Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[JSt0rm]

doesn't matter. Trump is gonna remove all the stops.

 

[bshole]

It's not humanity that is doing the immediate suffering, you're smart enough to realize that. Eventually it will be humanity, but first it's the small things like plankton, or bees, or something else at the bottom of the food chain that numerous other species depend on for food/shelter/protection/fertilization/etc.

Excellent point.

By the way don't assume that I am intelligent enough to realize anything. I am an engineer, we are blithering idiots compared to scientists.

 

[Atreus21]

Because conservatives by and large already have a religion.

 

[Vic]

Because conservatives by and large already have a religion.

"The chief characteristic of the religion of science is that it works." - Isaac Asimov

 

[JSt0rm]

lol Vic. You won't permeate the brains of devolution

 

[Grooveriding]

"The chief characteristic of the religion of science is that it works." - Isaac Asimov

Hey, no fair! It may have worked out very well for this lady.

 

[agent00f]

Excellent point.

By the way don't assume that I am intelligent enough to realize anything. I am an engineer, we are blithering idiots compared to scientists.

If you're an engineer, you should be aware that most human-oriented systems (eg agriculture, hvac) are designed for certain temperature ranges, and these systems are expensive to build/upgrade. So it may be the case that continually moving the vineyards northward and such may not imply extinction, it's in practice much more expensive than releasing less co2.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

What a load of crap.

Not an argument.

Science isn't an authority, but the way people are using science sure is biased. The golden age of science breakthroughs is actually long gone. The paper that discovered DNA was 1.5 pages. Nobody had any doubts about that one.

Science that has been published and peer reviewed and has remain uncontested by other scientists is somewhat of an authority. The problem is that science on global warming is still young and controversial. The science of warming and how that works is relatively well understood and uncontroversial, but the claims of catastrophic warming is still open for debate, primarily because most of the predictions are made using computer models and this isn't real science, there's no null hypothesis and it's not falsifiable, it's just a computerized prediction.

But individual scientists sure can be bias, because their livelihood often relies on their work and funding from government guarantees them lots of money in the way of grants. So it's fair to be skeptical of those results and hold them to the highest scrutiny.

Co2 in this case is a pollutant, and it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it.

Also, the government is the funding source for much of basic research.

Seems this isn't a topic you, or to be more precise your sources, knows anything about.

Co2 is a naturally occuring part of the planet and needed for plant life growth, it was only reclassified as a pollutant by the EPA because it's increased in quantity. By which standard everything is a pollutant in high enough quantities which makes the term meaningless.

Saying it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it is not an argument, the government doesn't actually fund anything, they take money from people and that funds the research. Only there's no actual free market of research, they basically run a monopoly on the science and that's why it's so badly done.

Why don't you just state why you disagree rather than claiming this is something me and my sources know anything about, make an actual argument rather than skirting around the issue.

 

[piasabird]

Global warming is something we cant do much about. Conservatives like clean air and potable water just like everyone else. It is kind of hard to make it rain in areas that are prone to this drought which is going on. I am not sure a drought is caused by man made causes. I would be lying if I did not believe the temps are higher this year. However, So all the people in California should park their cars and ride on a horse or a bicycle. When you look at things realistically, there is not much any one person can do.

I did buy a Toyota Carolla so I use less gas and have a smaller carbon footprint.

The government could force the building industry to build smaller and more energy efficient housing.

This is a long video about Water Conservation, and flood control. (It is very long)
Arirang special Water Documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nv9ngG2q0o
Arirang is a Korean braodcasting company that broadcasts in English.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

An excellent article in today's Real Clear Politics.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

".........These same sneer-and-smear techniques predominate in the debate over climate change. President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false. While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous. How could the science be settled when there have been dozens of computer models of how carbon dioxide affects the climate? And when most of the models overestimated how much warming should have occurred by now? These failed predictions, as well as recent research into the effects of water vapor on temperatures, have caused many scientists to lower their projections of future .............."

 

[Sunburn74]

Hey, no fair! It may have worked out very well for this lady.

Lol. No one could get away with that story these days. Paternity tests would put an end to that shit immediately.

 

[agent00f]

Co2 is a naturally occuring part of the planet and needed for plant life growth, it was only reclassified as a pollutant by the EPA because it's increased in quantity. By which standard everything is a pollutant in high enough quantities which makes the term meaningless.

Saying it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it is not an argument, the government doesn't actually fund anything, they take money from people and that funds the research. Only there's no actual free market of research, they basically run a monopoly on the science and that's why it's so badly done.

Why don't you just state why you disagree rather than claiming this is something me and my sources know anything about, make an actual argument rather than skirting around the issue.

Rather counterproductive to argue the finer points of science with people who think the tobacco research model is the way to go.

 

[sandorski]

Not an argument.

Indeed, because your post was crap.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Rather counterproductive to argue the finer points of science with people who think the tobacco research model is the way to go.

Who argued that? I'm arguing that climate science is treated no differently than any other science which has served us very well for centuries. I don't understand what's wrong with that.

 

[agent00f]

Who argued that? I'm arguing that climate science is treated no differently than any other science which has served us very well for centuries. I don't understand what's wrong with that.

I don't think you're too stupid to realize what you're saying:

"Saying it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it is not an argument, the government doesn't actually fund anything, they take money from people and that funds the research. Only there's no actual free market of research, they basically run a monopoly on the science and that's why it's so badly done."

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Because conservatives by and large already have a religion.

The Scientific Method
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

anything in the religious world that comes close to that as a method of proving hypotheses?

 

[greatnoob]

anything in the religious world that comes close to that as a method of proving hypotheses?

Just have faith™

 

[Paratus]

What a well thought out set of justifications for ignorance.

Not an argument.



Science that has been published and peer reviewed and has remain uncontested by other scientists is somewhat of an authority.

Peer reviewed science is the authority. Whether it's contested or not doesn't change that fact. When it is contested if the new science is supported and peer reviewed then the older science will be updated with the new information.

Like with global warming. 97+% of all scientists who study climate and their research support man made global warming. The climate "skeptics" on the other hand have failed and continue to fail to adequately challenge this peer reviewed body of research. Their work does not provide adequate predictions nor is it supported by evidence and theory.

The problem is that science on global warming is still young and controversial. The science of warming and how that works is relatively well understood and uncontroversial, but the claims of catastrophic warming is still open for debate, primarily because most of the predictions are made using computer models and this isn't real science, there's no null hypothesis and it's not falsifiable, it's just a computerized prediction.

The science of global warming is old and settled. It's based on thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer. The same theories every scientist and engineer learns in undergrad. It's no more controversial than vaccines. It is however complex.

The models are falsifiable. They can be compared to the historical record. You are also confusing short term local variability with long term trends. While each model may show something different about the amount of precipitation in Cairo in 2045, they all show increasing ice loss, sea level rise and significant changes to global weather patterns.

But individual scientists sure can be bias, because their livelihood often relies on their work and funding from government guarantees them lots of money in the way of grants. So it's fair to be skeptical of those results and hold them to the highest scrutiny.

Sure individual scientists can be biased. However the scientific method allows us to not lie to ourselves. When the bulk of scientists and their peer reviewed research agree it's generally easy to tell whose biased. Especially when the skeptics can make money on the ignorance of the general public.

Besides as Exxon has showed, corporations will bury their science if it threatens the bottom line.

Co2 is a naturally occuring part of the planet and needed for plant life growth, it was only reclassified as a pollutant by the EPA because it's increased in quantity. By which standard everything is a pollutant in high enough quantities which makes the term meaningless.

Maybe here you meant to say CO2 has a natural cycle. Which is true. What isn't natural is digging up million year old carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere.

While plants do use it, CO2 is a combustion product. It is exhaust.

At high PPM it causes death in humans due to asphyxiation.
At lower levels it causes head headaches, problem sleeping, behavior and performance problems.
At still lower levels it causes global warming.

Saying it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it is not an argument, the government doesn't actually fund anything, they take money from people and that funds the research. Only there's no actual free market of research, they basically run a monopoly on the science and that's why it's so badly done.

If you understood anything about the free market and science, you'd understand that basic research generally doesn't make financial sense. It wasn't a corporation that made the internet it was the government.

Corporate science is focused on short term profitable goals. It would be a very poor substitute for robust government research. Instead it makes an strong contribution to our over all knowledge when combined with government research.

Why don't you just state why you disagree rather than claiming this is something me and my sources know anything about, make an actual argument rather than skirting around the issue.

I'm sorry but your sources seem very poor when it comes to the how and why of science.

 

[greatnoob]

Because either they are lemmings that buy into "the sky is falling" stuff or else they are trying to push the narrative in order to gain more control.
As of right now:That stuff is done in the US and USSR.
Global warming asshats can pack it now.

Not a damn thing.It's only pushed by leftist lemmings or their puppet masters.It's all bullshit.

That is the single best argument (might I add very well thought out, insightful and supported with undeniably 100% true facts) against global warming I have ever heard, F U all leftist fascists, I think everybody here has learnt a lot from your wise words.

Tell the gubbament to strike climate change off from his to-do list, it's been fixed guys.

 

[First]

Your sorry dumb ass will probably go quite far to spread your ignorance here.Me,probably notsomuch.Here's to the fucks I give which are NONE!

Countdown until ban 3 2 1 ....

 

[greatnoob]

Your sorry dumb ass will probably go quite far to spread your ignorance here.Me,probably notsomuch.Here's to the fucks I give which are NONE!

"Here's to the fucks I give which are NONE! "

Well you certainly do, considering how instead of using your main account, you went so far as to create a new account to hide your actual identity and shit out your REAL thoughts (if they can even be called that).
Do yourself a favour, go outside and have a walk.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This is interesting, Dr. Judith Curry also has a post about the article "The Real War on Science" So if you want to read what an actual climate scientist says (testified 4 times to Congress for both the Democrats and Republicans) have a read. After all who do you believe, an actual climate scientist or some hack on the internet?
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/#more-22532

"
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.

Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.

Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century."

 

[agent00f]

This is interesting, Dr. Judith Curry also has a post about the article "The Real War on Science" So if you want to read what an actual climate scientist says (testified 4 times to Congress for both the Democrats and Republicans) have a read. After all who do you believe, an actual climate scientist or some hack on the internet?
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/#more-22532

"
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.

Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.

Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century."

Very amusing point about confirmation bias from someone in her position, and not exactly a surprise that scientists don't favor the party of science denialism, academics the party of anti-intellectualism.

 

[Grooveriding]

In the end this thread served a good purpose. It helped rout out a few individuals who are so enslaved to partisanship to the right and/or idolization of the half-wit turnip that they joined in to provide examples of the sort of mental gymnastics they perform to deny reality and maintain the ideology.

The worst thing about the internet is that you can google any position you want to believe and find something on it that agrees with you, vindicating your ignorance. The internet is a Dunning-Kruger scaffold for these individuals. I've seen it all now. Trump, not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and completely out of his depth when it comes to science; no education, no training, a mediocre mind - proclaims it's a hoax by the Chinese. Someone so tight on his nuts must believe he can't be wrong and tries to actually support it with some google searches. Sad!

 

[Paratus]

This is interesting, Dr. Judith Curry also has a post about the article "The Real War on Science" So if you want to read what an actual climate scientist says (testified 4 times to Congress for both the Democrats and Republicans) have a read. After all who do you believe, an actual climate scientist or some hack on the internet?
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/#more-22532

"
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.

Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.

Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century."

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating conformation bias to us.

I really mean that.