My uncle had a spot on his arm 20 years ago. I was a teenager and told him I would have a doctor look at that. He didn’t want to believe there was any issue.
Three years ago he finally asked a doctor (not his) about the patch of skin, now much larger, that wouldn’t get better. It is skin cancer.
Denial is not an answer to potential problems.
I oppose theft.
Taxation is theft.
Draw your own conclusion.
I know. This is so heartbreaking. And all we do is pave over more and more of their habitat. It never ends.
Here. This should explain in an easy way that acid rain has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
https://www3.epa.gov/acidrain/education/site_students/whatcauses.html
A carbon tax is the worst, most regressive way to handle this. To the extent that certain activities are shown to be destructive they need to be regulated. The idea of rich activists flying around in their private jets lecturing people about not driving old cars is sickening.
No doubt!
LOL!
Liberals want to outlaw carbon, but what they don’t understand is that carbon is necessary for life! The world is fine with even more carbon in the atmosphere. Certain lifeforms might be impacted, but this will leave areas for other species to exploit. The earth will be just fine. It might even be better off without certain species.
They turned it into a political issue rather than an environmental one. They poisoned it with politics. Using it as a way to increase taxes and redistribute wealth while side stepping any real carbon reduction. The whole thing is a scam.
I predicted this would lead to “redistribution of wealth” cries in my second post.
I really don’t think it’s the left that polarized this issue…
Are you saying the left is innocent or both sides should accept their share of blame?
The left has their problems, but I find the right seems to really ratchet up the hysteria when it comes to environmental issues.
The watermelon thesis is false.
The above post encapsulated most succinctly the nonsense of those who advocate that no change is required and clearly don’t understand the impact on humans with respect to climate change.
The debate is not about whether “the earth” will survive, but whether humans will survive.
Quite clearly we should be moving away from coal and into renewable energy sources. And no that doesn’t mean we close down all coal power stations in one fell swoop. Rather we invest in renewable energy R&D and have an orderly transition to renewable energy.
We should take the advice of experts in this area as we do the experts in medicine etc.
I presume one of the species you indicated the earth would be better off without would be humans?
I would consider the crux of your question can be answered by asking the following question:
in general do those on the right believe that climate change is real and needs to be addressed?
It’s nothing more than political extortion and will do NOTHING but line the pockets of corrupt politicians. What it won’t do, is solve the intended problem. Each of us are a part of the problem. We buy things made in countries that pollute the very world we say we don’t want to pollute. Shop wisely. Actually support what you say by how you spend your money. If all of us did that, this problem could be solved but…look around…your world that you see…would change. “We” would have to simplify.
You’re faith in humanity is nice. But it will take government intervention one way or another. Relying on Facebook campaigns to stop using dryers isnt going to work.
maybe not those on the “right” but certainly not believed by those who know how science works
