Social Commitment To Democratic Values Predict Climate Change Concern...

[Madmick]

I believe in climate change too, it's part of history. It's the way it's been used as a weapon and for virtue signaling that has poisoned the issue. At the great expense of real and doable environmental concerns. As well as the focus entirely on the West and not Asia. To go along with the hypocrisy and absurd doomsday predictions the same climate scientists have made for decades.

The coral reefs are dying around the world, with CO2 levels in the atmosphere exploding, but we have jackasses generating outlier-drawn strawmen memes like this.

What a travesty.

Not a meme created by an incel without a degree in any science.

 

[nostradumbass]

Doesn't sound like they're making any extra effort at all then. Just doing what they'd normally do and not giving a fuck because they can point to another demographic that contributes more than they do to the problem. But yeah, the left-wingers talk big talk more than they seem to walk the walk.

Nah, not an extra effort because they weren't the problem to begin with. The "green movement" and carbon taxes seem to be a luxury cause for posh urban people.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Because leftists are more concerned with black lives mattering, disrespecting the national anthem, transgenders, protecting islam and illegal immigration.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Nah, not an extra effort because they weren't the problem to begin with. The "green movement" and carbon taxes seem to be a luxury cause for posh urban people.

How did you determine that right-wing lifestyles are under the threshold of sustainability but left-wing lifestyles aren't? Hard to believe righties are really consuming less when they seem to make more money. Who knew there was such poverty privilege.

 

[nostradumbass]

You're mistaken. The regulations on how smoking was even being presented to the public was under the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Nixon banned broadcast ads in 1971. The government has been waging a regulatory war on smoking since the 1950's.

So like I said, that's information, not financial threats. If it were extra taxes that controlled people quitting or not starting, it should fall roughly in line by taxes, yet red state Utah has the lowest smoking rate. Societal pressure has a greater impact than government force.

 

[KeepItRealist]

The coral reefs are dying around the world, with CO2 levels in the atmosphere exploding, but we have jackasses generating outlier-drawn strawmen memes like this.

What a travesty.

Not a meme created by an incel without a degree in any science.

As opposed to the predictions made by leading 'climate scientists.' Often the same who in the 70s said an imminent Ice Age was coming, then reconciled themselves to promoting Waterworld. The science is settled!

Helping to protect and preserve the coral reefs and rain forests is what I'm talking about. That is something that can actually be done. The absurd promises no one plans to keep in Kyoto or the Paris Accords is the whole problem. These climate change agreements are signed by nations who have absolutely no intention of following through and that's what they focus on for optics and positive media coverage instead of dealing with real environment issues like the coral reefs an rain forests among other issues that they could actually make a lot of progress on. While the 'climate scientists' with advanced degrees are caught again and again manipulating studies and saying whatever gets them the most funding.

 

[VivaRevolution]

...Except in English speaking western countries, where political party affiliation matters more

https://news.gsu.edu/2018/09/20/com...edict-climate-change-concern-new-study-finds/



Interesting, but maybe not surprising. Anyone have take on why political affiliation has a greater effect on climate change skepticism in the US and Western Europe than other countries?

I can tell you that it is shit optics to make a science argument based on a fallacious argument.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're mistaken. The regulations on how smoking was even being presented to the public was under the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Nixon banned broadcast ads in 1971. The government has been waging a regulatory war on smoking since the 1950's.

What kind of regulatory war?

What actually led to people quiting, and at what rate?

Taxes contributed to some quiting. The decline started when they told people it was a known carcinogen.

Seems a better argument for telling the truth on Roundup, then it does that taxes will give a meaningful and substantial change in behavoir.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Doesn't sound like they're making any extra effort at all then. Just doing what they'd normally do and not giving a fuck because they can point to another demographic that contributes more than they do to the problem. But yeah, the left-wingers talk big talk more than they seem to walk the walk.

I personally maintain about 40 acres of wildlife habitat. I do this so that the next Generation has a place to hunt, and fish, and learn how to harvest not only from the field, but from nature as well.

When one speaks of others with too broad of a brush, they paint over the mural of humanity.

 

[curryjunkie]

fuck climate because freedums.....

 

[Madmick]

As opposed to the predictions made by leading 'climate scientists.' Often the same who in the 70s said an imminent Ice Age was coming, then reconciled themselves to promoting Waterworld. The science is settled!

Were those "leading" climate scientists? Probably not. Do those views honestly represent the consensus prediction from the scientific community at the time? Definitely not.

Helping to protect and preserve the coral reefs and rain forests is what I'm talking about. That is something that can actually be done. The absurd promises no one plans to keep in Kyoto or the Paris Accords is the whole problem. These climate change agreements are signed by nations who have absolutely no intention of following through and that's what they focus on for optics and positive media coverage instead of dealing with real environment issues like the coral reefs an rain forests among other issues that they could actually make a lot of progress on. While the 'climate scientists' with advanced degrees are caught again and again manipulating studies and saying whatever gets them the most funding.

You clearly don't understand why the coral reefs are dying if you're a climate change denialist.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Were those "leading" climate scientists? Probably not. Do those views honestly represent the consensus prediction from the scientific community at the time? Definitely not.

You clearly don't understand why the coral reefs are dying if you're a climate change denialist.

And you clearly haven't been paying attention if you think that any climate change agreement signed is worth the ink on the pages. Or Asia isn't where the focus should be and they have no intentional of abiding by any agreement.

 

[fallable]

Interesting, but maybe not surprising. Anyone have take on why political affiliation has a greater effect on climate change skepticism in the US and Western Europe than other countries?

Because most people have commitment to democratic values in the West while still embracing all sorts of different views.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

This is false.

The left has made it sound like Fox News commentator Bill o'Reilly was typical of Conservatives and thus is what all conservatives think and are like when in fact most are asking why is it when this was originally talked about back in 1991's warning to humanity, scientists warned about the worlds population being too large and how we needed to scale back our technology to what they say today, only about no longer using oil and coal and why the government has to do it all. Its due to the liberal hijacking of the topic that is the cause of this manure. Thanks Al Gore.

The other falsehood that liberals spread is that Trump is undoing what Obama has done to cut O2 output which is bullshit. Like, Bush did after pulling out of the climate talks in the early 2000s, America is LEADING THE WORLD in cutting O2 emissions since Trump pulled out of the Paris accords where the U.N. wanted us, to PAY, to make other countries cut their emissions...in the meantime, the liberal bastion of Canada INCREASED their output and China and India are OUT OF CONTROL in their increase.

https://www.westernjournal.com/afte...ds-us-leads-world-reduction-carbon-emissions/

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I'm a conservative who believes climate change is real. It's existed for several billion years.

What I want to know, and I'm not sure if there's ever been a concrete answer for this, is to what extent, in a percentage, do we as humans accelerate it?

This.


But I also think it’s a certainty that we absolutely do effect it. Just to what extent..?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

This is false.

The left has made it sound like Fox News commentator Bill o'Reilly was typical of Conservatives and thus is what all conservatives think and are like when in fact most are asking why is it when this was originally talked about back in 1991's warning to humanity, scientists warned about the worlds population being too large and how we needed to scale back our technology to what they say today, only about no longer using oil and coal and why the government has to do it all. Its due to the liberal hijacking of the topic that is the cause of this manure. Thanks Al Gore.

The other falsehood that liberals spread is that Trump is undoing what Obama has done to cut O2 output which is bullshit. Like, Bush did after pulling out of the climate talks in the early 2000s, America is LEADING THE WORLD in cutting O2 emissions since Trump pulled out of the Paris accords where the U.N. wanted us, to PAY, to make other countries cut their emissions...in the meantime, the liberal bastion of Canada INCREASED their output and China and India are OUT OF CONTROL in their increase.

https://www.westernjournal.com/afte...ds-us-leads-world-reduction-carbon-emissions/

lol

ouch

 

[Higus]

This.


But I also think it’s a certainty that we absolutely do effect it. Just to what extent..?

I put a link that answered the question earlier in the thread. Tl:dr, more than 100% of warming is caused by humans. That’s not a typo.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This is false.

The left has made it sound like Fox News commentator Bill o'Reilly was typical of Conservatives and thus is what all conservatives think and are like when in fact most are asking why is it when this was originally talked about back in 1991's warning to humanity, scientists warned about the worlds population being too large and how we needed to scale back our technology to what they say today, only about no longer using oil and coal and why the government has to do it all. Its due to the liberal hijacking of the topic that is the cause of this manure. Thanks Al Gore.

The other falsehood that liberals spread is that Trump is undoing what Obama has done to cut O2 output which is bullshit. Like, Bush did after pulling out of the climate talks in the early 2000s, America is LEADING THE WORLD in cutting O2 emissions since Trump pulled out of the Paris accords where the U.N. wanted us, to PAY, to make other countries cut their emissions...in the meantime, the liberal bastion of Canada INCREASED their output and China and India are OUT OF CONTROL in their increase.

https://www.westernjournal.com/afte...ds-us-leads-world-reduction-carbon-emissions/

LOL

The US is still in the Paris Agreement and won't leave until 2020.

Good try though.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

LOL

The US is still in the Paris Agreement and won't leave until 2020.

Good try though.

Cant read very well I see, must be a leftist. I clearly stated that Trump pulled us out of the Paris ACCORD...did not say a thing about our no longer being a part of the worthless agreement signed a few years ago...and it IS worthless seeing as how many nations that signed it are still INCREASING their outputs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...-trump-leaves-paris-climate-agreement-n766761
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...announces-decision-on-paris-climate-agreement

I would end with a glib "Good try though" but your post was shit like most leftist posts are, lacking in any depth or thought.

 

[panamaican]

So like I said, that's information, not financial threats. If it were extra taxes that controlled people quitting or not starting, it should fall roughly in line by taxes, yet red state Utah has the lowest smoking rate. Societal pressure has a greater impact than government force.

That's not what you said. You said that the government gave people information and let them decide. I said that the government made it more expensive and more difficult to smoke. The restrictions on advertising are not about giving more information. They were about restricting the ability of corporations to spread information about their products. That increased the cost to the corporations themselves by forcing them to adopt additional measures to reach the same number of people.