Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
bleeding heart

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

Recommended Posts

Either way, it doesn't change the objective facts of the case. But it does mean that maybe the sceptics can drop their "the Left!" mantra, as cherished a boogeyman as that is.

You are reading way too much from a poll with unknown biases.

The way I see it people fall into roughly five groups on the climate change issue:

1) progressive ideologues who see climate change as a vehicle to advance their anti-corporate political agenda.

2) neo-Malthusians who are attracted to end of the world prophesies.

3) people who simply don't care because climate change does not affect them.

4) people who take the time to sort through the science and generally come to conclusion that the risk is real but being exaggerated.

5) libertarian ideologues who see climate change as a vehicle to advance an anti-corporate political agenda which they oppose.

The largest group is 3) and it is very easy to create a poll that gets people in this group to answer whatever way the pollster wants.

When it comes to politicians have to cobble together a coalition of these groups. The left goes after groups 1 through 3. The right goes after groups 3 through 5.

Group 3 is the swing vote which is why sensible policies like carbon taxes are political suicide. Various schemes to either hide the cost of the policies or pretend that something is being done when nothing actually being done are preferred by politicians on both sides of the fence.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are reading way too much from a poll with unknown biases.

ah yes, one of your favourite retreats... unknown unknowns!!!

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it people fall into roughly five groups on the climate change issue:

4) people who take the time to sort through the science and generally come to conclusion that the risk is real but being exaggerated.

:lol: uhhh... how is it your list doesn't include those who believe the risk is real, isn't being exaggerated... and must be addressed through comprehensive measures that speak to mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures?

it seems, outside of your summary lists pet #4 self-placement, you've categorized anyone else that actually thinks about climate change, as either progressive or libertarian ideologues working for/against anti-corporate political agendas! Clearly, you're a deep thinker.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

`Even skeptic scientists agree the earth is warming. The debate is about the cause of it.

Exactly, and what to do about it.
We've been coming out of an Ice Age for a while. Not much we can do about it.

What do the alarmists want? Musk-ox pawing the ground in New York City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

`Even skeptic scientists agree the earth is warming. The debate is about the cause of it.

We've been coming out of an Ice Age for a while. Not much we can do about it.

nice! Although it fits with your past MLW posting history/position, that's fringe of the fringe denier stuff you're peddling there... that the earth's warming is simply a result of "recovering from the LIA". Of course, any climate change must have a physical basis'/mechanism(s) behind it... causing it. What causal physical basis/mechanism are you associating warming with your claimed "coming out of the LIA"... what are you attributing the past 100 years, 50 years warming to?

so I guess you're not one of the OP's described believing Americans, hey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarless of whether humans are adding to the warming, or by how much, I have seen no proposal which even comes close to addressing this. Ridiculously expensieve, pie-in-the-sky plans to cut back on emissions aren't going to accomplish anything. What we need are realistic plans for dealing with the results of warming.

Ridiculous pie-in-the-sky plans to cut back on emissions aren't going to accomplish anything. What a self-evident statement. Would you also like to tell us that the sun rises in the east and water is wet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no. fully implemented Kyoto level reductions in emissions would have an undetectable effect on the future climate (i.e. slow warming a few days at most). yet these reductions cost an incredible amount.

bottom line is your logic sounds superficially correct, however, in practice supporting policies to 'reduce whatever we can' results in massive amounts of money being wasted for no measurable benefit. For this reason the only sane policy response is one that saves the money and uses it to pay to adapt when changes actually occur.

I see all of the deniers are now back-pedaling. They're abandoning denial for the last line of defence - adaptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous pie-in-the-sky plans to cut back on emissions aren't going to accomplish anything. What a self-evident statement. Would you also like to tell us that the sun rises in the east and water is wet?

I think the point is that no-one has yet come up with a plan that isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Japanese are not going to help much.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24952155

with all of Japan's nuclear power plants currently offline... Japan now forced to replace it's previous commitment to reduce emissions by 25% from 1990 levels... now forced to set a new 2020 target of 3.8% below 2005 levels.

why, uhhh..... that's Harper Conservative territory! You know, where Harper Conservatives signed the 2009 Copenhagen Accord committing to a (watered down) emissions reduction of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020..... where the recently released Environment Canada report projects Canada's GHG emissions by 2020 would amount to barely a 3% drop from the 2005 levels. Hey Harper, Japan's nuclear power took a tsunami licking; what's your excuse? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanity?

does someone (Harper), does a party (Harper Conservatives) make a commitment, one even watered down from earlier levels, one presumably predicated upon "saneness" of the person/party... and then proceed to do absolutely fning nothing to meet that commitment? Is that your... "sanity"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently, they came to their senses.

no - given his/their history and lead-up to Copenhagen and the latest pie-in-the-sky promises, it's clear Harper/Harper Conservatives never had any intention, none whatsoever, to meet any commitments made..... hucksterism at its best! Thanks for qualifying the huckster measure of your proclaimed "sanity and coming to senses"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada's failed commitment to GHG reductions started long before PM Harper came along. See PM Chretien's epic Kyoto FAIL, and shifting of blame to PM Martin:

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien is blaming his own Liberals in part for Canada's failure to meet the Kyoto targets for cutting greenhouse gases.

During an appearance yesterday at a Liberal conference on foreign policy in Toronto, Chrétien pointedly said "we lost four years" in living up to Kyoto – two of those years including the time Paul Martin succeeded him as prime minister and when Stéphane Dion, now Liberal leader, was environment minister.

http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/12/12/chreacutetien_points_finger_at_martin_over_kyoto.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see all of the deniers are now back-pedaling. They're abandoning denial for the last line of defence - adaptation.

Now you are just making crap up to go with your name calling. I have always argued that adaptation was the only practical option - even before I looked at the science and realized the field is largely speculative opinion devoid of testable hypotheses. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are just making crap up to go with your name calling. I have always argued that adaptation was the only practical option - even before I looked at the science and realized the field is largely speculative opinion devoid of testable hypotheses.

no - he's right to label you a denier... which isn't, as you say, "name calling". Unless you've had an unannounced epiphany, the last time I chased you down into finally admitting/taking a position, you most definitely did not accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to global warming. You also weasel word, concern troll it, when you trot out your lowest of low, climate sensitivity nonsense. Most certainly you are the king of adapt-R-Us only; however, you have never "argued" this point... repeatedly laying down your unsupported and unsubstantiated opinion concerning adaptation (only), is not an "argument". Note: drawing from your denier-in-arms blog brothers is not support, is not substantiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are reading way too much from a poll with unknown biases.

The way I see it people fall into roughly five groups on the climate change issue:

1) progressive ideologues who see climate change as a vehicle to advance their anti-corporate political agenda.

2) neo-Malthusians who are attracted to end of the world prophesies.

3) people who simply don't care because climate change does not affect them.

4) people who take the time to sort through the science and generally come to conclusion that the risk is real but being exaggerated.

5) libertarian ideologues who see climate change as a vehicle to advance an anti-corporate political agenda which they oppose.

The largest group is 3) and it is very easy to create a poll that gets people in this group to answer whatever way the pollster wants.

When it comes to politicians have to cobble together a coalition of these groups. The left goes after groups 1 through 3. The right goes after groups 3 through 5.

Group 3 is the swing vote which is why sensible policies like carbon taxes are political suicide. Various schemes to either hide the cost of the policies or pretend that something is being done when nothing actually being done are preferred by politicians on both sides of the fence.

Two points:

First of all, your thesis is that conservatives are extremely malleable...pig-ignorant, in fact. This entity called "the Left" is forever fooling them with their sly polls.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment...and find the difference in our respective stances on this matter mildly interesting.

Second--Waldo already made the point, but I think it deserves underlining: nowhere in your extremely narrow list do you allow for any rational sincerity among those with whom you disagree: they're either part of your "anti-corporate" conspiracy theory (including, don't forget, the majority of American conservatives...and I'd wager Canadian ones, too)...or else they've got some sort of apocalypse fetish (which begs the question of why they wouldn't keep their mouths shut on the matter, thereby decreasing the odds of anything being done to ameliorate their fantasy End-times).

I understand this is difficult to swallow...but not every motive is either sinister or bespeaks of suicidal fantasies. I presume you don't quite get how such theorizing appears to most people.

Also, you seem unable to conceive that some in the sceptic community might have motives less benign than Truth, Science, and Practicality.

Edited by bleeding heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - he's right to label you a denier... which isn't, as you say, "name calling".

The term "denier"is the ultimate application of Godwin's Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "denier"is the ultimate application of Godwin's Law.

no - as conveyed to you each and every time you play the "denier Holocaust" card, the word denier is not exclusively co-opted by any single group, any single interest. In the AGW/CC context, denier is simply a label, one that is not an insult, one that is not name-calling, one that is simply a matter-of-fact categorization of non-belief in the prevailing understandings within science. The label denier is a quite matter-of-fact part of the understood lexicon within the discussion/debate surrounding AGW/CC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, your thesis is that conservatives are extremely malleable...pig-ignorant, in fact. This entity called "the Left" is forever fooling them with their sly polls.

Not at all - I said the majority of people don't give a damn about the issue and will give answers based on whatever slant is in the poll questions. Not caring is not the same as being ignorant.

Second--Waldo already made the point, but I think it deserves underlining: nowhere in your extremely narrow list do you allow for any rational sincerity among those with whom you disagree:

Group 4 includes a wide range of people with different positions on the policies - including people who disagree with me on carbon mitigation policies because people in this group believe the 'risk is real'. Furthermore, I am not always in in group 4 - sometimes I am in group 5.

What is implied by my groupings is that people who do not believe the problem is being exaggerated are motivated by reasons other than a rational analysis of the facts since the IPCC reports themselves simply do not support the numerous ridiculous claims that are constantly made in the media. IOW - if, like waldo, someone sincerely believes every ridiculous claim then that person is in group 2.

Also, you seem unable to conceive that some in the sceptic community might have motives less benign than Truth, Science, and Practicality.

Group 5 captures these people.

So I think my groupings are fair representation of the range of opinion on climate change which I why I think it is really stupid to draw conclusions from the responses to poll like the one in this op. Polls like this are meaningless noise.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all - I said the majority of people don't give a damn about the issue and will give answers based on whatever slant is in the poll questions. Not caring is not the same as being ignorant.

Group 4 includes a wide range of people with different positions on the policies - including people who disagree with me on carbon mitigation policies because people in this group believe the 'risk is real'. Furthermore, I am not always in in group 4 - sometimes I am in group 5.

What is implied by my groupings is that people who do not believe the problem is being exaggerated are motivated by reasons other than a rational analysis of the facts since the IPCC reports themselves simply do not support the numerous ridiculous claims that are constantly made in the media. IOW - if, like waldo, someone sincerely believes every ridiculous claim then that person is in group 2.

Group 5 captures these people.

So I think my groupings are fair representation of the range of opinion on climate change which I why I think it is really stupid to draw conclusions from the responses to poll like the one in this op. Polls like this are meaningless noise.

Somewhat better than your preposterous list, however.

And no...not only is your list not a "fair representation"....I see now that you know it is not fair, but don't give a rat's behind, and are completely unwilling to honestly discuss this topic. Too bad.

Edited by bleeding heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat better than your preposterous list, however.

I changed nothing about my list. I just explained what the words mean since you seem to want to insert your own prejudices instead of reading the words written.

And no...not only is your list not a "fair representation"....I see now that you know it is not fair, but don't give a rat's behind, and are completely unwilling to honestly discuss this topic. Too bad.

It IS a fair (albeit unflattering) representation of the attitudes of people on this issue. It is certainly a much more useful basis for discussion than a biased poll that assumes that people actually base their opinions on a rational analysis of the facts.

The only person I see that is not willing to engage this topic honestly are people who use the label 'denier' are refuse to acknowledge the uncertainties when it comes to future predictions and the dangers of bad policies choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...