Conservatives and climate change (a poll)

[Anonymous]

Climate scientist


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!’n

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B? I think if we can have normal temps followed by an ice age then swing back to normal temps naturally, then things can swing the other way as well. I'm not convinced it's man made.

Also H.

The last time an ice age was followed by "normal temps" it took 10,000 years. We've warmed up that much in 150 years.

Great. I'm still skeptical, partially due to H as supporting evidence. I just feel if the enlightened billionaires really believed what they're preaching then their actions would speak louder than words.

DP I guess I don’t understand this way of thinking. Who cares about the handful of “enlightened billionaires” and whynare you giving them such power? “Enlightened billionaires” seems like an oxymoron anyway. Anyone who is truly enlightened wouldn’t be hoarding billions, so clearly these people are not setting examples for humanity.

Follow the science. That is what we should be listening to. Stop getting distracted by celebrities. No celebrity has the gravitas that makes them worth listening to. Listen to the experts.

I'm sorry, you really discredited yourself a couple of years ago with the whole "follow the science" thing.

You're really naive if you think the "enlightened billionaires" don't have any influence on the government and corporations. Again, just a few years ago many were pushing a different kind of "follow the science" propaganda that people like you were all too happy to follow, yet the tell it was a sham was that they were not following what they preached when the cameras were off. This is no different, mark my words. You're being bamboozled again.

If you were listening to billionaires for your covid info, that’s on you.

Where in my post did you get the idea I was? I'm clearly making fun of the "2 weeks to stop the spread/wear a damn mask/follow the science" morons like you who are making the same mistake again with climate change.

Just a note- by billionaires, I'm not exclusively speaking of Bill Gates but any of our wealthy hypocritical politicians: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/elected-officials-criticized-covid-19-advice/story?id=74486861

We never did anything to stop the spread. Maybe you forgot about how barely a week into trying to stop the spread, right wing nutjobs were at state capitol buildings with AR-15s freaking out because they couldn't go to Hooters and any serious attempt to stop the spread was abandoned. You forgot, but we didn't.

You have forgotten, that it wasn't two weeks to stop the spread, but two weeks to slow the spread. The idea was they wanted to change the curve so hospitals would not get overburdened, spread the infections out over time.

[Anonymous]

Back to climate change. It’s a lot like COVID. The world is going to end, well until it doesn’t. People have been shouting from the rooftops since the 60s. First the polar bears were going extinct. Now we have more than ever. When has Al Gore been right about anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to climate change. It’s a lot like COVID. The world is going to end, well until it doesn’t. People have been shouting from the rooftops since the 60s. First the polar bears were going extinct. Now we have more than ever. When has Al Gore been right about anything?

Please link to source of statistic that we have more polar bears than ever and that they are not going extinct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to climate change. It’s a lot like COVID. The world is going to end, well until it doesn’t. People have been shouting from the rooftops since the 60s. First the polar bears were going extinct. Now we have more than ever. When has Al Gore been right about anything?

For 7 million people officially, and probably double that unofficially, the world did end. Gosh, in red counties and states alone it was the primary cause of death - as “heart disease” or other lies on the death certificate - for probably most people for two years.

Any proof that we have more polar bears than ever? Probably not. You’re anti science and RWNJs never have any proof for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The climate is always changing and on a much longer time scale than humans have been around to impact. Educate yourself on the Milankovitch cycles - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=These%20cyclical%20orbital%20movements%2C%20which,and%20south%20of%20the%20equator)

You heard it here first summer 2023 temperatures for most if not all of the US will be the lowest on record.

I think it’s so adorable that conservatives always think it’s some ground breaking news that the earth’s climate has AlWaYs ChAnGeD. It wasn’t habitable by humans for much of that time.

And for you, dear sweet summer child. It’s just a cartoon so perhaps you’ll grasp its implications: https://xkcd.com/1732/

This is really well done. Thank you, PP.

Can a conservative comment on this?

I'll bite. The first thing that struck me is the smoothing. They are operating on larger time scales in the early part, so any jumps will be averaged out more, while recent temperatures with the solid black line is better known. They notes say they are using Shakun and Marcott. I don't recognize Shakun, but I remember there was a lot of objection to the methods used by Marcott at the time of publication. Search site:climateaudit.org Marcott and Shakun's name comes up in the results. You can look at that if you want to review more technical details. However, generally I think you get similar results in almost every reconstruction, but a little wavier with certain parts approaching modern temperatures, instead of a smooth growth.
People argue the Holocene was either a warmer time period or about the same temperature as now, as well as some other time periods, that are erased in this cartoon.

It says Medieval Warm Period was regional and not enough to affect global temperatures. This is disputed, and there is evidence of this warm period in many places.
There is rumors of an e-mail went out among IPCC from I think Jonathan Overpeck,'We have to erase the Medieval Warm Period.' There was a chart of global temperatures that appeared in an earlier IPCC report by Lamb that was inconvenient for the narrative, leading people to the conclusion that maybe this is just natural warming.
A counterargument that is used, is that if it were warmer in Medieval Times, that just makes global warming more of a problem, as it means temperatures are even more sensitive to forcing changes than scientists generally conclude.

Another detail is that most of the warming shown at the end is predicted, not actual. It has been 7 years since that chart, so maybe there would be a little more, but three or four of those color blocks would not appear on the actual temperature line.

So this is my favorite kind of con rebuttal. Works in math - statistician, maybe? But we all know that there’s a lot of massaging that can be done with numbers, especially professionally - and doesn’t really understand the science behind global warming but is definitely all in on the right wing garbage pipeline and gets all the mailers, so to speak, so can speak to minutiae of arguments within the climatology community, at least from the right wing perspective. Likes to think of himself as “thoughtful” and as someone with a lot of common sense.

But is also someone who is absolutely paddling hard to ignore the scientific conclusion: we’re killing this planet. From our species’ perspective, anyway, as well as for most of the species currently on this beautiful blue marble. I’m never sure if you people just aren’t super observant or if you’re just happily oblivious just so long as shareholders are making bank, but even forty years ago when I was a child there were a ton more birds and insects. Industrial scale farming has done insane damage to the ecology of everywhere it’s used, and it’s also a massive contributor to global warming, too, and not just the cattle. What do you think soil is compromised of? Largely carbon. And when it blows off you can see its contribution.

We didn’t used to have fires every summer that choked off the air in random cities hundreds of miles away.

“Common sense” people like you are content to piddle little arguments just so long as you can arguably keep missing the point. You and I aren’t likely to suffer. You’re Mr. Whitecollar; it’s not you out there harvesting food and choking on Canadian smoke or living in a flood prone and poverty stricken country where people will suffer from global warming. Our kids will have health insurance and a nice, clean house we can close off and use air conditioning for if their lungs can’t take the smog. For people like you and I, we will get to rise above most of the complications, but where you and I differ is that I want to change things so that all those other poor people aren’t suffering unnecessarily.

You are correct on certain parts, but forest fires are down not up.
Also, I think global warming policy is largely about having poor people not develop energy and not enjoy the standard of living of the West.
You are right about expertise. I was able to follow an argument and evaluate code written by climate scientists to see they used some data upside down.
You are right about manipulating data, and the point is that climate scientists do this as well. Other instances they introduce new statistical techniques without consulting statisticians or first introducing them in a statistics journal. This produces errors that they will sometimes correct and other times they adopt the attitude you express here.

Oh, “the attitude” I express. That damn reliance on my eyes and ears and people who don’t have a vested interest in making more money off fossil fuels.

Forest fires are up: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires#:~:text=The%20extent%20of%20area%20burned,have%20increased%20since%20the%201980s.

Then you’re flat out wrong what global warming policy is. I mean, your claim is just dumb as hell. Do you not know that the primary driver of global warming is excess carbon in the atmosphere? And your thought is… that the main response is people are trying to block poor people from “not develop energy”?

There’s also no possible way you went through all the data regarding the sources and were able to read it, assimilate it and reply. You just looked at some right wing websites attempting to debunk global warming.

The fact that you honestly believe that climate scientists are manipulating data is a testament to how far gone you are from any semblance of common sense. Your average everyday meteorologist who’s been at it for longer than ten minutes can tell you how much the weather has changed. Global warming is real. It’s observable. And frankly only the very unintelligent don’t understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Then you’re flat out wrong what global warming policy is. I mean, your claim is just dumb as hell. Do you not know that the primary driver of global warming is excess carbon in the atmosphere? And your thought is… that the main response is people are trying to block poor people from “not develop energy”?

What do you think the main response is? Have you seen how different agencies block investment in coal plants? It has been a coup for China which generates goodwill by filling the gap and providing funds for coal power, getting to place military bases and mining for resources.

[Anonymous]

This thread is about the same flavor as the poll thread asking conservatives how many LGBTQIA+ rights they’d roll back and it’s gotten basically no attention whatsoever.

Climate change is the most important issue of our lives, but right wing media doesn’t spin up their sheep on the subject and so the subjects currently have no talking points to spout. The die hards who feel that climate change is a joke are still active, to wit, their death threats convinced an Iowa TV meteorologist to quit. https://www.yahoo.com/news/iowa-meteorologists-climate-change-coverage-214702437.html

He says the same thing all the knowledgeable people say: climate change is real and it’s going to affect us all. Evidently people didn’t like that.

But most Republicans would rather gab about trans people and how they and the Democrats are the devil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then you’re flat out wrong what global warming policy is. I mean, your claim is just dumb as hell. Do you not know that the primary driver of global warming is excess carbon in the atmosphere? And your thought is… that the main response is people are trying to block poor people from “not develop energy”?

What do you think the main response is? Have you seen how different agencies block investment in coal plants? It has been a coup for China which generates goodwill by filling the gap and providing funds for coal power, getting to place military bases and mining for resources.

Honest to god: what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are conservative or libertarian, which statement describes your view?

A. Climate change is not real, or at least it is not man-made.
B. Climate change may be real, but there is nothing the government can and should do to mitigate it, because it won't change anything (climate change is inevitable regardless of what we do).
C. China and India pollute more, and therefore we should not try and reduce our emissions, because it will threaten our economic competitiveness.
D. Climate change is real, but government-driven efforts are more feel-good and greenwashing than actually effective.
E. Emissions reductions and greener initiatives should be entirely left to the free market to solve.
F. I acknowledge climate change, emissions, pollution, and various forms of environmental degradation but I just don't find it to be as important as other issues that affect me more directly.
G. Climate change is exaggerated and an excuse for governments to try and restrict our freedoms.
H. Don't talk to me about climate change or the environment until every politician and elite like Bill Gates stops using private jets and lives according to what environmentalists want.

I. Climate change is real, but because Al Gore built his Outer Banks house right near the water, there is no imminent danger to the rest of us, mortals. Since he also flies private jet, I can take my two trips per year to Europe and Asia.

Gotta love Al Gore and othervwealthy folks who live in and heat/cool huge homes and jet all over but take the time to tell us middle class wage earners how to protect the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are conservative or libertarian, which statement describes your view?

A. Climate change is not real, or at least it is not man-made.
B. Climate change may be real, but there is nothing the government can and should do to mitigate it, because it won't change anything (climate change is inevitable regardless of what we do).
C. China and India pollute more, and therefore we should not try and reduce our emissions, because it will threaten our economic competitiveness.
D. Climate change is real, but government-driven efforts are more feel-good and greenwashing than actually effective.
E. Emissions reductions and greener initiatives should be entirely left to the free market to solve.
F. I acknowledge climate change, emissions, pollution, and various forms of environmental degradation but I just don't find it to be as important as other issues that affect me more directly.
G. Climate change is exaggerated and an excuse for governments to try and restrict our freedoms.
H. Don't talk to me about climate change or the environment until every politician and elite like Bill Gates stops using private jets and lives according to what environmentalists want.

Didn’t read the thread but none of these fully describe my views. A and B definitely wrong.

I think it exists but the we’re all going to die scenarios are exaggerated (didn’t Al Gore as the ice caps would be gone by now). We are making efforts and that’s good but the best way out of this is to be practical and to innovate, like Elon Musk. And yeah, rich hypocrites like Gates and John Kerry are totally obnoxious and definitely undermine the cause.

It’s important to protect the environment. We’ve done OK on that in the past but could do better. We are learning and getting better and should celebrate that.

Protecting the earth is great but the green misanthropy and opposition to progress I can do without.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to climate change. It’s a lot like COVID. The world is going to end, well until it doesn’t. People have been shouting from the rooftops since the 60s. First the polar bears were going extinct. Now we have more than ever. When has Al Gore been right about anything?

For 7 million people officially, and probably double that unofficially, the world did end. Gosh, in red counties and states alone it was the primary cause of death - as “heart disease” or other lies on the death certificate - for probably most people for two years.

Any proof that we have more polar bears than ever? Probably not. You’re anti science and RWNJs never have any proof for anything.

In your quest to bash red states and cities, you forgot to mention New York.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B? I think if we can have normal temps followed by an ice age then swing back to normal temps naturally, then things can swing the other way as well. I'm not convinced it's man made.

Also H.

The last time an ice age was followed by "normal temps" it took 10,000 years. We've warmed up that much in 150 years.

Great. I'm still skeptical, partially due to H as supporting evidence. I just feel if the enlightened billionaires really believed what they're preaching then their actions would speak louder than words.

DP I guess I don’t understand this way of thinking. Who cares about the handful of “enlightened billionaires” and whynare you giving them such power? “Enlightened billionaires” seems like an oxymoron anyway. Anyone who is truly enlightened wouldn’t be hoarding billions, so clearly these people are not setting examples for humanity.

Follow the science. That is what we should be listening to. Stop getting distracted by celebrities. No celebrity has the gravitas that makes them worth listening to. Listen to the experts.

I'm sorry, you really discredited yourself a couple of years ago with the whole "follow the science" thing.

You're really naive if you think the "enlightened billionaires" don't have any influence on the government and corporations. Again, just a few years ago many were pushing a different kind of "follow the science" propaganda that people like you were all too happy to follow, yet the tell it was a sham was that they were not following what they preached when the cameras were off. This is no different, mark my words. You're being bamboozled again.

If you were listening to billionaires for your covid info, that’s on you.

Sorry that we looked to health organizations, scientists, and (regretfully) Twitter and Facebook. We weren’t supposed to listen to them?

[Anonymous]

Didn’t Greta Thunberg predict that humanity would be wiped out by June 2023 if we were still using fossil fuels?

So we either have less than a week or once again the global warming cabal’s predictions failed to materialize.

[Anonymous]

I think it exists but I am skeptical about the measures that have been proposed. I would like to see a more realistic approach like how we would mitigate the effects vs a completely preventative approach, since we can't control the rest of the world. Since we have but one small piece to control, it makes more sense to think in terms of mitigation.

On fox News, most non-Boomer Rs are either lukewarm to it, or openly hostile. Matt Walsh, noted theocratic fascist and winner of the 2023 Transphobe of the Year award, regularly takes them to the woodshed on his program, and discourages people from going on their programs.