Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[realibrad]

More and more are starting to warm to the idea

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

What is interesting is that the gap is the biggest during the presidential elections, then fades. Maybe if we kept focus on it, we could get something done.

 

[dank69]

Rush Limbaugh was paid to start the denier movement 20 years ago. The fossil fuel industry has been paying conservative pundits and "journalists" to push the narrative ever since. Conservatives believe what conservative pundits tell them to believe because they are the only ones telling the truth. The rest of the media is liberal, 99% of scientists are liberal and liberals want to murder babies, so we know none of them can be trusted. Hell, if Phillip Morris paid Rush enough to say smoking cigarettes is healthy, conservatives would believe him.

 

[K1052]

More and more are starting to warm to the idea

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

What is interesting is that the gap is the biggest during the presidential elections, then fades. Maybe if we kept focus on it, we could get something done.

Americans broadly support clean energy now and it's most seen at the local and state level, even a majority of Republicans when last I looked. Fortunately there isn't much that the party in power can do to thwart the forward progress. Renewables and NG as a long term bridge fuel will kill coal. Sub $100 per kWh batteries will kill off the ICE. Contrary to what the president elect has promised there is no going back.

 

[Paratus]

It IS a treaty, it was not passed in the Senate, it is not binding on the United States. I call bullshit on the idea that the Administration can lock the United States into a treaty that takes us 4 years to withdraw from without a Senate vote. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It still sounds like you don't understand what the Paris agreement is. The weakness and strength of it is there is no direct enforcement hence why it doesn't need ratification. It's not binding.

Each country picked a target to hit based on the desired goal to keep below a 2C increase in average global temperature and based on that countries economics.

Enforcement, such as it is, comes from regular meetings to track progress and issues surrounding meeting the stated goals. Most people don't handle long term existential risks well so this was the comprise they agreed to to make progress.

 

[Paratus]

Americans broadly support clean energy now and it's most seen at the local and state level, even a majority of Republicans when last I looked. Fortunately there isn't much that the party in power can do to thwart the forward progress. Renewables and NG as a long term bridge fuel will kill coal. Sub $100 per kWh batteries will kill off the ICE. Contrary to what the president elect has promised there is no going back.

Exactly.

Even if CAFE was killed design work on cars for the next several model years is already completely or mostly done. So nobody is going to be reducing fuel economy anytime soon.

 

[K1052]

Exactly.

Even if CAFE was killed design work on cars for the next several model years is already completely or mostly done. So nobody is going to be reducing fuel economy anytime soon.

Also consumers actually want more efficiency. Given that automakers would be very unlikely to scale back pricing if CAFE was killed they would have a hard time explaining to people why they car they want is still the same price but gets less mpg which will take money of of their pocket. Good luck with that one.

 

[brycejones]

It IS a treaty, it was not passed in the Senate, it is not binding on the United States. I call bullshit on the idea that the Administration can lock the United States into a treaty that takes us 4 years to withdraw from without a Senate vote. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It is NOT a treaty, it is an agreement without enforcement tools. You do realize that not every agreement between the US and other countries is ratified by the Senate don't you? If it was the Senate would spend a significant part of its time arguing over agreements with other countries.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It is NOT a treaty, it is an agreement without enforcement tools. You do realize that not every agreement between the US and other countries is ratified by the Senate don't you? If it was the Senate would spend a significant part of its time arguing over agreements with other countries.

So you say it's not enforceable and Paratus says it is enforceable and binding for 4 years. Which is it?

 

[poofyhairguy]

So you say it's not enforceable and Paratus says it is enforceable and binding for 4 years. Which is it?

It's not enforceable. None of these accords ever are.

What are they gonna do, sanction us? Try to attack us? Lol.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's not enforceable. None of these accords ever are.

What are they gonna do, sanction us? Try to attack us? Lol.

That's what i think. I have a problem that they used every trick in the book to try to get around the Constitution and the law. I wonder how many of the other signatory countries also had these types of shenanigans pulled on their citizens?

 

[thraashman]

Ok, without resorting to insults or childishness, here's what I've noticed in regards to global warming, and really science in general with regards to political leanings.

There is a faction on each side that is anti-science. On the right that anti-science occurs as a result of 2 things, either science is in opposition to religion or is in opposition to big business. On the left that anti-science occurs when they believe science is in opposition to what is natural.

For the right this means that those who are anti-science believe in things like birth begins at conception or gay conversion therapy for the religious. And they are against things like global warming for the ones who are pro big business.

For the left this means you have those who are anti-vaccine and those who are anti-GMO foods for those who believe those things are "unnatural".

Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on dumb anti-science beliefs.
It's just on the right you have more elected officials who talk up a couple of those anti science beliefs and on the left it's usually unelected dumb celebrities.

Edit: I will also mention an opposition to nuclear energy on the left despite it being a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels as an issue that is anti science. (yes there are real concerns, but it's still better than burning coal)

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I often imagine how far we'd have come with solar power tech if only they left the panels on the whitehouse, and aggressively pursued the storage and distribution of the collected energy. 40 years of that, gone.
USA! USA! USA! BURN THAT OIL! BURN THAT COAL! DRILL BABY DRILL!!
fucking renewable energy luddites.

 

[K1052]

That's what i think. I have a problem that they used every trick in the book to try to get around the Constitution and the law. I wonder how many of the other signatory countries also had these types of shenanigans pulled on their citizens?

The larger point is that the Senate doesn't want to have to vote on any of this. The use of executive agreements has dominated US foreign policy for decades under both parties. People only make noise about congressional approval if they don't like the party holding the presidency or that particular agreement, they by no means whatsoever want to be bothered with approving everything.

 

[K1052]

Edit: I will also mention an opposition to nuclear energy on the left despite it being a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels as an issue that is anti science. (yes there are real concerns, but it's still better than burning coal)

A majority of Americans now oppose nuclear energy for their own varied reasons. It's hard to be too pro-nuclear in the face of that and the incredible costs that renewed attempts to revive it's prospects for civilian power generation have shown. The economic argument is simply not there against natural gas and renewables.

 

[brandonbull]

I don't understand, what does global warming has to do with politics and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you're republican or democrat?

Democrats are generally classified as lunatics with made-up climate change numbers trying to extort money from people and Republicans are generally classified as climate change denying religious lunatics.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The larger point is that the Senate doesn't want to have to vote on any of this. The use of executive agreements has dominated US foreign policy for decades under both parties. People only make noise about congressional approval if they don't like the party holding the presidency or that particular agreement, they by no means whatsoever want to be bothered with approving everything.

The problem is that it was never submitted to the Senate. They can't vote on it if it isn't submitted. In the one climate vote by the Senate in ...1995 iirc it lost 95-0 on the Kyoto Treaty. We have laws and a Constitution for a reason.

 

[K1052]

The problem is that it was never submitted to the Senate. They can't vote on it if it isn't submitted. In the one climate vote by the Senate in ...1995 iirc it lost 95-0 on the Kyoto Treaty. We have laws and a Constitution for a reason.

Take it up with congress and make them forbid, or greatly restrict, executive agreements.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ok, without resorting to insults or childishness, here's what I've noticed in regards to global warming, and really science in general with regards to political leanings.

There is a faction on each side that is anti-science. On the right that anti-science occurs as a result of 2 things, either science is in opposition to religion or is in opposition to big business. On the left that anti-science occurs when they believe science is in opposition to what is natural.

For the right this means that those who are anti-science believe in things like birth begins at conception or gay conversion therapy for the religious. And they are against things like global warming for the ones who are pro big business.

For the left this means you have those who are anti-vaccine and those who are anti-GMO foods for those who believe those things are "unnatural".

Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on dumb anti-science beliefs.
It's just on the right you have more elected officials who talk up a couple of those anti science beliefs and on the left it's usually unelected dumb celebrities.

Edit: I will also mention an opposition to nuclear energy on the left despite it being a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels as an issue that is anti science. (yes there are real concerns, but it's still better than burning coal)

Have you asked yourself why you as you say, "noticed these things"?

Perhaps you have a need that drives you to draw equivalencies that distort reality. You chalk up all resistance to things on the left as a result of their being unnatural without either unpacking that word nor dealing with opposition unrelated to it. There is nothing really unnatural about having your child inoculated against disease. All those fear mongers who worry about that most likely take pills for aches and pains or use antiseptics to prevent infections. drive cars and do a million other unnatural things. A huge portion of the opposition to GMO's revolves around patent issues and how they screw farmers, monoclonal crop and livestock vulnerability, and the flooding of herbicides into ground water and streams from the runoff of massive applications of it on herbicide resistant crops. Here a better term for natural would be healthy and sustainable. And of course your unconscious assumption of the correctness of your notions on nuclear are astonishingly naïve. It is unethical to create toxins that last thousands of years and of which we already have tons and tons of just lying around that we can't muster the will to clean up, a mess you want to add to because you can't see that humans are pigs.

I am very sorry to inform you that there are irrational and rational fears and what actual peer reviewed science tells us is that the preponderance of irrational offenders are on the conservative side.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Take it up with congress and make them forbid, or greatly restrict, executive agreements.

They don't have to, we already have the Constitution and laws in the books. His makeshift end run around them aren't going to stand up in Court.

 

[fskimospy]

They don't have to, we already have the Constitution and laws in the books. His makeshift end run around them aren't going to stand up in Court.

I don't get a sense you have a strong understanding of the law or the constitution. Executive agreements are perfectly legal and have been used for basically the entire history of the US. The idea that they would somehow be an end run around things doesn't even make sense, as they are just the executive branch agreeing with someone else that the president will act in a certain way within the scope of his powers. Any attempt to limit that would be blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[thraashman]

Have you asked yourself why you as you say, "noticed these things"?

Perhaps you have a need that drives you to draw equivalencies that distort reality. You chalk up all resistance to things on the left as a result of their being unnatural without either unpacking that word nor dealing with opposition unrelated to it. There is nothing really unnatural about having your child inoculated against disease. All those fear mongers who worry about that most likely take pills for aches and pains or use antiseptics to prevent infections. drive cars and do a million other unnatural things. A huge portion of the opposition to GMO's revolves around patent issues and how they screw farmers, monoclonal crop and livestock vulnerability, and the flooding of herbicides into ground water and streams from the runoff of massive applications of it on herbicide resistant crops. Here a better term for natural would be healthy and sustainable. And of course your unconscious assumption of the correctness of your notions on nuclear are astonishingly naïve. It is unethical to create toxins that last thousands of years and of which we already have tons and tons of just lying around that we can't muster the will to clean up, a mess you want to add to because you can't see that humans are pigs.

I am very sorry to inform you that there are irrational and rational fears and what actual peer reviewed science tells us is that the preponderance of irrational offenders are on the conservative side.

I'm not even sure the point you're trying to make. Have you never seen me post? I am definitely one of the further left individuals on here, but I am above all other things pro science. And in recent years I have taken a personal interest in the science of agricultural genetic modification. This has led me to discover the anti science stint that exists from the left in regards to this. It exists, and it infuriates me because we're supposed to be the pro science side. I will not pretend it does not exist simply because we might hold many other similar beliefs. I will not stand for the left taking up the often times cult-like behavior of the right where questioning stupid beliefs is unacceptable.

 

[K1052]

They don't have to, we already have the Constitution and laws in the books. His makeshift end run around them aren't going to stand up in Court.

Yes, they will. Just like every president before him.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I mean seriously, what to stop President Trump from submitting the "Paris Accord" as a treaty to the Senate after he takes office? It gets voted down, end of Paris Treaty. Done. Unless you somehow believe that an Obama executive order trumps the legal and Constitutional procedure?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yes, they will. Just like every president before him.

You're dreaming, a number of Obama's illegal actions have already been slapped down in the Courts.

 

[fskimospy]

I mean seriously, what to stop President Trump from submitting the "Paris Accord" as a treaty to the Senate after he takes office? It gets voted down, end of Paris Treaty. Done. Unless you somehow believe that an Obama executive order trumps the legal and Constitutional procedure?

I'm sorry but that's not how the law or the constitution works. The senate refusing to ratify something submitted as a treaty would not somehow invalidate an executive agreement.

As I mentioned earlier, the idea that the senate refusing to ratify the Paris Accord as a treaty would somehow limit executive action would be blatantly unconstitutional.