Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Yes, I know that car. By todays standards, it is slow and evil handling, as most cars of that period were. There is a luxury car today that handles very well, does 2.8 seconds, 0-60, and does under 11 through the quarter.

I have driven most of the cars produced during Detroits muscle car era. The 442 had a 400 cu. in. motor, and by todays standards, is slow for the size of the engine. Even by the standards of that day, it did not handle well.

 

[tigerred59]

Because the U.S. holds 1/3 of the entire world population of evangelical Christians, and they make up the base of the republican party. And science is not compatible with Christian fundamentalism. To them Jesus is in charge of the climate, so who cares?

Agreed, however, if the US congress is the only body of christians in the world????? Than God help us all.

 

[tigerred59]

If you care more for cash than the future, if you accept the 'science' from energy companies, if you don't understand science to begin with, if you cannot accept the long term ramifications of pollution, if you don't see a big gas guzzling Hummer as a polluter but a status symbol, you're not going to believe in global climate change. And you're likely to vote Republican.

I'll say it for the last time, how could so many be so gotdamn stupid????

 

[tigerred59]

Well, one might correctly conclude that Republicans are more learned and intelligent. Works for me.

But of course, if it sounds stupid, is stupid, than of course your kind will co sign onto it, that's what conservatives do best, rubber stamp the ingrates.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If the United States government were interested in cutting pollution it would be investing in the development of high power clean energy sources like fusion power, antimatter research, the Casmir effect (Zero point energy), etc...

Instead they're spending billions and trillions to tell us that the science is settled and they have 100% scientific consensus (which they don't BTW) and spending billions and trillions on cheesy power companies that deal with solar and wind power that have a habit of going bankrupt after being given billions.

Do us all a favor and invest is some high voltage technology research.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Old Rocks]

Damaged Eagle, apparently you are yapping with no knowledge of what wind and solar are doing today. Nor the present cost of both. To compare, unsubsidized, coal costs about 6.6 cents a watt to build and run. Natural gas about 6.1 cents a watt. Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma. Two huge grid scale battery plants are coming online in this nation as we post. Barring cold fusion, or major breakthoughs in hot fusion, wind, solar, and geothermal are going to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 years.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Well, one might correctly conclude that Republicans are more learned and intelligent. Works for me.

But of course, if it sounds stupid, is stupid, than of course your kind will co sign onto it, that's what conservatives do best, rubber stamp the ingrates.

Funny! I feel the same way about progressives... Only more so.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you care more for cash than the future, if you accept the 'science' from energy companies, if you don't understand science to begin with, if you cannot accept the long term ramifications of pollution, if you don't see a big gas guzzling Hummer as a polluter but a status symbol, you're not going to believe in global climate change. And you're likely to vote Republican.

I'll say it for the last time, how could so many be so gotdamn stupid????

You're liberals, stupid is what you do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Denier is not a science word, it's a cult secret handshake word

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Damaged Eagle, apparently you are yapping with no knowledge of what wind and solar are doing today. Nor the present cost of both. To compare, unsubsidized, coal costs about 6.6 cents a watt to build and run. Natural gas about 6.1 cents a watt. Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma. Two huge grid scale battery plants are coming online in this nation as we post. Barring cold fusion, or major breakthoughs in hot fusion, wind, solar, and geothermal are going to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 years.

Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma.

And when the wind farm runs at 25% of capacity, you're up to 15 cents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Those estimates are for watts produced, silly ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those estimates are for watts produced, silly ass.

If they were for watts produced, why did you say they were estimates?

Do you have the actual production figures, or are we supposed to trust your "source"?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Damaged Eagle, apparently you are yapping with no knowledge of what wind and solar are doing today. Nor the present cost of both. To compare, unsubsidized, coal costs about 6.6 cents a watt to build and run. Natural gas about 6.1 cents a watt. Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma. Two huge grid scale battery plants are coming online in this nation as we post. Barring cold fusion, or major breakthoughs in hot fusion, wind, solar, and geothermal are going to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 years.

I've looked at the expenditures. Have you?...

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/substypeandfuel.jpg

The total cost in subsidies for the percentage of power your renewable sources put out is enormous.

Then there's the environmental factors of changing air current patterns and there's only so much sunlight and wind we can harness. It won't meet the growing demand for more power.

Tell me where my call for large investments in the high energy sources I've stated isn't called for... If the Casmir effect pans out it could very well meet all our energy needs and put us on the way to other planets.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Nosmo King]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

 

[flacaltenn]

Damaged Eagle, apparently you are yapping with no knowledge of what wind and solar are doing today. Nor the present cost of both. To compare, unsubsidized, coal costs about 6.6 cents a watt to build and run. Natural gas about 6.1 cents a watt. Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma. Two huge grid scale battery plants are coming online in this nation as we post. Barring cold fusion, or major breakthoughs in hot fusion, wind, solar, and geothermal are going to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 years.

Then SELL those technologies on their MERITS (or lack thereof) and quit this charade that they play ANY SIGNIFICANT role in saving the planet from Global Warming. You cannot BUILD and expand a 21st century economy on power sources that sleep 18 hours a day or are completely gone 3 days a week.

Want to put a DENT in Global Warming?? 400 new nuclear plants by next year. But you see -- the eco-frauds on the GW train are more afraid of nuclear technology than they are of Global Warming.. Speaks VOLUMES to the flaccid support of this major clown circus called Climate Change.

 

[flacaltenn]

Damaged Eagle, apparently you are yapping with no knowledge of what wind and solar are doing today. Nor the present cost of both. To compare, unsubsidized, coal costs about 6.6 cents a watt to build and run. Natural gas about 6.1 cents a watt. Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma. Two huge grid scale battery plants are coming online in this nation as we post. Barring cold fusion, or major breakthoughs in hot fusion, wind, solar, and geothermal are going to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 years.

Solar, latest installation in Austin, Texas, less than 4 cents a watt, 3.7 cents a watt for 3 big wind farms in Oklahoma.

And when the wind farm runs at 25% of capacity, you're up to 15 cents.

That's the crooked math behind this propaganda. Take the INSTALLED capacity, divide by the cost to construct, neglect land costs, add in the state/fed subsidies and come up with 4cents.

Problem is -- the ACTUAL output for solar/wind is about 33% of what you bought..

EVERY number associated with this Global Warming propaganda is cooked to fool the gullible.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

So you majored in science when you were in college?

You know things like physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, anthropology, etc...

Or did you just major at learning to run your mouth off about how stupid you think other people are?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[flacaltenn]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. No such problem with the crystal-worshipping eco-naut leftists.. You know the ones against genetic engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology. The silly leftists that have a religious belief that the GOVT is the sole repositoryf scientific authority and competence. The ones that believe that wind/solar are actually "alternatives" to 24/7/365 power. Spare me the drama...

 

[flacaltenn]

Those estimates are for watts produced, silly ass.

If they were for watts produced, why did you say they were estimates?

Do you have the actual production figures, or are we supposed to trust your "source"?

He knows how ridiculous and unpredictable wind power production actually is. And yet he wants ACRES of batteries to support a small neighborhood for wind/solar. ALSO not included in these fudged 4cent numbers..

And NO GoldiRocks -- those are projections of "cost" based on the installed capacity -- NOT the actual output..

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Republicans deny because it's all about $$$!