Are liberals obsessed with climate change because they don't believe in God?
Everyone I know that is concerned with climate change doesn't believe in God. These people think they have to pretend to be God because they know oh-so-much more than He does. The geologic record shows that the earth's temperature has changed since its creation -- temperature rises, temperature falls. Should we be concerned that there are seasons? Please. Has anyone else made this connection? I think I just hit the nail on the head!
Do people know enough about climate change to pass judgement on the issue?
TO SAGEBRUSH (2): I wasn’t asking for a practical demonstration but thank you for providing one all the same. You’re stating as fact that the natural cycles have changed and the snow is coming back. Do tell, which natural cycles would these be, imaginary ones don’t count. If you even knew the basics of climatology you’d know how farming and agricultural practices affect the meso and microclimates. You would also know that the amount of snow and ice on Kilimanjaro has steadily declined since it was first accurately monitored nearly 100 years ago. Another thing you’d be aware of is the affects on precipitation patterns of oceanic oscillations and the jet streams. You’d also know that a very short term increase in snow levels is meaningless. PS – You might want to tell Watts, Goddard, Piekle and the other established ‘skeptics’ that they’re also wrong. Guess what they attribute the diminishing snow and ice to. TO EVERYONE: I appreciate the time taken in providing so many excell
What can be done/ are we doing to combat climate change?
I'll take a stab at actually answering the question. Right now, there isn't much economy-wide cooperation (particularly globally) on accelerating the deployment of efficiency and alternative energy technologies. There are several that could help get a real transition going at moderate cost, with long-term dividends in terms of energy savings and avoidance of climate impacts. Some ideas here: http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/22/is-450-ppm-or-less-politically-possible-part-2-the-solution/ http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/18/hybrid-csp-concentrated-solar-natural-gas-power-plants-provide-power/ Part of the solution is putting a market-based price on fossil carbon pollution and providing incentives to give alternative approaches a boost. Jrock, here's a question: If plants are absorbing all our emissions, then why are CO2 concentrations rising rapidly? http://understandit.ml1.net/images/CO2-650.jpg If you think it's natural, where's the scientific evidence? Looks to me like mass balance calculations and isotopic analysis indicate otherwise. Nature remains a net SINK for carbon, absorbing all natural emissions and about half of ours (subject to change with warming). So it's nearly 15 gigatons (4 Gt carbon equivalent) of OUR output annually (from power plants and many millions of vehicles etc.) that's accumulating in the atmosphere. And there still isn't any "proof" of a GLOBAL cooling TREND vs. a recent modest anomaly fluctuation.
How many persons do you think care about Climate Change?
In real terms, very few.Political parties regularly run polls on what is of concern to voters. In the recent US election, climate change did not make either parties list of top ten issues; it was barely discussed. Similarly for the recent Australian election, see for example Climate change has dropped off the political radar (and this is a big problem). This article provides figures on just how far and fast the electorate has lost interest in the subject.There are a few very outspoken people who are passionate about this subject, and hence make a lot of noise, but for most people its not an important issue. Which is why mainstream Western politicians choose not to talk about it much. The large majority of voters simply don’t care very much.The Guardian ran a huge change.org campaign to promote divestment from fossil fuel companies, backed by its huge media presence. It got 200,00 signatories. A campaign started by an individual at about the same time to keep Jeremy Clarkson as presenter of Top Gear got 600,000 signatories. You have to worry if three times as many people care about who hosts a TV motoring show as care about your pet issue.The climate industry is partially to blame for this. While support has been dropping for a decade, its clearly dropped a lot further since the Paris meeting. Environmentalists lauded this as a “huge success”. So in a lot of people’s minds, the existence of an international agreement to limit emissions which is lauded by environmentalists means the problem is solved or well on its way to being solved. So their attention to this issue wanders, and other issues - education, health, defence, economy - push it further and further down the list.To quote an old saying, “the caravan has moved on, but the dogs are still barking”.
Climate Change Questions?
Hi everyone, I should, but I have to say I don't know very much about what is happening to the earth and with climate change. I do plan to research more about this as it is very important, but in the meantime, I thought it would be a good question and could help others learn more as well. What are the main causes of climate change? What are the main things I can do to contribute? I would like to do my part. Thank you in advance.
Why isn't a significant amount of the US electorate very concerned about Climate Change?
I would say there are a few reasons:Not convinced climate change is real.Convinced it’s real, but not convinced it’s caused by humans.Not convinced it can be fixed by humans.Doubt as to if it’s a problem that can (or should) be addressed politically.Doubt as to if it can be effectively addressed by the U.S. when other countries put out vastly more pollution.Concern that proposed cures may be worse than the disease (possibly in the form of unintended consequences).Not convinced it’s as urgent as other matters.Good old-fashioned apathy.The last two are probably the biggest ones. But add up all those reasons and you won’t be left with very many people who are “very concerned” about the issue.The fact that we’ve been hearing doom and gloom predictions for several decades now, most of which have not come to pass, plays into several of those reasons. Why feel urgently about something when we’ve been told it’s urgent for 40 years, and nothing they’ve told us would happen by now has happened yet?
If Americans are so concerned about global warming, why have they elected Trump, who does not even believe in climate change?
The billion or so dollars the fossil fuel industry has spent on propagandizing Americans about climate change won with “President” Trump’s election. If you read some of the nonsensical claims and assumptions made about climate by right wing partisans on Quora—including in this thread—you’ll see how their views dovetail perfectly with what the fossil fuel industry needs people to believe in order to maximize profits.It also dovetails with the propaganda program of the robber barons in general: to loathe government and scientists and “elites” (meaning educated people, regardless of income or influence), while virtually worshipping business and billionaires and their tribal leaders. Science is constantly spoiling things for the robber barons. That’s why the lead and tobacco industries spent decades viciously attacking both the science and the scientists who were saying things they didn’t like.As of 2018, here’s the result, from one of the most reputable nonpartisan public opinion research organizations:State of the Union 2018: Americans’ views on key issues facing the nationHowever, that overall assessment averages the very different beliefs and priorities of Democratic voters and Republican ones:“Environment: While partisans agree on some assessments of what Trump and Congress’ top priorities are, climate change and the environment are among the most divisive. Nearly seven-in-ten Democrats (68%) say dealing with climate change should be a top policy priority, 50 percentage points higher than the share of Republicans who say so (18%). And while 81% of Democrats say protecting the environment should be a top priority, just 37% of Republicans say the same.”It should go without saying that Democrats’ sense of priorities are far closer to that of scientists, while Republicans’ are whatever the corporate patrons of the GOP tell them to think. I guess critical thinking isn’t taught in Red school districts.Partisan polemics aside, though, there’s another reason why so many Americans don’t prioritize climate change: we didn’t evolve to be very good at thinking about slow-motion disasters. People are being severely affected by global climate change right now, but few of them are American. By the time most Americans are affected, many if not most of us will be dead—and we’ll have left our children and grandchildren to pay the tab.And who cares about their childrens and grandchildren? Not most Republicans, apparently.