What is wrong with these people? How is divesting in fossil fuel companies ever going to stop Climate Change if people keep using fossil fuels anyway? Which of course they will.
Sure, maybe you can slow some investing in new exploration. But all that will do is drive up the cost of oil and gasoline and natural gas for everyone, including the poor and middle class, for whom the cost of energy is a far higher percentage of income than it is for upper class and upper middle class people.
Why do liberals support this? Do they think hurting the poor and middle class is okay?
The consequence of shutting down fossil fuel production is exactly that. It will hurt the poor and middle class with higher energy costs. And your refusal to acknowledge that simple logic says it all.
He means you’re full of it, as noted many, many times. Fixing the climate does not and should not have to hurt the poor and middle class. Especially since the richest are the ones actively profiting off of destroying the climate. But, no one expects common sense from you, Craig.
Fixing the Climate is something the Climate does itself, over long periods of time, cyclically. Man CANNOT make any significant changes to it, and it is both harmful and silly to try to do so.
Changes to fossil fuel production only hurts those who cannot afford to pay higher prices caused by decreased supplies of heating / burning fuels. That means the poor, not the rich Socialists who get rich by expanding Socialist policies.
PS Bernie has fallen, and he can’t get up. America can’t afford his $Trillion plans.
March 9, 2020 at 1:19 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
9
4
Provide evidence for your claim, except you can’t. Maybe you should note that your statement is an opinion as you are not an environmental scientist? I don’t know, I would prefer to listen to the people who went to school to study the climate, not bloviating right-wing boomers who like to make unsubstantiated claims about it.
You don’t have any evidence, you are not a climate scientist.
March 9, 2020 at 6:41 pm
PolarBeaRepel says:
Like or Dislike:
4
8
LMAO at your ‘demand’ for evidence!
Common sense, and basic economic principles, junior.
If you don’t understand common sense, then look at what happened in the world markets today (i.e. economic principles) over Saudi’s flooding the market with cheaper oil… voila! …lower prices! Now, take the opposite action, withdrawing supply by restricting use of fossil fuels… voila! higher prices … to everyone, including the people who can ill afford to pay more for gas, and heating fuel.
You must be a glutton for punishment, and now too humilated to reply.
March 10, 2020 at 10:30 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
So, just to reiterate, you’re refusing to provide evidence. Like you always do when you can’t prove something you’ve been claiming as fact. Thanks.
March 11, 2020 at 7:20 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
You can reiterate anything you want to reiterate. Facts are facts that the Earth has cycles over LONG time periods, not decades. And the Earth has gone through ice ages and tropical warming ages, multiple times while man hasn’t been around as long.
Your demand to philosophical opponents to ‘prove’ commonly known matters is amusing at best, and proves your arrogance and ignorance. No one with any common sense should respond to your childish demands to follow you down rabbit holes.
March 11, 2020 at 11:38 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
So once again, you’re making blanket statements about “facts” despite a lack of evidence. How about the fact that carbon emissions on the current levels were not a part of the earth’s natural cycles that you describe, so you’re completely ignoring all of the data and science about what we’ve contributed to the environment.
My demand to you to prove your nonsense arguments is purely to point out the hypocritical, idiotic person you prove to be every day on these boards. You have no data, you like to yell and make grand statements but the science is against you. I point that out by asking you to provide proof, which you don’t, because you can’t. Like the time I asked you to prove your statement about 91% of americans fearing terrorism more than climate change, remember telling that lie? I do. I also remember you being proven to be lying, and you refusing to admit it. That’s why I will keep pointing out that you have no evidence. :)
March 7, 2020 at 1:52 pm
PolaBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
9
9
Correct. Fossil fuel supply decreases, or increases in insurance costs caused by this move, will push up the price of all fuels. That hurts the poor more than any other demographic group.
Anyone in denial of those basic economic relationships is biased in favor of those Marxist tactics.
Have you ever noticed that the GOP starts whining about anyone doing anything related to climate change, even if it’s not in their state? There is something about the idea of ANYONE working to better the environment and change the planet for the better that just brings out the hypocritical vitriol from members of the right. They can’t support ANYONE trying to fix climate change, because of their fanatical devotion to the idea that man-made climate change isn’t real, despite the data to the contrary. They will stoop to any level to deny, even though a few short years ago they refused to acknowledge climate change in the slightest and were clearly proven wrong, now we’re supposed to believe them about anything related to climate change? Ridiculous.
I especially like how they keep trying to play a shell game with the idea of the poor and middle class being forced to pay for repairing the damage of climate change, even though it SO clearly should fall to the billionaires profiting from damaging the environment. It would quite simply be handled if we taxed the rich, but the republicans will repeatedly try to claim that the poorest should pay for it. I don’t think so, comrade.
Why do republicans refuse to use common sense? Why do they care more about making billionaires richer than leaving a livable planet for their grandchildren? Why do they keep pushing junk science to try and cover for billionaires?
Easy, because they are shills for the rich and believe all problems can be solved by tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure cancer? Easy – tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure hunger? Easy – tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure poverty? Easy – tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure women’s right to choose? Easy – remove the tax shelter and regulate the hell out of them.
More off-topic hate from the Lefties in the crowd. Billionaires? They are all Democrats, if you would pay attention. You guys need to catch up with the times.
And again, what is YOUR solution to Climate Change? Seriously. Refute my point with an idea instead of stupid hate comments. (Not you, Jon. I have already seen you point to higher taxes as a solution over and over again. For you, every problem simply requires more socialism.)
I’m sorry, your post is completely off-topic. Do you have a point related to the subject? I choose not to engage your post above since you littered it with lies and misinformation. Why don’t you try to post something constructive or actually related to the subject instead of just parroting right-wing lies?
“Billionaires? They are all Democrats, if you would pay attention.”
“Billionaires are all Democrats? That’s news to us,” said Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Charles Koch, Paul Singer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langone, Joe Ricketts, Peter Thiel,
Here is a novel idea. Concerned about people hurt by a transition away from fossil fuels? How about the government help subsidize alternatives and also help those people whose lives and jobs may be negatively affected? You know, a safety net. How about we support a government that actually protects the planet and helps people in need rather than one that supports further environmental damage, subsidizes oil companies and turns its back on the people you seem to care so much about, who also by the way suffer disproportionately more health effects from environmental damage and lack insurance than do the more affluent folks with insurance. You seem to think we are powerless to do this; we are not. Just as you deny any responsibility for climate change, you also deny actions to mitigate its effects on real people. We need to both move off of fossil fuels and help those hurt by this change.
Here is a novel idea. How about all the Climate Change tree huggers going out and planting new trees to absorb CO2? All they do is scream that we are ruining the planet. Practice what you preach.
See above where the idea that the poorest should be the ones to fix the climate is negated. You know, since the rich are the ones directly profiting from destroying the planet, it should probably be their responsibility. You know, if you follow common sense logic about the situation.
What is wrong with these people? How is divesting in fossil fuel companies ever going to stop Climate Change if people keep using fossil fuels anyway? Which of course they will.
Sure, maybe you can slow some investing in new exploration. But all that will do is drive up the cost of oil and gasoline and natural gas for everyone, including the poor and middle class, for whom the cost of energy is a far higher percentage of income than it is for upper class and upper middle class people.
Why do liberals support this? Do they think hurting the poor and middle class is okay?
You had me until “Do they think hurting the poor and middle class is okay?”
What the hell does that even mean?
The consequence of shutting down fossil fuel production is exactly that. It will hurt the poor and middle class with higher energy costs. And your refusal to acknowledge that simple logic says it all.
He means you’re full of it, as noted many, many times. Fixing the climate does not and should not have to hurt the poor and middle class. Especially since the richest are the ones actively profiting off of destroying the climate. But, no one expects common sense from you, Craig.
Fixing the Climate is something the Climate does itself, over long periods of time, cyclically. Man CANNOT make any significant changes to it, and it is both harmful and silly to try to do so.
Changes to fossil fuel production only hurts those who cannot afford to pay higher prices caused by decreased supplies of heating / burning fuels. That means the poor, not the rich Socialists who get rich by expanding Socialist policies.
PS Bernie has fallen, and he can’t get up. America can’t afford his $Trillion plans.
Provide evidence for your claim, except you can’t. Maybe you should note that your statement is an opinion as you are not an environmental scientist? I don’t know, I would prefer to listen to the people who went to school to study the climate, not bloviating right-wing boomers who like to make unsubstantiated claims about it.
You don’t have any evidence, you are not a climate scientist.
LMAO at your ‘demand’ for evidence!
Common sense, and basic economic principles, junior.
If you don’t understand common sense, then look at what happened in the world markets today (i.e. economic principles) over Saudi’s flooding the market with cheaper oil… voila! …lower prices! Now, take the opposite action, withdrawing supply by restricting use of fossil fuels… voila! higher prices … to everyone, including the people who can ill afford to pay more for gas, and heating fuel.
You must be a glutton for punishment, and now too humilated to reply.
So, just to reiterate, you’re refusing to provide evidence. Like you always do when you can’t prove something you’ve been claiming as fact. Thanks.
You can reiterate anything you want to reiterate. Facts are facts that the Earth has cycles over LONG time periods, not decades. And the Earth has gone through ice ages and tropical warming ages, multiple times while man hasn’t been around as long.
Your demand to philosophical opponents to ‘prove’ commonly known matters is amusing at best, and proves your arrogance and ignorance. No one with any common sense should respond to your childish demands to follow you down rabbit holes.
So once again, you’re making blanket statements about “facts” despite a lack of evidence. How about the fact that carbon emissions on the current levels were not a part of the earth’s natural cycles that you describe, so you’re completely ignoring all of the data and science about what we’ve contributed to the environment.
My demand to you to prove your nonsense arguments is purely to point out the hypocritical, idiotic person you prove to be every day on these boards. You have no data, you like to yell and make grand statements but the science is against you. I point that out by asking you to provide proof, which you don’t, because you can’t. Like the time I asked you to prove your statement about 91% of americans fearing terrorism more than climate change, remember telling that lie? I do. I also remember you being proven to be lying, and you refusing to admit it. That’s why I will keep pointing out that you have no evidence. :)
Correct. Fossil fuel supply decreases, or increases in insurance costs caused by this move, will push up the price of all fuels. That hurts the poor more than any other demographic group.
Anyone in denial of those basic economic relationships is biased in favor of those Marxist tactics.
Have you ever noticed that the GOP starts whining about anyone doing anything related to climate change, even if it’s not in their state? There is something about the idea of ANYONE working to better the environment and change the planet for the better that just brings out the hypocritical vitriol from members of the right. They can’t support ANYONE trying to fix climate change, because of their fanatical devotion to the idea that man-made climate change isn’t real, despite the data to the contrary. They will stoop to any level to deny, even though a few short years ago they refused to acknowledge climate change in the slightest and were clearly proven wrong, now we’re supposed to believe them about anything related to climate change? Ridiculous.
I especially like how they keep trying to play a shell game with the idea of the poor and middle class being forced to pay for repairing the damage of climate change, even though it SO clearly should fall to the billionaires profiting from damaging the environment. It would quite simply be handled if we taxed the rich, but the republicans will repeatedly try to claim that the poorest should pay for it. I don’t think so, comrade.
Why do republicans refuse to use common sense? Why do they care more about making billionaires richer than leaving a livable planet for their grandchildren? Why do they keep pushing junk science to try and cover for billionaires?
Easy, because they are shills for the rich and believe all problems can be solved by tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure cancer? Easy – tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure hunger? Easy – tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure poverty? Easy – tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
How do you cure women’s right to choose? Easy – remove the tax shelter and regulate the hell out of them.
OK, so maybe not everything.
More off-topic hate from the Lefties in the crowd. Billionaires? They are all Democrats, if you would pay attention. You guys need to catch up with the times.
And again, what is YOUR solution to Climate Change? Seriously. Refute my point with an idea instead of stupid hate comments. (Not you, Jon. I have already seen you point to higher taxes as a solution over and over again. For you, every problem simply requires more socialism.)
More off-topic hate from the Righties in the crowd
I’m sorry, your post is completely off-topic. Do you have a point related to the subject? I choose not to engage your post above since you littered it with lies and misinformation. Why don’t you try to post something constructive or actually related to the subject instead of just parroting right-wing lies?
Agent you are a muppet LOL
“Billionaires? They are all Democrats, if you would pay attention.”
“Billionaires are all Democrats? That’s news to us,” said Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Charles Koch, Paul Singer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langone, Joe Ricketts, Peter Thiel,
Here is a novel idea. Concerned about people hurt by a transition away from fossil fuels? How about the government help subsidize alternatives and also help those people whose lives and jobs may be negatively affected? You know, a safety net. How about we support a government that actually protects the planet and helps people in need rather than one that supports further environmental damage, subsidizes oil companies and turns its back on the people you seem to care so much about, who also by the way suffer disproportionately more health effects from environmental damage and lack insurance than do the more affluent folks with insurance. You seem to think we are powerless to do this; we are not. Just as you deny any responsibility for climate change, you also deny actions to mitigate its effects on real people. We need to both move off of fossil fuels and help those hurt by this change.
Here is a novel idea. How about all the Climate Change tree huggers going out and planting new trees to absorb CO2? All they do is scream that we are ruining the planet. Practice what you preach.
See above where the idea that the poorest should be the ones to fix the climate is negated. You know, since the rich are the ones directly profiting from destroying the planet, it should probably be their responsibility. You know, if you follow common sense logic about the situation.