7 ms·

> GOP is the party of creationists and climate deniers... how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and commun

> GOP is the party of creationists and climate deniers... how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and communists"? they're both bold assertions on a large group of people that are unlikely to be true for the majority... to be honest it just sounds smug

sandworm101 10y ago
Except that you do not see democrats stumping about the benefits of communism. You do see GOP candidates openly denying climate change and denouncing Darwinism as a left-wing plot. One has decided to become more extreme than the other.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Climate change? What does that mean? It used to be global warming but the facts were so blatantly unsupportive that the sly shift to 'climate change' was adopted. Now it's a mantra for unthinking people. But it works because heads I win, tails you lose. The climate is always changing. Temperature changes are slight and hedged with ifs and buts. Now if you mean that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has increased from the pre-industrial levels of around 270 parts per million to 400 parts per million today then I'm with you. Recalling that life on earth would be impossible were the level to reduce to less than around 120 ppm, let's get this into perspective. Meanwhile Arctic Greenland is indeed turning green (NASA study). https://youtu.be/Yi8SFOJffFA https://youtu.be/Yi8SFOJffFA while the temperature in that area has remained unchanged over the past 16 years prior to this year's El Nino. Anyway, I'm sure that the greening of the Arctic and of many places elsewhere as evidenced by satellite imagery is a disastrous phenomenon we should discourage. “An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.". An observation probably invented by some imaginative climate denier? As Judith Curry has said: "Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100...".
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    >> ... is a disastrous phenomenon we should discourage. Yes. Google methane and permafrost melting.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
evgen 10y ago
Perhaps it is because state and national GOP party platforms specifically call out support for creationism and the denial of man-made climate change while no Democratic platform statements call for the introduction of socialism or communism? There is a difference between being right and being smug.
arjun1296 10y ago
I have to second this. Because, sometimes people would want to generalize everything with only small amount of data.
antisthenes 10y ago
> how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and communists"? Because socialists and communists does not actually carry the negative connotations you ascribe it, while creationists and climate deniers does. One is a valid policy stance, while the other is just flat out rejection of reality.
- gallonofmilk 10y ago
  > Because socialists and communists does not actually carry the negative connotations you ascribe it Tell that to North Korea, Venezuela, China, the Soviet Union, etc etc Your statement is purely subjective which was my original point that classifying an entire group based on what a fraction of that group says isn't really valid. In the US we only have two major political parties so chances are people will either fall into one or the other based on various factors and influences including but not limited to education.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

sandworm101 10y ago

Except that you do not see democrats stumping about the benefits of communism. You do see GOP candidates openly denying climate change and denouncing Darwinism as a left-wing plot. One has decided to become more extreme than the other.

vixen99 10y ago
Climate change? What does that mean? It used to be global warming but the facts were so blatantly unsupportive that the sly shift to 'climate change' was adopted. Now it's a mantra for unthinking people. But it works because heads I win, tails you lose. The climate is always changing. Temperature changes are slight and hedged with ifs and buts. Now if you mean that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has increased from the pre-industrial levels of around 270 parts per million to 400 parts per million today then I'm with you. Recalling that life on earth would be impossible were the level to reduce to less than around 120 ppm, let's get this into perspective. Meanwhile Arctic Greenland is indeed turning green (NASA study). https://youtu.be/Yi8SFOJffFA https://youtu.be/Yi8SFOJffFA while the temperature in that area has remained unchanged over the past 16 years prior to this year's El Nino. Anyway, I'm sure that the greening of the Arctic and of many places elsewhere as evidenced by satellite imagery is a disastrous phenomenon we should discourage. “An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.". An observation probably invented by some imaginative climate denier? As Judith Curry has said: "Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100...".
- sandworm101 10y ago
  >> ... is a disastrous phenomenon we should discourage. Yes. Google methane and permafrost melting.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

evgen 10y ago

Perhaps it is because state and national GOP party platforms specifically call out support for creationism and the denial of man-made climate change while no Democratic platform statements call for the introduction of socialism or communism? There is a difference between being right and being smug.

arjun1296 10y ago

I have to second this. Because, sometimes people would want to generalize everything with only small amount of data.

antisthenes 10y ago

> how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and communists"? Because socialists and communists does not actually carry the negative connotations you ascribe it, while creationists and climate deniers does. One is a valid policy stance, while the other is just flat out rejection of reality.

gallonofmilk 10y ago
> Because socialists and communists does not actually carry the negative connotations you ascribe it Tell that to North Korea, Venezuela, China, the Soviet Union, etc etc Your statement is purely subjective which was my original point that classifying an entire group based on what a fraction of that group says isn't really valid. In the US we only have two major political parties so chances are people will either fall into one or the other based on various factors and influences including but not limited to education.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]