Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

[iceaura]

That should be the question...do you think folk are ignorant of what goes on?

The entire Republican voting base is ignorant of what goes on. They could hardly be otherwise - they have been immersed in corporate controlled mass media their entire adult lives.

I don't care what excuses you offer but if you can't get everyone on side it is not only the fault of corruption or Christians or deniers ...

I think it is largely the fault of the corporate fascist movement that took over the Republican Party, especially its dominating influence on US media.
It's not a matter of "sides" - there is the US fascist movement, and there is everyone else in all their variety. The fascist movement frames the public discussion.

if you think that is not part of the problem I really do not know how to talk to you.

I think the root cause of that is the single major factor - a complex "cause" that dates to the Civil War, and lies underneath the capitulation to the corporate media feed and fascist rise.

But there comes a point where something needs to be done..in USA..

A point passed years ago. 1980, to be precise.

I must look into that...but their apppathy must suggest they are what we call swinging voters.

They are, on average, according to surveys and polls and such, the most liberal and left-leaning citizens of the country. Whatever "swinging" they do is not between "sides", usually, not between Republicans and Democrats - it's between voting and not voting.
The continuing efforts of the Republican Party to discourage them from voting (the Rep marketing pros know what they favor, and would vote for) is a very large and significant factor - it's what the Reps are doing with the Russians, with the various ID requirements and infrastructural manipulations, and so forth.

The Reps aren't digging for votes - they are trying to bury them.

I can't be the only person who believes corruption is the rule and fair play the exception.

You share that belief with the nonvoters of the US - the fraction with plurality, in almost all elections. It's part of the "bothsides" lifeboat, built by Republican media pros to allow escape from blame for the consequences of what they have done.
There will be such a boat for the agw deniers to flee in, when disaster strikes. What is obviously a Republican Party stance now will be transformed into "bipartisan" error, blamed on everyone alike , just as with the various disasters of W's administration or Obama's Congress.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Whatever "swinging" they do is not between "sides", usually, not between Republicans and Democrats - it's between voting and not voting.

Well I must interpret that as me being correct...make it compulsory. I know I know the Republicans would run any referendum on the issue as the government is trying to take away your rights.
My tip is make sure all your democratic candidates are film stars..that will get them voting.
Anyways I just don't want to know anymore I feel so helpless and I think Republicans are much worse than our Liberals and they are going radical right.

Thanks
Alex

 

[Seattle]

I think, in many cases, it just boils down to the Trump core feeling they have no control over their lives. Rather than voting for Democrats which would actually be in their best self-interest they vote for Republicans and feel that at least the government won't be taking anything away from them.

It's misguided of course. Many people with average jobs who aren't married, can't afford to live in many major cities anymore (without 5 roommates).

Trump isn't going to help them so the attraction must just be a "f" you kind of response. The very liberal candidates who might actually make their lives better potentially will ensure that Trump is re-elected by scaring them off with "free" healthcare and education and the attendant costs.

Democracy only works with an informed electorate and we are often lacking that.

When it gets too polarized there are legitimate reasons for a party's natural constituents to not come aboard or to just not vote. If the Democrats eliminated the capital gains tax and replaced it with personal income rates for everyone (and not just the top earners) I'd have to reject certain candidates that I might be for otherwise. I wouldn't become a Republican but I might have to vote that way (not Trump) in certain elections.

Parties need to keep their eyes on the ball and not take away incentives for the middle-class to take care of themselves and not just have to rely on the government.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

lol ^^

To the OP - I wouldn't say they're conspiracy theorists, rather they just seem ignorant to the evidence that is before them, pointing to climate change. For some though, the ''denying'' has more to do with the how of climate change, not necessarily that they deny climate change, altogether. They simply don't believe that humankind plays a crucial role in it.

But they believe that "scientists" are making shit up to keep it going. That's a red flag for conspiracy theorists.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are in Australia?
Remember...it went this way...global warming ...Yada Yada...next some mob..here is the map where all the NP plants will go that will save the planet...why and how did that even make the news?

yeah Melbourne...
My guess is that they published it because Australia has a history of being anti Nuclear power and the media had an agenda to incite outrage from the Greens...sells news papers and subscriptions..
Like you, I abhor the very notion of nuclear energy being utilized mainly because we till don't know how to manage it's production properly and the time spent attempting to learn how to manage it properly could be better spent learning how to optimize renewable's with an environmentally sustainable and symbiotic outcome as a priority.
Example:
When they/we can learn how to harness the bio-energy of a forest that is beneficial to the forest, suddenly the whole planet would be green...

We just need to stop making poison or metaphorically shooting ourselves in the foot...or sh*tting in our own bed.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Like you, I abhor the very notion of nuclear energy being utilized mainly because we till don't know how to manage it's production properly and the time spent attempting to learn how to manage it properly could be better spent learning how to optimize renewable's with an environmentally sustainable and symbiotic outcome as a priority.

And storing the waste...hmmmm guess where.
Alex

 

[billvon]

[QUOTE="Quantum Quack, post: 3605349, member: 13925"Like you, I abhor the very notion of nuclear energy being utilized mainly because we till don't know how to manage it's production properly and the time spent attempting to learn how to manage it properly could be better spent learning how to optimize renewable's with an environmentally sustainable and symbiotic outcome as a priority.[/QUOTE]
I do as well. Unfortunately, to make any headway on climate change, it's important to use every tool we have - and that includes nuclear.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And storing the waste...hmmmm guess where.
Alex

I can appreciate your angst and agree totally that rampant consumerism is the nub of the problem.

As no doubt you are aware, no matter how we try to insulate ourselves from our neighbors we are still going to be impacted upon by their actions. In the era of inevitable globalization this becomes even more profound. For example, all your efforts to lead what you consider to be an effective and self beautifying minimalist life style can come to nought simply because a nation like China allows the ongoing production of CFC's (ozone depleting) or Russia experiments with a hybrid nuclear powered engine that explodes and irradiates the globe with unknown (heavily classified) or even radical, nuclear pollution or Genetically Modified mosquitoes cause unexpected and rampant mutations in Koalas on your property. (sigh!)

It makes me angry as I am sure it does many, that our neighbors can contaminate our water, our air and our life with out us being able to do a damn thing about it other than conflict and war.
but that is life....and we need to get over it and work towards a better way of getting along..or perish in the process.

Mankind's desire for more and more stuff to consume has led to this climate crisis, increased disconnection from nature and each other. A focus on things devoid of any real intrinsic value, and have a great fear that their addiction to stuff (consuming) will become unrequited. Focused on "want" rather than "need"...blah blah blah...
uhm ... sorry ...end of rant...

 

[Quantum Quack]

[QUOTE="Quantum Quack, post: 3605349, member: 13925"Like you, I abhor the very notion of nuclear energy being utilized mainly because we till don't know how to manage it's production properly and the time spent attempting to learn how to manage it properly could be better spent learning how to optimize renewable's with an environmentally sustainable and symbiotic outcome as a priority.

I do as well. Unfortunately, to make any headway on climate change, it's important to use every tool we have - and that includes nuclear.

yes we are beyond having the luxury of redeeming ourselves. Nuclear powered facilities may indeed become necessary in the short term...

 

[iceaura]

I do as well. Unfortunately, to make any headway on climate change, it's important to use every tool we have - and that includes nuclear.

Depriving cheaper, quicker, and more easily employed tools of the large resources that would be used up by nuclear power will slow the making of headway on climate change.

 

[billvon]

Depriving cheaper, quicker, and more easily employed tools of the large resources that would be used up by nuclear power will slow the making of headway on climate change.

No depriving. Do them all. If we can only do one thing, we are doomed anyway.

HTGR's are currently the only way we can make hydrogen economically. And with hydrogen comes storage for fuel cell operation, and synthesis of fuels and fertilizers.

 

[iceaura]

No depriving. Do them all

Do the higher payoff and more efficient first - if there's money left over, look at the expensive options.

HTGR's are currently the only way we can make hydrogen economically.

Thermal solar can do it cheaper.

 

[James R]

Do the higher payoff and more efficient first - if there's money left over, look at the expensive options.

One problem with that is that the lead time on building, say, a nuclear reactor of a reasonable size for commercial energy generation, is quite long (years, possibly decades, depending on where you're starting from with going nuclear), and we don't have a lot of time to wait to address climate change.

There's no reason why we can't do nuclear and renewables. Nuclear is carbon-neutral and it is a mature technology at this point in time. Unfortunately, a lot of people have ingrained ideological biases against nuclear power. Understandably, there's also quite a lot of fear, but that tends to be a result of past nuclear accidents that were caused by poor management and/or planning.

 

[Jeeves]

Mankind's desire for more and more stuff to consume has led to this climate crisis, increased disconnection from nature and each other.

And that desire is, itself, a symptom of a deep malaise. All other species, as well as "primitive" mankind, had a sense of sufficiency. They would stop eating when they were no longer hungry; stop picking up things once they couldn't carry any more; stop trying to occupy more territory than they could defend. Civilization erased the concept of "enough". Civilization took away its members' individual identity, leaving a bottomless hole in our psyches, and what it keeps shoveling into that hole is "more". Fatter food, taller buildings, faster vehicles, stronger drugs, shinier bling, more destructive guns, higher walls, louder drums, more vacuous slogans, etc. That malaise won't go away unless we somehow re-possess our souls.

Nuclear powered facilities may indeed become necessary in the short term...

Only, they're not "short-term", are they? Huge investment of resources up front means it must yield huge return before it's retired - and the waste product linger on for 150,000 years.

James R -- Understandably, there's also quite a lot of fear, but that tends to be a result of past nuclear accidents that were caused by poor management and/or planning.

So are all accidents. We've known that for some thousands of years, and yet... Oops! there's another one! Guess what Alberta is going to hold its breath until it gets! Yep, another, bigger pipeline, subsidized and facilitated by the federal government. The same with nuclear power. You'd expect after Three-Mile island... well, then, maybe after Chernobyl... or any of the accidents, we'd have learned all about safety and proper management. Are accidents things that happen only in Europe, or everywhere, all the time?
Accidents are simply events that nobody was expecting.
Meanwhile, in order to make effective use of the generated power, you're committed, for the lifetime of that generator, to the existing grid. We're seeing in California, Quebec and throughout the Caribbean islands, just what a bad idea that is.

 

[billvon]

Do the higher payoff and more efficient first - if there's money left over, look at the expensive options.

We no longer have the luxury of waiting.

Thermal solar can do it cheaper.

Absolutely not. No way, no how. Solar thermal isn't even economical for electrical production, much less the much more difficult/expensive solar thermal dissociation process.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And that desire is, itself, a symptom of a deep malaise. All other species, as well as "primitive" mankind, had a sense of sufficiency. They would stop eating when they were no longer hungry; stop picking up things once they couldn't carry any more; stop trying to occupy more territory than they could defend. Civilization erased the concept of "enough". Civilization took away its members' individual identity, leaving a bottomless hole in our psyches, and what it keeps shoveling into that hole is "more". Fatter food, taller buildings, faster vehicles, stronger drugs, shinier bling, more destructive guns, higher walls, louder drums, more vacuous slogans, etc. That malaise won't go away unless we somehow re-possess our souls.

Only, they're not "short-term", are they? Huge investment of resources up front means it must yield huge return before it's retired - and the waste product linger on for 150,000 years.

So are all accidents. We've known that for some thousands of years, and yet... Oops! there's another one! Guess what Alberta is going to hold its breath until it gets! Yep, another, bigger pipeline, subsidized and facilitated by the federal government. The same with nuclear power. You'd expect after Three-Mile island... well, then, maybe after Chernobyl... or any of the accidents, we'd have learned all about safety and proper management. Are accidents things that happen only in Europe, or everywhere, all the time?
Accidents are simply events that nobody was expecting.
Meanwhile, in order to make effective use of the generated power, you're committed, for the lifetime of that generator, to the existing grid. We're seeing in California, Quebec and throughout the Caribbean islands, just what a bad idea that is.

Perhaps just give every one a single solar panel and battery and say "That's it". You get no more... and see how long it takes for consumerism to become minimal. ( how quickly people start getting 10 hours sleep a night lol)
The point that comes to mind is that consumerism is directly tied to energy availability. Especially electricity. If we continue to build nuclear facilities then consumerism will remain excessive... ( that sort of idea)
A little bit of deprivation can go a long way to solving the problem...by teaching self restraint and discipline.

 

[Jeeves]

The point that comes to mind is that consumerism is directly tied to energy availability. Especially electricity.

Yes, they're inextricably connected. The capitalist grow-or-die economic model mandates it.
That's why in western cultures, we never address climate change, or overpopulation or pollution or income disparity in any sensible or realistic terms. We talk about these problems only in terms of "How to satisfy the demand?". It's inconceivable to suggest that we down-size the demand: produce less of everything, including people.

If we continue to build nuclear facilities then consumerism will remain excessive...

You know what happens with appeasement, right? Meet the demand and the response will not be gratitude or satisfaction; it will be yet another demand for even more. In case some middle-class people were feeling the glut and attempted to detoxify their life, they're held up to ridicule and shunned, while the advertising "industry" goes into overdrive.
You remember how to cure depression, bond with your children, recover from divorce and fight terrorism, don't you? Go shopping! If you can't afford to shop, get a credit card. If you don't qualify for a credit card, get a payday loan. Keep those lights burning!

 

[Seattle]

I think the better approach would be to guarantee everyone a decent paying job, make it so they can never be fired and when they decide to stay home much of the time and the economy collapses there will be equality for all, some will die thus solving the overpopulation problem, the climate will clean itself or just move to Africa and you can have all that now.

 

[Jeeves]

I think the better approach would be to guarantee everyone a decent paying job, make it so they can never be fired and when they decide to stay home much of the time

Guaranteed basic income might prevent the economy from collapsing, while remedial action is taken. It's very a long shot, but the options are drying up fast.

and the economy collapses there will be equality for all,

Not at the time of the collapse, nor for a considerable time afterward - but eventually.

some will die thus solving the overpopulation problem

That's already happening - in the messiest way possible. Cheap, reliable birth control, and the empowerment of women to control their own reproduction, introduced globally fifty years ago, would have accomplished it with a whole lot less suffering.

, the climate will clean itself

In about a million years.

or just move to Africa and you can have all that now.

Not sure that would work. What comes around; goes around, and around and around...

 

[Seattle]

Guaranteed basic income might prevent the economy from collapsing, while remedial action is taken. It's very a long shot, but the options are drying up fast.

Not at the time of the collapse, nor for a considerable time afterward - but eventually.

That's already happening - in the messiest way possible. Cheap, reliable birth control, and the empowerment of women to control their own reproduction, introduced globally fifty years ago, would have accomplished it with a whole lot less suffering.

In about a million years.

Not sure that would work. What comes around; goes around, and around and around...

Sometimes equal opportunity with unequal outcomes works best. Everyone being poor isn't a great outcome even though it's equal.