Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study
Skeptics more likely to recycle, ride bus than those ‘highly concerned’ about climate
[washingtontimes.com]
[sciencedirect.com]!
It doesn't suprise me. Remember Bush's eco-friendly ranch vs Gore's bloated mansion? [snopes.com]
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Oh, the debate over climate change is exhausting. Both sides are dug in, and both sides can site studies and opinions of "experts" and scientific mumbo jumbo that none of us really understand. We are really just reading the their technical verbage, and nodding our heads, and saying "Ya, I guess that must be right". I think the general population of "non science experts" would be well served to form their opinions more on the basis of common sense.
I have followed the climate change issue most of my life. In the 1970s climate change experts predicted steadily increasing yearly temperature averages (especially in the hotter desert areas). In my 37 years living here in Las Vegas I have WATCHED this happen... our temeratures in the 100s are arriving about a month earlier than they did in the 80s and 90s. I often hear the weather man say that today set an all time record high for this date. But he almost never says that today was an all time record low. Our desert winters are shorter and warmer (even more so than the rest of the country)....AS PREDICTED.
The experts had also predicted more frequent and violent weather occurances. This too has come to be. You hear the term "storm of the century" all over the country numerous times each year now. How many times must you hear "storm of the century" before you realize that they are NOT storms of the century. They are the new reality...AS PRECICTED..
Massive portions of artic glaciers have melted, and the oceans levels are continually rising, and coral reefs are being destroyed by rising sea temperatures. Etc. etc. etc. AS PREDICTED. These are all measurable visible realities.
Simple observation over the decades has shown the validity of the thinking of climate scientists. And what do the deniers have to hang their hat on?....basically "Oh just don't worry about it"
balance_point
Level 6
May 10, 2018
0
Duh, it hasn't been getting warmer for 20 years now, so all the models from the alarmist so-called scientists are trash.
As was said, it's largely because conservatives believe in individual responsibility. The trouble with that is, it's not a problem of individuals. ~99% of the global population causes less than a third of carbon emissions, while some 200 corporations make the other ~70%. Government regulation is the only way to fight climate change. No individual recycling habits will make up for those corporations pumping up the numbers.
DonThiebaut
Level 7
May 7, 2018
1
First of all you have presented no evidence for your sweeping assertions.
And second, CO2 is plant food, and on the whole the more the better. It took me a while to figure this out, and I do believe that in about 20 years the rest of the world will catch up to me.
@doug6352
[fortune.com]
My bad, I misremembered, I was all wrong. It's 100 corporations, not 200. ?
And yes, CO2 is good (in limited quantities) for plants. The ecosystem and weather system is far more complex than just feeding plants. Having mildly accelerated plant growth won't make up for massive flooding, for instance.
Thank you for the link Don; My considered opinion is that the scare about CO2 induced global warming is false. The climate change going on right now is predominately cooling due to sunspot cycles, and I expect that cooling will continue. I believe that burning fossil fuels is a fortuitous recycling program that greens the earth, and we would be better off with carbon subsidies than carbon taxes. [principia-scientific.org]
@doug6352 you might want to check out the following:
Don, no rational person denies that CO2 has a warming effect, but the effect is mild. Best estimate I could find is that doubling atmospheric CO2 from 400 ppm to 800ppm would raise average temperatures by 0.37 degrees Celsius, while increasing the growth rate of photosynthetic plants by 41%. On the whole it would be a great deal for the human race. My gold standard for scientific opinion on this subject is Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus at MIT: [en.wikipedia.org] If you can get Professor Lindzen to issue a warning about rising CO2 in the atmosphere, I will take his warning seriously.
@doug6352 Just in the Wikipedia article alone, Dr. Lindzen is quoted as agreeing with the basic premise of climate change, as being partially funded by coal companies, as being described by those close to him as a contrarian, and as being described by fellow scientists as formidable, but flawed. Sounds like he's not the best source, either, regardless of prior scientific accolades.
@doug6352 By the way, from what I've found, at 800 ppm, estimates put warming at around 3°C, or ten times what you listed. Where did you get that number?
@DonThiebaut Richard Lindzen was a lead author for the IPCC, until he disgreed with their political agenda and then people started sliming him. In my opinion MIT is the #1 technical university in the world, and Richard Lindzen was their #1 climatologist for 30 years. Global warming is a giant scam, Don, with trillions of dollars at stake, and lots of supporting players; an archetypical example of Zombie Science. [mantleplumes.org] I apologize that I failed to bookmark the article with the 0.37 and 41% estimates; I'll try to find it again. Meanwhile, here's another article of interest. [climatedepot.com] Believe what you like, but don't throw your warm clothing away. I guarantee you it's going to get colder.
@doug6352 Seriously, you believe climate denial sites like those, but blame climate change on a 'scam'? I just pointed out that the first sight, and Dr. Lindzen, were funded by coal and oil companies. If there is a scam related to clinate change, it's in it's denial by the massive corporate interests that seek to dodge regulations in the name of profits. Follow the money.
When someone like Trump rolls back auto emission standards, the effect on the invironment is millions of times worse than Gore's mansion. The effect of Gore shining a light on the desecration of our environment is a greater step forward for our planet and for mankind than George W. Bush could ever dream of. (One of Bush's first steps as president was to INCREASE the amount of mercury our corporations can send into the air.) Any attempt to insinuate that Bush was better for our environment than Gore is an ultimate hoot.
balance_point
Level 6
May 7, 2018
1
The reason I think is because conservatives believe in individual personal responsibility, while leftists expect the government to accomplish what they want by force.
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world" Mahatma Gandhi
doug6352
Level 7
May 7, 2018
1
I believe in personal responsibility as you do. And I assume that you believe in having a police force, as I do....because there are bad actors out there, right? Good, we agree so far. When corporations decide to pollute our environment to increase their profits (thereby robbing us of clean air and water, and harming our health), I think the people are being violated. There is no individual responsiblity in place to correct it. So what can we do? We call the police (in this case it is our representatives in Washington D.C.) to force them to stop harming the general population....(you and me....and our children and grandchildren) Isn't that the responsible thing to do?
It's a matter of cost/benefit analysis as to where the sweet spot is between competing factors of economic growth and absolute cleanliness of air and water. People who can't find good jobs will feel frustrated and die younger, so it will never be easy to decide exactly where to draw the line. And in the current political environment of extreme partisan mudslinging it is usually difficult to know who to believe. So people just choose a side, and hope their side is telling the truth.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.