Toady Openly Lifelong Bachelor Lindsay Graham Tells Trump to Learn Science and Admit Climate Change

[Dino]

Reducing net emissions to zero would limit temperature rise significantly since the rate of temperature rise varies linearly with greenhouse gas levels. The models that have been incredibly accurate and just keep getting more sophisticated strongly suggest that that would mean fewer and less destructive storms and a lower rate of sea level rise.

Annual costs of the present warming (before it gets worse): $18.4 billion

Get the hell outta here.
Barring the complete impracticality of zero net emissions, even still which reliable model shows limiting temperature rise and less destructive storms and less sea rise?
We all know such a magical bullet does not exist. That’s unicorn wishes and leprechaun dreams.

 

[EatTheRich]

Get the hell outta here.
Barring the complete impracticality of zero net emissions, even still which reliable model shows limiting temperature rise and less destructive storms and less sea rise?
We all know such a magical bullet does not exist. That’s unicorn wishes and leprechaun dreams.

Every model. Do you understand how irresponsible it is to yell that all the scientists and everyone who listens to them are wrong without bothering to even investigate the evidence for what they are saying?

 

[Nostra]

So evidence means nothing to you and yet you call the evidence-based people “cultists.”

You have no evidence. Sorry.

 

[EatTheRich]

You have no evidence. Sorry.

There was quite a bit in the link I posted. Much less all the links and all the arguments I’ve posted since I joined the site.

 

[Dino]

Every model. Do you understand how irresponsible it is to yell that all the scientists and everyone who listens to them are wrong without bothering to even investigate the evidence for what they are saying?

You’re proffering a magic bullet that not only solves a world energy crisis but also puts the control of the global climate solely in man’s hands to make it do what we want or think we need.
It’s frankly impossible and over simplistic to think we can initiate such an energy program. And we don’t know any impact it would have.
You’re just making it up as you go along. There’s no facts to it.

 

[EatTheRich]

You’re proffering a magic bullet that not only solves a world energy crisis but also puts the control of the global climate solely in man’s hands to make it do what we want or think we need.
It’s frankly impossible and over simplistic to think we can initiate such an energy program. And we don’t know any impact it would have.
You’re just making it up as you go along. There’s no facts to it.

No, I’m pointing out what needs to be done to keep warming at 2-3 degrees Celsius rather than 6-11. There is nothing stopping us other than the political power of the oil interests. Nuclear and wind power are already cheaper than coal or oil. We have enough capacity in place already to supply the grid with natural gas and non-fossil fuel sources alone until about 4 years from now when sufficient nuclear plants can be built to eliminate the need for gas ... and that is without cutting consumption by becoming more efficient. The infrastructure for low-carbon mass transit could be built in less than a year.

 

[redtide]

Well, that is surprising. He found enough courage to stand up to Trump about something so obvious. hip-hip-hooray.....this is a gigantic act of courage for a republican....one small trivial admission of truth for a democrat...

It's Lindsey Graham vs. Donald Trump on climate crisis - CNNPolitics

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/.../lindsey-graham...trump-climate-change/index.html
6 hours ago - Sen. Lindsey Graham is sounding an alarm on climate change -- and hoping to make it loud enough for President Donald Trump to hear. ... Trump himself has consistently confused much of the science around climate change.
Lindsey Graham says GOP must fix climate change agenda to win ...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/.../article232467697.html
2 days ago - Sen. Lindsey Graham says climate change is real and Republicans must strengthen their ... climate change: “Doubling down on innovation by investing in basic research and development of ... President Donald Trump's speech on Monday where he sought to highlight his administration's ....
Graham is one of relatively few Republicans willing to say openly that he believes “climate change is real.”

He was one of just three U.S. Senate Republicans in 2017 to uphold an Obama-era rule curbing methane emissions. He spent political capital to broker a compromise on sweeping climate change legislation in 2009 and 2010 that ultimately floundered.

Graham also comes from a state where many residents link increased intensity of hurricanes and flooding to shifting weather trends, fostering environmentalist streaks in its Republican elected officials: Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis now runs a group called “RepublicEn” that encourages Republicans to acknowledge climate change, ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford received honors from national environmental groups as a member of Congress and Gov. Henry McMaster has helped lead the charge against oil and gas drilling off the South Carolina coast.

Really, you are actually quoting cnn as a source? I would say nice try but surely you can do better then to try making a hate based leftist org propaganda as being any thing close to facts.

 

[Nostra]

There was quite a bit in the link I posted. Much less all the links and all the arguments I’ve posted since I joined the site.

No, there isn't.

 

[Dino]

No, I’m pointing out what needs to be done to keep warming at 2-3 degrees Celsius rather than 6-11. There is nothing stopping us other than the political power of the oil interests. Nuclear and wind power are already cheaper than coal or oil. We have enough capacity in place already to supply the grid with natural gas and non-fossil fuel sources alone until about 4 years from now when sufficient nuclear plants can be built to eliminate the need for gas ... and that is without cutting consumption by becoming more efficient. The infrastructure for low-carbon mass transit could be built in less than a year.

And now you’re recommending nuclear power? How many Dems out there even support nuclear power? A handful? I fully support nuclear power but I don’t see it coming back strong anytime soon.

 

[redtide]

And now you’re recommending nuclear power? How many Dems out there even support nuclear power? A handful? I fully support nuclear power but I don’t see it coming back strong anytime soon.

I prefer coal to nuclear any day

 

[EatTheRich]

And now you’re recommending nuclear power? How many Dems out there even support nuclear power? A handful? I fully support nuclear power but I don’t see it coming back strong anytime soon.

Of course it will come back, whether fossils in the Democratic Party like it or not. Because the alternative is unthinkable destruction.

 

[FakeName]

Well, that is surprising. He found enough courage to stand up to Trump about something so obvious. hip-hip-hooray.....this is a gigantic act of courage for a republican....one small trivial admission of truth for a democrat...

It's Lindsey Graham vs. Donald Trump on climate crisis - CNNPolitics

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/.../lindsey-graham...trump-climate-change/index.html
6 hours ago - Sen. Lindsey Graham is sounding an alarm on climate change -- and hoping to make it loud enough for President Donald Trump to hear. ... Trump himself has consistently confused much of the science around climate change.
Lindsey Graham says GOP must fix climate change agenda to win ...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/.../article232467697.html
2 days ago - Sen. Lindsey Graham says climate change is real and Republicans must strengthen their ... climate change: “Doubling down on innovation by investing in basic research and development of ... President Donald Trump's speech on Monday where he sought to highlight his administration's ....
Graham is one of relatively few Republicans willing to say openly that he believes “climate change is real.”

He was one of just three U.S. Senate Republicans in 2017 to uphold an Obama-era rule curbing methane emissions. He spent political capital to broker a compromise on sweeping climate change legislation in 2009 and 2010 that ultimately floundered.

Graham also comes from a state where many residents link increased intensity of hurricanes and flooding to shifting weather trends, fostering environmentalist streaks in its Republican elected officials: Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis now runs a group called “RepublicEn” that encourages Republicans to acknowledge climate change, ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford received honors from national environmental groups as a member of Congress and Gov. Henry McMaster has helped lead the charge against oil and gas drilling off the South Carolina coast.

Just curious about your headline. What do you think the relationship is between Graham's marital status and his position on climate change?

Why did you put his marital status in the headline?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Every model. Do you understand how irresponsible it is to yell that all the scientists and everyone who listens to them are wrong without bothering to even investigate the evidence for what they are saying?

-

Yes, we've seen the lying and manipulating of the "evidence", such as the hockey stick graph removing two warming periods for effect. Of course, leaving out half of the planet from the graph is also problematic to normal, thinking people when it comes to making an analysis.

 

[EatTheRich]

-

Yes, we've seen the lying and manipulating of the "evidence", such as the hockey stick graph removing two warming periods for effect. Of course, leaving out half of the planet from the graph is also problematic to normal, thinking people when it comes to making an analysis.

The hockey stick graphs didn’t “leave out two warming periods for effect.” They included them, and they were so local and mild as to be almost imperceptible compared with the current warming. There have been dozens of both global and hemispheric temperature reconstructions, all with the same revealing hockey stick shape.

 

[Dino]

Of course it will come back, whether fossils in the Democratic Party like it or not. Because the alternative is unthinkable destruction.

You might be thinking “unthinkable destruction” but I think the deceitful non-serious Democrats who use such phrasing and oppose nuke energy are playing you. They know the risks of our unpredictable climate are overhyped and are not plotting a path to “fix it”.
As long as Democrats oppose nuclear power I’ll continue to say they believe they’re pulling a scam on people with their threats of environmental destruction. Opposing clean power while bashing fossil fuels looks (and is sometimes described as) a form of anti-capitalism. I’ll never support that agenda.

 

[llovejim]

Are you even aware that our “gigantically big and rich oil and chemical companies” are LEADING the technology towards green and renewable sources of energy? Of course you don’t.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-03/exxon-is-spending-1-billion-a-year-to-research-green-energy

some are. good. but why give them huge tax cuts and subsidies for their production of carbon based fuel? why not give that huge boost to our production of alternative fuels, and open up all the vast economic and environmental benefits that would create? another fantastic benefit of replacing oil, is that the Middle East would cease to be very important. No countries fighting over the oil there, because the value of oil would be so much less once we replace it as the primary source of energy...WIN/WIN/WIN. why would anybody be against it?

 

[llovejim]

States with Green electricity cost have soared, this is 2014

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/17/electricity-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/#45a424f36112

Those big tall wind turban's also kill a lot of animals.

*they must have put jim to bed!

wind turbans? you must mean those islamic windmills in the middle east....wow. were you trying to be serious? and why do so many trump voters find it odd that some people here do not spend all their time here arguing? it is called having a life. you should try it.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

The only way Trump can hold on to his supporters is to be anti-science and deny climate change.

On the other hand, Lindsey Graham isn't alone in his concern.
Pentagon: the effects of a changing climate are a national security issue.

https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/01/18/new-pentagon-report-the-effects-of-a-changing-climate-are-a-national-security-issue/

 

[EatTheRich]

You might be thinking “unthinkable destruction” but I think the deceitful non-serious Democrats who use such phrasing and oppose nuke energy are playing you. They know the risks of our unpredictable climate are overhyped and are not plotting a path to “fix it”.
As long as Democrats oppose nuclear power I’ll continue to say they believe they’re pulling a scam on people with their threats of environmental destruction. Opposing clean power while bashing fossil fuels looks (and is sometimes described as) a form of anti-capitalism. I’ll never support that agenda.

Democrats who oppose nuclear power are serving the interests of the gas and coal interests, or pandering to their uninformed constituencies. The climate crisis is already upon us and will not wait for their capitalist, partisan politics.

 

[Dawg]

No, I’m pointing out what needs to be done to keep warming at 2-3 degrees Celsius rather than 6-11. There is nothing stopping us other than the political power of the oil interests. Nuclear and wind power are already cheaper than coal or oil. We have enough capacity in place already to supply the grid with natural gas and non-fossil fuel sources alone until about 4 years from now when sufficient nuclear plants can be built to eliminate the need for gas ... and that is without cutting consumption by becoming more efficient. The infrastructure for low-carbon mass transit could be built in less than a year.

If wind power is cheaper, why are states with wind power having the HIGHEST power bills?