How did global warming existing become a democrat/ republican divide?

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Yeah, read the OP again. We can't prevent hurricanes, but we can certainly control man-made contributions to their rising intensity.

You are setting the foundation that man is responsible for their rising intensity. I don't know what you're basing that on. Do you have a source for such information?

 

[PhitePhan]

carbon credits and prius marketing might be a scam, but the science is legit. if anyone were able to "buy" scientists and their data, it would for sure be the most powerful companies on earth (fossil fuels).

Which science is legit? The fake consensus research or the Mann hockey stick? Are you familiar with funding bias and do you know who funds majority AGW research? Do you know that more than 50% of environmental research can't be replicated and that without replication a study is basically worthless? I mean seriously, the science is very far from "legit." And to me, this is the problem. Yes, we should be exploring this topic, but to proclaim settled science is disingenuous at best.

 

[PhitePhan]

Because of Al Gore and Republican corporate interests. Conservative talk basically lambasted anything with strong Democratic ties and Al Gore's strong push on global warming meant that conservative media would undermine global warming as a means of undermining Gore himself.

Second, GOP connections with certain businesses meant that they wanted to minimize the effect of global warming on those corporate interests. This led to a different divide - human caused or not. Human caused global warming meant that we should do something to reverse our impact. Not human caused meant that we should do nothing. So, certain corporate interests pushed the "not human caused" scenario to prevent new rules and regulations that would negatively affect them (even funding research with the intent to mislead the public). People who decide issues based on political affiliation then accepted the "not human caused" scenario because, again, the conservative media pushed that agenda to undermine Democrat positions and the GOP ran with it because they have constituents working in those industries who would be harmed by those potential regulations.

And that is how the science became partisan.

You forgot the part where the most outspoken AGW proponent (Al Gore) stands to profit very handsomely if folks buy into his schtick. I'm sure he isn't the only one... And my point is not to suggest he is wrong bra cause of this, but we have to at least be even handed. If we don't want monied interests skewing research than we have to look at pro AGW funding too, right?

It's amazing, big oil invests millions into this field while AGW proponents are funding to a tune of billions (happy to revise if you have better figures), yet not one solitary peep.

Do you know who funds AGW research and how researchers secure grants and tenure?

 

[no fat chicks]

watch merchants of doubt and you get an understanding of wher they are getting the info.

 

[ripskater]

I'm not buying it Rip , it's simple , what is your source for your claim that Al Gores house uses 34 times more energy than the average house

I suspect it's B.S. but

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/e...-more-electricity-than-average-u-s-household/

Last September alone, Gore devoured 30,993 kWh of electricity. That’s enough to power 34 average American homes for a month. Over the last 12 months, Gore used more electricity just heating his outdoor swimming pool than six typical homes use in a year.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Because of Al Gore and Republican corporate interests. Conservative talk basically lambasted anything with strong Democratic ties and Al Gore's strong push on global warming meant that conservative media would undermine global warming as a means of undermining Gore himself.

Second, GOP connections with certain businesses meant that they wanted to minimize the effect of global warming on those corporate interests. This led to a different divide - human caused or not. Human caused global warming meant that we should do something to reverse our impact. Not human caused meant that we should do nothing. So, certain corporate interests pushed the "not human caused" scenario to prevent new rules and regulations that would negatively affect them (even funding research with the intent to mislead the public). People who decide issues based on political affiliation then accepted the "not human caused" scenario because, again, the conservative media pushed that agenda to undermine Democrat positions and the GOP ran with it because they have constituents working in those industries who would be harmed by those potential regulations.

And that is how the science became partisan.

I agree with all of this.

It's unbelievable how partisan things are in the USA.

 

[Andy Capp]

Well before the leftists and globalists tax and regulate the US citizen more, I'd like to see proof that we can make the climate and the weather improve.

How much proof do you need? Did you follow the link to the government site left for you in your hurricane thread? There's all kinds of scientific evidence that humans can make it worse or make it better. You choose to not give a shit about your own children or anyone else's and think it's ok to make it worse. Shitty attitude.

 

[Andy Capp]

If global warming was a serious...."we need to act now" thing.

Why are car companies still allowed to manufacture gas guzzling cars? Transportation emissions are the second leading cause for Co2 emissions...and every car company has an electric car brand. Don't give me bullshit about economy, or cost or anything else...because according to everyone that cries global warming...it's end game.

END GAME as in economy doesn't matter, money doesn't matter...you get the idea.

So why is it I'm still driving a fucking gas guzzling car and not have been given tax incentives or face a large fine for still driving a thing that helps the earth get warmer?

Why are they still allowed? Take a look at the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car and then see if you still need to ask that quesiton. Check out Exxon's hiding their own research saying anthro. climate change is a real issue.
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

 

[Andy Capp]

Which science is legit? The fake consensus research or the Mann hockey stick? Are you familiar with funding bias and do you know who funds majority AGW research? Do you know that more than 50% of environmental research can't be replicated and that without replication a study is basically worthless? I mean seriously, the science is very far from "legit." And to me, this is the problem. Yes, we should be exploring this topic, but to proclaim settled science is disingenuous at best.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

@ripskater

 

[VivaRevolution]

I can understand what to do about global warming being a political divide. But whether it exists and is caused by human action being a democrat and republican issue?

There's nothing about global warming in the bible. Global warming doesn't have sex with men or cut off its penis and make you call it xe. What does liberal or conservative ideology have to do with global warming?

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is?

Because one party is completely beholden to big energy, and the other party politicized a real issue to undermine that key support structure to their opposition.

 

[electricfuneral]

It's not my job to find out which post in which thread or what he's referring to. If it's really important to him, he'll ask me again.

I think I'm one of the most consistent posters you will find on sherdog.

This is actually true. Consistent.

 

[panamaican]

You forgot the part where the most outspoken AGW proponent (Al Gore) stands to profit very handsomely if folks buy into his schtick. I'm sure he isn't the only one... And my point is not to suggest he is wrong bra cause of this, but we have to at least be even handed. If we don't want monied interests skewing research than we have to look at pro AGW funding too, right?

It's amazing, big oil invests millions into this field while AGW proponents are funding to a tune of billions (happy to revise if you have better figures), yet not one solitary peep.

Do you know who funds AGW research and how researchers secure grants and tenure?

I didn't forget anything. Al Gore doesn't create the science.

Which is my point, people dismissing the science because of their personal position on Al Gore.

 

[Trotsky]

You are setting the foundation that man is responsible for their rising intensity. I don't know what you're basing that on. Do you have a source for such information?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

 

[PhitePhan]

I didn't forget anything. Al Gore doesn't create the science.

Which is my point, people dismissing the science because of their personal position on Al Gore.

I didn't say he created it. I said he promotes and stands to profit from it. He puts himself out front as a spokesperson for AGW and therefore catches heat. I would imagine that opposition to science of AGW due to Gore is roughly on par with agreement with the science due to Gore. I would also posit that anyone who looks to Gore for proof or refutation of AGW science is an idiot. Fortunately, I don't really see that, and it seems you are creating a straw man that makes skeptics look bad.

Ultimately, your reasoning for the partisan nature of AGW seems to have two parts. Republicans are ignorant and reactive (e.g reflexively against anything Gore promotes) and Republicans are sell outs (e.g. Selling out to big oil)?

What part, in your mind, do ProAGW folks play in this issue? Do you think that people accept AGW due to Gore?

Yes big oil has muddied the waters, and yes we should be skeptical of their influence in this debate. It's curious however, that proAGW research is not held to the same standard and nobody seems to care where their billions in funding are coming from. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the divide?

 

[JosephDredd]

I can understand what to do about global warming being a political divide. But whether it exists and is caused by human action being a democrat and republican issue?

There's nothing about global warming in the bible. Global warming doesn't have sex with men or cut off its penis and make you call it xe. What does liberal or conservative ideology have to do with global warming?

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is?

This link will answer any question you've ever had on political divisions: https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/rainbow-cake-recipe-inspires-comment-apocalypse-1592575661

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Which science is legit? The fake consensus research or the Mann hockey stick? Are you familiar with funding bias and do you know who funds majority AGW research? Do you know that more than 50% of environmental research can't be replicated and that without replication a study is basically worthless? I mean seriously, the science is very far from "legit." And to me, this is the problem. Yes, we should be exploring this topic, but to proclaim settled science is disingenuous at best.

so if scientists can be bought through grant funding....what are you telling me? that the most powerful companies on earth just have too much integrity to attempt to buy them? or is it that scientists who are willing to be bought, are telling the powerful companies that their money is no good? lol.

the basic points of climate change can be shown plausible, without any scientific research at all. if you piss in your pool over and over, the water chemistry changes. no big shocker. if you take things from the ground, and turn them into gas, for well over a century, is it completely batshit to suggest that the chemistry of the atmosphere may change as well?

where the hell are you pulling this claim from that climate research cannot be replicated?

how do you feel about the recent increases in antarctic sea ice?

 

[JosephDredd]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

lol oledirtybastard and his ilk are like the Japanese soldiers who kept fighting WWII into the 1970s and had their families desperately try to convince them that the world chad changed: "Please! You're saying things that aren't true! This information is widely available hand has been for decades! Please surrender your keyboard and pick up a book! You're fighting a war that ended long ago! You're just being stupid!"

 

[JosephDredd]

I didn't say he created it. I said he promotes and stands to profit from it. He puts himself out front as a spokesperson for AGW and therefore catches heat. I would imagine that opposition to science of AGW due to Gore is roughly on par with agreement with the science due to Gore. I would also posit that anyone who looks to Gore for proof or refutation of AGW science is an idiot. Fortunately, I don't really see that, and it seems you are creating a straw man that makes skeptics look bad.

Ultimately, your reasoning for the partisan nature of AGW seems to have two parts. Republicans are ignorant and reactive (e.g reflexively against anything Gore promotes) and Republicans are sell outs (e.g. Selling out to big oil)?

What part, in your mind, do ProAGW folks play in this issue? Do you think that people accept AGW due to Gore?

Yes big oil has muddied the waters, and yes we should be skeptical of their influence in this debate. It's curious however, that proAGW research is not held to the same standard and nobody seems to care where their billions in funding are coming from. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the divide?

A lot of your concerns are purely imaginary and born only of ignorance. Almost like you've been... duped.

 

[Lord Coke]

This is my position on global warming and I think in reality it is similar to most on the far right
I believe that our atmosphere is different than if man kind did not exist on the planet.
I believe that "greenhouse" gases impact the climate.
I do not know the extent of this impact.
I believe that the U.S. can not do much to change this impact do to third world nations
I do not believe we should allow our national sovereignty to be diminished due to treaties based on the last two statements.
Thus, it is easier to simply dismiss global warming in its entirety as a initial position rather than attempt to give the public a nuanced response.

 

[PhitePhan]

so if scientists can be bought through grant funding....what are you telling me? that the most powerful companies on earth just have too much integrity to attempt to buy them? or is it that scientists who are willing to be bought, are telling the powerful companies that their money is no good? lol.

I don't believe a majority, or even more than a small minority, of scientists are "bought" in the traditional sense. My point was, research is known to suffer from various forms of bias, including funding bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

This fact ought to be taken into account, not just for researchers who focus on anti-AGW, but also for the pro-AGW researchers as well. I never see anyone speaking up about how pro-AGW research is funded, and/or how considerations for funding source may be relevant.

the basic points of climate change can be shown plausible, without any scientific research at all. if you piss in your pool over and over, the water chemistry changes. no big shocker. if you take things from the ground, and turn them into gas, for well over a century, is it completely batshit to suggest that the chemistry of the atmosphere may change as well?

Not batshit at all.

where the hell are you pulling this claim from that climate research cannot be replicated?

"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). These numbers differ among disciplines:[4]

• chemistry: 90% (60%),
• biology: 80% (60%),
• physics and engineering: 70% (50%),
• medicine: 70% (60%),
• Earth and environment science: 60% (40%)."

Obviously this isn't the end-all-be-all study, however, I couldn't find any research looking specifically into climate change. However, other researchers have pointed out significant irreproducability in various sciences that would seem to have better control/less variables than climate change/earth sciences.

how do you feel about the recent increases in antarctic sea ice?

I don't feel one way or the other, why?