious people, into going along with whatever they say on any subject. That's why the numbers aren't higher. I work with one of these guys. He's the most die hard Republican and of course the most adamant that global warming is a hoax. Wonder where he got that idea from?

The data showed 70 percent of Americans believe “global warming is happening” and 57 percent believe “global warming is being caused mostly by human activities.” In a nation as divided as the United States is right now, those are remarkable numbers.

Two-thirds of those surveyed say they believe climate change is a serious problem and the nation needs to take action. That number is up 15 percentage points from 1999. At the same time, only 30 percent say we don’t know enough yet or that we don’t need to be concerned. That figure is down 13 points from 1999. That’s real movement.

 

[sealybobo]

I helped over populate the Earth, so I have done my duty...

Because of this issue I have become a liberal Republican. I believe we are overpopulated and I believe their policies will discourage people who can't afford kids from having them.

Just like Miss Karma 'Mother Nature' is never wrong.
Put enough rats in a confined place and eventually they will begin literally eating eachother.
Take my advice.
Do NOT EVER eat ANY type of meat in China in fifty years.

Even when Republicans are shown the facts they don't care because they don't trust the source. If Rush or Fox or Don didn't say it it's not true.

Even Trump is careful not to outright say Global warming is a hoax.

Trump’s 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl shows a lot about who the president thinks is worth believing and when.

President Donald Trump likes to keep an open mind when it comes to a number of matters — sexual misconduct allegations, Vladimir Putin’s election meddling denials, the Saudi government’s insistence it knows nothing about the disappearance and possible murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But there’s one group of people he’s not so keen on believing: climate scientists.

 

[sealybobo]

The president has previously declared climate change a “hoax.” Stahl asks what he thinks now.

Trump walked back the “hoax” line a bit. But he still expressed skepticism about whether climate change is permanent and suggested it might not be manmade.

“Look, I think something’s happening. Something’s changing, and it’ll change back again,” Trump said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference, but I don’t think it’s manmade.”

Stahl pointed to the example of Greenland, where “huge chunks of ice” are falling into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise. She also pointed out that climate scientists — including those who work for Trump — say climate change is a problem, and that it’s being caused by people.

“You’d have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley,” Trump said.

For Trump, who to believe — and who not to believe — appears to be a matter of convenience, whether it’s political, economic, or personal. On worrying about climate change, Trump said acting on it could mean “trillions and trillions of dollars” and “millions and millions of jobs.” He added, “I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.”

 

[Unkotare]

I helped over populate the Earth, so I have done my duty...

Because of this issue I have become a liberal Republican. I believe we are overpopulated and I believe their policies will discourage people who can't afford kids from having them.

....
Take my advice.
Do NOT EVER eat ANY type of meat in China in fifty years.

What a load of nonsense. That’s not advice, it’s idiocy.

 

[sealybobo]

I helped over populate the Earth, so I have done my duty...

Because of this issue I have become a liberal Republican. I believe we are overpopulated and I believe their policies will discourage people who can't afford kids from having them.

....
Take my advice.
Do NOT EVER eat ANY type of meat in China in fifty years.

What a load of nonsense. That’s not advice, it’s idiocy.

The national report by Trump’s own administration “concluded that humans caused at least 93 percent of the warming that scientists measured from 1951 to 2010.

My personal favorite from you right wingers: Climate change is a concept cooked up by money-grubbing scientists who, as Trump put it in the CBS interview, “have a very big political agenda.” I love how climate deniers seem to believe that scientific research grants are so much more lucrative than the record-setting profits made by the big oil and gas companies that contribute generously to Republican campaigns.

https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/trumps-evolving-but-still-totally-wrong-take-on-global-warming/