The left denies science/biology or man can't influence climate change

[Der Eisbär]

Anthropogenic climate change is a non-issue for the most part.

Unfortunately the data and experts do not support your claim here.

First of all, oil/fossil fuel reserves will run out in the next century or two, not enough to do much permanent damage to our planet. Also, assuming fossil fuels/oil is a limited resource, does the rate of expenditure of these resources really matter? I.e., if we burn all of it in 30 years vs 300 years vs 3000 years, would the net global temperature increase be affected?

ofc it matters how quickly you burn through those resources. What an incredibly simplistic and narrow view. If I set a 20 gram tin of oil on fire in your house or 300 barrels of oil on fire in your house, does it really matter?

Secondly, global cooling will kill off way more people. We are at a peak in the Earth's temperature cycle, i.e. this is about as hot as the planet will ever get (just looking at historical temperature cycles data). Once things start going cooling down, way more of the population will be killed off. Food will be scarcer, we wont have any coal left to provide heat, people will have to aggregate to the few hot spots around the world and there will be massive starvation, overpopulation of certain areas, etc. So global warming is actually going to save a lot more lives than it costs, because it will offset the global cooling that will literally ruin most of the world (-10C global temperature). There is a reason why the more overpopulated countries in the world are mostly hot, while the most underpopulated countries are mostly cold.

Global cooling isn't what we're at risk of so this is a total straw man and attempt to distract.

Hurricanes could be an issue, but the science is still out on whether their intensity is directly caused by global warming.

No it's not LOL.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...=Evidence_in_support_of_the_climate_chang.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

Sea levels are whatever, there is plenty of land for humans to live on, and as the earth gets warmer then places in Canada, Russia, Northern Europe etc. become more livable. I.e. we will actually get more usable land (with ability to mine them for resources) than we would lose from the sea levels rising (which is mostly land that is already tapped out resource wise).

Lastly, more CO2 is actually good in some cases, because as we cut down massive amounts of forests we will need more CO2 to promote healthy vegetation.

"sea levels are whatever" lol. Right, it's not like the majority of the human race lives on coastlines or anything.... my god. How can you be this dumb?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Anti-vaxxers are usually on the right. Trump is one, as are several other Republican politicians.

I was always under the impression (before this election cycle) that GMOs and Anti Vaxxers tended to be on the left. And both beliefs were driven on Anti corporate sentiment (Big Pharma and Monsanto).

I know there are some weird Religions against medicine in general but didn't think they made up any meaningful amount of people.

But yeah the right seemed to pick up the AntiVaxx stuff a lot over the last few years and it does seem to be all of the Alex Jones who questions Sandy Hook crowd.

 

[mS_?]

Anti-vaxxers are usually on the right. Trump is one, as are several other Republican politicians.

Do you have a source for this? I remember seeing a map not too long ago that had outbreaks of diseases that had reappeared due to there being less use of vaccines and the outbreaks tended to be clustered on the west coast and the northeast with practically none in the the traditionally red states. Clearly this doesn't mean that it's all liberals in those states not getting vaccines since it could simply be the republicans in those states, but it seems kind of odd that they are happening at a high rate in places like Califnornia, Oregon, and New York but much less in places like Texas and Alabama.

 

[Scheme]

Unfortunately the data and experts do not support your claim here.

Most scientists and experts actually do not have a strong stance on how much humanity will be affected by anthropogenic global warming. Most people who have a strong stance on global warming are exhibiting a Dunning-Kruger effect

ofc it matters how quickly you burn through those resources. What an incredibly simplistic and narrow view. If I set a 20 gram tin of oil on fire in your house or 300 barrels of oil on fire in your house, does it really matter?

Extremely weak analogy and false equivalency. If you are going to burn the same amount of coal overall, does it matter if you burn 100 kilotons of coal in a year, or 10 kilotons of coal in 10 years?

Global cooling isn't what we're at risk of so this is a total straw man and attempt to distract.

If you deny the reality of global cooling then you are denying the very same science you claim to support. The earth will start cooling, pretty soon in fact. Once that starts happening that will be a way bigger threat than global warming.

No it's not LOL.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30843744/Elsner2006.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1512503314&Signature=zeuqqxVVK1IIwVaRYpTK+jUmRKQ=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Evidence_in_support_of_the_climate_chang.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

The first article clearly states in the title that it is a hypothesis.
The second article doesn't link anthropogenic global warming with anything. In fact, it seems to disprove it, as that graph should be a steadily growing function rather than one that is jolting up and down. Also it is quite misleading, as the average number of named storms starts at 8, instead of 0. Also, nothing from the data seems to suggest that the past decade or so of storms is nothing more than an outlier.

"sea levels are whatever" lol. Right, it's not like the majority of the human race lives on coastlines or anything.... my god. How can you be this dumb?

In the long run, then yes it means nothing. In the short run, people wont really notice it's effects, because it isn't happening fast enough.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Most scientists and experts actually do not have a strong stance on how much humanity will be affected by anthropogenic global warming. Most people who have a strong stance on global warming are exhibiting a Dunning-Kruger effect

It's funny that you mention the Dunning-Kruger effect and then go on to state

The first article clearly states in the title that it is a hypothesis.

Showing me that you don't even know what a hypothesis is, which is something that has been observed to be true. LOL REKT

Extremely weak analogy and false equivalency. If you are going to burn the same amount of coal overall, does it matter if you burn 100 kilotons of coal in a year, or 10 kilotons of coal in 10 years?

Yes. You are clearly not even aware that the natural environment has the capability to absorb a certain amount of carbon and mitigate the resulting damage. If the climate can absorb X amount of carbon/per year with little to no ill effects, then releasing an amount of carbon that is >X obviously leads to damage and ill effects. DUHHHHHHHH

If you deny the reality of global cooling then you are denying the very same science you claim to support. The earth will start cooling, pretty soon in fact. Once that starts happening that will be a way bigger threat than global warming.

Literally no one is saying this. Stop getting your science reading from Infowars kiddo.

The second article doesn't link anthropogenic global warming with anything. In fact, it seems to disprove it, as that graph should be a steadily growing function rather than one that is jolting up and down. Also it is quite misleading, as the average number of named storms starts at 8, instead of 0. Also, nothing from the data seems to suggest that the past decade or so of storms is nothing more than an outlier.

Except that literally the opposite is true, and the vast majority of data has asserted that the increase in violent weather/storms is a result of climate change.

In the long run, then yes it means nothing. In the short run, people wont really notice it's effects, because it isn't happening fast enough.

 

[Scheme]

It's funny that you mention the Dunning-Kruger effect and then go on to state

Showing me that you don't even know what a hypothesis is, which is something that has been observed to be true. LOL REKT

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Please look up the definition of words before attempting to correct people on them.

Yes. You are clearly not even aware that the natural environment has the capability to absorb a certain amount of carbon and mitigate the resulting damage. If the climate can absorb X amount of carbon/per year with little to no ill effects, then releasing an amount of carbon that is >X obviously leads to damage and ill effects. DUHHHHHHHH

Yes, and it will be able to mitigate a one-time large amount as well. The earth is a complex system that constantly regulates itself in many ways. To assume that we are doing 'permanent' damage is ridiculous. And is there any proof that amortizing carbon expenditure across a millenium will be any better than across a century?

Literally no one is saying this. Stop getting your science reading from Infowars kiddo.

That's my point. No one is talking about actual dangers to society (garbage in the ocean, deforestation, global cooling), but rather focus on global warming because they have this cinema-induced visual of the earth after global warming.

Except that literally the opposite is true, and the vast majority of data has asserted that the increase in violent weather/storms is a result of climate change.

Feel free to post this.

Resorting to insults, the easiest way to know that someone has lost an argument.

 

[SaiWa]

GMO's and vaccines being unsafe are liberal beliefs that contradict science, usually conservatives don't fall for these.

The ones I know who believe or want to believe are either Deeply religious Christians and/or uneducated right leaning people...

Just sayin’...

 

[Der Eisbär]

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Please look up the definition of words before attempting to correct people on them.


Yes, and it will be able to mitigate a one-time large amount as well. The earth is a complex system that constantly regulates itself in many ways. To assume that we are doing 'permanent' damage is ridiculous. And is there any proof that amortizing carbon expenditure across a millenium will be any better than across a century?


That's my point. No one is talking about actual dangers to society (garbage in the ocean, deforestation, global cooling), but rather focus on global warming because they have this cinema-induced visual of the earth after global warming.



Feel free to post this.


Resorting to insults, the easiest way to know that someone has lost an argument.

Sorry but that's not what hypothesis means in the strict scientific context. That's what the word means in a general context between people. Done responding to you. You don't care about logic or supporting evidence. You've been brainwashed and there's nothing anyone can do to save you.

 

[Trotsky]

GMO's and vaccines being unsafe are liberal beliefs that contradict science, usually conservatives don't fall for these.

Yeah, this is false.

Wherever it started, anti-vax is now firmly overrepresented on the political right. Hell, at least three GOP primary candidates were openly anti-vaccination in some capacity (Trump, Carson, Fiorina).

I have no idea about the anti-GMO crowd, but since so much of it is based in corporate distrust, I would predict that you're right and it's mostly a left-leaning belief.

 

[Scheme]

Sorry but that's not what hypothesis means in the strict scientific context. That's what the word means in a general context between people. Done responding to you. You don't care about logic or supporting evidence. You've been brainwashed and there's nothing anyone can do to save you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+scientific+hypothesis

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you have a source for this?

It's not a huge split, but here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/

http://prospect.org/article/vaccine-fear-mongers-are-wrong-theyre-not-ideological

Digging deeper, there are some unusual splits. Young people are much more likely to be anti-vaxxers, but Republicans are still more likely than Democrats to be, despite young people skewing left. Other studies show extremists are more likely to be anti-vaxxers than moderates. Anyway, for the population, seems like a pretty even split with slightly more right-leaners being AVs, but for politicians, it seems (based on presidential debates and candidates, at least) right-leaners are vastly more likely to express AV views. Again, I think it goes back to the different relationships between the bases and the MSM and academia.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, this is false.

Wherever it started, anti-vax is now firmly overrepresented on the political right. Hell, at least three GOP primary candidates were openly anti-vaccination in some capacity (Trump, Carson, Fiorina).

Paul and Carson, too, right?

 

[Trotsky]

Paul and Carson, too, right?

Haha, I said Carson.

Did Paul? Jeez, his self-anointed status as the voice of rationality in the GOP has never been more impeachable.

 

[HIMBOB]

I feel there is some real difference between a guy like myself and a hermaphrodite who just falls into the male side of whatever unnamed test ts wishes to use to determine gender.


And of course many lefties don't think transgender people are a big issue.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

I know what you’re going for, but don’t really get the poll.

Some left wingers deny science regarding gender.
Some right wingers (likely more) deny science regarding environment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Haha, I said Carson.

Did Paul? Jeez, his self-anointed status as the voice of rationality in the GOP has never been more impeachable.

D'oh. Missed it. Yeah, he's not that rational and pretty dim.

I know what you’re going for, but don’t really get the poll.

Some left wingers deny science regarding gender.
Some right wingers (likely more) deny science regarding environment.

Left-wingers don't deny science regarding gender. That's a misstatement of the argument. It's not like people are arguing about biological sex.

 

[waiguoren]

You can add: Regressive tax changes pay for themselves.

Does anyone actually believe that income tax cuts (at current levels) pay for themselves? Seems like the kind of thing Krugman heard Laffer say 30 years ago and just can't let go.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Does anyone actually believe that income tax cuts (at current levels) pay for themselves? Seems like the kind of thing Krugman heard Laffer say 30 years ago and just can't let go.

That's required dogma in the GOP these days. Even Collins believes it (and, yes, I think she's sincere when she says that).

 

[waiguoren]

That's required dogma in the GOP these days. Even Collins believes it (and, yes, I think she's sincere when she says that).

Collins: “If you take the CBO’s formula and apply it, just four-tenths of one percent increase in the GDP generates revenues of a trillion dollars. ... So I think if we can stimulate the economy, create more jobs, that does generate more revenue.”

She is correct. She certainly did not say "tax cuts pay for themselves". Dynamic scoring is the CBO standard.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Sorry but that's not what hypothesis means in the strict scientific context. That's what the word means in a general context between people. Done responding to you. You don't care about logic or supporting evidence. You've been brainwashed and there's nothing anyone can do to save you.

No.

That's exactly what it means in scientific context.

You are confusing the word theory for hypothesis.