Why Americans Might Never Notice Climate Change’s Hotter Weather

Well, it's called "climate change"...not "abnormal weather".  In fact, the point that it is essential to realize is that weather and climate are two entirely different things.

But the real fight here is not perception of effects, but causation and origin: the claim is that human dependence on fossil fuel is the cause.  Climate change has become unpopular with the RW'ers because it challenges the fossil fuel industry.  The fossil fuel industry, itself, has become symbolic of RW politics.

In fact, the tail is now wagging the dog in that there are alternative fuels that we could be developing, bur are not, because fossil fuel is symbolic of RW defiance.  It has now become pc for RW’ers to argue for coal-fueled electricity generation plants, even though coal is a 19th-century, quite dirty fuel.  At the same time, they complain about slight issues associated with wind farms, simply because the source is newer and cleaner.

The real danger is that obstinate RW resistance to newer, cleaner sources of energy inhibits innovation, and threatens to overwhelm routine avenues of progress that for so long have characterized modern man's economic expansion.

Original Quill wrote:

The real danger is that obstinate RW resistance to newer, cleaner sources of energy inhibits innovation, and threatens to overwhelm routine avenues of progress that for so long have characterized modern man's economic expansion.

Yet I am right wing economically and am not threatened by by innovation and progress when it comes to new energy ideas

In fact I welcome them and in fact they bring more job opportunites and form the based for more capital outcome for nations, through jobs and wealth

So is it right wing resistance or more actually some neo conservatives in the US?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The real danger is that obstinate RW resistance to newer, cleaner sources of energy inhibits innovation, and threatens to overwhelm routine avenues of progress that for so long have characterized modern man's economic expansion.

Yet I am right wing economically and am not threatened by by innovation and progress when it comes to new energy ideas

In fact I welcome them and in fact they bring more job opportunites and form the based for more capital outcome for nations, through jobs and wealth

So is it right wing resistance or more actually some neo conservatives in the US?

Well, first, I did not perceive that I was responding to you, personally. I thought you were doing us all a favor in bringing forth a point of view. You don't have to own this pov.

Second, even if it is an element or sub-unit of the RW, it's is still a RW persuasion. It would be wonderful if more RW'ers would abandon resistance to energy innovations on-account-of-support-for-fossil-fuel.

Nor do I believe your assertion that it is only US conservatives. Conservatives all over the world dip in and out of this resistance effort, depending on how it arrives to them.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


Yet I am right wing economically and am not threatened by by innovation and progress when it comes to new energy ideas

In fact I welcome them and in fact they bring more job opportunites and form the based for more capital outcome for nations, through jobs and wealth

So is it right wing resistance or more actually some neo conservatives in the US?

Well, first, I did not perceive that I was responding to you, personally.  I thought you were doing us all a favor in bringing forth a point of view.  You don't have to own this pov.

Second, even if it is an element or sub-unit of the RW, it's is still a RW persuasion.  It would be wonderful if more RW'ers would abandon resistance to energy innovations on-account-of-support-for-fossil-fuel.

Nor do I believe your assertion that it is only US conservatives.  Conservatives all over the world dip in and out of this resistance effort, depending on how it arrives to them.

Well i would disagree and say its more a form of neo-conservatism, when many right wing people also understand the need to tackle global warming.

You are simple making generalisations on this quill with conservatives

I am neiher by the way and again hold views on the right and left

Again my economic views are conservative

Didge wrote:Well i would disagree and say its more a form of neo-conservatism, when many right wing people also understand the need to tackle global warming.

You are simple making generalisations on this quill with conservatives

Well, but they are proper and legitimate generalizations to make.

Where RW'ers get most upset is when you raise the topic of fossil fuel causation. They seem to think that criticizing fossil fuel is criticizing modern, western democracy.

Other than that, they seem to say I don't know the cause of climate change. Well if they don't know, why do they bristle when the subject turns to fossil fuels?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Well i would disagree and say its more a form of neo-conservatism, when many right wing people also understand the need to tackle global warming.

You are simple making generalisations on this quill with conservatives

Well, but they are proper and legitimate generalizations to make.

Where RW'ers get most upset is when you raise the topic of fossil fuel causation.  They seem to think that criticizing fossil fuel is criticizing modern, western democracy.

Other than that, they seem to say I don't know the cause of climate change.  Well if they don't know, why do they bristle when the subject turns to fossil fuels?

Do they?

Can you actually show some polls to correlate your claims, on the above assumtions you made in say the UK or the US?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, but they are proper and legitimate generalizations to make.

Where RW'ers get most upset is when you raise the topic of fossil fuel causation.  They seem to think that criticizing fossil fuel is criticizing modern, western democracy.

Other than that, they seem to say I don't know the cause of climate change.  Well if they don't know, why do they bristle when the subject turns to fossil fuels?

Do they?

Can you actually show some polls to correlate your claims, on the above assumtions you made in say the UK or the US?

Well, it's not poll data stuff. As you said yourself, it's only a portion among conservatives. I don't know if there is a survey research scale of 'fossil-fuel-supporting-conservatives'. It would make a useful instrument.

It's more observable in the arguments among conservatives who resist the idea of climate change. They get hot when you go near a discussion about causation, and raise the issue of carbon in the atmosphere.

I think you only notice when something moves over a 'threshold'

Like western Sydney used to get frosts in winter as a child i can remember crunching the grass under foot, through my teens it became rarer and by the time i was an adult even though I was out earlier there is pretty much never frost, most winters there will be none. it simply doesn't get below zero any more, even on the coldest winter night.

Because it doesn't exist??

veya_victaous wrote:I think you only notice when something moves over a 'threshold'

Like western Sydney used to get frosts in winter as a child i can remember crunching the grass under foot, through my teens it became rarer and by the time i was an adult even though I was out earlier there is pretty much never frost, most winters there will be none. it simply doesn't get below zero any more, even on the coldest winter night.

Interesting and very good point in showing how a change does occur over time

I gather snow is rarely seen in much of Aus?

Thor wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I think you only notice when something moves over a 'threshold'

Like western Sydney used to get frosts in winter as a child i can remember crunching the grass under foot, through my teens it became rarer and by the time i was an adult even though I was out earlier there is pretty much never frost, most winters there will be none. it simply doesn't get below zero any more, even on the coldest winter night.

Interesting and very good point in showing how a change does occur over time

I gather snow is rarely seen in much of Aus?

there was never much snow.. oddly it is creating more snowfall because the area that is of high enough altitude and low enough temperature(the snowy mountain ranges, Tarago where i live now is the 'highland foothills' just northeast of the 'Snowies' as they're called) to sometimes get snow has seen changing precipitation patterns with more precipitation (that comes down as snow) in winter... although Scientists think it could be a result of the increase in intensity of the El Nino/El Nina cycle (which means it flips between Aus and S.America every 5-7 years)... the increase in intensity is Driven by rising ocean temperatures in the Pacific of course .

We are literally mapping and adapting agriculture to this stuff, it is already out of the realms of theory and is now a Business Driving Reality being factored into Billion Dollar Commercial decisions.

anyone arguing it doesn't exist is just a waste of space ... even Trolling about this stuff now is just fucking stupid

A great many on the right, in the US, dont trust government in general and are loathe to send them additional taxes under the guise of the government helping them (unless it's for something that benefits them).  

That's where a lot of the climate change skepticism comes from. That and Al Gore and Michael Moore sorta became the spokespersons for the movement, and neither if them are well respected outside if their core groups.

Maddog wrote:A great many on the right, in the US, dont trust government in general and are loathe to send them additional taxes under the guise of the government helping them (unless it's for something that benefits them).  

That's where a lot of the climate change skepticism comes from. That and Al Gore and Michael Moore sorta became the spokespersons for the movement, and neither if them are well respected outside if their core groups.

This is not about trusting governement but simple understanding science

So its scientists who they are being skeptical of, not governements. As many a politician is also a climate denier in the US

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:A great many on the right, in the US, dont trust government in general and are loathe to send them additional taxes under the guise of the government helping them (unless it's for something that benefits them).  

That's where a lot of the climate change skepticism comes from. That and Al Gore and Michael Moore sorta became the spokespersons for the movement, and neither if them are well respected outside if their core groups.

This is not about trusting governement but simple understanding science

So its scientists who they are being skeptical of, not governements. As many a politician is also a climate denier in the US

But one party uses it for political expediency. They use it to promote fear. Perhaps you don't see the politics behind it, but most Americans do.

There is about 80% of the population that won't believe one party or the other if they say 2 + 2 = 4.

It's just how it is now. Most Americans are far too polarized.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


This is not about trusting governement but simple understanding science

So its scientists who they are being skeptical of, not governements. As many a politician is also a climate denier in the US

But one party uses it for political expediency. They use it to promote fear.  Perhaps you don't see the politics behind it, but most Americans do.

There is about 80% of the population that won't believe one party or the other if they say 2 + 2 = 4.

It's just how it is now. Most Americans are far too polarized.  

Well I dont live daily in the US, so I take your view on that on not see ing this

Still people if they distrust politicians, can at least read the information that scientists have collected on this

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

But one party uses it for political expediency. They use it to promote fear.  Perhaps you don't see the politics behind it, but most Americans do.

There is about 80% of the population that won't believe one party or the other if they say 2 + 2 = 4.

It's just how it is now. Most Americans are far too polarized.  

Well I dont live daily in the US, so I take your view on that on not see ing this

Still people if they distrust politicians, can at least read the information that scientists have collected on this

They don't understand the science good enough.

It's easier to just say a politician of whatever party said it, therefore it's true or false.

Look at Quill. He's a prime example. If a Dem says it, it's correct, according to him. If a Rep says it, it's a lie or whatever. Simply supporting your "team" is easier than actually learning. It's easier than staking out a position and defending it, regardless of what your preferred parties stance de jour is.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/44167/pompous-little-twit-greenpace-co-founder-unloads-ryan-saavedra

Read these twitter exchanges. Between AOC and a former Greenpeace member.

This is why Americans are often skeptics.

Maddog wrote:https://www.dailywire.com/news/44167/pompous-little-twit-greenpace-co-founder-unloads-ryan-saavedra

Read these twitter exchanges. Between AOC and a former Greenpeace member.

This is why Americans are often skeptics.  

I would suggest their skeptism comes from political biased sources, of which the Daily Wire for one is biased right wing and are known for their skeptism of climate change. Though to be fair Ben Shapiro has started to conceed to some fats on climate science

So to me, media sources, social media and Politicians playing off against each other. I s stopping people actually looking at the scientific facts. Hence the problem is with how people are influenced by the media, social media etc#

I certainly do not think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows what she is talking about, but then neither does Patrick Moore



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&t=597s

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://www.dailywire.com/news/44167/pompous-little-twit-greenpace-co-founder-unloads-ryan-saavedra

Read these twitter exchanges. Between AOC and a former Greenpeace member.

This is why Americans are often skeptics.  

I would suggest their skeptism comes from political biased sources, of which the Daily Wire for one is biased right wing and are known for their skeptism of climate change. Though to be fair Ben Shapiro has started to conceed to some fats on climate science

So to me, media sources, social media and Politicians playing off against each other. I s stopping people actually looking at the scientific facts. Hence the problem is with how people are influenced by the media, social media etc#

I certainly do not think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows what she is talking about, but then neither does Patrick Moore



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&t=597s

That's why I said to read the tweets. Both of them have issues, but her campaign and lifestyle were very un-green for someone that wants people to think there is an emergency.

So is the problem with people, or the hypocrites trying to scare the people?

I did a thread about Thomas Massie a few weeks ago. He walks the walks while AOC just bullshits people, yet millions of people will support her anyway.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

I would suggest their skeptism comes from political biased sources, of which the Daily Wire for one is biased right wing and are known for their skeptism of climate change. Though to be fair Ben Shapiro has started to conceed to some fats on climate science

So to me, media sources, social media and Politicians playing off against each other. I s stopping people actually looking at the scientific facts. Hence the problem is with how people are influenced by the media, social media etc#

I certainly do not think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows what she is talking about, but then neither does Patrick Moore



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&t=597s

That's why I said to read the tweets. Both of them have issues, but her campaign and lifestyle were very un-green for someone that wants people to think there is an emergency.

So is the problem with people, or the hypocrites trying to scare the people?

I did a thread about Thomas Massie a few weeks ago. He walks the walks while AOC just bullshits people, yet millions of people will support her anyway.    

 

Well will have to look back and find the link and have a read

Have to go

Night

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's why I said to read the tweets. Both of them have issues, but her campaign and lifestyle were very un-green for someone that wants people to think there is an emergency.

So is the problem with people, or the hypocrites trying to scare the people?

I did a thread about Thomas Massie a few weeks ago. He walks the walks while AOC just bullshits people, yet millions of people will support her anyway.    

 

Well will have to look back and find the link and have a read

Have to go

Night

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

But one party uses it for political expediency. They use it to promote fear.  Perhaps you don't see the politics behind it, but most Americans do.

There is about 80% of the population that won't believe one party or the other if they say 2 + 2 = 4.

It's just how it is now. Most Americans are far too polarized.  

Well I dont live daily in the US, so I take your view on that on not see ing this

Still people if they distrust politicians, can at least read the information that scientists have collected on this

They don't understand the science good enough.

It's easier to just say a politician of whatever party said it, therefore it's true or false.

Look at Quill. He's a prime example. If a Dem says it, it's correct, according to him. If a Rep says it, it's a lie or whatever. Simply supporting your "team" is easier than actually learning. It's easier than staking out a position and defending it, regardless of what your preferred parties stance de jour is.    

Regarding the bold part....that’s what sickens me and bores the shit out of me the most...this “team” thing. It just stunts growth, both human and global.