Buying an electric car doesn't mean one must buy a high end Tesla any more than buying an internal combustion based vehicle means you can only drive a BMW or Lexus or Maserati. Nissan sells the leaf at at less than half the cost (about $30,000) of a Tesla (at about $75,000) and sells a lot more of them.
When one saves about $100-$150 per month on fuel, electric cars that can be charged for $10-20 per month for the same mileage, electric vehicles are a good idea. The prices of fuel is about 1/3 the price of a car over it's life, which is substantial. If one drives 100,000 miles at $3 per gallon for a car that gets 25 mi/gal, that's about $12,000. An electric car with a 100 mile range driven for the same 100,000 miles would cost about $1000 in charging costs (less of course, it you get a free charge from a local business that you frequent, say a local grocery store), for a savings of about $11,000 per car just to go the same distance. Of course, this doesn't include all the environmental benefits like not having high levels of carcinogenic hydrocarbons being spewed into one's environment, not to mention not adding to global warming that is rapidly increasing insurance rates and decreasing the availability of food caused by droughts and floods and other factors, such as pollinator/flowering synchronization problems.
Maybe in that context, a little "road rage" isn't such a bad idea. Then again the fossil fuels industry will be more than happy to take people's money, while people are busy being distracted by complaining about not having any "status" relative to the hipsters. Then again, people who buy a Leaf are more like "hippie-sters" rather than hipsters, since they are likely to be able to afford installing a solar charging stations in their home giving them even more "freedom" to keep their own money. It is curious that those who profess to want people to keep "more of their money" by not paying taxes are often the very same folks who are more than happy to see people hand the "savings" to corporations.
Actually, folks who drive electric cars are in some sense better than the rest of us because they have the sense to do more than you and I to shift to much less carbon dioxide emitting vehicles. I'd like to get an electric car, but since charging stations are few and far between and most of my driving is over long distances when I do drive, the present situation makes such a purchase more difficult than I would like.
I very much doubt that people are fighting over "status", since most folks with electric vehicles already have "status" (and problem the money to go with it). Rather, they are fighting over personal time, which they hate to waste because they believe their lives are more important, perhaps mistakenly, than the next guy.
Since as you note, electric car buyers tend to be better healed, businesses put in charging stations to attract customers with the ability to pay. Stores do this all the time because it's good for business. It's a good idea to encourage businesses to help shift American auto buyers away from internal combustion engines and toward a more sustainable future.
The problem here is obviously the need for more charging stations. How they are financed is not as important as the fact that they actually do get financed. California would do well to reduce road rage and encourage more people, like me to shift to electric cars, by providing businesses that provide charging stations with a sizeable tax break to install more charging stations. Business all around would pick up and everyone would be both happy and financially better off, except of course those eager to put every last carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere so it can extinguish human life on planet Earth to satisfy their greed.
" We are told the ice caps will shrink yet they are expanding. "
Whoever told you that misled you. The total amount of ice at both poles is declining at increasingly rapid rates. There is no scientific dispute on this point. What deniers call expanding sea ice is often just a few inches thick that refreezes in winter months because of from more glacial calving only to thaw when temperatures warm seasonally. This will be obvious in about 5 - 10 years in which the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free completely during the summer.
"You are either for Life, Order, and Reason- or you are for Death, Chaos, and Insanity. Choose."
It is already abundantly clear what side the deniers and the fossil fuel industry have chosen. All there is to choose from now that the rate of global warming is accelerating is just how much death, chaos and insanity those who would choose to end the use of fossil fuels will have in order to preserve life, order and reason. The nature of the global warming and its cause makes it clear that the choice you speek of will be effectively made within the next 10-30 years regardless of what choice one makes, whether one makes the choice consciously or obliviously.
Frankly, if the deniers continue to obstruct efforts to build economies based on alternative energies and aggressively reduce reliance on fossil fuels, then putting deniers in jail will be a lot more humane and cost effective than simply sending billions to their deaths.
We can only hope that deniers wise up before this proves necessary. Hopefully, putting these jails in places like Basra, Iraq that now experiences summer temperatures of 140 F will permit these reeducation efforts to succeed without the necessity for extended incarceration.
"Not done with shunning anyone with a different opinion. "
We are not talking merely about opinions here, but rather the consequences of either doing something to prevent global warming from making the planet inhabitable for humans or doing nothing and watching humanity's chance to escape extinction slip away. In the real world, opinions have consequences. Most rational people would argue to do something about global warming at this point than to try to do the impossible, deny that global warming isn't a threat to humanity.
As long as the input parameters are credible (ie fall within the range of the real parameter they propose to represent) the output of these models will be credible, even though they can not be used to predict every foreseen potential event.
Although we now know that with 75-100 years at the present rate of warming (not the accelerated one that we can more likely expect), wet bulb temperatures lethal to humans can be expected to occur commonly. We can't predict the precise number of heat stroke deaths, but we can predict within a known margin of error, what the number of deaths will likely be. ALL indications are they will likely be very high, as even now we are observing summer temperatures that are causing tens of thousands of deaths due to heat stroke and the rate of this cause of death is increasing.
It should be pointed out that these are not the early days of climate science. That increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet has been known for over 150 years. The reality is that its not merely a issue of rising temperatures, but rather the ecological consequences of these rising temperatures. These are effects that are being studied now, not at some distant point in the future, when the last denier will be convinced. Biologists can tell you with near certainty what will happen to specific aspects of organismal behavior that will be affected by rising temperature and what the consequences for the organism will be. What we know is that a great many kind of organisms will cease to exist as viable populations very soon, on the order of years and decades in many cases, not thousands of years later.
The sad truth is that those who recognize just what a danger carbon dioxide poses to humanity are left attempting to educate the willfully ignorant and greedy in order to save humanity. As we proceed into an ever warming world, you can be sure that the patience of the rational will soon end and increasingly draconian steps will be necessary to deal with the consequences of the ignorance and greed. The fact that patience is already beginning to grow thin is evidence by this issue being raised now. While many may feel their free speech rights are being violated, many others will just be thankful that humanity might get the chance to live for another day.
"The temp increase has stopped for over 14 years."
Another global warming denier bearing false witness.
Sadly the temperature increases have not stopped. 2015 will exceed 2014 as the the warmest year in recorded history. To somehow think that as global warming records continue to exceed previous records is of no consequence to human survival is not only irrational, it is plain stupid.
Most climate change models only predict future temperatures. However, what biologists know about what will happen to organisms when those temperatures are reached is already very well known.
Animals and plants either face 2 choices in evading global warming. Either they relocate to cooler areas, or if those are no longer available, they die and populations and species go extinct. This is an extremely well known and well studied process. This is not a long process that will take thousands of years, rather it could take as little as one bad extended period of drought or too intense a storm.
The only difference is that this time, is that biologists are warning folks that they are talking about all of us as well all those other unfortunate species.
If you don't think that rising levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere isn't limiting choices, then you are a complete idiot.
To the contrary, at the current exponential rate of rise, wet-bulb temperatures will exceed human's ability to tolerate them in as little as 75-100 years. The ability of humans to produce food through contemporary agriculture and fisheries practices will likely disappear in as little as 35 - 50 years. Perhaps this is what motivates the troglodytes to continue in their denial.
"If an idea can't stand on its own without silencing opposing opinions, then it's not much of an idea to start with."
The reality of global warming is that its the kind of idea that will silence all opinions period, if we soon don't start taking serious measures to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. That is not an opinion. That is a scientific fact.
"The government needed to prove that damage had been done."
So perhaps we should wait until it is too hot to grow corn in Iowa or wheat in Kansas. Or maybe we should wait until the last global warming denier dies of heat stroke, so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities or freedom to be as ignorant as they choose.
At least that way by then most everyone will consider it a capital crime, so the punishment will fit the crime.
Just look at the increasing costs of global warming already. Its already in the hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillion and people are only now beginning to keep track of the costs. People are being forced out of a Middle East and North Africa that are rapidly losing their ability to grow food, which has lead to more and more human chaos to the point at which we are now seeing many leave out of necessity and those left behind fighting for the little that remains. You don't think this transformation has been expensive?
Think about the costs associated with increased fires, droughts, stronger storms, heat stroke, lost productivity due to people being unable to work outdoors, animals and plants unable to grow for lack of shelter from the increasing heat and deluges associated with more and more water vapor in our atmosphere. At the present rate of warming, wet-bulb temperatures lethal to humans are as little as just 75-100 years away. Mass animal die-offs are already beginning, especially as global warming shifts the geographical ranges of predators and prey.
If you don't think these are problems now, then ask yourself, why are insurance companies racing to get out of the way of these costs as fast as they can?
Just think how much its going to cost for humanity to be rebuilding its ports every 25 to 50 years, not to mention moving billions from coastal communities inland on a global scale.
Time is running out for ignorance or protestations that "gee, I'm not a scientist" to merit anything other than well placed contempt and probably soon criminalization if behaviors aren't changed quickly enough.
Knowing that carbon dioxide by trapping heat and raising temperatures globally are not only causing harm but increasingly threatening the very ecosystems that we depend upon for our survival. You might want to come to grips with the reality affecting basal invertebrates in world oceans that form the basis of nearly the entire food chain in marine environments.
As these effects increase, say good bye to marine invertebrates and vertebrates, which in as little as 50 years could see the entire collapse marine ecosystems. No big deal except for the 50% of humanity counting on protein from the seas for nutrition.
If you are unaware of these effects and the time trajectory of their likely consequence then you are uninformed and should be ignored. Sadly, humanity no longer has the luxury of putting up with ignorance.
" It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data."
LOL. As if that were an explanation for the success of one of the greatest climate denying organizations on the planet, Fox News.
Unfortunately, the rest of us must live on the only planet we have, which happens to be one that is changing so rapidly because of human induced global warming that the probability increases by the day that no human will see the 22nd century. Although global warming may be a seemingly slow process, this does not mean that its consequences aren't beginning to hit mankind over the head with a sledgehammer. The loss of agriculture due to the increasing unavailability of freshwater, wet bulb temperatures that are now killing tens of thousands during summer months, and the rapidly falling pH of the oceans may well all be only 30-50 years off at the current exponential rate of warming.
We're really not talking about political speech here so much as the continuance of an fraudulent excuse to continue to go on burning fossil fuels that will probably, despite the best of human efforts, doom humanity to extinction before the turn of the 22nd century.
You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".
If so, then go on advocating for climate denial as somehow equal in nature to recognizing the immediate necessity to start reducing fossil fuels so that something can quickly be done to avert human extinction. However, also prepare for both the extinction of Homo sapiens and for the hate that will be directed toward you by your advocating for human extinction.
Exactly, but in this case the movie theater is on fire and deniers are telling everyone to calmly remain in their seats. That is a criminal act too, since it places lives in danger.
Perhaps we shouldn't criminalize global warming denialism, just force deniers to pay for the mess they are creating as their behavior places humanity in peril.
Global warming denial is not merely a "thought crime". If you are so blithely unaware of that as a species we can somehow ignore global warming and merely produce as much carbon dioxide we want, then prepare for human extinction, because it is the only possible outcome of that denial.
However, don't delude yourself into thinking you will be loved for it. Rather, denialists might well accept the approbation and future crimes that humanity will necessarily impose soon to save itself from extinction. This is merely a harbinger of what is to come for global climate change deniers.
With the exponential increases in temperature that are now just starting to assert themselves, humanity as long passed the point that it continues to have the the luxury of putting up with global warming deniers. The question now shifts to what do we do with them to save humanity from the extinction they advocate.
However, we can not continue to live in a "democracy" where people permitted to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy to kill billions and cause the extinction of the human race, which is really what global warming denial is all about at this point in the "debate". The reality is that if our justice or political system are not soon able to uproot the fraud, then global warming will take care of the problem once and for all, at a cost to the lives of billions of innocents. You make the call. Its your life that is at stake here. Time is rapidly running out for a decision to be made.
One doesn't even have to wait to take your chances. That next super enlarged storm might just drop a tree branch on your head or burn you alive as should you be trapped in a firestorm during a drought, or perhaps just die of starvation as soil temperatures will have exceeded the capacity for food crops to grow, or other similar fate. As you feel the tree limb hitting your skull, or your flesh being seared off by the fire, or feel your body collapse from malnutrition into a final stupor, you can cry out against those fossil fuel executives and lobbyists were more than content to profit at your loss, but not concerned to see you go.
Or you be proactive. The choice is yours. There are lots of different choices, but denying the fraud won't be one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Buying an electric car doesn't mean one must buy a high end Tesla any more than buying an internal combustion based vehicle means you can only drive a BMW or Lexus or Maserati. Nissan sells the leaf at at less than half the cost (about $30,000) of a Tesla (at about $75,000) and sells a lot more of them.
When one saves about $100-$150 per month on fuel, electric cars that can be charged for $10-20 per month for the same mileage, electric vehicles are a good idea. The prices of fuel is about 1/3 the price of a car over it's life, which is substantial. If one drives 100,000 miles at $3 per gallon for a car that gets 25 mi/gal, that's about $12,000. An electric car with a 100 mile range driven for the same 100,000 miles would cost about $1000 in charging costs (less of course, it you get a free charge from a local business that you frequent, say a local grocery store), for a savings of about $11,000 per car just to go the same distance. Of course, this doesn't include all the environmental benefits like not having high levels of carcinogenic hydrocarbons being spewed into one's environment, not to mention not adding to global warming that is rapidly increasing insurance rates and decreasing the availability of food caused by droughts and floods and other factors, such as pollinator/flowering synchronization problems.
Maybe in that context, a little "road rage" isn't such a bad idea. Then again the fossil fuels industry will be more than happy to take people's money, while people are busy being distracted by complaining about not having any "status" relative to the hipsters. Then again, people who buy a Leaf are more like "hippie-sters" rather than hipsters, since they are likely to be able to afford installing a solar charging stations in their home giving them even more "freedom" to keep their own money. It is curious that those who profess to want people to keep "more of their money" by not paying taxes are often the very same folks who are more than happy to see people hand the "savings" to corporations.
Actually, folks who drive electric cars are in some sense better than the rest of us because they have the sense to do more than you and I to shift to much less carbon dioxide emitting vehicles. I'd like to get an electric car, but since charging stations are few and far between and most of my driving is over long distances when I do drive, the present situation makes such a purchase more difficult than I would like.
I very much doubt that people are fighting over "status", since most folks with electric vehicles already have "status" (and problem the money to go with it). Rather, they are fighting over personal time, which they hate to waste because they believe their lives are more important, perhaps mistakenly, than the next guy.
Since as you note, electric car buyers tend to be better healed, businesses put in charging stations to attract customers with the ability to pay. Stores do this all the time because it's good for business. It's a good idea to encourage businesses to help shift American auto buyers away from internal combustion engines and toward a more sustainable future.
The problem here is obviously the need for more charging stations. How they are financed is not as important as the fact that they actually do get financed. California would do well to reduce road rage and encourage more people, like me to shift to electric cars, by providing businesses that provide charging stations with a sizeable tax break to install more charging stations. Business all around would pick up and everyone would be both happy and financially better off, except of course those eager to put every last carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere so it can extinguish human life on planet Earth to satisfy their greed.
" We are told the ice caps will shrink yet they are expanding. "
Whoever told you that misled you. The total amount of ice at both poles is declining at increasingly rapid rates. There is no scientific dispute on this point. What deniers call expanding sea ice is often just a few inches thick that refreezes in winter months because of from more glacial calving only to thaw when temperatures warm seasonally. This will be obvious in about 5 - 10 years in which the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free completely during the summer.
"You are either for Life, Order, and Reason- or you are for Death, Chaos, and Insanity. Choose."
It is already abundantly clear what side the deniers and the fossil fuel industry have chosen. All there is to choose from now that the rate of global warming is accelerating is just how much death, chaos and insanity those who would choose to end the use of fossil fuels will have in order to preserve life, order and reason. The nature of the global warming and its cause makes it clear that the choice you speek of will be effectively made within the next 10-30 years regardless of what choice one makes, whether one makes the choice consciously or obliviously.
Frankly, if the deniers continue to obstruct efforts to build economies based on alternative energies and aggressively reduce reliance on fossil fuels, then putting deniers in jail will be a lot more humane and cost effective than simply sending billions to their deaths.
We can only hope that deniers wise up before this proves necessary. Hopefully, putting these jails in places like Basra, Iraq that now experiences summer temperatures of 140 F will permit these reeducation efforts to succeed without the necessity for extended incarceration.
"Not done with shunning anyone with a different opinion. "
We are not talking merely about opinions here, but rather the consequences of either doing something to prevent global warming from making the planet inhabitable for humans or doing nothing and watching humanity's chance to escape extinction slip away. In the real world, opinions have consequences. Most rational people would argue to do something about global warming at this point than to try to do the impossible, deny that global warming isn't a threat to humanity.
So you are among those who think that sending 300 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere every year has no effect?
If that were true, why is the pH of the oceans falling so precipitously?
As long as the input parameters are credible (ie fall within the range of the real parameter they propose to represent) the output of these models will be credible, even though they can not be used to predict every foreseen potential event.
Although we now know that with 75-100 years at the present rate of warming (not the accelerated one that we can more likely expect), wet bulb temperatures lethal to humans can be expected to occur commonly. We can't predict the precise number of heat stroke deaths, but we can predict within a known margin of error, what the number of deaths will likely be. ALL indications are they will likely be very high, as even now we are observing summer temperatures that are causing tens of thousands of deaths due to heat stroke and the rate of this cause of death is increasing.
It should be pointed out that these are not the early days of climate science. That increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet has been known for over 150 years. The reality is that its not merely a issue of rising temperatures, but rather the ecological consequences of these rising temperatures. These are effects that are being studied now, not at some distant point in the future, when the last denier will be convinced. Biologists can tell you with near certainty what will happen to specific aspects of organismal behavior that will be affected by rising temperature and what the consequences for the organism will be. What we know is that a great many kind of organisms will cease to exist as viable populations very soon, on the order of years and decades in many cases, not thousands of years later.
Ignorance will get you nowhere fast. Unfortunately, on a rapidly warming planet there soon won't be any place for ignorance at all.
The sad truth is that those who recognize just what a danger carbon dioxide poses to humanity are left attempting to educate the willfully ignorant and greedy in order to save humanity. As we proceed into an ever warming world, you can be sure that the patience of the rational will soon end and increasingly draconian steps will be necessary to deal with the consequences of the ignorance and greed. The fact that patience is already beginning to grow thin is evidence by this issue being raised now. While many may feel their free speech rights are being violated, many others will just be thankful that humanity might get the chance to live for another day.
Better yet, let's hire the deniers to hold up all those houses too close to the seashore over their heads, to keep everyone safe and dry.
"The temp increase has stopped for over 14 years."
Another global warming denier bearing false witness.
Sadly the temperature increases have not stopped. 2015 will exceed 2014 as the the warmest year in recorded history. To somehow think that as global warming records continue to exceed previous records is of no consequence to human survival is not only irrational, it is plain stupid.
Most climate change models only predict future temperatures. However, what biologists know about what will happen to organisms when those temperatures are reached is already very well known.
Animals and plants either face 2 choices in evading global warming. Either they relocate to cooler areas, or if those are no longer available, they die and populations and species go extinct. This is an extremely well known and well studied process. This is not a long process that will take thousands of years, rather it could take as little as one bad extended period of drought or too intense a storm.
The only difference is that this time, is that biologists are warning folks that they are talking about all of us as well all those other unfortunate species.
Better yet, lets transport them all to summer camps in Basra, Iraq so they can get a bit of training as to what global warming is all about.
If you don't think that rising levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere isn't limiting choices, then you are a complete idiot.
To the contrary, at the current exponential rate of rise, wet-bulb temperatures will exceed human's ability to tolerate them in as little as 75-100 years. The ability of humans to produce food through contemporary agriculture and fisheries practices will likely disappear in as little as 35 - 50 years. Perhaps this is what motivates the troglodytes to continue in their denial.
"If an idea can't stand on its own without silencing opposing opinions, then it's not much of an idea to start with."
The reality of global warming is that its the kind of idea that will silence all opinions period, if we soon don't start taking serious measures to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. That is not an opinion. That is a scientific fact.
"The government needed to prove that damage had been done."
So perhaps we should wait until it is too hot to grow corn in Iowa or wheat in Kansas. Or maybe we should wait until the last global warming denier dies of heat stroke, so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities or freedom to be as ignorant as they choose.
At least that way by then most everyone will consider it a capital crime, so the punishment will fit the crime.
To the contrary.
Just look at the increasing costs of global warming already. Its already in the hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillion and people are only now beginning to keep track of the costs. People are being forced out of a Middle East and North Africa that are rapidly losing their ability to grow food, which has lead to more and more human chaos to the point at which we are now seeing many leave out of necessity and those left behind fighting for the little that remains. You don't think this transformation has been expensive?
Think about the costs associated with increased fires, droughts, stronger storms, heat stroke, lost productivity due to people being unable to work outdoors, animals and plants unable to grow for lack of shelter from the increasing heat and deluges associated with more and more water vapor in our atmosphere. At the present rate of warming, wet-bulb temperatures lethal to humans are as little as just 75-100 years away. Mass animal die-offs are already beginning, especially as global warming shifts the geographical ranges of predators and prey.
If you don't think these are problems now, then ask yourself, why are insurance companies racing to get out of the way of these costs as fast as they can?
Just think how much its going to cost for humanity to be rebuilding its ports every 25 to 50 years, not to mention moving billions from coastal communities inland on a global scale.
Time is running out for ignorance or protestations that "gee, I'm not a scientist" to merit anything other than well placed contempt and probably soon criminalization if behaviors aren't changed quickly enough.
Knowing that carbon dioxide by trapping heat and raising temperatures globally are not only causing harm but increasingly threatening the very ecosystems that we depend upon for our survival. You might want to come to grips with the reality affecting basal invertebrates in world oceans that form the basis of nearly the entire food chain in marine environments.
As these effects increase, say good bye to marine invertebrates and vertebrates, which in as little as 50 years could see the entire collapse marine ecosystems. No big deal except for the 50% of humanity counting on protein from the seas for nutrition.
If you are unaware of these effects and the time trajectory of their likely consequence then you are uninformed and should be ignored. Sadly, humanity no longer has the luxury of putting up with ignorance.
" It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data."
LOL. As if that were an explanation for the success of one of the greatest climate denying organizations on the planet, Fox News.
Unfortunately, the rest of us must live on the only planet we have, which happens to be one that is changing so rapidly because of human induced global warming that the probability increases by the day that no human will see the 22nd century. Although global warming may be a seemingly slow process, this does not mean that its consequences aren't beginning to hit mankind over the head with a sledgehammer. The loss of agriculture due to the increasing unavailability of freshwater, wet bulb temperatures that are now killing tens of thousands during summer months, and the rapidly falling pH of the oceans may well all be only 30-50 years off at the current exponential rate of warming.
We're really not talking about political speech here so much as the continuance of an fraudulent excuse to continue to go on burning fossil fuels that will probably, despite the best of human efforts, doom humanity to extinction before the turn of the 22nd century.
You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".
If so, then go on advocating for climate denial as somehow equal in nature to recognizing the immediate necessity to start reducing fossil fuels so that something can quickly be done to avert human extinction. However, also prepare for both the extinction of Homo sapiens and for the hate that will be directed toward you by your advocating for human extinction.
Exactly, but in this case the movie theater is on fire and deniers are telling everyone to calmly remain in their seats. That is a criminal act too, since it places lives in danger.
Perhaps we shouldn't criminalize global warming denialism, just force deniers to pay for the mess they are creating as their behavior places humanity in peril.
Global warming denial is not merely a "thought crime". If you are so blithely unaware of that as a species we can somehow ignore global warming and merely produce as much carbon dioxide we want, then prepare for human extinction, because it is the only possible outcome of that denial.
However, don't delude yourself into thinking you will be loved for it. Rather, denialists might well accept the approbation and future crimes that humanity will necessarily impose soon to save itself from extinction. This is merely a harbinger of what is to come for global climate change deniers.
With the exponential increases in temperature that are now just starting to assert themselves, humanity as long passed the point that it continues to have the the luxury of putting up with global warming deniers. The question now shifts to what do we do with them to save humanity from the extinction they advocate.
However, we can not continue to live in a "democracy" where people permitted to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy to kill billions and cause the extinction of the human race, which is really what global warming denial is all about at this point in the "debate". The reality is that if our justice or political system are not soon able to uproot the fraud, then global warming will take care of the problem once and for all, at a cost to the lives of billions of innocents. You make the call. Its your life that is at stake here. Time is rapidly running out for a decision to be made.
One doesn't even have to wait to take your chances. That next super enlarged storm might just drop a tree branch on your head or burn you alive as should you be trapped in a firestorm during a drought, or perhaps just die of starvation as soil temperatures will have exceeded the capacity for food crops to grow, or other similar fate. As you feel the tree limb hitting your skull, or your flesh being seared off by the fire, or feel your body collapse from malnutrition into a final stupor, you can cry out against those fossil fuel executives and lobbyists were more than content to profit at your loss, but not concerned to see you go.
Or you be proactive. The choice is yours. There are lots of different choices, but denying the fraud won't be one of them.