• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When did Climate Change Acceptance/Denial become a partisan issue?

My question to you, then, is what would you have us do differently?
Very Little! We (The US) are not doing much now, and should continue doing very little.
Market forces will phase out our use of oil as a fuel within a few decades, without any Government involvement.
If Our Federal Government feed compelled to do "something", They can unify the home solar grid attachment rules,
so that all the parties involved get a benefit. (They can also look into incentives to upgrade the power grid infrastructure).
 
We aren't just talking about the science but the public policy related to the science and when you look at things like what was done with second hand smoke it just becomes hard to really put a lot of stock in policy recommendations based on possible effects. Especially when we have already seen massive discrepancies in predicted temperature increases based on CO2 emissions

I wouldn't be surprised to see an article like this in 20 years about global warming

We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans - Slate

Apparently, you didnt read past the title.

Most of the article has to do with an overhyped small population study showing MI rates declined with smoking bans, but this wasnt the primary reason smoking bans have been put in place. In fact, it wasnt a reason at all, since a Surgeon Generals report stated that the evidence of secondhand smoke increasing coronary disease was insufficient.

Smoking bans were put into place for a significant health reason, risk of respiratory disease, including lung cancer, as well as concern for pregnant women and children, and prevention of adverse cardiovascular disease was a secondary, but important, consideration.


In fact, YOUR VERY ARTICLE points this out:
The 2006 Surgeon General’s Report, the most definitive treatment of the topic, estimates the lung cancer risk of chronically exposed nonsmokers at just 1.12–1.43 times that of people without frequent exposure.

Thats basically about a 25% increased risk of developing lung cancer from exposure to smoke if you are not a smoker. Sounds bad to me.

Moreover, I'll note that there seems to be a pretty significant health benefit that we have actually realized already from smoking bans.

Association between Smokefree Legislation and Hospitalizations for Cardiac, Cerebrovascular and Respiratory Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

This all, of course, discounts the major social benefit - its helped to drastically reduce the amount of smokers in the US.
 
Very Little! We (The US) are not doing much now, and should continue doing very little.

Oh, but we are doing stuff... I got a great tax break to have solar panels installed on my house... I drive a hybrid which gets me in car-pool lanes... Carpooling itself is helped in certain ways by local and state actions where I live.. Til Trump loosened the regs we were very careful about dumping coal waste in streams, which probably curtailed the usage of coal... Mileage and smog requirements on cars have been in place for a long time, to the benefit of those who inhale in LA... I assume we fine businesses that violate environmental rules regarding clean air... Attempts to deal with acid rain have improved air quality as a by-product, I suppose... There will be fits and starts and stupid rules that need to be changed, but we seem to be on the right path, Trump notwithstanding.

In short, I think government, businesses, and citizens are doing things that help... Not as much as some of our European cousins, but significant.
 
Very Little! We (The US) are not doing much now, and should continue doing very little.
Market forces will phase out our use of oil as a fuel within a few decades, without any Government involvement.

You want to wait for fuel prices to double - with no certainty when or how suddenly that will happen - rather than planning ahead and most likely achieving an energy transition without such a large peak. Where's the sense in that?
 
You want to wait for fuel prices to double - with no certainty when or how suddenly that will happen - rather than planning ahead and most likely achieving an energy transition without such a large peak. Where's the sense in that?
Allowing the market forces to work, will allow the alternatives to be the lowest cost option naturally.
People will choose the carbon neutral fuels, because they will be the lowest cost choice that still meets their needs.
The US Government has a bad history of picking (and subsiding) energy alternatives.
The market without influence, will select the best option. (People do vote with their wallets.).
 
[h=2]US Science Teachers say trash books and watch Leo instead[/h]
Check out the book for yourself :- )
The Heartland Institute sent a round of 25,000 books to science teachers across the US. Knowing Heartland, the book Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming is loaded with dangerous material — peer reviewed references, graphs with both axes, stuff like that. Because it will have been checked, cross checked and subjected to twenty years of non-stop criticism it will be packed with facts. And that’s why the Climate Religion is so terribly, awfully scared of it.
The NSTC took the extraordinary step of writing to teachers and naming all the errors they could find, which was none. In lieu of that, they said it was false information anyway because, hey, they could still spell both words.
[h=3]NSTC warns of an unprecedented attack:[/h]David L. Evans (no relation) sets out his best three reasons:
“First, scientists don’t disagree about climate change or its causes,”

“Second, labeling propaganda as science does not make it so.

  • Exactly, just what I was thinking. How long before science teachers realize that the people who are afraid to read books are the ones pushing the propaganda?
Third, science teachers are the critical bastion in the war against reason. And the special interests know it.”

  • So true. And the special interests marched right through education 30 years ago. How many science teachers know the scientific method? Aristotelian reasoning?
    • Well some still do, and they’ll find the book an excellent resource.
Right now, the NSTC needs to hear from people who do know what the scientific method is, and who can explain how empirical evidence does not come from a climate model.
Inside Climate News found Brandie Freeman, an environmental science and chemistry teacher who won a National Science Teachers Association STEM award. So apparently the best of the best. So what did she do when she was given a free science book that disagreed with the dogma? She was insulted.
Keep reading →
 
[h=2]US Science Teachers say trash books and watch Leo instead[/h]
Check out the book for yourself :- )
The Heartland Institute sent a round of 25,000 books to science teachers across the US. Knowing Heartland, the book Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming is loaded with dangerous material — peer reviewed references, graphs with both axes, stuff like that. Because it will have been checked, cross checked and subjected to twenty years of non-stop criticism it will be packed with facts. And that’s why the Climate Religion is so terribly, awfully scared of it.
The NSTC took the extraordinary step of writing to teachers and naming all the errors they could find, which was none. In lieu of that, they said it was false information anyway because, hey, they could still spell both words.
[h=3]NSTC warns of an unprecedented attack:[/h]David L. Evans (no relation) sets out his best three reasons:
“First, scientists don’t disagree about climate change or its causes,”

“Second, labeling propaganda as science does not make it so.

  • Exactly, just what I was thinking. How long before science teachers realize that the people who are afraid to read books are the ones pushing the propaganda?
Third, science teachers are the critical bastion in the war against reason. And the special interests know it.”

  • So true. And the special interests marched right through education 30 years ago. How many science teachers know the scientific method? Aristotelian reasoning?
    • Well some still do, and they’ll find the book an excellent resource.
Right now, the NSTC needs to hear from people who do know what the scientific method is, and who can explain how empirical evidence does not come from a climate model.
Inside Climate News found Brandie Freeman, an environmental science and chemistry teacher who won a National Science Teachers Association STEM award. So apparently the best of the best. So what did she do when she was given a free science book that disagreed with the dogma? She was insulted.
Keep reading →

It's like sending homeopathy books to high school health classes.

Keep pseudoscience out of the classroom.
 
Allowing the market forces to work, will allow the alternatives to be the lowest cost option naturally.
People will choose the carbon neutral fuels, because they will be the lowest cost choice that still meets their needs.
The US Government has a bad history of picking (and subsiding) energy alternatives.
The market without influence, will select the best option. (People do vote with their wallets.).

Natural is always better, isn't it? ;)

One of the biggest and best things that can be done to keep energy prices lower is to reduce demand, and that is primarily a government option: Through public awareness campaigns, through vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, through city planning, bicycle lanes, mass transit and carpool lanes, and if necessary potentially through taxation on the highest consumers.
 
Authoritarianism comes to mind...
 
Natural is always better, isn't it? ;)

One of the biggest and best things that can be done to keep energy prices lower is to reduce demand, and that is primarily a government option: Through public awareness campaigns, through vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, through city planning, bicycle lanes, mass transit and carpool lanes, and if necessary potentially through taxation on the highest consumers.
Better planning helps, but people will do what works best for themselves.
Most cities are building up the infrastructure you are talking about, but in many places it is poorly done.
My city, Houston, Tx for example is building a very expensive train system, That is on grade!!!!
The mix the car and train traffic, something that transit planners have known not to do, for a century!
Our various levels of Government tend to waste money if they get too much of it, which is why any tax
proposal would have to be carefully constructed. My concern is that once the behavior they want to discourage
goes away, they will find some way to keep the revenue source coming in.
 
Better planning helps, but people will do what works best for themselves.
Most cities are building up the infrastructure you are talking about, but in many places it is poorly done.
My city, Houston, Tx for example is building a very expensive train system, That is on grade!!!!
The mix the car and train traffic, something that transit planners have known not to do, for a century!
Our various levels of Government tend to waste money if they get too much of it, which is why any tax
proposal would have to be carefully constructed. My concern is that once the behavior they want to discourage
goes away, they will find some way to keep the revenue source coming in.

Given that urban planning (or lack of planning, in many cases), is heavily subsidized by the government in favor of greater energy use - hugely more spent on roads than public transit, suburban sprawl because of density restrictions, etc, its pretty clear that the free market is just about the crappiest way you can think of to plan for the future.
 
Given that urban planning (or lack of planning, in many cases), is heavily subsidized by the government in favor of greater energy use - hugely more spent on roads than public transit, suburban sprawl because of density restrictions, etc, its pretty clear that the free market is just about the crappiest way you can think of to plan for the future.
You are entitled to your opinion!
 
Back
Top Bottom