Article from my extreme right wing climate denying Dad

[bonnie]

Her dad's name is right at the top of the article.

In looking at it, no, that's not her dad's name. 'Matt Posky' is the author of the article. Her father posted it on fb. But his name isn't on it.

 

[kort677]

In looking at it, no, that's not her dad's name. 'Matt Posky' is the author of the article. Her father posted it on fb. But his name isn't on it.

the whole thing is that the OP could have posted the same article sans the reference to her father and the posting would have never created any sort of kerfuffle, I don't know what motivated the politic slant, maybe she thought she'd curry support from a certain faction of forum members. regardless of motive the inclusion of that unnecessary info created a lot of unnecessary conflict. the mods might consider altering the original post.

 

[bonnie]

the whole thing is that the OP could have posted the same article sans the reference to her father and the posting would have never created any sort of kerfuffle, I don't know what motivated the politic slant, maybe she thought she'd curry support from a certain faction of forum members. regardless of motive the inclusion of that unnecessary info created a lot of unnecessary conflict. the mods might consider altering the original post.

I'm honestly stumped as to why so many are trying to see this in the worst possible light. What I read was a woman who loved her dad, was frustrated by his viewpoints, and asking for help in breaking the article down. And instead I read posts telling her 'for shame!!', accusing her of making it political, etc. We should be better than that.

Consider that people could have just reacted to the request for article feedback & there would be zero political discussion here. She didn't do anything wrong.

Peace.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

In looking at it, no, that's not her dad's name. 'Matt Posky' is the author of the article. Her father posted it on fb. But his name isn't on it.

Welp, my bad, I thought she was implying that her dad was the author, re-reading her post, that is not the case.

 

[kort677]

Yawn... I don't really care. My give a BEEP has been broken beyond repair. I don't have time to argue accepted and highly peer reviewed scientific conclusions.

Jeff

 

[Vitold]

So, my Dad just posted this on his Facebook. I assure you I am the only person he knows that not only has interest in a Tesla, but stood in line to reserve a Model 3 in March 31, 2016. He's extreme right wing, a climate change denyer, and I think believes it Tesla is some liberal evil organization. I admit I haven't read the whole thing yet, but will be later today. So I thought I'd post this here cause I'd like to read everybody's comments after I do.

Truth in Numbers: Tesla Motors Kind of Lied to Us

Does his income depend on oil?

 

[Uncle Paul]

I am having a hard time with climate change when our government continues to build our population centers near the ocean shorelines where the higher oceans will cause the most devastation. They also push flood insurance in those areas to enable financing to be offered to home buyers in those areas.

If they truly believed in climate people would be moving to inland areas of the country to isolate themselves from the effects of climate change.

I believe in climate change, but not how much is man made. Also not sure how much mitigation we can do when only some governments are pro change.

 

[kort677]

I am having a hard time with climate change when our government continues to build our population centers near the ocean shorelines where the higher oceans will cause the most devastation.

government doesn't build those homes on the beach, that said their policies facilitate such building.
government cannot take property from owners, period.
as for the science, for every claim from on set of scientists on one side of the debate, there is a set of scientists on the opposite side of the debate, with debate being the operative word.
so if YOU believe in global warming and it's effect on coast lines, don't buy a home on the beach. I've lived waterfront for over 30 years and in my part of the world the sand comes, the sand goes, storms do damage, I repair the damage, that's the rhythm of life at the beach.

 

[Yggdrasill]

as for the science, for every claim from on set of scientists on one side of the debate, there is a set of scientists on the opposite side of the debate, with debate being the operative word.

Sure, there's plenty of claims from both sides. But there's no doubt that there's a greater than 95% concensus among scientists that climate change is real and that we humans contribute to it significantly. But sure, there is a vocal minority.

 

[kort677]

Sure, there's plenty of claims from both sides. But there's no doubt that there's a greater than 95% concensus among scientists that climate change is real and that we humans contribute to it significantly. But sure, there is a vocal minority.

I'll agree that there is climate change, the question is how much is the result of human activities. what part of "modern conveniences" are YOU willing to sacrifice to effect what would be at most an insignificant altering of that change? this subject is off the topic, to be continued eleswhere

 

[Jeff N]

I'll agree that there is climate change, the question is how much is the result of human activities.

The best evidence today is that essentially all climate warming since 1950 is due to human activities.

 

[kort677]

The best evidence today is that essentially all climate warming since 1950 is due to human activities.

well that's no evidence at all. why 1950? why not 1850?

 

[Jeff N]

well that's no evidence at all. why 1950? why not 1850?

Because CO2 emissions began to skyrocket around then due to widespread industrialization, coal and oil based electrification, and gas/diesel burning vehicles. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Bobfitz1]

as for the science, for every claim from on set of scientists on one side of the debate, there is a set of scientists on the opposite side of the debate, with debate being the operative word.

This is a faux debate not a genuine one between ethical scientists with differing interpretations of the data.

"The same individuals who claim the science of global warming is 'not settled' have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. 'Doubt is our product' wrote one tobacco executive. These 'experts'
supplied it."

From 'Merchants of Doubt'. How a handful of scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Do...1507581825&sr=1-1&keywords=merchants+of+doubt

Btw, Exonn/Mobil scientists reviewed global warming evidence back in the 70s and reported to management it was caused by human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

 

[Vitold]

Question for those who do not believe in global warming or those that we just have to adapt to rising tides:

What about limiting pollution from burning fossil fuels? Lowering pollution is definitively within reach.

 

[Jack6591]

I'm a 53 year old woman with my own family and a kid preparing for college. Thanks for assuming I'm some disrespectful kid.

I love my father although I disagree with him on most things. He loves me too. I said he was very right wing and a climate change denier because I thought people should know what his perspective is like.

I’m a long term employee at an electric utility—drive a Tesla and have solar at my home. Suffice it to say I feel like “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court”. I’ve had a number of fellow employees tell me that I owed them money for the tax credits associated with EVs and solar. It’s astounding how many folks react to Tesla.

Tesla is at a defining moment in its history. It’s important that Tesla owners persuasively tell the reality of their experience. While some will never accept EVs, honestly demonstrating Tesla’s technology will convert the open-minded. As the EV revolution gains momentum it will become easier and easier to sell the benefits.

Tesla is the new cool factor.

 

[4x14ers]

Because CO2 emissions began to skyrocket around then due to widespread industrialization, coal and oil based electrification, and gas/diesel burning vehicles. Coincidence? I think not.

For those that aren't scientists, the most provocative data is that we know the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. You don't have to claim coincidence. Why? Carbon isotope ratios of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.

Of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since 1950, carbon 14 dating shows that it is from about 300 million years ago. Fossil fuels. Where else would you get CO2 gas of that amount (30% increase) from 300 million years ago?

Better explanation here: How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

TL/DR; Anyone that claims "we don't know" if the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activities is ignorant and doesn't understand the science.

 

[Nvbob]

This scene always sticks in my mind when discussing climate change.

Tomorrowland

 

[Buggle]

TL/DR; Anyone that claims "we don't know" if the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activities is ignorant and doesn't understand the science.

There's a double explanation here. Your explanation is true for most people -- they're simply dumb, and they have an ideology to follow, science be damned. But the second explanation is for the leaders of the dumb, who are often very intelligent people. They just happen to care about nothing other than making money, and the earth is often an obstacle to be overcome by any means necessary for these people.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

This scene always sticks in my mind when discussing climate change.

Tomorrowland

Tomorrowland has already arrived -- Syria is a microcosm of the future.