Republicans Pivot on Climate Change


Acknowledge the science, but say fixing Climate change will be too expensive all renewables are bad for the environment.

This is so not going to work.

The Republitards are venturing into an area that they know nothing about (in fact they don’t even believe in it): science. So of course Carly Fiorina does nothing but step on rakes for all four minutes of her intardview.

Face it morans. Science is bad for capitalism. The truth is bad for capitalism.

Republicans are almost like SJW PCtards.

The Cultural Left hates science too. They call the science they hate “pseudoscience” while the Republicans call the science they hate “junk science,”but the mentality is the same.

Face it. The truth is bad for the PC Dream World, so they simply deny science and say the truth is evil, or racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or whatever. Most people who figure out that the truth is evil simply can’t cope with that fact because it interferes with the Fantasyland they call Reality, so they simply say that the truth is false, the false is true, Reality is a lie, and Fantasyland is true. That’s the Cultural Left in a nutshell right there.

Republicans don’t say the truth is evil. They just say the truth is bad for capitalism, so therefore it isn’t true.

It’s truly pitiful that the Cultural Left has so much in common with the Teabagger Party. But as a friend of mine noted recently when I told him that I hated PC Commissars far more than Republicans, “Well, the PC people are similar to the Republicans. They both have contempt for the truth.”

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “Republicans Pivot on Climate Change”

      1. More importantly, do you believe HUMANS are the cause of it, rather than just an ant on the steamroller, and we can either run faster to stay on top, or stop and find out if cartoon physics are real?

  1. I have read, in something by Eric Hoffer, that the most fanatical Communists in Germany became fervent Nazis in the thirties and that the most fanatical Nazis became willing servitors of the Communist regime in the DDR. Apparently they just didn’t have what it took to be moderates.

    1. That is what my Mom says. She is a Democratic Party liberal. She refers to Cultural Left types are “leftwing nuts” and says they are just as crazy as Tea Partiers. She says, “The political spectrum is not a line but a circle. At some point, the left and right meet at the bottom of a circle.”

    2. Converts ALWAYS make the best zealots.
      Note that suicide-bombers are always RECENT converts to the Moslem Cult, not longtime Moslems? Longtime Moslems prefer to find ways to kill others without killing themselves…

  2. Dear Robert

    The right is almost certainly wrong in their denial of the causal connection between CO2 emissions and global warming. However, they are right about one thing: decarbonization is going to be expensive. There is a reason why fossils fuels became the chief source of energy for mankind. They are very energy-dense, not very expensive to produce and can easily be stored. The enormous rise of prosperity among most humans since 1750 would not have been possible without fossil fuels.

    The left often talks about other sources of energy as if the are an economic boon. They are nothing of the sort. If you have to replace your furnace for a green source of heating, then that is a cost, not a benefit to you. It may be a necessary cost, but let’s not pretend that it will make you richer. Similarly, if mankind has to abandon fossil fuels, this will be very costly.

    The argument that green energy creates jobs is pathetic, not because there won’t be new jobs in that sector, but because we can’t only look at jobs that are being created but also have to look at jobs that are being destroyed. If coal mines, oil refineries, gas stations, etc all have to close, then that means job losses. This green argument is on the same level of stupidity as the argument that increased military expenditure is good for the economy because it creates jobs in the arms industry and the armed forces. Yes, and it destroys in the civilian sector.

    Sooner or later, mankind will have to be weaned off fossil fuels, but let’s not pretend that it will be cheap and easy. regards. James

    1. Two good quotes from Elon Musk:

      “You could power the entire United States with about 150 to 200 square kilometers of solar panels, the entire United States. Take a corner of Utah… there’s not much going on there, I’ve been there. There’s not even radio stations.”

      “What most people know but don’t realize they know is that the world is almost entirely solar-powered already. If the sun wasn’t there, we’d be a frozen ice ball at three degrees Kelvin, and the sun powers the entire system of precipitation. The whole ecosystem is solar-powered.”

      1. That’s true, but he forgets that the sun provides that energy FREE, while he presumably wants to charge for it!

      2. Also, even if the sun bombards the earth daily with the force of a hydrogen bomb (It does…sort of, just spread out over a large area and a whole day, instead of one point in spacetime.), unless we get WAY better battery tech, every time a cloud crosses its path, it’ll be a lowbudget “Day The Earth Stood Still” remake!

        Cars stop, lights shutoff, radios and computers go silent and dark.
        Hospitals will hopefully have backup generators, but there’s the fossil-fuels again. Fossil Fuels are STILL the only way to have the power WHERE you want, WHEN you want, and in the AMOUNT you want.

        And again, most of the fossil fuel consumption comes from agriculture, we need to stop feeding the world if we want to lower pollution–in both meanings of the term!

  3. We are making a transition away from fossil fuels. The signs tend to be obscured by debate over whether and how to do it.
    I know a few people who run diesels on vegetable oil. I was behind a fleet truck the other day that sported a biodiesel sticker. These were things that were done without being imposed on them, unlike the 15% alcohol fuel.

    I see more adults on bicycles, even quite fat ones.

    Fossil fuels have been close to a single solution to all problems. We need to get away from single-solution thinking.

  4. The modern GOP is heavily led and dominated by the Neo-Cons which were heavily influenced by pro-CIA, pro-empire Bill Buckley. They marginalized the Paleo-Cons from their ranks and they would like to do the same to Ron Paul faction (Paleo-Cons again) after Rand Paul has or was compromised.

    In the other party it seems the Neo-Liberals has marginalized the Paleo-liberals.

    I really dislike Neos, Neo- Cons, Neo- Libs, Neo- Pagans, Neo- Hippies, Neo- Fascists, Neo- Nazis and Neo- whatevers. Actually I despise Neos.

    1. Look up David Frum, he’s the one who drummed out all the paloconservatives from OFFICIAL Conservative/Republican ranks, making it a choice of Stupid vs. Evil rather than Reactionary vs. Evil!

      1. Thank you, EPGAH, I just looked him up on Wikipedia.

        “David J. Frum ( born June 30, 1960) is a neoconservative Canadian-American political commentator. A speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He is a senior editor at The Atlantic and also a CNN contributor. He serves on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the British think tank Policy Exchange, the anti-drug policy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and as vice chairman and an associate fellow of the R Street Institute.”

        After reading the first paragraph, I haven’t decided if I want to rant in fluent profanity or vomit up a storm. He is not just a Neo-Con but another plague on humanity like the rest of the Political Class.

  5. Thank You, EPGAH, I just looked him up on Wikipedia:

    “David J. Frum is a neoconservative[3] Canadian-American political commentator. A speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He is a senior editor at The Atlantic and also a CNN contributor. He serves on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the British think tank Policy Exchange, the anti-drug policy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and as vice chairman and an associate fellow of the R Street Institute.”

    After reading I’m undecided whether I should cuss up a storm or spew torrents of vomit. He is not only a Neo-Con but another plague on humanity like the rest of the Political Class.

  6. What do you think about theories that says that climate change is something like a conspiracy made by big capitalists to make dirty business?

    This is a comment (translated from Spanish by me with Google) that I found in a page that approach some alleged conspiracies.

    “When we show the graphs of climate change teach us a graphical typical sawtooth, rising in temperature. But what they do not say is that the sawtooth graph is within a sawtooth graph with values ​​of thousands of years “calculated” by paleoclimate studies based Arctic ice basically. This means that we have a double sawtooth, but of course, if you teach “only” in the ascending sawtooth, for that, that a long-term rise without limit temperature. But if we see all the graphics for thousands of years we see it is just a piece in a larger graph, and has already had these changes before. It not if I explain, is difficult without seeing it graphically.

    Xavier Sala Martin (Economist, professor at Columbia University and collaborator on radio and television), does something like 15 years now explained the economic motivations for change, and it was to freak out. I remember that at that moment as top graduate in meteorology and working on the subject, I endeavored to explain the lies of the change that was every day in the media, and predictions made at the legislative and economic level have been fulfilled.

    Everything, including the famous documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, by Al Gore, are handling. As the world order remains for imposing the single currency, on the subject of global warming lacks impose a carbon tax. That is, for those who do not know, a tax on the CO2 generated to make the article this or that, from extraction of raw materials that compose, transportation, manufacturing, distribution, scrap paper a obsolete once paid… That is, we will pay a new tax on global warming that our actions and goods generated. From drink a beer until go to work.

    In France they tried a few years ago and could not for the opposition of the people, but give it time.

    But global warming is also taking place on other planets of the Solar System and, from what I know, according to “them”, there is not intelligent life moving on hydrocarburon combustion airplanes in Saturn, for example.

    They also say that change is producing more adverse situations such as floods, hurricanes … is not true. Even in the Pacific islands, more sensitive by the height of the water level, you can not ensure that is so.

    What happens is that there is now a storm in Kazakhstan and at 2 hours is news on all TV channels in the world, while a few years ago a hurricane in the Caribbean was known only if you had family there.

    On the other hand, changing the course of rivers and streams to build urbanizations, campsites and others has made the risk has increased tremendously and the population has increased and therefore the damage is more substantial and affect more people. How many cars were affected in floods in Catalonia in 1962? And the same floods how many vehicles could affect today? And the amount of compensation?

    As always the same, it depends what want to express who gives the data for (like it is said vulgarly) feather its own nest.

    There are automatic weather stations that gave data on the outskirts of a city, but today that population has grown and the station is inside the urban area, and it is known that temperatures within a population are greater by the very distribution of territory, urban activity, heaters, motors, etc… But of course, they do not say that, just that is on the same site and brand temperatures. Countryside is not the same that a city’s downtown.

    Do not believe in no one and find the answers for yourself, but in this case, the data are provided by them (data from temperature, rainfall, etc.) and is dosed by weather centers; natural catastrophes by the media… So it is difficult to find data that is not manipulated.”

    I hope your answer. Regards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)