Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change 458
mdsolar points out this report in the NY Times:
An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future. In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming.
Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.
Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.
"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes? I'm willing to sacrifice all others to fix it.
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:5, Insightful)
lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically it's already federal law, but the states are allowed to not enforce depending on their position with the EPA. That should change.
Re: (Score:2)
If a vehicle is in poor repair then it shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
Well are YOU going to pay for them to get a new car? Most people with junkers on the road don't have them for style points. It's because they have just enough money so that they aren't using that car as their primary residence.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).
This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.
But thanks for playing [simplypsychology.org].
Re: (Score:3)
The people outside the special economic zone that is the bay area are the real America,
Safe the "real America" bullshit. It didn't work for Sarah Palin, it sure as hell won't work for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If a vehicle is on the road in poor repair, there's a decent chance it's because the owner can't afford to fix it and needs to get to work.
Re: (Score:3)
What is a federal law? I think you need to cite that. The feds do not have jurisdiction over most vehicles once produced and sold.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did, that would be a pretty clear cut violation of the enumerated powers of the federal governments.
At best they can set standards for new vehicles that are imported and/or sold across state lines (and do, via the NTSB) which is an enumerated power via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. However those rules have no bearing for older or second hand vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
I can still modify my car to have a fun exhaust, tune it for performance.
My cars are in good repair, but I'm not wanting to be overburdened by regulations that suck performance out of my engines and make them sound like crap.
I'm actually looking forward to soon buying a 75-76 muscle car, maybe a Trans Am....455 4-speed and with a cam replacement, and some headers and making into true dual pipes...I can get over
Re: "Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:2)
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:5, Insightful)
This is going to sound harsher than intended, but ... from younger days I already have owned a couple of Trans-Ams, Corvettes, a factory 455 cubic inch Buick GS Stage 1, 69 Camaro with a L-88 engine swap, big block El Caminos, etc, all big blocks at least 400 CID and they are all crap compared to what you can get for about $30K now in a new (or much less used) Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger. The old cars weren't that fun to drive because no matter how much power the engines made (and it wasn't as much as everyone 'remembers'), the suspensions could not put the power to the road. If you really want to enjoy a ride, go buy a 2015 Mustang GT which will outrun any old muscle car and do it with full emissions equipment, safety equipment and air conditioning. By the way, if you want 500 HP, don't try it with a Pontiac 455 -- that long stroke motor was a POS -- if you have to do it the hard way with 1960's/70's tech, go with a 427/454 Chevrolet, even then the factory race engines(427-L88 and 427-ZL1) were only making about 550 horses with open headers. Oh and those mid-70's Trans-Ams couldn't take all that much horsepower anyway -- their crappy bodies with the partial subframes twisted all up under real torque, especially the T-Top cars. I was a huge muscle car guy and went through the 70's when "government regulations" killed the muscle car, but the cars now are supercars compared to the best from back then and you don't get a lungful of lead, hydrocarbons and CO from behind them. I'm convinced that this would not be the case had the government not forced the automakers to clean up. If cars can be this good and this clean now then there is no excuse for anything else to be dirty either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive. If the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline, and if the average person used 500 gallons of gasoline in a year, everyone would receive a $500 tax rebate every year. For a poor person, that's a lot of money. And since the truly poor don't drive, they won't be the ones paying the tax in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive"
That is impossible. First off, Government always gets its cut of the pie, so there is no such thing as "revenue-neutral" (first lie). Second, all taxes are regressive, as poor people cannot avoid them as well as rich people can.
And only liberals figure that taxing something is a right of government, and the "go to" game-plan for all progressive "solutions".
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you stop reading after the first sentence?
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to use Food Stamps as evidence of liberal success, I think you have it. More people are on Food Stamps than ever before, SUCCESS!!!!
Oh, and by your version of reality, conservatives hate bears!
http://www.niagarafallsreporte... [niagarafallsreporter.com]
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't want to pay for government. They consistently enact policies and tax cuts that hamper, disrupt, and destroy the machinations of a civilized society, while shirking the responsibility to pay for government, and foisting it onto future generations.... usually all the while complaining that government doesn't work.
Increase taxes, fixing the corporate tax system, and making cuts to our massively bloated military are positions that liberals take, and conservatives hate. The problem isn't with liberals here, it's with conservatives that, once again, hate government.
As for your actual debt bullshit, which is what it is, you're citing a radical conservative who want's to do away with medicaid, medicare, and health exchanges, and replace them all with vouchers; supports requiring banks and financial institutions to all be changed so they have no liability for the financial vehicles they sell; and eliminate the entire tax structure and replace it with the most regressive form of taxation in the misnamed "fair tax" flat tax system, where the poorest people are the most heavily taxed.
What this individual does is hype the "debt they're keeping secret" by trying to get people who don't understand basic (VERY BASIC) accounting to think it's all some sort of conspiracy. It's not; he's preying on the ignorance of those he talks to, most of whom probably already hate the government, and filling their heads with bullshit. In the most basic terms, there's two types of accounting for money you'd decided to spend: as you spend it, or all of it at once when you decide to spend it. BOTH are legitimate accounting methods. In the US, we account for it as we spend it. What this guy is saying is that we should be accounting for ALL of it the second we decide to spend it.
Why we don't do it his way: As an example, in 1996 Lockheed and Boeing were given contracts to produce concepts that were the first phase of the F-35 program. That's 1.5 billion dollars. If we had to account for the total cost of the F-35 program, as in HAVE THAT MONEY IN THE BANK, we'd have needed almost a trillion dollars right from the get go. Every time that the program is re-assessed, it's cost goes up... that would mean that every time those 100's of billions it's projected cost went up, we'd have to come up with RIGHT THEN. Nothing would ever get done, nothing would ever get started, because while that project might get underway for a smaller amount every year for a decade, coming up with that entire decades cost before anything was even started, and packing it away never to be touched, would be a massive waste of resources.
If you don't think i'm right, go rent an apartment. Figure out how many years you're going to be living there, then pay ALL those monthly rental costs up front. Or how about your electric bill. Sit down, figure out how much electricity costs you this last year... now figure out how long you're going to be alive and pay the electric company for all that electricity you're gong to use in your lifetime RIGHT NOW. That is as absurd as what this Kotlikoff's schtick is.
The biggest generational theft ever to happen is the tax cuts conservatives have enacted over the last 35 years that have caused the national debt to explode.
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of blatantly show your bias whe you put the quote marks around "Hussein" there.... Also, as we can see from his actions, Obama is not a very good Liberal. Oh, he talks a lot, but he's pretty much a republican. Also, that link that YOU provided says that the tax raises that they called Broke Promise were on "if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy. " and I just don't give two shits about tanning beds, etc.
So... I think you're a political hack. :D
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without.
I agree that in the short term an economy has a limited total productive capacity.
So, if an economy is at full capacity, then, in the short term, if the economy produces more solutions to global warming then it will have to produce less of something else. But that something else could be luxury watches and designer handbags.
And it's not at all clear that absolutely all economies are at full capacity. If an economy has a bunch of scientists sitting around doing nothing because they can't find work - then pay
Re: (Score:3)
But...but...you can never run out of *other* people's money! /sarc
This smells like a desperate attempt by the MSM to try and spin away the shellacking the greenie Ds got last year.
Re: (Score:3)
lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model.
I suggest that you stand by to find out just what it costs to not do anything.
Besides, there is a whole litany of "Costs too much", from cleaning the air and rivers, to reducing pollution form cars, to gas mileage to electric cars, to wind power and solar power. All going to be too expensive.
And we have cleaner air water and land, cars that get good gas mileage and low pollution and good performance, electric cars that have decent range and can beat the crap out os most vehicles, and lately ther has bee
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So you would rather shaft all non-solar users by forcing the electric companies to not pay wholesale for solar providers (like they do when they buy power from other power companies) or pay retail and at least ask those using solar to help pay for the grid they are using to connect with. Thus raising non-solar rates.
So you would rather force everyone to pay more for a car than the savings in the fuel economy??
So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??
Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have the right to pollute more than anyone else. The government could subsidize fixing the car, or the poor could instead try out subsidized public transportation, or the government could subsidize newer, more efficient cars. We can call it Cash for Clunkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the "cash" is enough to replace the "clunker" with a reasonably new car, it's not going to work. $5K more than the clunker is worth gives you enough money to buy another clunker, and not much else....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can call it Cash for Clunkers.
That program cost the taxpayers about $4 billion and even the most ardent environmentalists weren't impressed with the results. It also didn't improve the economy in any way as car sales over that period didn't result in a higher volume of sales (it just took away sales from previous and later months and combined them into the few months that the program was active.)
It also destroyed capital, which is always economically destructive (google the broken window fallacy) and in fact provided a measurable loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
It costs the tacpayer nothing. It costs the government. The taxpayer has no influence on what the government is payin his taxes. Get a clue.
Capital is not destroyed. It only changes the owner. Get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should fix the fact that you have poor people in your country or at least that those poor people need a car (for what actually?)
Re: (Score:3)
Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power?
I think a better start would be to end NIMBY syndrome and go all nuclear. I personally live about 60 miles from the largest nuclear plant in the US, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not sure why nuclear bothers California so much that they pay Arizona a premium for our electrons to make up for their own inadequate supply...it would be considerably cheaper if they just made their own, and they could displace their coal plants in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road?
Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.
All of the measures you've listed are too insignificant to have any real effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, it's just inconsequential feel-good posturing.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road? Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.
So basically you don't see people having to sacrifice what they want, because you expect to decide for them what they should want. Anything that begins with "forcing people to do X" or "mandating X" is the antithesis of freedom. You may argue that it's in a good cause, but you can't simply redefine sacrifice to only mean sacrifice from those desires that you prefer to impose on others.
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a large percentage of baby boomers are starting to realize that they can never retire...
Re: (Score:3)
Retirees will expect more from the government because, you know, because they'
ve paid into the plan their whole working lives, with the promise they will see reasonable benefits at the end.
But fuck them for believing in a federal government and social fairness.
Great post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it funny* how people who have a preexisting belief that government regulation is bad and takes away your freedom also believe that something that seems insoluble without government action isn't real despite overwhelming evidence?
* And by funny, I mean entirely expected and unsurprising.
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, you're right, if you ignore sea surface temperatures, atmospheric temperature readings, deep ocean temperatures, or any other data. Other than that, no evidence at all.
Even if the models are flawed (they're fine except for the large error bars), and even if the hiatus were real (it's not [skepticalscience.com]), a decade isn't that long in climate terms. But those things aren't true. As they say, no useful lie ever dies, right?
You do understand these predictions aren't going to come true for 100 years or more, right? Or do you get all your science from conspiracy theorists incapable of reading scientific papers themselves?
Again, you need to stop listening to stupid people. No storm can be caused by global warming any more than an avalanche can be caused by a snowflake. They're contributors that raise the odds of these events happening.
The national highway system, the Hoover dam, landing a man on the moon, creating the internet, providing health care in any country not called The United States of America, FDIC, rescuing GM, safety improvements in the auto industry, stopping Thalidomide in the US, banning CFCs...
That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head, though. Actual research would yield a bunch more, I'm sure. The fact you clearly haven't done it says a lot about why you believe the things you do.
But I'm not sure why I'm explaining this. You're not going to listen or understand any of it, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
AGW is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Conclusions are never facts, that doesn't necessarily invalidate them. Gravity is not a fact, are you suggesting it doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:3)
There you go again, pointing out truths that environmentalists don't want to hear :)
Don't worry, after they finally admit that CO2 doesn't drive global average temperatures or climactic swings, they'll find some *other* component of energy generation (say, magnetic fields, or plain old waste heat), and they'll demonize the hell out of that because it's causing a spotted tit-fox, or marsh trout to die off.
Warming, cooling, staying the same - none of it matters when it comes to "the consensus" :)
Re: (Score:3)
Skeptical Science, really you couldn't find something from a reputable site? Those SS clowns delete posts they disagree with and edit articles after comments are posted. Even the IPCC AR5 acknowledges the discrepancies between the model projections and observed temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism.
Although you are probably right. If you ask all of the apathetic types just going along or even the true blue tree huggers to really sacrifice, you will probably get a much different answer.
That's probably why you have this whole subject wrapped in hysteria to begin with.
exactly extreme exaggeration turns some off (Score:3, Interesting)
>. A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism. ...
>. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.
Exactly. That strategy DOES get some people hyped up, but it also makes a lot of tune you out. They then miss the message that's actually potentially accurate. The other da
Re: (Score:3)
The other day I posted a bunch of examples of leading climate researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Yale making statements like "by 2010, New York City will be underwater". Well, 2010 has come and gone and NYC is still there.
And you can bet those institutions have ignored the (probably) 30-40 years of additional evidence and have not updated their projections in any way and because some guys were wrong once you can completely ignore everything that comes from whoever they happened to work for at the time in perpetuity.
Side note: A case could be made that in 2010 NYC was underwater...great recession and all...
in one case, a search and replace update (Score:3)
Oh, some of them have updated it. Not long ago the Obama administration was circulating a piece with just such predictions, after having done a SEARCH AND REPLACE update to change "2010" to "2050". I kid you not.
There is some sound research out there, but it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff because there's a lot more propaganda than there is solid science.
Try to take a breath and have a little intellectual honesty. As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to ear
Re:in one case, a search and replace update (Score:5, Insightful)
As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming"
Nice myth. The "ice age panic" was one story that made Time magazine at a time when the majority of climate research indicated a warming trend due to human cause CO2 emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... [ametsoc.org]
And about 1000 other sources if you google "1970 ice age"
I'm not going to try to convince you that AGW is a problem we should address (note I said "should be addressed", not panic over). Instead, are you afraid of something if those crazy scientists from your anecdotes get their way and the Fed institutes CO2 mitigation? Gas prices jump to $20/gallon? The government mandates CO2 trackers worn all the time? Economic disaster circa 2008?
I'll cite the elimination of lead in pretty much everything (no economic catastrophe) and the elimination of CFC's (no economic catastrophe). Also some fun facts on how we got to a point of not worrying about acid rain anymore:
"In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[22]
The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)
Right, I didn't say that, I keep saying the opposi (Score:3)
> So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)
Indeed, I've said the opposite, right here in this thread. In the thread last week I said it over and over and over, while the alarmists in the thread just couldn't hear that. To them, it has to be either believe everything you hear and panic, or complete denial. No room for thought, for considering the veracity of the claims, or considering past claims the source has made. Odd.
There are,
here are your names (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are a few names for you. Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005:
"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and
Re: (Score:3)
The UN climate panel said it would happen, the date in question has passed, and nothing like that happened. Ergo, the UN climate change panel is full of it.
They obviously got the date wrong, but that doesn't mean the day will never come.
as requested (Score:3)
> What "leading climate researchers" said this?
Here are a few examples. You can of course easily find more. Just Google for "global warming" and set it to show results from whatever time you desire. I wanted to see predictions for 2000-2015, so I Google "global warming" for resources published in 1995 or earlier.
Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United N
Re:the 60s idea of environmentalism (Score:3)
You mean as opposed to all the other decades of the 19th through 20th century's idea of "let's just slash and burn and pollute all the ecosystems on the planet with our newfound technological power, and see how that goes for our descendants, because we don't give a rat's ass?" That genius idea that we are pretty much living by today? Remember that "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".
Re: (Score:2)
Higher gasoline prices would be fine by me.
(I walk to work)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I use gas. I've called and written all of my congressmen to tell them they should raise the gas tax (not that that does any good). Now is a perfect time because if you raise it 25%, no one (aside from fox news et al) is going to notice the difference between $1.82 and $1.87 (gas tax is $0.18 right now). At the very least, index it to inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
federal gas tax is 18 cents, for the relatively few "federal" roads, that should be plenty (if they would spend the gas tax on the roads as intended instead of stealing it for other pet projects)
what I would like to know, and i am not sure where to find it is the following
total gas tax brought in last year
total spending on federal roads
I
Re: (Score:3)
when they go back up to where they were 4 months ago, i dont want a 25% increase on that.
The gas tax was still $0.18 4 months ago. In fact, it has been since 1993. If prices went back up you'd be paying something like $3.56 instead of $3.51 with my hypothetical 25% increase. If that breaks your budget, don't be one of the morons that increases the sales rate of low mileage vehicles every time the price of gasoline dips temporarily.
The reason you think the gas tax is enough is because we're not in a crisis yet. This isn't exactly what you wanted but perhaps you could google more than 2 minutes:
"
Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
How about replace income tax with a gasoline tax that costs about as much on average?
Re: replace income tax with a gasoline tax (Score:2)
That makes way too much sense. Therefore, it's political suicide. Fuggedaboudit.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be effective though, I agree with you on that. (although you'd still have to do something about coal).
Re: (Score:2)
Carry on, wayward sons/daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
most americans are idiots (Score:3)
remember, polls can be made to say whatever you want them to. Follow the money and see whos actually funding the poll to know what the desired outcome is.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is supported by the prior Slashdot post about how scientists and the general public are often at opposite sides of things. Those that took the poll need to reconcile their numbers with the numbers from the other poll that said most people don't believe in human-caused global warming. I find it hard to believe that if most people don't believe in it, they would only vote for politicians that supported it ....
Re: (Score:2)
Those that took the poll need to reconcile their numbers with the numbers from the other poll that said most people don't believe in human-caused global warming.
What other poll? Citation please.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind. I see you meant the story on the public vs. scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, though, that the polls asked different questions. One asked whether human activity was partly responsible for climate change. The other asked whether human activity was primarily responsible for it.
People support a lot of stupid things (Score:4, Interesting)
that was amusing (Score:2)
That was amusing, thanks.
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most Americans support government action on labeling food products that contain DNA. These surveys are worthless.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd love government action on labeling ALL food products that DON'T contain DNA. It'd be nice to be able to separate the ultra-refined or synthetic foods from the real thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Trace amounts of DNA fragments exist in most plant and animal oils. Table salt is DNA-free though.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think table salt is considered food.
Or how long can you live from 100kg table salt compared to 100kg grain?
Funnily the salt my room mate buys is 6million year old salt from the himalaya, nevertheless it has a 'use before' date of less than 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the Poll? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's great! (Score:2)
Now, if only they could do something about the number of people who keep voting for assholes who break campaign promises, then campaign promises to do something about climate change might actually matter.
Re: (Score:2)
That would automaitcally solve itself if most American voters would stop voting from partisan habit and against the party they least want, to actually voting for the person they do want.
nonpartisan environmental research group (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nonpartisan" means that Resources For The Future doesn't officially support the Democrat party. Everyone who works there, however, voted Green or for Obama.
IOW, it's effectively partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, it's effectively partisan.
So what? That doesn't inherently mean its wrong. Maybe you could point out flaws in their selection of republicans for their survey instead of worthless partisan speculation.
It doesn't matter what people think... (Score:4, Informative)
Politicians don't pay attention to voters. They follow the money. Koch et al who are making big bucks from fossil fuels control the politicians.
You can find similar polls on other topics... gun control, health care, education, etc. Politicians vote for the policies of their donors.
The US has the most corrupt political system... it's really fascism where the corporations and the rich control the government.
If research funded by the Koch brothers is invalid (Score:2)
Then research on the other side of the coin is invalid as well. You can't have it both ways.
Also, "New York Times study" lol.
What is "Government Action"? (Score:3)
Government Action can be anything - building seawallls and dykes, seeding the ocean with iron, mandating living in caves, resettling populations, handing out vouchers, giving contracts to lobbyists, doing nothing, adopting policies to reduce carbon emissions.
But this is never stated, which is damn annoying. Most people automatically assume the last option, which may well be the worst option, and then arguing over the details.
There is much bloviating over how much science has gone into proving AGW. But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.
Indeed. Personally I'd favor just using pigovian taxes to ensure that all costs are internalized and then using the money to fund tax credits for energy efficiency improvements. That would likely solve the majority of the problem right there.
Ideocracy (Score:3)
These show the frightening level of ignorance about science in the general US population:
http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
http://www.pewinternet.org/201... [pewinternet.org]
Depending on which study you look at, apparently only 40% - 66% of Americans even believe evolution is real. What are you guys smoking over there?
Most is a Lame Argument (Score:4, Funny)
"Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.
Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.
Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.
Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.
Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.
Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.
Stop rationalizing and get rational.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.
Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.
Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.
Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.
Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.
Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.
Stop rationalizing and get rational.
Most people wanting to speed means most people think getting somewhere faster is a good thing.
Most people wanting a burger means most people think burgers are tasty.
And most people supporting government action on climate change means most people think climate change is a real problem.
So despite your dismissal this poll (if accurate) is important.
It shifts the question from "Is Climate Change a problem?" to "What is the appropriate response to this problem?"
Now you can still argue that "nothing" is the appro
Tough on the denier (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I have altered the planet's climate. Pray I do not alter it further."
Re: (Score:2)
Good points. May I add one?
g) That anything that happens in c) is likely to be irreversible. (Just think how hard it will be to re-freeze the polar ice that currently reflects significant energy from the sun. Has anybody got any idea how to do that?)
It fascinates me that anyone would think that releasing carbon which was sequestered over the course of millions of years back into the atmosphere over the span of just a few hundred would have no effect at all on the climate - especially when said carbon (as
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that, sometime in the next 200 years, someone (not necessarily a government) will start releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect away more sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface at all. Only military action could stop something like this, as any given country or rich enough individual or group could do it.
The real question is, will there be a way to remove these aerosols once the resulting cooling (together with increased sequestration of carbon) leads to an increase in
Re: (Score:2)
As for "B", climate changes are not due to human activity alone. Climates change due to factors other than those related to humans as well, and that is a well known fact. Science is unable to accurately measure our effect due to the inability to properly apply the scientific process to prove global warming theories. Science tries to use data in the absence of process, but the period of recording is still insufficient to make much of a determination. Climate conjecturists will always try to convince you othe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What we can 'proof' is not really relevant.
Either you have common sense or not.
When Gallileo dropped his samples from the tower in Pisa, he was well aware he can not drop all kinds of combinations of materials to be certain that gravity works regardless of weight.
Would he have dropped a toddler to see if it falls slower/faster than lead, iron, stone?
I don't guess so. So according to your idea of science it is unproven if toddlers fall slower or faster or at the same rate than any other material.
I don't go i
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you are jsut an idiot.
If someone claimed 30 years ago, we already had sea level risings of meters/yards today, he was an idiot, too.
If you believed that idiot, you are a doubke idiot.
All that changes nothing to the fact that everyone below the afe of 50 who is reaching a normal age will eye witness dramatic changes (in the next 30 years).
replace ... with healthy scientific skepticism and you might convince people like me.
How should I if I start becomming sceptic, convince an idiot like you?
Facts fon'
Re:Focus all wrong though (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not opposed to reducing pollution to a level where I can safely walk outside and breath, and fish are reasonably safe to eat.
I am opposed to reducing pollution to zero and getting rid of all the modern niceties that cause it ... like this computer that I'm typing this post on and the server that is storing it.
Everything in between is up for discussion and probably has multiple supporters and detractors somewhere.
I'll wager that almost no one disagrees that reducing pollution is a good thing.
The discussion is how much are we willing to pay or give up for how big a reduction.
Re: (Score:3)
Global Warming is a theory.
First you say (in a post above) that it's an "opinion", now you've switched to "theory" - yet still spout crap that all the models have "failed" - w/o any support for your position. Apparently, you don't know what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense and/or are simply an idiot that spends way too much time drooling at, I presume, Fox News.
Re: (Score:3)
I cant believe people still believe that paying a carbon tax is going to do anything but make a few people richer and everyone else poorer.
What? Who are these few people who are going to get rich off a carbon tax?
There is no attention paid to space weather trends
There has been a lot of attention given to space weather, like solar dynamics. So far there has been no evidence that space weather is having warming effects. That doesn't mean that nobody has been looking. People have, especially in the energy industry, and so far what little evidence there is actually points in the opposite direction.
or the use of a carbon tax to fund a corporate policy boards that will act as a defacto world government with an agenda that is not friendly to individual rights.
I've heard this point made a lot- we can't reduce CO2 because that means a one-world government woul