Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[baydude]

I don't understand, what does global warming has to do with politics and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you're republican or democrat?

 

[shortylickens]

PLENTY of conservatives believe in global warming but the news and electronic media tend to focus on the 1 percent of dumb, loud assholes.

Thats why everyone was surprised when Trump got 54 million votes. The 200 idiots tearing up rally's are NOT the majority.

 

[NostaSeronx]

54 million votes.

61,407,204 or ~61.4 million. Gotcha ya, back.
-----
I think they deny it because it is a pretty crap name... "Global Warming" / "Climate Change", doesn't that happen like every four parts of the year? Like come on; Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn. The only things I need to know about Global Warming/Cooling or Climate Change. It is a bad marketing name and makes everyone who says it sound stupid to the uneducated.

 

[Grooveriding]

Stop spreading FUD, global warming is a hoax from the cuck liberals to steal American jobs.

 

[IronWing]

It's convenient to the folks that bribe make campaign contributions to conservative politicians to deny global warming.

 

[Sonikku]

Isn't a climate change denier going to be heading up the EPA? Did our new VP not call Climate Change a myth?

If only 1% of conservatives are denying it exists and the media just fixates on them then perhaps that's because they're the percentile running the government.

 

[alien42]

one would think that conservation would be a thing for conservatives.

 

[MrSquished]

One can ask why conservatives believe that the earth was created 10,000 years ago.

 

[brycejones]

One can ask why conservatives believe that the earth was created 10,000 years ago.

Go fork yourself, the entire universe is barely 6000 years old. 10,000 years? That's just blasphemous.

 

[Paratus]

I don't understand, what does global warming has to do with politics and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you're republican or democrat?

As Upton Sinclair said:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

I'd also chalk it up to lack of critical thinking.

 

[Vic]

The energy industry has powerful lobbyists and employs a lot of people.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I don't understand, what does global warming has to do with politics and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you're republican or democrat?

Because if you accept global warming you have to also accept the solution offered. That is the real reason.

 

[Jaskalas]

1: It's the party's position.
2: The pause gave credible room for theories to grow.
3: "Inconvenient Truth" pimped hurricanes of mass hysteria. That tripe will drive strong backlash.

Pretty sure the opposition is all but dead now for as credibility goes.
I'm holding out for Bastardi's ocean cycle theory at, say, 15% chance of happening.
Meaning I'd be surprised if we saw 2008 temperatures ever again, which is an incredible statement for my current position.

 

[brycejones]

Pretty sure the opposition is all but dead now for as credibility goes.

Except our new President Elect believes it is a hoax created by China and he wants to bring back the coal industry. Also the guy leading the EPA transition and most likely the next EPA administrator doesn't believe it either. I would say the opposition is still alive and kicking and just picked up a ton of high level cover.

 

[Vic]

Because if you accept global warming you have to also accept the solution offered. That is the real reason.

The solution offered is to penalize inefficiency. Carbon is the product of the energy industry with the lowest energy state. If you have a better solution, let us know. In the meantime, the irony of this debate is that you're fighting against an increase in the overall standard of living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Dunno, why did liberals believe in "Peak Oil" , but not conservatives?

 

[poofyhairguy]

The solution offered is to penalize inefficiency. Carbon is the product of the energy industry with the lowest energy state. If you have a better solution, let us know. In the meantime, the irony of this debate is that you're fighting against an increase in the overall standard of living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I am not fighting anything. I was answering the question.

 

[trenchfoot]

What's bad for business is bad for America, and demanding our businesses reduce the poisonous earth destroying pollutants they're creating is going to cost them......at least one cent for every dollar they rake in as profit. That will absolutely destroy the economy and everyone will lose their jobs which will allow the terrorist Muslims and the North Koreans to take over the world.

Everybody knows this.

 

[Vic]

I am not fighting anything. I was answering the question.

Fair enough. Not everyone profits from increases in efficiency.

 

[Paratus]

The solution offered is to penalize inefficiency. Carbon is the product of the energy industry with the lowest energy state. If you have a better solution, let us know. In the meantime, the irony of this debate is that you're fighting against an increase in the overall standard of living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Increasing standard of living is part of the solution. The problem is Carbon emitted per kWh per person.

Increasing standard of living increases kWh used but lowers number of people in the long run.

Better mix of energy sources (natural gas over coal, nuclear, solar and wind over fossil fuels) lower the amount of carbon per kWh.

Sure the initial increase in standard of living probably increases CO2 output but over the long term it will reach 0 increase faster than by ignoring standard of living and increasing population.

Increasing standard of living across the world would be a huge business opportunity and reduce terrorism. Seems like a win win situation to me.

 

[Kazukian]

I was 100% on board, then I talked a bit with a scientist from JPL that had recently retired, her job was sun research. I asker her about global warming, her answer was that there are a shit ton of variables and she didn't think human activity was a major factor.

 

[jackstar7]

Enjoy your asthma.

Oh, sorry, I'm one of those that wants to go back to just calling it pollution, so we can all be against it again.

 

[Paratus]

I was 100% on board, then I talked a bit with a scientist from JPL that had recently retired, her job was sun research. I asker her about global warming, her answer was that there are a shit ton of variables and she didn't think human activity was a major factor.

Then she or you are full of shit.

 

[hal2kilo]

Then she or you are full of shit.

All it takes for a non believer is one strong anecdote.

 

[Paratus]

All it takes for a non believer is one strong anecdote.

You know the underlying math is nothing more than measuring energy in vs energy out. That part at least is no harder to understand than balancing your checkbook.

So for the average American ..... never mind we're fucked.