5 ms·

Give money to Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents, right now. If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republic

Give money to Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents, right now. If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republicans being anti-science. You don't have to be a committed lifelong Democrat to see that the current Republican party is fighting climate change efforts at every turn and needs to be displaced in order for political progress on the issue to happen.

xupybd 8y ago
Maybe trying to win over republicans would be better? The culture wars don’t help this issue.
- cthulha 8y ago
  What would win over republicans? I mean, if the survival of human civilisation isn't enough, what can you propose?
  - roryisok 8y ago
    Republicans (and the equivalent rich conservatives in other countries) believe that climate change is happening anyway, and that anyone who doesn't try to make money off it is an idiot. They don't buy the survival of the human civilization bit - they think it'll affect only poor people, and that the rich will be safe. And honestly, they're right, at least for what we'll see in their lifetimes. Poor people are going to die in their millions in the coming decades, and rather than seeing themselves as the cause of this they see themselves as protecting themselves and their friends and families against it by insulating themselves with money. That's my theory anyway.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    Well there is a lot of false information out there about climate change and it's probable influence on the planet. Things have gotten out of hand with how polarised this issue is. Many people on the right don't believe in climate change. A little of this is because the time scales were off in some early predictions such as An Inconvenient Truth. This was a good wake up call to many but it also exaggerates the rate of change to the point that many of the predictions should have already had massive negative impacts. This leads people to think they've been lied to. Screaming at them and telling them they're ignorant climate change deniers does little to encourage this. To think they don't care about the survival of the human race is not accurate. They just don't think it's at risk. IMHO the truth without the us verses them stuff is the key. I think 13 Misconceptions About Global Warming by Veritasium on YouTube is a perfect example of this. Yes it's easy to get mad at people when the fate of the world is on the line but that's not as productive as trying to understand them and reaching out to them.
    - jogjayr 8y ago
      This seems a bit like the Y2K problem. Even if we collectively get our sh*t together and manage to avert the worst effects of the crisis, there are always going to be people who will wonder what all the fuss was about. And conspiracy theorists will have fodder for the next 50 years.
    - xupybd 8y ago
      jogjayr, you are probably right. But if enough of the voting public can be convinced they might be able to help effect change.
  - mynameishere 8y ago
    if the survival of human civilisation isn't enough, what can you propose Tell them the magic elves demand doing your bidding? Because both things are on the same level of rationality? Civilization, as such, is in no danger. ... To OP: The problem will solve itself if the population of the world goes down enough, whether naturally or through some actual catastrophe. Indeed most of the world's birth rate is low enough that we are well on the way of a solution. Look up which parts of the world still have massive population growth and then see how many liberals you can get on board with trying to reduce that. Good luck.
    - yread 8y ago
      i hope population of the world goes down a lot in your region in particular
  - jlawson 8y ago
    Stop crying wolf (about this issue at least) for a start. 1. Guardian: "President Obama has four years to save the Earth" (2009) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hans... Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added. 2. The Independent: "Snowfalls are now a thing of the past" (2000) According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-ru... You can read more about the endlessly repeated warnings about "tipping points" that never come in this fairly partisan but well-researched blog article: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/the-ever-receding-climate-goalpost-ipcc-and-al-gore-12-years-to-save-the-planet-again/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/the-ever-receding-cli...
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      Regardless of the end times arriving for President Obama, he surely had as much meaningful data available as we do now regarding climate....and what did he do? Eventually we will have a Democrat President...get ready for a deafening wave of silence when that President does as little or maybe even less than our current one. Rest assured if that President is elected during a recession, putting people to work will override climate concerns.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Fox News is the a major barrier to that happening. There are those on the right that believe in climate change and think that we need to take action but they are vastly underrepresented on Fox. With that being the case most Republican voters will believe that its a worldwide leftist conspiracy and few Republican politicians will dare defy this orthodoxy. That's why we have Republican congressional leaders saying things like people can't change the climate only God can (Inhofe), that sea level rise is caused by rocks falling into the ocean, and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of more people exhaling. Short of one of Murdoch's children changing the Fox line, only losing elections will change this behavior.
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Welcome to HN, where we switch from damning Google for supporting censorship at home or in the PRC...to suggesting that banning a TV network is a precondition for saving the world.
    - thinkcontext 8y ago
      Nowhere did I suggest banning. I said it was a barrier to change because it ill informs its viewers.
  - soundwave106 8y ago
    The issue here is that this more or less blames the messenger and not what I see as the root cause. For a long time (1980s-2000s for sure), major fossil fuel companies and other extraction industries -- famously ExxonMobil and Koch Industries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...), but quite a bit of others as well, have spent a lot of time funding and backing climate change denialism. The extraction industries tended to align to the Republican side, so these scientifically unsound opinions have tended to trickle up through conservative think tanks (eg Heartland Institute) and eventually down to the populist outlets (like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the like). It does seem like that some of the oil companies are kind of weakly coming around to the fact that climate change is not something you can simply misinformation away. Maybe the lawsuits against extraction companies (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/can-climate-litigation-save-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/can-clim...) are helping here. Regardless, it is not nearly enough to me at the moment. This is the pipeline that needs to be shut off in order for the message to be clearer on the right wing side in America. Unfortunately, the concept of climate change denial has taken hold on the "conspiracy theory" side of American politic, so the concept is going to be floating around out there for a while (there are 18th century conspiracy theories still active after all). But what I'd hope to see if the extraction industry misinformation stops is that the more rational side of conservative American politics realize that this is a problem. Unlike most of Europe, it is difficult to think of many conservative politicians and personalities in the United States who are not denialists. (Arnold Schwarzenegger's one of the few I can think of immediately that is strongly convinced that climate change is a huge problem.)
claydavisss 8y ago
California is majority-run by Democrats with a Democrat Governor who isn't seeking re-election (so he can do whatever he wants)... When asked if he would stop offshore drilling, Jerry Brown responded that he refused to put that many people out of work. This is in a state where Democrats have effectively no opposition The idea the Democrats are even one iota different on climate is ridiculous and dangerous. If Democrats won't act when they have majorities, a sympathetic electorate and no opposition, when will they act? Please show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where a Democrat willingly sacrificed REAL economic gain to achieve a climate goal...and before you mention solar, wind or carbon credits, keep in mind the US only engaged these policies when it was economically feasible to do so. Show me where a Democratic put a voter out of work to save a polar bear. By the way if you look at where US wind assets are, it's primarily "red" states Shall we mention All Gore? Asks me to live in a tent while living in a 12k sq ft mansion and traveling on a private jet.. Lastly, all of the evidence on climate we have now was available to Obama...what did he do? People act like it has been decades since a Democrat lived in the White House. Where was the indignation three years ago? I expect this comment to just be downvoted without reply...
- jonstewart 8y ago
  I like how you've qualified your demand, i.e., "show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where a Democrat willingly sacrificed REAL economic gain to achieve a climate goal". My Magic 8 ball predicts you'll argue any cited examples don't show REAL sacrifice. http://environment.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/california-cafe-standards-energy-policy-conservation-act/ http://environment.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/california-cafe-s... https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/california-renewable-energy-trump-brown-813660 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/california-renewab... I'll punt it back to you. Can you please show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where the Republican Congress did _anything_ positive regarding climate change? Also, I won't claim (and didn't) that electing a Democratic majority is sufficient to address climate change. It's just necessary, because only when Republicans realize that they'll continue to lose on climate change that we'll make real bipartisan progress.
- mturmon 8y ago
  This is a bullshit comment. For more on what Governor Brown has done, please see: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/jerry-brown-california-trump-climate-change/570046/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/jerry-b... For some examples of Trump efforts to roll back GHG limits of the Obama Administration, see: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092018/methane-flaring-rules-oil-gas-industry-climate-change-obama-trump-epa-rollback https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092018/methane-flaring-... I mean, the man does not even seem to believe that climate is changing. It is not necessary to demonstrate that someone was put out of a job to do any of this.
lolsal 8y ago
> If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republicans being anti-science. I am conservative and tend to lean-republican. I am not anti-science. Please stop generalizing.
- mariojv 8y ago
  I'm not saying you personally are anti-science, but Gallup surveys in 2018 point to 35% of Republicans believing that global warming is caused by human activities vs. 89% of Democrats. [0] It's difficult to attribute something as vague as pro or anti science to a large group of people. I wouldn't want to get into that flame war on HN. However, OP has a point that Democrats are more likely to be concerned about the real impact of climate change. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-s...
- jonstewart 8y ago
  I should definitely have specified that I mean Republican elected officials. With them, I will stop generalizing when this stops generally being true. Can you point to Congressional Republicans, House or Senate, who've voted for positive legislation related to climate change and environmental protection? Have you written to your representatives encouraging them to vote as such (and in other pro-science ways)?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

xupybd 8y ago

Maybe trying to win over republicans would be better? The culture wars don’t help this issue.

cthulha 8y ago
What would win over republicans? I mean, if the survival of human civilisation isn't enough, what can you propose?
- roryisok 8y ago
  Republicans (and the equivalent rich conservatives in other countries) believe that climate change is happening anyway, and that anyone who doesn't try to make money off it is an idiot. They don't buy the survival of the human civilization bit - they think it'll affect only poor people, and that the rich will be safe. And honestly, they're right, at least for what we'll see in their lifetimes. Poor people are going to die in their millions in the coming decades, and rather than seeing themselves as the cause of this they see themselves as protecting themselves and their friends and families against it by insulating themselves with money. That's my theory anyway.
- xupybd 8y ago
  Well there is a lot of false information out there about climate change and it's probable influence on the planet. Things have gotten out of hand with how polarised this issue is. Many people on the right don't believe in climate change. A little of this is because the time scales were off in some early predictions such as An Inconvenient Truth. This was a good wake up call to many but it also exaggerates the rate of change to the point that many of the predictions should have already had massive negative impacts. This leads people to think they've been lied to. Screaming at them and telling them they're ignorant climate change deniers does little to encourage this. To think they don't care about the survival of the human race is not accurate. They just don't think it's at risk. IMHO the truth without the us verses them stuff is the key. I think 13 Misconceptions About Global Warming by Veritasium on YouTube is a perfect example of this. Yes it's easy to get mad at people when the fate of the world is on the line but that's not as productive as trying to understand them and reaching out to them.
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    This seems a bit like the Y2K problem. Even if we collectively get our sh*t together and manage to avert the worst effects of the crisis, there are always going to be people who will wonder what all the fuss was about. And conspiracy theorists will have fodder for the next 50 years.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    jogjayr, you are probably right. But if enough of the voting public can be convinced they might be able to help effect change.
- mynameishere 8y ago
  if the survival of human civilisation isn't enough, what can you propose Tell them the magic elves demand doing your bidding? Because both things are on the same level of rationality? Civilization, as such, is in no danger. ... To OP: The problem will solve itself if the population of the world goes down enough, whether naturally or through some actual catastrophe. Indeed most of the world's birth rate is low enough that we are well on the way of a solution. Look up which parts of the world still have massive population growth and then see how many liberals you can get on board with trying to reduce that. Good luck.
  - yread 8y ago
    i hope population of the world goes down a lot in your region in particular
- jlawson 8y ago
  Stop crying wolf (about this issue at least) for a start. 1. Guardian: "President Obama has four years to save the Earth" (2009) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hans... Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added. 2. The Independent: "Snowfalls are now a thing of the past" (2000) According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-ru... You can read more about the endlessly repeated warnings about "tipping points" that never come in this fairly partisan but well-researched blog article: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/the-ever-receding-climate-goalpost-ipcc-and-al-gore-12-years-to-save-the-planet-again/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/the-ever-receding-cli...
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Regardless of the end times arriving for President Obama, he surely had as much meaningful data available as we do now regarding climate....and what did he do? Eventually we will have a Democrat President...get ready for a deafening wave of silence when that President does as little or maybe even less than our current one. Rest assured if that President is elected during a recession, putting people to work will override climate concerns.
thinkcontext 8y ago
Fox News is the a major barrier to that happening. There are those on the right that believe in climate change and think that we need to take action but they are vastly underrepresented on Fox. With that being the case most Republican voters will believe that its a worldwide leftist conspiracy and few Republican politicians will dare defy this orthodoxy. That's why we have Republican congressional leaders saying things like people can't change the climate only God can (Inhofe), that sea level rise is caused by rocks falling into the ocean, and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of more people exhaling. Short of one of Murdoch's children changing the Fox line, only losing elections will change this behavior.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Welcome to HN, where we switch from damning Google for supporting censorship at home or in the PRC...to suggesting that banning a TV network is a precondition for saving the world.
  - thinkcontext 8y ago
    Nowhere did I suggest banning. I said it was a barrier to change because it ill informs its viewers.
- soundwave106 8y ago
  The issue here is that this more or less blames the messenger and not what I see as the root cause. For a long time (1980s-2000s for sure), major fossil fuel companies and other extraction industries -- famously ExxonMobil and Koch Industries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...), but quite a bit of others as well, have spent a lot of time funding and backing climate change denialism. The extraction industries tended to align to the Republican side, so these scientifically unsound opinions have tended to trickle up through conservative think tanks (eg Heartland Institute) and eventually down to the populist outlets (like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the like). It does seem like that some of the oil companies are kind of weakly coming around to the fact that climate change is not something you can simply misinformation away. Maybe the lawsuits against extraction companies (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/can-climate-litigation-save-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/can-clim...) are helping here. Regardless, it is not nearly enough to me at the moment. This is the pipeline that needs to be shut off in order for the message to be clearer on the right wing side in America. Unfortunately, the concept of climate change denial has taken hold on the "conspiracy theory" side of American politic, so the concept is going to be floating around out there for a while (there are 18th century conspiracy theories still active after all). But what I'd hope to see if the extraction industry misinformation stops is that the more rational side of conservative American politics realize that this is a problem. Unlike most of Europe, it is difficult to think of many conservative politicians and personalities in the United States who are not denialists. (Arnold Schwarzenegger's one of the few I can think of immediately that is strongly convinced that climate change is a huge problem.)

claydavisss 8y ago

California is majority-run by Democrats with a Democrat Governor who isn't seeking re-election (so he can do whatever he wants)... When asked if he would stop offshore drilling, Jerry Brown responded that he refused to put that many people out of work. This is in a state where Democrats have effectively no opposition The idea the Democrats are even one iota different on climate is ridiculous and dangerous. If Democrats won't act when they have majorities, a sympathetic electorate and no opposition, when will they act? Please show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where a Democrat willingly sacrificed REAL economic gain to achieve a climate goal...and before you mention solar, wind or carbon credits, keep in mind the US only engaged these policies when it was economically feasible to do so. Show me where a Democratic put a voter out of work to save a polar bear. By the way if you look at where US wind assets are, it's primarily "red" states Shall we mention All Gore? Asks me to live in a tent while living in a 12k sq ft mansion and traveling on a private jet.. Lastly, all of the evidence on climate we have now was available to Obama...what did he do? People act like it has been decades since a Democrat lived in the White House. Where was the indignation three years ago? I expect this comment to just be downvoted without reply...

jonstewart 8y ago
I like how you've qualified your demand, i.e., "show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where a Democrat willingly sacrificed REAL economic gain to achieve a climate goal". My Magic 8 ball predicts you'll argue any cited examples don't show REAL sacrifice. http://environment.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/california-cafe-standards-energy-policy-conservation-act/ http://environment.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/california-cafe-s... https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/california-renewable-energy-trump-brown-813660 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/california-renewab... I'll punt it back to you. Can you please show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where the Republican Congress did _anything_ positive regarding climate change? Also, I won't claim (and didn't) that electing a Democratic majority is sufficient to address climate change. It's just necessary, because only when Republicans realize that they'll continue to lose on climate change that we'll make real bipartisan progress.
mturmon 8y ago
This is a bullshit comment. For more on what Governor Brown has done, please see: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/jerry-brown-california-trump-climate-change/570046/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/jerry-b... For some examples of Trump efforts to roll back GHG limits of the Obama Administration, see: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092018/methane-flaring-rules-oil-gas-industry-climate-change-obama-trump-epa-rollback https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092018/methane-flaring-... I mean, the man does not even seem to believe that climate is changing. It is not necessary to demonstrate that someone was put out of a job to do any of this.

lolsal 8y ago

> If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republicans being anti-science. I am conservative and tend to lean-republican. I am not anti-science. Please stop generalizing.

mariojv 8y ago
I'm not saying you personally are anti-science, but Gallup surveys in 2018 point to 35% of Republicans believing that global warming is caused by human activities vs. 89% of Democrats. [0] It's difficult to attribute something as vague as pro or anti science to a large group of people. I wouldn't want to get into that flame war on HN. However, OP has a point that Democrats are more likely to be concerned about the real impact of climate change. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-s...
jonstewart 8y ago
I should definitely have specified that I mean Republican elected officials. With them, I will stop generalizing when this stops generally being true. Can you point to Congressional Republicans, House or Senate, who've voted for positive legislation related to climate change and environmental protection? Have you written to your representatives encouraging them to vote as such (and in other pro-science ways)?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]