I think left/right refers more to policy positions than predictions. But let’s look at two of the above.
“134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump” Bricker voted for Clinton. Do you include him in the “left” or in the “far left”?
“158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election.”
Most people, including Trump, thought Clinton would win. She probably would have won without Comey’s Surprise in late October; even with that the election was quite close.
You do understand that when Nate Silver predicts 90% favorites, if he doesn’t get 10% of those wrong, then his predictions are off, right?
Now that you understand my question, can you try answering it again? Is opposing right-to-work laws a "far left" position? Support for gay marriage?
This forum is dedicated to fighting ignorance. It’s bound to lean away from a presidential candidate who embodies that ignorance writ large.
If the matter of “who runs the most powerful country in the world” affects you so little, you are phenomenally privileged. Not everyone is in that situation. Do you have a single LGBT person you care about? Does the murder of hundreds of thousands of people bother you at all?
Of course, I doubt that you’re in that situation. You weren’t affected at all by the financial crash of 2007, just to name the most obvious example? I live in Germany, and I have to care about this shit! Is your small business going to be unaffected by Trump’s trade war? Are you recession-proof?
I do have LGBT friends, though most of them do not live in the USA.
Our wars have not been affected by who is president - Iraq happened under Bush, Syria happened under Obama and the war situation is not changing under Trump.
I was not affected by the crash of 2007. I owned my home in the Czech Republic outright, and when I moved back to the US (part time) in 2009, prices were low. The best years for our business (software) were 2007-2009. It seems to be fairly recession-proof. Maybe because more than half our customers are outside the USA.
One reason I am not affected is I live well below my means. Until 2002, I drove a 1977 car, then moved overseas and did not own a car again until 2012. I have never had cable TV.
I think people are far less affected by who is president than they think they are. Same goes for the governor of my state and the mayor of my town.
The origins of their resistance made perfect sense. Agreeing with the science on climate change was bad for business.
In recent years, as climate change becomes more mainstream and resistance to it is limited to the fringes of the right wing, I think conservatives just look at climate change denial as another way to make liberals cry.
Which part of your cite do you believe shows that solar will scale up to meet our energy needs, or that it costs the same, or less, than nuclear? Keep in mind that subsidies do not reduce costs, only shift them.
A bit incomplete on that point, one important thing is that I was talking about the congress critters and judges too, the damage they and Trump are doing is not going to be apparent soon, but it will translate into subsequent waste of money and resources figuring out what was wrong or ignorant or evil or illegal as well as immoral.
1912
"A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. " True according to Snopes.
More than “a few decades” and definitely referencing man made changes.
Not quite. The Swedish chemist and physicist Svante Arrhenius published his paper about the green house effect which sought to develop an explanation for the ice ages indeed in the year 1896. First in German, Über den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche in the Swedish journal Behang till Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar then, abridged, in English in The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science.
The introduction to the copy of the English translation clarifies:
The relevant passage from page 270:
The “later work” is Worlds in the Making (1908); a passage from the chapter The celestial bodies, in particular the Earth, as abodes of organisms [p.54] shows his awareness that human influence on global climate is possible:
What? The fact that Democrats aren’t trying to look for excuses and suggest we do something about the problem now as well as supporting and pressuring countries like China to reduce their emissions means they aren’t taking the problem seriously!?
Yes if only we were taking the problem as seriously as right-wing pundits. Every step along the stages of denial, from “There’s no climate change” through “There’s climate change, but it’s got nothing to do with CO2” through to now where every year there are record-breaking high temperatures, just as was predicted, and it’s having catastrophic consequences, the answer is the same: Let’s do nothing. Because…because look, other people are doing nothing! (which btw is not true about China; they are making a big move to renewable energy).
Nah, you see, Republicans are actively trying to deny and obfuscate the problems of climate change, while Democrats are drawing attention to the dangers of climate change and proposing measures to alleviate it, but not being as radical in their proposals as most climate scientists recommend. In the Shodaniverse, that means that Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for public inaction on climate change.
Oh my. Those who didn’t read #108 are sentenced to writing “China is a big country” 50 times on the blackboard.
China has more goats than the US and EU combined, eats more ice cream than the US and EU combined, and has more geniuses—and imbeciles—than the US and EU combined. Why is this? I’ve spoilered the answer in case you want to guess by yourself.China has 550 million more people than the US and EU combined. China has lower per capita CO2 emission than Germany, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Canada and much less than half the per capita emissions of the U.S.A.
No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. ‘The largest polluter on earth doesn’t count because it’s larger’ doesn’t, and isn’t.
Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don’t want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won’t work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else’s fault.
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it stupid. It just means you don’t understand it. You don’t understand why it’s relevant that China’s per capita emissions are dwarfed by America’s? How, exactly, should we “address” the issue of a country that does more than us and also doesn’t like us very much?
I understand it just fine. That’s how I can tell it’s stupid.
It’s not relevant. China is emitting more than the US and the EU put together, even though their per-capita is lower. Because they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together right now, and it is likely to get worse as they continue to increase the total amount they are emitting. See also what Filbert wrote.
Apparently now you understand that they are doing more than us, in the sense that they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together, so maybe now you understand how per-capita is irrelevant.
But again, it is hard to take Democrats seriously on the issue. Their idea of how to address the issue of the largest polluter is to give them a break, while imposing limits on the US and the EU, that would be insufficient to address the allegedly serious problem even if they applied to China.
So, the solution to the problem of AGW is a treaty that doesn’t affect the largest source of the problem, stifling the US economy in ways that won’t help. switching to technologies that cost more, won’t scale up, and won’t help, determinately change the subject every time someone tries to suggest technologies that have a chance or working, and presto! Problem solved.
Darn those Republicans for being skeptical about so obvious and straightforward a solution.
You realize Filbert was mocking you, right? If we split China into three countries, each the size of the USA, each of those countries would have far lower emissions than the USA. Per capita matters.
And let’s not forget that China is a member of the Paris accords (along with every country in the world except the US), is leading in solar panels, and also none of us can vote in Chinese elections. I can’t affect Chinese climate policies. Neither can you. Nobody is “cutting China a break”.
That’s not an entirely irrational position to take; the Tragedy of the Commons is that if only some of the people stop grazing their herds on the commons, it impoverishes them while rewarding the cheaters. (“Thanks Sucker!”)
Remind me again, what was your excuse for doing fuck all about climate change?
Yeah so naive to try to implement measures to actually reduce CO2 emissions. It’s like they are not even trying to find excuses.
Thank goodness there are republicans brave enough to sit down and be counted, only taking their hands out of their arses long enough to pocket lobbying cash from energy companies.
If per capita matters, then splitting China up into three countries would address the problem of AGW, right? Except that it wouldn’t.
So the Kyoto and Paris accords will have no effect, as I mentioned. Which is another of the solutions that Democrats are pinning their hopes to. So, again, a solution that won’t work and doesn’t address the major source of the problem. But it is a good idea, because the Chinese are poisoning their own people as well as the atmosphere.
But let’s not talk about that, or nuclear energy, or any other practical solutions. Because the problem is so serious.