See, that’s the thing when you start to dig in even a little bit. A change in Beijing is great…except why and how they changed it. You have to look at more than just a single data point, even beyond just the vertical subject of air quality, and dig into the political aspects and what, exactly was done (and why) wrt the CCP. It’s rarely as cut and dried or as easy as it seems on the surface…and you can rarely get the real hard data from any one source in China, especially not from those run by the CCP, which are, sadly, most of them. If you do use the CCPs data you need to really look at it and connect the dots, all the while using a huge grain of salt.
Thing is that was noticed in one of the articles cited already. Yeah, the same you continue to tell us it should not be trusted. So what it happens when others confirm it? I’m afraid I have to say it, several conservatives are more in tune with the spin from the right on this rather than the evidence. Even Greenpeace noticed that looking at China on the whole the reductions are there, but not enough indeed but getting much better. However, the point stands still: several conservatives are denying that there are any significant efforts going on in China and that is not what the evidence shows.
To go off on a bit of a tangent, the interesting aspect of climate change and purported conservative opposition to it to me is that it seems a bit selective. And by that, I mean that the area of the country that has the most wind power generation in the US is very conservative parts of Texas. Before he was Energy Secretary, Governor Rick Perry actively pursued wind projects in the state, and wind farms in West Texas (out by Abilene) and the Panhandle (between Amarillo and Wichita Falls) have grown significantly. There’s little-to-no opposition to the installations, and nobody talks about it being a waste of time. They don’t create a whole lot of industry or jobs, so it’s not a huge economic boon to the local economies, but no one questions whether it makes sense to have them there (anybody who grew up in the Panhandle knows that wind is the thing we have the most of).
So I guess my point is that conservatives will support actions that can mitigate climate change if political leadership just treats it like another economic project and doesn’t talk about it as an environmental thing or (on the other side) go on about bird strikes and whatever else the president has said when denigrating wind energy.
Yet you trust Greenpeace because they have some sort of special insight into China? I think this exchange is a good representation of what the OP is asking. You and I, who basically are in agreement…hell, I have to admit that much of my change in heart about global climate change came from posts by you and some others on this board…yet we can’t find even common ground to discuss this stuff on.
In BEIJING it’s down (for the period they looked at it, which btw my cite also mentioned).
I totally question where, exactly, they got this data from, but even they aren’t saying what you claim they are saying. They are talking about decreases in Beijing (which did apparently happen this past winter, though if you look at one of their sources, the US Embassy…which isn’t an official weather monitoring site btw…it’s back up in the spring, back over previous levels in fact), not nationwide. So, it’s NOT looking at ‘China on the whole’, it’s making a claim about northern China in and around the Beijing area. This isn’t ‘conservative’ bullshit, it’s the group you claim to be using. As I said, I’m unsure why you think they have some sort of special insight into China, but even they aren’t saying this effects ‘China as a whole’.
At any rate, no idea why you disregarded the last link I used, but like I said it really underscores the fact that it’s very difficult to have a conversation about this stuff, and that the usually responses, as shown in this thread have a disconnect that renders both sides frustrated and thinking the other side is dishonest and/or can’t see what they are talking about.
ETA: Finally got the attached PDF from Greenpeace to load. Looks to me as if they are using official Chinese data. So…yeah. Another disconnect, no doubt, between what we both think of that.
Actually there was common ground, but it is clear that the spin from right wing sources is the one that prevented what other noticed: a spin to the news discussed that makes it fit to the talking point about “China not doing enough”
Well, it is clear to me that they are doing very significant things, as CNBC reported, many of the new coal plants many reported before as being under construction by China are actually being closed.
As the spin from the ‘left wing’ sources that want to blindly swallow whatever the CCP gives them for data. I’m sure it is clear to you that they are doing a lot, based on this. As to the new coal plants supposedly not being used, I’ll believe that when I see more data on it. Claiming it’s so doesn’t make it so, and frankly based on the other things I have seen used as data on this subject (i.e. China), I’m pretty skeptical. Basically, my attitude is that if the CCPs lips are moving, they are almost certainly lying. It’s the same metric I used for Trump et al. Brothers from other mothers, IMHO. YMMV and all that.
At any rate, I do think this has been quite illustrative of exactly the question the OP is asking, so since that seems to have been answered I’ll bow out at this point.
Uh, do you think people (like from the US embassy) posting images in Facebook are blind?
Doing enough to tell us that the general talking point from the right (not made by you, but swallowed by many on the right) is poppycock.
Well, as pointed that was also reported by CNBC.
And this is repeating what you said before, it does not make it a better argument that what the right is saying that item about China doing nothing or not doing an effort is not accurate.
You showed that you are skeptical, good, but I did check other sources before I posted the early information.
Aww, XT, not going to respond to ExTank? I was really hoping you were.
Shame, that’s both of the right-wingers in the thread who accept (?) the science of climate change but just think we’re going about solving the problem wrong. Both are willing to argue quite a bit about the problems with liberal methods and why they are insufficient. But when someone on their side comes in offering bizarre, nonsensical conspiracy theories, they are unwilling to offer so much as an “you’re off-base there, dude”.
It is just a little bit frustrating, to put it mildly. Whether wind, solar, tidal, etc. are sufficient as long-term solutions to the grid is an interesting question. Whether we shouldn’t bother because China is a silly question but at least it’s one that you can almost argue.
But as I keep pointing out, the majority of republicans do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. The majority of republican congressmen do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. The (republican) president and vice president and head of the EPA and former head of the EPA do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. As far as “things preventing us from solving the problem” goes, “Democratic solutions are utopian” and “China makes things harder” are considerably less significant on that list than “Half of the American political spectrum flat-out denies that there is a problem or that we have anything to do with it”. It’s like complaining to a set of plucky volunteers that the bucket chain they’re trying to start is never gonna succeed in putting out the house fire when half the people in the area are coughing on the smoke while saying, “There is no house fire”. Your half. Your side, XT. Your side, Shodan. We have bigger problems than whether or not the bucket chain is going to work.
Honestly, this is like when conservatives/right wingers bust on liberals for not going after left wing loonies. He and I really aren’t on the same ‘side’…I’m pretty much on Gigo’s side, wrt climate change happening and whatever. Our point of contention is about China, and Gigo’s seemingly constant insistence I get my news from ‘right wing’ sources or whatever.
This thread was asking why conservatives are opposed to the idea of climate change. It’s not really a debate about climate change. In addition, better posters than me DID respond to him, and I approve of what they said, FWIW. I don’t know what me saying it would prove or help. That said, sure…give me a post number and I’ll be happy to give my two cents (and a bargain at double the price!) if you really want it.
Facebook. No idea if they are or aren’t blind. I had a facebook account years ago, when I had my own business, but haven’t even logged into it in years.
Repeating what you said doesn’t make it so either. Ironically. But here we are. The basic difference is that you seem to be swallowing what the CCP says (or, you swallow from sources that basically use the CCP data uncritically and at face value). I don’t. I don’t get my information from Facebook, or ‘right wing’ narratives or sources. But I also don’t trust a fluff piece from Greenpeace using official CCP data at face value either. You do.
You say you checked your sources…what was the source of the Greenpeace data then? Did you look into it? I did. Know what I found? I’ll leave it to you to check it out yourself.
And just to clarify (I hate not being able to cut and past…sigh)…I never said China was doing nothing. What I said is that they lie about what they are doing, that you need to dig into the reasons why certain things are happening (like in Beijing with the downturn in particulate matter and air quality last winter) and that you need to take their official data with a huge grain of sand. You just blew me off, even when I bothered to get links…just handwaved it away as ‘right wing’ data, even though right wing crapola doesn’t inform my opinion on this. You, however, assume it does out of hand.
Oh, you get it. Again, never said China is doing nothing. You are projecting and, frankly, not listening (or reading) what I’m saying, so doesnt’ seem much point in continuing this.
And again, some of the images posted were from Americans at the embassy noticing the change.
You are really not noticing how you are going from scepticism to just cynicism? While I do remain sceptic. You are rambling here, I also pointed at sources from the BBC and CNBC, it really sounds ridiculous what you are going on here.
[snip]
And more than once I pointed out that we are talking about what most conservatives are telling us, it is part of the conservative narrative that no such thing is happening in China so as to continue with their attempt at the USA from walking away from any commitment. So sigh indeed, this discussion is not about you.
And I do, hence checking with other sources.
Here is where you are projecting, I was actually complaining that it was you who that did the blew off. The chagrin I had was because the cites also did report that what the Chinese are doing there is working in areas like around Beijing but that in other areas there is still a lot more to be done. And you did reply to me using virtually the same information like if you are teaching grandma to suck eggs.
Point being that I also linked to articles that besides reporting good news they also pointed at the schizoid way China is doing this, but I approach this in a less cynical way. Again, I think that China will not back down on this because of selfish reasons.
Seriously, my bad; I really could have been more clear. I get cranky at times and shoot off hyperbole when I ought not to.
It’s anthropogenic global warming I don’t buy into; specifically, me driving back-and-forth to work is destroying the planet, but the Al Gores and Susan Sarandons and Matt Damons are all hunky dory consuming more energy (each!) in a day than I do in a month (or more).
The worst is that his argument relies on 3 or more logical fallacies
And remember about arguments with an expiration date? Most right wing sources forget that 2006 is not 2017 when they recycled arguments about his energy consumption.
Well, at least those conservative sources know how to save time and energy.
Um, you do realize that when climate scientists point out the dangers of atmospheric greenhouse-gas increases from large-scale fossil fuel use for things like daily commuting, they’re not pointing the finger at you personally, right?
Yes, the greenhouse-gas emissions from millions of daily commuters are indeed a much more significant problem, climate-wise, than those from the fossil-fuel-guzzling lifestyles of a few hundred or a few thousand celebrities.
It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that you were somehow not able to figure that out for yourself, but instead have been contemplating this issue for, what, years? of resentful pouting because you were under the impression that you individually were receiving more blame for global warming than Al Gore.
Resentment is the reason for a lot of the “conservative” (read: reactionary) disbelief. They seem absolutely convinced that when someone on “The Left” says “this situation is not good, we should change it” the Leftie means “I think you’re a terrible, stupid person for doing this”.
That’s not what’s going on, but there’s a lot of reactionaries who have serious issues whenever someone suggests a change. I tend to suspect some deep-rooted insecurity issues.
Yeah, I getcha. Sometimes I take an ambien and try to prove that the earth is flat. It happens to the best of us!
Wait, hang on - do you deny that CO2 causes global warming, that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of human causes, or are you on board with human-sourced CO2 heating up the planet but specifically get mad that people give Al Gore a pass because his contribution to anthropogenic climate change is so much higher than yours?
Because if it’s just the latter… Great! You’re pretty much up to date on the science, you’re just expressing it in a very weird way, and have some slight misconceptions about Al Gore’s energy use. And nobody wants to give rich celebrities a pass. By all means, let’s get mad at the carbon footprint of the super rich. It’s basically just immoral to be rich anyways, and this is just one extra aspect of it. But when it comes to the real, systematic problems facing America, “a handful of celebrities have 2000% the carbon footprint of the average person” is a much less significant problem than a 10% increase in the carbon footprint of the average person. Hence why rolling back EPA rules on fuel efficiency is such a big deal.
(If it’s not the latter, disregard this post entirely.)
I think this exchange is a good representation of what the OP is asking. You and I, who basically are in agreement…hell, I have to admit that much of my change in heart about global climate change came from posts by you and some others on this board…yet we can’t find even common ground to discuss this stuff on.
Again, never said China is doing nothing. You are projecting and, frankly, not listening (or reading) what I’m saying, so doesnt’ seem much point in continuing this.
Um, you do realize that when climate scientists point out the dangers of atmospheric greenhouse-gas increases from large-scale fossil fuel use for things like daily commuting, they’re not pointing the finger at you personally, right?