I am a conservative (Libertarian actually) and I could say the same thing about liberals. It is all enforced by our media. Today we all tend to watch news that aligns with our beliefs. It’s not like the days when we all watched Walter Cronkite.
At the risk of sounding partisan, do you really feel liberals are just as bad about it?
When Anthony Weiner was accused of sexual assault, he lost his job and then he failed miserably to win election as mayor of NYC.
When Roy Moore was accused of sexual assault, his supporters pretended it never happened.
Its not the same thing. Granted I’m partisan, but both sides are not the same. 9/11 trutherism was a fringe belief on the left. Birtherism is not a fringe belief on the right.
The right seems to have a strong authoritarian, dominionist strain that makes them much more willing to be flexible on moral and intellectual principles in pursuit of power and tribalistic purity.
As professor Muller showed, we can investigate of unreliable it is. And he found that the previous teams had done a great job at adjusting the data properly when issues were found with it.
[snip]
That is indeed like claiming that we are not smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.
I won’t speak for @Desert Nomad, and it might indeed be different in the USA; from my [German] pov, hypocracy is widespread across the entire political spectrum (though I think the Green voters top this chart; they see it differently, of course).
Environmental topics are far less partisan over here than they are on your side of the pond; Chancellor Merkel, a member of the conservative CDU (though I don’t consider her a conservative at all … or a benefit), was environment minister early in her career when the first climate conference in Berlin in 1995 took place.
And when she became Chancellor, she helped to convince George W. Bush to agree to the 2-degree Celsius limit on global warming during the 2007 G8 summit.
She became a staunch critic of nuclear energy after the Fukushima incident in 2011 - which led to policies that made it harder to feed Germany’s energy hunger (and ironically, it needs to be fed in part by foreign nuclear power - coming from power plants that may not meet German safety standards).
In 2015, she was arguing in favour of the decarbonization agenda when the G7 met; and lately, she wasn’t too happy with Trump’s climate ideas at the G20.
Of course, her Realpolitik is more opportunistic when the industry at home defies her.
In 2013, she blocked tougher EU limits on vehicle emissions.
And the energy transition is stalling, to say the least. IMO, it’d be much easier to push the transition to renewable energies farther if nuclear power was helping along. Instead, we rely on coal too much (especially lignite) because it’s less of an ideological issue even though it is one of the reasons why we fail our own emission targets.
Conservatives in Germany and other Western countries tend to shelter important domestic industries from harsh environmental measures even when they agree that more radical changes are necessary; when an energy ressource is abundant in a country, the conservatives also tend to foster this source even if it’s not the best option to battle climate change.
But the conservative parties in Europe are usually willing to not just agree with the scientific community in principle but to advance policies that go beyond market forces to fight climate change.
If you missed it in my first post, and want to know more, I want to allude, once again, to the study done by Sondre Batstrand: More than Markets - A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change. In “P & P”, August 2015.
So what? GIGO has already responded to most of the nonsense you posted but I just want to add to this one. The warming in the first half of the 20th century was within normal temperature parameters and was largely non-anthropogenic; CO2 levels were rising but were still close to typical interglacial maxima. In the second half of the 20th century and beyond, the temperature rise was and continues to be almost entirely anthropogenic. The average temperature in the second half was warmer than in any 50-year period in at least 1300 years, and today it’s warmer still and breaking new records almost every year. Meanwhile CO2 levels have risen beyond any point they have ever been in well over a million years.
Well, they’ve got that one right, anyway. But I somehow get the impression that they don’t actually know what “advocates” means.
And pieceoftheuniverse, to be strictly correct, Einstein’s General Relativity isn’t at all relevant to nuclear weapons. For that, you want Special Relativity. But even that is really only incidental: The science that the atomic bomb is mostly based on was only a decade or so old, and most of it was developed during the Manhattan Project itself.
Heisenberg almost burned down a laboratory building with a nuclear pile w/o using the Manhattan project.
Absolutely. I vote Libertarian and am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I see both D/R sides as having similar levels of hypocrisy. Watching an average republican talk about climate change is no different than the average democrat talking about economics. It’s the same with republicans talking about the military or the democrats talking about immigration. Most people just repeat what they’ve been told and have no way to think about it themselves.
I just watch from the sidelines and think they are all a bunch of nuts. 
I also lived outside the USA for 12 years so I almost see the US as a foreign country at times.
Seems like an odd perspective. As if it were the case that Democrats are factually correct about climate change and wrong about economics, and Republicans are right about economics and wrong about climate change.
No, Republicans just like making money and being pro-business. Which is, in fact, why they have a monopoly both on climate change deniers and economic crackpots like advocates of the “trickle-down” fairy tale, which explains to voters why they have to pay more taxes while billionaires pay little or nothing. It’s why Republicans are far more prone to distort facts and spin fantasies and rely for their electoral successes on voter gullibility. Democrats are not only aligned with the science on climate change, they’re aligned with the science on economics, too. Nobel prize winners like Paul Krugman are liberal Democrats. The economy does better under Democratic presidents by any important metric. One thing Republicans are good at with respect to the economy, though, is driving up the national debt and creating recessions. Nine of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans. That’s how good they are with economics!
And of course Republicans’ record on climate change is absolutely stellar. Sen. James Inhofe declared that only God can change the climate, that climate change is the greatest hoax every perpetrated on mankind, and, informed intellectual that he is, he brought a snowball into the Senate chamber to prove that the climate hasn’t changed. Many of his Republican colleagues agree, and the current president has declared it a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
Yeah, Democrats and Republicans – you can hardly tell them apart!
Military spending has always been fine with libertarians. They feel the federal government’s job is to provide shared services like defense and roads and nothing else.
Religious freedom is also a libertarian argument. This is a common misconception on the left. The religious freedom issues are not ‘I want everyone to pray.’ but rather ‘Whether you pray or not should be determined by the people actually in the communities rather than by a federal bureaucracy that doesn’t understand the community.’ They aren’t saying ‘A picture of Jesus needs to be hung in every school.’ They are saying, “We should be able to hang a picture of Jesus in our school if we want to.” They see for instance banning religious teaching in schools as government overreach and that the school district should be able to decide for itself what it teaches. It’s why libertarians are against things like Common Core as well and why they caused the GOP to switch stances during the Tea Party wave. The leftist view of say religious instruction is that there might be people in the classroom that don’t adhere to the religion and thus it should be banned. The libertarian view is that the people actually in the community would be better equipped to know what is or is not offensive to members of their own community and in a better place to judge that. The leftist view is that they are protecting minorities from tyranny of the majority. The rightest view is that they are being stripped of their right to self governance.
I’ve said it in other posts, but it bears repeating. The primary difference between left and right in my mind is society vs. community–Gesellschaft vs Gemeinschaft. Gesellschaft groupings see the world as better ordered through strict and equitable rules that protect every member of society regardless of origin, belief or anything else enforced by a neutral arbiter. Gemeinschaft groupings see the world as better ordered through relationships, cultural homogeneity and social pressures. Gesellschaft says ‘The rule is that Jesus pictures are forbidden for all people, as are FSMs, pictures of Mohammed or Maimonedes. It is fair and equitable.’ Gemeinschaft says ‘I get that, but everyone here goes to the same church anyway except Bob and he doesn’t mind and even if he did, Bob needs to get over it.’
I’ll believe that Democrats think AGW is really going to happen as soon as they show that they do. They can do that by standing up to the greens in their own party and push for nuclear power as hard as they do wind and solar.
The scientific consensus that wind and solar will not scale up to anything close to replacing fossil fuels is as least as strong as the consensus that AGW is happening. Opposing nuclear energy, or a tepid sort of “yeah yeah, nuclear too, but not right now and not until we can absolutely guarantee 100% perfection and not in any specific instance either” makes it hard to believe y’all really think it is as serious as all that.
Besides, the Chinese emit twice as much green house gasses as the US - go rag on them.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll give my take on this, even though I’m not a conservative. From my perspective in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s I was pretty skeptical of the whole climate change thing. It seemed, to me, to be an extension of the eco warriors war on civilization. For years we’d been hearing all this gloom and doom from more fanatical ecological types, and this seemed like just another attempt to essentially shut down modern civilization. The solutions proposed would have done so, IMHO and at the time. It would have wreaked economic havoc world wide. There was simply no way to stop using fossil fuels on the scale they were talking…and the threats of the Earth turning into Venus or other over the top predictions of doom just seemed like stuff we’d heard in the past that had been overblown. So, I didn’t take it seriously enough to really dig in to look, thinking it more a fringe view. Basically, I knew it would cause economic issues on a huge scale…that was reality…so, I didn’t WANT it to be true, therefore it wasn’t.
It wasn’t until maybe 2008 or so that I started to change my view point…pretty much because of this board and lurking in threads about climate change. I started to actually follow what was being said, dug in (the the extent I can) to the science and looked more closely at the evidence. I won’t say I instantly changed my mind, but my perspective evolved over time. I like to think that I have enough of a scientific mindset and am fair minded enough to be able to change my position when the evidence is presented. I still cringe at a lot of the over the top shows I recall from the 90’s and early 2000’s (even today) that I watched, as I think that REALLY set me back. My bullshit detector and annoyance meter just goes nuts with stuff like that. However, when you dig into the actual science you find it much more compelling…or at least I did. I still have my doubts about what can be done in the short term, and still find it mystifying why many ecologist types who are worked up about global warming aren’t pushing nuclear fission power more forcefully, but overall I’m convinced…it’s real, it’s happening, we are a large factor in the cause and it’s going to hammer us unless we can find ways to mitigate the effect.
I think that many conservatives or right wingers who are opposed to the very idea of climate change are opposed for either ideological reasons (or reasons their leadership gives them because they are being supported by funding from many powerful lobbies wedded to fossil fuel industries) or are like I was…they are opposed because they know what the economic impacts (the short and medium term) WILL be on our economy if we try, even at this stage to shift radically to something else. We aren’t really in a position to replace all our fossil fuel use to something green (or even greener than what we have) by and large…not without a large capital outlay that, frankly, I don’t think the public would be behind. We can’t switch our ICE vehicles to something else because the something else hasn’t really been worked out and doesn’t scale. You simply can’t build 10’s of millions or 100’s of millions of battery powered cars in a short time frame. You can’t get rid of coal quickly, even to switch it to natural gas which is better but not ideal. You can’t even build nuclear power plants quickly, even if you could build enough to just replace those that are being retired. Solar and wind aren’t there yet to replace but a fraction of our total energy needs in the US, and they won’t scale up to meet the majority of our needs any time soon. So, given those assumptions above, it’s better to not believe than to think we are fucked.
I want to point out that not all conservatives strongly oppose the idea of climate change. Many do, but many don’t feel strongly or even support the idea while debating what is the best way to mitigate. Lastly, I’ll point out that in the US anyway a lot of positions the political ideologies take are in direct opposition to strong positions by the other side. Liberals support climate change, by and large…and strongly in many cases. So, it’s kind of natural for conservatives to take the opposing position.
In other words, senoy, libertarians love government, as long as it’s Big Government.
So … address our curiosity. Where do you get your news about American politics? Tell us a little about Wilbur Ross. What’s your take on recent news about top secret clearances?
Democrats are for nuclear power. Link
Democrats are a monolithic group opposed to nuclear power? News to me. The reality is that although Dems’ support of nuclear hasn’t been rock-solid in the past, but both Democrats and Republicans are generally in favor.
There’s nothing about liberalism or environmentalism that is inherently anti-nuclear. In Canada the province of Ontario has undertaken major wind power initiatives and phased out all coal power plants, but at the same time more than half of all electricity generation in the province is from nuclear. A few years ago, a group of prominent climate scientists published an open letter strongly urging a move to nuclear power, which may have been a factor in strengthening Dems’ position on the issue.
As for the Chinese, sure, but check out the per-capita numbers. US per-capita emissions are more than twice that of China. Ah, China is still a developing country, you say? How about the fact that US per-capita emissions are almost two and a half times as much as the EU? Obviously the US has enormous scope for emissions cutbacks. Yet the US is the only country – in the world – to have pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Why would I rag on the Chinese? They’re a ratified signatory, and promised to do their part.
So…you trust the Chinese (or at least won’t ‘rag’ on them) because they signed a treaty? You do realize that they have signed a lot of treaties and then basically broken them, right? Also, their emissions are basically the same as the next 5 nations combined. That includes the US. And they are building more coal plants each year. Sure, they are building renewable’s and nuclear too, but they are still building fossil fuel CO2 spewers in record numbers and the trajectory for their CO2 emissions are still going up, while the US who didn’t sign is flat or even starting downward.
This is another one of those things that makes me question the resolution of those who are putting forth legislature about GhG emissions and global warming. Why aren’t they pushing, to the max nuclear? Why is China getting a pass? Because they are ‘developing’? That’s bullshit…they are the second largest economy out there, and are as capable (probably more so due to their totalitarian/authoritarian government) able to implement change as the US or any other large industrialized economy. If they can afford to spend hundreds of billions on their belt and road initiative to extend their strategic reach (and acquire a few nice properties when the countries they are ‘helping’ default) AND increase their defense spending (both internal and external) by large sums, they could afford to sign on for what the others signed on for without the grace period of a decade or so. What do you think are the odds they would have signed on the dotted line if they were in exactly the same category as the US without any grace period? And knowing that this was just the first step? Myself, I’m guessing the odds would be pretty heavily against…
I agree with a supporter of the climate agreement that this attitude is like a very fat guy at the table (The USA) complaining that the new skinny and growing guys at the table are eating good now. Forgetting that the agreement does not mean that all will not do the same forever and that there are changes already going.
And speaking of trust, I do not trust the Chinese. As I pointed before refusing to act on this issue would mean the end of the Communist party in China as inaction would indeed cause unrest in the future.
To the first point, I disagree with both your analogy and with the decision to give China a pass on this. They don’t need the slack to get their economy going…it’s going already. And this has nothing to do with the US, so using us as the example of the ‘fat man’ is off base. China is the number 2 economy in the world. Even if we take a more conservative look at their economic numbers (instead of what the Chinese themselves claim), they are an economic powerhouse. I’d buy this argument for many other countries that are ACTUALLY emerging, but China should have been treated as a grownup and told that they area a major issue. Like I said, they emit more CO2 than the next 5 countries, including the US, combined. The US emissions have been pretty flat and decreasing slightly for several years now and I expect that trend to continue. China’s has flattened out recently, but that’s more because of economics and demographics, and it’s widely considered that they won’t actually peak until the mid-2020’s or even 2030’s. To me, giving the highest emitter a pass shows a lack of commitment…or basically something I get busted on around here all the time, which is an admission to pragmatic reality. Because had China been held to the same agreement the US was being asked for they would have refused to sign.
As to the second point, you are wise not to trust China. I seriously doubt that refusing to curb CO2 would endanger the CCP in China. You might make a case that refusing to combat their rampant ecological pollution will, but that’s not the same thing as CO2 emissions, and I don’t think that, if China cleaned up it’s toxic environment while continuing to emit the same levels of CO2 that the people would be all that miffed about it, assuming the growing economic opportunities continued on.
And that is a straw man.
[snip]
Only that then you ignored the cite from electreck commenting about the report from the Climate action tracker.