Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[K1052]

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

Which of Obama's Executive Agreements with foreign nations have been found to exceed presidential powers by the courts.

 

[Grooveriding]

More importantly why would you want to entertain that sort of hypothetical unless you're a total idiot. Another dumb hypothetical question: Do you enjoy firing up your car, wrapping your lips around the tailpipe and sucking back some fumes ?

 

[Jaskalas]

Most people don't handle long term existential risks well so this was the comprise they agreed to to make progress.

I would argue that a warmer planet is, not so much of a direct threat so much as indirect. Such as the refugee crisis from flooded low laying areas. Melting poles and flooded ports are a pretty simple existential risk. Not in the water itself, but our inability to adapt to it. The costs and human toll.

Hopefully people can relate to the Syrian refugee crisis and picture how bad it would be with a scale 100 times larger.
Would be a much smaller leap to get people on board to preventing or mitigating that crisis, as opposed to hurricanes.

Temp graphs and polar images will speak for themselves to put down the opposition.

 

[Moonbeam]

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

No, only his illegal actions have been slapped down. All the rest are completely legal, except according to you which of course reveals you as a total fool who lives in an altered reality, a delusional state.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Not only will you stand for it, you will have to stand for it. You have a liberal brain defect, the defect that says that anything illogical is the result of stupidity rather than based on emotional need. You are failing to react rationally yourself. Do you not see how absurdly ineffective it is to call conservatives stupid. They are impregnably defended, but liberals aren't that way. A real liberal will always be able to be reasoned out of an irrational position. For example, I can surely convince you, can I not, that all opposition to GMOs isn't based on irrational fears. Surely you see the problem when farmers can own and replant seeds because the wind has put Monsanto owned genes into them???????

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Which of Obama's Executive Agreements with foreign nations have been found to exceed presidential powers by the courts.

Where did I say his only his agreements with foreign nations matter?

 

[K1052]

Where did I say his only his agreements with foreign nations matter?

We're talking about Executive Agreements. Why are you changing the subject?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

A President can dance naked on a teacup, something distinctly unpleasant to visualize, but effectively there's no binding agreement made and even then we don't always bother when they are. Might makes international right in these sorts of things.

 

[PokerGuy]

The president can enter into whatever executive agreement he wants as head of the executive branch, but unless they are ratified through the senate (advice and consent) they can simply be ignored by the next president (or even the same president) as there is no enforcement mechanism and the executive agreement does not have the legal binding force of US legislation.

That system has been in place for a long time and for the most part works perfectly fine. It allows the president leeway to enter agreements as needed, but he still needs senate ratification for it to become legally binding (ie, enforceable) in the US.... and of course all of it is subject to judicial review as to constitutionality.

 

[PokerGuy]

Most conservatives (myself included) believe the earth is indeed warming and that humans probably contribute to that accelerating warming trend. However, conservatives have a healthy skepticism of proposed 'solutions' to the problem that seek to advance political agenda. That's where things get messy, the global warming movement was hijacked by libs to push a liberal agenda, thus casting doubt on the veracity of any science used to support pushing that agenda.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

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.

Can a President Trump (after Jan 20) use his mighty executive pen to cross out Obama's executive pen? or is that somehow unconstitutional ?

 

[thraashman]

For example, I can surely convince you, can I not, that all opposition to GMOs isn't based on irrational fears. Surely you see the problem when farmers can own and replant seeds because the wind has put Monsanto owned genes into them???????

And here's where you just went wrong. You talked about things not being based on irrational fears, then picked an irrational falsehood as your point. When farmers CHOOSE to purchase seed from Monsanto they sign a contract forbidding replanting of that seed. Even if they didn't sign said contract, most would choose not to because of hybridization causing decreased occurrence of the desired traits and decreased yields. Monsanto in fact does not sue people for accidental pollination due to wind. The suits are for intentional patent infringement. Looking up actual court documentation and not anecdotes from the internet would tell you that.

 

[pauldun170]

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?

Liberals generally do not watch FoxNews nor do they click on conservative craplinks or crazy religious crap on social media.

 

[pauldun170]

Can a President Trump (after Jan 20) use his mighty executive pen to cross out Obama's executive pen? or is that somehow unconstitutional ?

When it comes to crossing of the swords...
As long as ball don't touch
it's cool

 

[Moonbeam]

Most conservatives (myself included) believe the earth is indeed warming and that humans probably contribute to that accelerating warming trend. However, conservatives have a healthy skepticism of proposed 'solutions' to the problem that seek to advance political agenda. That's where things get messy, the global warming movement was hijacked by libs to push a liberal agenda, thus casting doubt on the veracity of any science used to support pushing that agenda.

That does not cast doubt on anything. What casts doubt is your unconscious desire to have it cast doubt, to use it to rationalize your emotional position. You have a right to have healthy skepticism of solutions but not such a skepticism facts pointing to danger for the human race. Climate denial is an ego defense that favors self image over humanity in general. That is evil if you had any choice in it. Do you?

 

[pauldun170]

That does not cast doubt on anything. What casts doubt is your unconscious desire to have it cast doubt, to use it to rationalize your emotional position. You have a right to have healthy skepticism of solutions but not such a skepticism facts pointing to danger for the human race. Climate denial is an ego defense that favors self image over humanity in general. That is evil if you had any choice in it. Do you?

Teach the controversy
That's all ya gotta do

 

[Muse]

All it takes for a non believer is one strong anecdote.

Yup, and a predilection to rationalize.

 

[Moonbeam]

And here's where you just went wrong. You talked about things not being based on irrational fears, then picked an irrational falsehood as your point. When farmers CHOOSE to purchase seed from Monsanto they sign a contract forbidding replanting of that seed. Even if they didn't sign said contract, most would choose not to because of hybridization causing decreased occurrence of the desired traits and decreased yields. Monsanto in fact does not sue people for accidental pollination due to wind. The suits are for intentional patent infringement. Looking up actual court documentation and not anecdotes from the internet would tell you that.

Are you sure you mean I was wrong rather than stupid. Anyway I'm going to admit that I misrepresented the case if only to demonstrate what you were unwilling to do, that liberals can be persuaded by a good argument. You win. Try that with a conservative.

 

[Moonbeam]

Teach the controversy
That's all ya gotta do

Proper teaching is an act of love, but it is not one that does not have a steep skill set, perhaps the steepest of all. I agree with you but would be insane to assume I have that skill.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Increasing standard of living is part of the solution. The problem is Carbon emitted per kWh per person.

Increasing standard of living increases kWh used but lowers number of people in the long run.

Better mix of energy sources (natural gas over coal, nuclear, solar and wind over fossil fuels) lower the amount of carbon per kWh.

Sure the initial increase in standard of living probably increases CO2 output but over the long term it will reach 0 increase faster than by ignoring standard of living and increasing population.

Increasing standard of living across the world would be a huge business opportunity and reduce terrorism. Seems like a win win situation to me.

Since when have you ever seen corporations work in their own long term best interests?

 

[pauldun170]

Proper teaching is an act of love, but it is not one that does not have a steep skill set, perhaps the steepest of all. I agree with you but would be insane to assume I have that skill.

What I'm talking about
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/teach-the-controversy-comes-to-climate-science/

historical background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

The t-shirt
https://amorphia-apparel.com/teach/

 

[Chiropteran]

It's a million times more complex than a simple "DO YOU BELIVE IT YES/NO?"

I think most conservatives believe that humans are having some effect on the environment and the temperature is going up, ever so slightly. What they don't believe is that just because something is happening, it's automatically a problem, nor do they automatically believe every tom, dick, and sally that comes along saying they only way to save the world from global warming is to give them 10 million dollars.

As far as me personally, I think the solutions are mostly barking up the wrong tree. It's a really fucking simple math problem: X people cause Y pollution each, every Z of which results in a worse environment. There are two variables, but liberals love to pretend there is only one: we must use less, recycle more, blah blah blah. The truth is, there are too many people on this planet. China has 4 times our population: the problem isn't that americans use 50% more resources each, the problem is that China has too many damn people. There is a real hard limit to the number of people who can be supported on this planet, China & India are the clear problem in that regard.

But... the liberal solution has to be politically correct, has to be defensible, has to be nice, has to be popular- so the idea of telling people to quit having so many kids hasn't caught on, and probably never will. The planet is doomed.

 

[Paratus]

It's a million times more complex than a simple "DO YOU BELIVE IT YES/NO?"

I think most conservatives believe that humans are having some effect on the environment and the temperature is going up, ever so slightly. What they don't believe is that just because something is happening, it's automatically a problem, nor do they automatically believe every tom, dick, and sally that comes along saying they only way to save the world from global warming is to give them 10 million dollars.

As far as me personally, I think the solutions are mostly barking up the wrong tree. It's a really fucking simple math problem: X people cause Y pollution each, every Z of which results in a worse environment. There are two variables, but liberals love to pretend there is only one: we must use less, recycle more, blah blah blah. The truth is, there are too many people on this planet. China has 4 times our population: the problem isn't that americans use 50% more resources each, the problem is that China has too many damn people. There is a real hard limit to the number of people who can be supported on this planet, China & India are the clear problem in that regard.

But... the liberal solution has to be politically correct, has to be defensible, has to be nice, has to be popular- so the idea of telling people to quit having so many kids hasn't caught on, and probably never will. The planet is doomed.

Dude arent you supposed to be a conservative?

You know conservatives who support religious fundamentalists who believe Jesus said have a ton of kids, who support banning abortion, restricting birth control, cutting education and welfare which keeps people dumb and knocked up. Then you accuse liberals of being the problem?

Wow. That's something.

So how were you supposing liberals not being politically correct would prevent poor uneducated religious conservatives without access to birth control or even sex Ed from having a bunch of kids.

 

[agent00f]

Dude arent you supposed to be a conservative?

You know conservatives who support religious fundamentalists who believe Jesus said have a ton of kids, who support banning abortion, restricting birth control, cutting education and welfare which keeps people dumb and knocked up. Then you accuse liberals of being the problem?

Wow. That's something.

So how were you supposing liberals not being politically correct would prevent poor uneducated religious conservatives without access to birth control or even sex Ed from having a bunch of kids.

He's thinking about the final solution for them, ie better them than us.

 

[Chiropteran]

So how were you supposing liberals not being politically correct would prevent poor uneducated religious conservatives without access to birth control or even sex Ed from having a bunch of kids.

I didn't say that. I said it won't happen, and we are doomed. What part of that is hard to understand?