Climate Change Was Once A Bipartisan Issue. Right Wng Propaganda Changed that Climate

P

PoliTalker

Diversity Makes Greatness
Why are we politicizing hurricanes, the environment?

It is important to note that there was a time when environmental issues weren’t so partisan. In the 1950s and '60s, for example, events such as the pollution disaster at the Love Canal and information on the negative impacts of DDT (pesticide) on bird populations raised the national consciousness on environmental issues.

The result: the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act by the administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

In the 1980s and '90s, President Ronald Reagan rallied behind the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

...

It’s time to renew the bipartisan consensus and take back control of America’s environmental history. Our economy, our health and our livability depend on it.
Click to expand...

USA Today

The only thing I can see that has changed about the political environment is that big profiteers such as Don Blankenship and the Koch brothers have thrown tons of cash into propaganda producing efforts.
 
Part of the problem with Hurricane Michael was how quickly it formed, which was unusual, but predicted by Climate Change science.

Since the waters of the Gulf of Mexico are warmer, it allows the storms to intensify quicker.
 
PoliTalker said:
USA Today

The only thing I can see that has changed about the political environment is that big profiteers such as Don Blankenship and the Koch brothers have thrown tons of cash into propaganda producing efforts.
Click to expand...

I don't know anybody that believes the climate isn't changing and doesn't change over the centuries. The issues with climate change as the left promotes it, is the fact that the climate has always been changing and there's no solid evidence that humanoids are having much, if anything to do with it and the fact that the left promoted it as "Global Warming" in the beginning of their hysteria until records started showing that warming is minimal, far lower than the so-called science predicted and even some cooling has been noticed and leftist scientist tried to cover it up. That's how leftist scientist decided to change their "political" tune from GW to climate change.
 
Denial comes in three components, IMO

Those that have spent so many years in Denial that they have become emotionally invested in their denial. At this point, they would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than admit to obscure message board liberals they will never meet, that they were wrong.

Some Reichwingers just program themselves to do and say the opposite of whatever Al Gore says. I hate those "ism" words, but I guess it is a kind of mindless tribalism.

And what it really comes down to is money. Money is always at the root of public policy. There might be something like 40 trillion dollars of oil still in the ground. Asking oil barons, energy investors, and their allies in government to simply walk away from that much money is a hard sell. Some people are willing to fight to the death, let alone destroy the planet's environment, if it means they have access to 40 trillion dollars.
 
Whether or not you believe in science should not depend on your political party.

Either it is logical to you or not.

It has nothing to do with politics.

And it also has nothing to do with the economy.

The economy is not as important as the habitat.

Basic logic.

And it has not been proven that the economy would be harmed by doing things the smart way, the way that conserves.

You would think conservatives would want to conserve.
 
People's impact on climate change is only agreed upon by 98 percent of scientists. I suppose one should believe scientists over those making money off fossil fuels. The price is so high to be wrong. The argument is rightys refuse to believe since Fox Gnus tell them it is not true. Fox on one side. scientists on the other. Not the conclusion I would come to.
 
That's the amazing thing. What would you risk for your political agenda?

The future of all mankind?

Conservatives: 'OK, no problem.'

And then you try to even ASK the simple question: "What if you're wrong?'

They won't even answer it.

Not ONCE, will they even consider the possibility that they are wrong and industrial activity is really screwing up the planet.

The response is always the same.

They are so sure they are right (you know, because the other thing is not proven to their own satisfaction,) that they feel there is no need to even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.

That is *SO* foolish!

There is no such wisdom that goes:

'Plan for the best and hope you're right.'

That's BS.

They are using BS for wisdom in picking which side of this to be on.

'But hey. That's where all the OTHER conservatives are!'

And if conservatives don't stick with conservative groupspeak, they are drummed OUT.

Individual thought pretty much not allowed there.

Very sad so many want to be a part of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top