Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers?

Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers?
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:09 PM
 
Why is it that I can assume that the people that disbelieve this theory are Republican, at least based on the PWL sample? Are some of you guys a little more skeptical towards the scientific community because of their relevance in regards to other issues such as evolution perhaps? This is my only real theory as to why there seems to be such disproportionate numbers here...
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:14 PM
 
I think it goes both ways.

A good portion of the deniers are stout republicans who will sway wherever the party lines are being drawn, and conversely, a good portion of those that believe in GW are simply stout democrats who will do the same.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:17 PM
 
I'm not sure it's about belief or disbelief, or attitudes toward the scientific community. I think that Republicans, wary of government spending and government intrusion into corporate practices, have a higher threshold for actionable "proof" of climate change than most Democrats. The problem, in my opinion, is that we are not likely going to be able to meet many people's threshold for actionable evidence until it is too late.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Feb 1, 2010 at 06:24 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:18 PM
 
None of us are scientists, so we read what we want and believe what we want.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:54 PM
 
It's easy:

Republicans tend to have faith in God
Democrats tend to to have faith in substitute religions (Global Warming, Socialism, Fairness, World Peace etc...)

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:57 PM
 
Republicans tend to value the interests of big business. Big business tends to value the next quarterly earnings report. Anything that interferes with maximizing the next quarterly earnings report will be resisted.

Global warming ... or perhaps more accurately "climate change" ... if acknowledged would compel serious, significant, and sustained efforts to combat it. There's money to be made in that (i.e. the green economy) ... but that's a long-term proposition. Unfortunately, big business is more short-term oriented. Hence, those whose mindset is oriented more towards the interests of big business will be "skeptical" of the science when it comes to climate change.

Bottom line? If it costs big business money, generally speaking, Republicans will oppose it.

OAW
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 06:58 PM
 
Most people don't bother to become well informed, rather the just toe the party line. The masses drown out the informed on both sides.

I don't see any connection between a distrust of science based on your opinion of evolution and belief in AGW.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Most people don't bother to become well informed, rather the just toe the party line. The masses drown out the informed on both sides.

I don't see any connection between a distrust of science based on your opinion of evolution and belief in AGW.
Disbelieving in the foundation of modern biological science doesn't correlate to a distrust in science? Is that like how being short isn't related to a lack of height?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 07:51 PM
 
Conservatives: want to conserve things the way they were. Conservatives resist change. Change is the antithesis of conservation.

Science: wants to discover new things. Science produces change. New discoveries, inventions, and changing our understanding of things big and small is how science measures success.

I'm not surprised at all that science and conservatives are frequently at odds. Why are you?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Conservatives: want to conserve things the way they were. Conservatives resist change. Change is the antithesis of conservation.

Science: wants to discover new things. Science produces change. New discoveries, inventions, and changing our understanding of things big and small is how science measures success.

I'm not surprised at all that science and conservatives are frequently at odds. Why are you?

Because I think this might be overly simplistic. There are Conservatives that would disagree with this generalization, yet at the same time seem to be at odds with science. Either they are in denial, or there is more to this.

It could be the former, I don't know, it's not like I really understand the logic behind staunch conservatism
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because I think this might be overly simplistic. There are Conservatives that would disagree with this generalization, yet at the same time seem to be at odds with science. Either they are in denial, or there is more to this.

It could be the former, I don't know, it's not like I really understand the logic behind staunch conservatism
He restated the definition of conservative — "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation." If a conservative disagrees with it, a more accurate term for his political affiliation would be "confused."
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
He restated the definition of conservative — "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation." If a conservative disagrees with it, a more accurate term for his political affiliation would be "confused."

What good does the semantic definition of the word do here in this circumstance as we are trying to understand human behavior? All this does is help us accurately assign labels to things.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 08:37 PM
 
You started with labels, friend. What do you think "republican" and "global warming nay-sayer" are? The whole thread is trying to suss out why one label overlaps with another label. If you throw away labels, there's no thread left.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What good does the semantic definition of the word do here in this circumstance as we are trying to understand human behavior? All this does is help us accurately assign labels to things.
Unless you're trying to argue that the definition is just plain inaccurate, I don't see how your objection is useful. Do you actually think that conservatism (as defined above) has no influence on Republicans? Does it not seem that a lot of their trademark policies actually do follow that philosophy (e.g. opposition to civil rights, drug legalization, government health infrastructure)?
( Last edited by Chuckit; Feb 1, 2010 at 08:59 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 08:57 PM
 
World collectivism/statism has made it's home in the environmental/MMCC movements.
45/47
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There are Conservatives that would disagree with this generalization
I'm skeptical. Please give one example.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
World collectivism/statism has made it's home in the environmental/MMCC movements.
Statism also makes its home in the rabid anti-terrorism and anti-communism movements. This isn't the reason for the OP's observation, it's the product of it; effect not cause. Both sides push for more control (simply as a means to subdue the other side primarily), the only question is what boogeyman to exploit to help seize power. Each side defaults to its strength, for the left it's science and for the right it's warfare "defense."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm skeptical. Please give one example.
ebuddy has claimed on multiple occasions that he is into progressive ideas and making stuff better.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Unless you're trying to argue that the definition is just plain inaccurate, I don't see how your objection is useful. Do you actually think that conservatism (as defined above) has no influence on Republicans? Does it not seem that a lot of their trademark policies actually do follow that philosophy (e.g. opposition to civil rights, drug legalization, government health infrastructure)?

Yes, there is something there, for sure. I guess I thought you were using the definition as an explanation to the original question?

What say you conservatives, do you identify yourselves as not being interested in trying to improve stuff, make it better, changing things, etc.? Does this definition seem offense to you somehow? I mean, who isn't for improving things?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:02 PM
 
Did he give any examples of this stuff?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes, there is something there, for sure. I guess I thought you were using the definition as an explanation to the original question?

What say you conservatives, do you identify yourselves as not being interested in trying to improve stuff, make it better, changing things, etc.? Does this definition seem offense to you somehow?
Hang on there. Conservatism is about restoring things and making it better. Simply saying "improve" or "make it better" misses the whole point. The point is that things are pretty great, and change is going to screw up a good thing, and we should aspire to the original, the traditional, the founders, the creators, etc, because they had it right.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Hang on there. Conservatism is about restoring things and making it better. Simply saying "improve" or "make it better" misses the whole point. The point is that things are pretty great, and change is going to screw up a good thing, and we should aspire to the original, the traditional, the founders, the creators, etc, because they had it right.
Very well, this is a better short-hand synopsis than my own!

I was wrong. Oh wait, that's another thread
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Did he give any examples of this stuff?
No, but I'll take him at his word because he's generally a pretty thoughtful guy (although heavily invested in his politics).
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's easy:

Republicans tend to have faith in God
Democrats tend to to have faith in substitute religions (Global Warming, Socialism, Fairness, World Peace etc...)

-t
A loving God, or a vengeful GOD? And can they (God) be the same? I am more confused then ever....
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:16 PM
 
Turtle: there are way too many exceptions for your rule to really be satisfying to me, particularly those who believe in global warming yet aren't "religious" about it. There are very few firm ideologues in this country, relatively speaking.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
No, but I'll take him at his word because he's generally a pretty thoughtful guy (although heavily invested in his politics).
I was curious because if he only meant "making stuff better" using the same old methods/system that we have always used to make stuff better, that is what I meant by resistant to change (changing the system and the methods). That's all.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2010, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I was curious because if he only meant "making stuff better" using the same old methods/system that we have always used to make stuff better, that is what I meant by resistant to change (changing the system and the methods). That's all.

I'm not fully convinced that any Conservative in here is interested in making stuff better using new methods since most here seem to be heavily ideological and value their ideology quite highly, but he seemed very insistent on the fact that he is cool with the notion of making stuff better, and that he just didn't believe in the methods being employed by whomever the thread was about, probably Obama.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 08:07 AM
 
Is this thread just one big trick question or something?

It would seem the answer is simple.

The far left, who makes the political base for Democrats, has always had as one of it's goals for us to stop using natural resources that they believe are limited in nature.

It seems that over and over organizations with and agenda, backed by the mainstream media (a majority of whom are Democrats according to polling) have given us reasons why we should stop using these resources and those reasons usually evaporate once the truth usually comes out, and the truth is almost always that the science behind their rationale was flawed or fudged. From the new Ice Age we were supposed to be getting during the early 80's, to the hunger we were told we'd face in the late 70's to the catastrophic record global warming we were supposed to be experiencing now. There's always a new "chicken little" explanation as to why the goals of the far left MUST be achieved due to "science."

Given those facts, it seems reasonable for the other side of the political spectrum to be skeptical whenever a new calamity, backed by "science", happens to rear it's head in a way which would be politically beneficial to the other side. As we've seen the past year or so, their skepticism has been shown to be very wise.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Feb 2, 2010 at 08:32 AM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 09:36 AM
 
Because liberals do not grasp facts and instead look at the big picture through their high strung emotional guilt driven minds. When is the last time you've actually seen liberal actually offer facts instead of opinions stated as fact? When is the last time you saw a liberal observe an event and repeat what they saw in correct chronological order? These are all flaws in the way liberals solve problems.

Add in that liberals believe they are intellectually superior and somehow have higher morals than others. Both assumptions are wrong.

Liberals look at the big picture, but seem oblivious to the details and history. This is why many are puzzled by the proven failed concept of government spending its way out of a deficit.
( Last edited by BadKosh; Feb 2, 2010 at 09:42 AM. )
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
When is the last time you've actually seen liberal actually offer facts instead of opinions stated as fact?
HA! LOL!

I'd like to know when the first time you've done this was, because everything you post is opinion stated as fact.

In fact, Greg has posted hundreds of scientifically backed facts and sources in the GW thread while you simply continue with the very trait you assign to every liberal.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
fact, Greg has posted hundreds of scientifically backed facts and sources in the GW thread while you simply continue with the very trait you assign to every liberal.
I agree with the idea that liberals do use "facts" to support their ideas. I think that saying that it's ALL emotion or visceral reaction is a little extreme.

The problem is that "scientifically backed facts" often times are nothing more than junk science which the left disguises with the help of it's friends in academia, the media and left leaning organizations. Sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes to dishonestly push an agenda.

As I stated before, it's the same merry-go-round we get on every 10 years or so when "science facts" tell us something is assured - only to find out later it really wasn't the case - BUT what science is telling US RIGHT NOW as to why we should adopt left-wing schemes should be totally trusted!
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
I haven't made up my mind one way or another, but when it comes to who I'll side with it's going to be thousands of scientists over a few conservatives on a Macintosh web board that 'know the real deal.'

Charts and graphs and data can be manipulated in many ways, however that's the problem of the people aggregating the data, not the data itself. If a worldwide panel of scientists say 2009 was among the warmest years on record I'd take that as a fact. If a panel of both Ds and Rs found that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 I'd take that as a fact. I don't let sensationalism and youtube videos take precedent over folks whom have shaped the modern world over the past 100 years. I'm sure plenty of folks considered the discovery of germs that make you sick as bunk science, but they were idiots.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
From the new Ice Age we were supposed to be getting during the early 80's, to the hunger we were told we'd face in the late 70's to the catastrophic record global warming we were supposed to be experiencing now.
That wasn't an example of "chicken little." That was averted because of a surge of investment in developing-country agriculture in the late 1950s and 1960s, sparked in part because of these dire predictions. You just cited an example of why we should listen to scientists and provide them with a lot of money.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I agree with the idea that liberals do use "facts" to support their ideas. I think that saying that it's ALL emotion or visceral reaction is a little extreme.

The problem is that "scientifically backed facts" often times are nothing more than junk science which the left disguises with the help of it's friends in academia, the media and left leaning organizations. Sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes to dishonestly push an agenda.

As I stated before, it's the same merry-go-round we get on every 10 years or so when "science facts" tell us something is assured - only to find out later it really wasn't the case - BUT what science is telling US RIGHT NOW as to why we should adopt left-wing schemes should be totally trusted!


Or, you just disagree with it, and the opposing argument is perfectly legitimate. Crazy, huh? This is possible, you know...
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I haven't made up my mind one way or another, but when it comes to who I'll side with it's going to be thousands of scientists over a few conservatives on a Macintosh web board that 'know the real deal.'

Charts and graphs and data can be manipulated in many ways, however that's the problem of the people aggregating the data, not the data itself. If a worldwide panel of scientists say 2009 was among the warmest years on record I'd take that as a fact. If a panel of both Ds and Rs found that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 I'd take that as a fact. I don't let sensationalism and youtube videos take precedent over folks whom have shaped the modern world over the past 100 years. I'm sure plenty of folks considered the discovery of germs that make you sick as bunk science, but they were idiots.
You explained my take better than I could.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:34 PM
 
Yeah, good job sek!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:38 PM
 
I could have explained it better.
(No I couldn't)
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:52 PM
 
I can sort of understand people that dispute Global Warming on the grounds of some competing theory, but what kills me is people who disbelieve it based on their gut feelings, or people that seem like they are looking for reasons to disbelieve it where every week we hear a new explanation.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Because liberals do not grasp facts and instead look at the big picture through their high strung emotional guilt driven minds. When is the last time you've actually seen liberal actually offer facts instead of opinions stated as fact? When is the last time you saw a liberal observe an event and repeat what they saw in correct chronological order? These are all flaws in the way liberals solve problems.

Add in that liberals believe they are intellectually superior and somehow have higher morals than others. Both assumptions are wrong.

Liberals look at the big picture, but seem oblivious to the details and history. This is why many are puzzled by the proven failed concept of government spending its way out of a deficit.
Republicans and facts don't mix. It's all about faith, 'values', and emotions. Facts have a liberal bias.


Large Portion Of GOP Thinks Obama Is Racist, Socialist, Non-U.S. Citizen: Poll

36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not

24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Republicans and facts don't mix. It's all about faith, 'values', and emotions. Facts have a liberal bias.


Large Portion Of GOP Thinks Obama Is Racist, Socialist, Non-U.S. Citizen: Poll

36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not

24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.


But is this because facts and Republicans truly don't mix, or because they are solely misinformed by the media that best caters to their political sensibilities, namely Fox News, or both?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 02:58 PM
 
I'd love to see a breakdown of those stats by age.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I can sort of understand people that dispute Global Warming on the grounds of some competing theory, but what kills me is people who disbelieve it based on their gut feelings, or people that seem like they are looking for reasons to disbelieve it where every week we hear a new explanation.
Here's my take on it. Climate change is a fact. I give about as much credence to those who deny that as I do to those who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old based solely on a literal interpretation of a religious text. Having said that, the question then becomes is this the result of ...

A. Man-made carbon emissions
B. Cyclical changes in the Sun and/or Earth
C. A combination of both

I can't say that I have a definitive answer on that one, though I probably lean toward C. In any event, even if the truth lies in B adopting clean energy is still a good idea. Just from a pollution standpoint if nothing else.

OAW
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 04:46 PM
 
It's certainly an interesting observation.

On the other hand, my roommate is a vegetarian, left-wing, hippy-type great guy who also believes that "global warming" is a grand hoax perpetrated by some sort of government-conspiracy-type thing. So that stereotype can run both ways to be sure.

The people who impress me most are the ones that I strive to be like: who try to avoid pre-conceived notions and make their conclusions in a rational, logical way. Of course, no one can escape those pre-conceptions but even if you come to the same conclusion, do it the right way!

For example, let's say in 2015 we discover that CO2 wasn't a climate driver at all – that in fact CO2 only changed in response to some random event, let's say radiation from Mars, that we had no idea existed before; and therefore in spite of all the evidence it only looked like CO2 was a climate driver, when in fact it was this Mars radiation doing all the work.

Well, there would definitely be a lot of crowing on this board, as a lot of people would suddenly be "wrong" and a lot of people "right." But in my view it's a "false right" - because they wouldn't be right for any good reason. All the available evidence to this point seems to be leading inexorably to the conclusion that human activities are affecting the earth's climate; saying otherwise simply isn't supported in the science to my knowledge.

I guess I could analogize it to Phil Hellmuth catching a bad beat at a poker table. Sometimes people shouldn't win, but they still do. It doesn't change the fact that they took a bad stance in the first place.

Lates
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 05:19 PM
 
Um.. how does anyone really deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does trap heat?

Mercury is closer to the sun, yet Venus is hotter than Mercury. Why? Greenhouse gas.

Why is Venus the hottest planet even though Mercury is closer to the sun?

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html


"Most astronomers believe that Venus's high surface temperature can be explained by what is known as the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse lets in radiant energy from the sun, but it prevents much of the heat from escaping. The thick clouds and dense atmosphere of Venus work in much the same way. The sun's radiant energy readily filters into the planet's atmosphere. But the large droplets of sulfuric acid present in Venus's clouds -- and the great quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- seem to trap much of the solar energy at the planet's surface."
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
"Most astronomers believe that Venus's high surface temperature can be explained by what is known as the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse lets in radiant energy from the sun, but it prevents much of the heat from escaping. The thick clouds and dense atmosphere of Venus work in much the same way. The sun's radiant energy readily filters into the planet's atmosphere. But the large droplets of sulfuric acid present in Venus's clouds -- and the great quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- seem to trap much of the solar energy at the planet's surface."
Answer
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Answer
Is there an alternative theory more widely accepted?

Hulu - The Universe: Mercury and Venus - The Inner Planets - Watch the full episode now.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Republicans and facts don't mix. It's all about faith, 'values', and emotions. Facts have a liberal bias.


Large Portion Of GOP Thinks Obama Is Racist, Socialist, Non-U.S. Citizen: Poll

36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not

24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.

From the leftist hate filled Huffington Report? LOL
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
From the leftist hate filled Huffington Report? LOL
No, from Daily Kos, but I don't think that's any better.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
From the leftist hate filled Huffington Report? LOL

Wasn't it you going on about emotionally driven "facts"? The poll was conducted by Research 2000, sponsored by the Daily Kos.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
No, from Daily Kos, but I don't think that's any better.
They just sponsored it, I think.

Whatever, whether the numbers are true or not, I found Buckaroo's knee jerk reaction response pretty funny in light of his theory.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,