Politics - Where Do you Stand?

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I just said that was what it reads like, not that it was actually written by Dems.  The Dems side is all touchy-feely and the GOP side is more scientific and analytical, more in your face and straight to the point.  That's bound to turn some people away - too many people can't deal with that sort of directness.

I guess the lol does not translate well. Humor is great in these threads; wish there was more.

 I would not say the GOP is scientific. In fact, they pride themselves on their denial of science, or putting it down. In fact, they won't even allow some employees to echo the words "climate warming" in government - fed, state. It's as if you say it, it might become real to them, or they might have to discuss it in real terms.

My take on these platforms is that the GOP wants state rights, the Dems are more federal. As an attorney who must deal with laws in multiple states, it makes me more valuable, but it's a PITA and inefficient. It puts us at a disadvantage in lowering our costs to business. I prefer the federal way. And in many cases, the states have given up, don't even pass their own laws, and defer to the Feds. It's possible you can't stop the federal train, but the GOP is trying. I just don't think their efforts will work in the long term.

[Fourputt]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I guess the lol does not translate well. Humor is great in these threads; wish there was more.

 I would not say the GOP is scientific. In fact, they pride themselves on their denial of science, or putting it down. In fact, they won't even allow some employees to echo the words "climate warming" in government - fed, state. It's as if you say it, it might become real to them, or they might have to discuss it in real terms.

My take on these platforms is that the GOP wants state rights, the Dems are more federal. As an attorney who must deal with laws in multiple states, it makes me more valuable, but it's a PITA and inefficient. It puts us at a disadvantage in lowering our costs to business. I prefer the federal way. And in many cases, the states have given up, don't even pass their own laws, and defer to the Feds. It's possible you can't stop the federal train, but the GOP is trying. I just don't think their efforts will work in the long term.

Come on, this is just wrong.  Science is the foundation that economic progress is built on, and that is the primary Republican platform.  The difference is that they feel that much of the research should be done in and funded by the private sector, not with millions of federal dollars paid out to discover the whichness of the why, with no practical application forthcoming.  

Republicans don't deny climate change - the geologic evidence alone would make that more than stupid.  What they dispute is the contention that human actions are as significant a contributor as the Dems would have us believe.  Proof of climate change exists throughout geological record, but the current changes are too recent and of too short duration to arrive at any scientifically significant conclusion or point to any single factor as being a primal cause.

[rkim291968]

24 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Republicans don't deny climate change - the geologic evidence alone would make that more than stupid.  What they dispute is the contention that human actions are as significant a contributor as the Dems would have us believe.  Proof of climate change exists throughout geological record, but the current changes are too recent and of too short duration to arrive at any scientifically significant conclusion or point to any single factor as being a primal cause.

They are in the very small minority against the rest of the world.   They will keep to their belief despite the overwhelming amount of scientific data as long as the change does not adversely affects them.   Trying to improve the situation costs too much money and regulations which is what many Reps don't want.  This is why in my earlier post, I generalize the Reps as "self centered."   Again, nothing wrong with that approach.  It's human nature.  

[14ledo81]

Why would "climate change" be a political issue?

I don't see how it is something that could/should be split down a political party line.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, rkim291968 said:

They are in the very small minority against the rest of the world.   They will keep to their belief despite the overwhelming amount of scientific data as long as the change does not adversely affects them.   Trying to improve the situation costs too much money and regulations which is what many Reps don't want.  This is why in my earlier post, I generalize the Reps as "self centered."   Again, nothing wrong with that approach.  It's human nature.  

 

The US isn't the only place where political correctness is epidemic.  It's PC and popular to believe that we are the cause when real scientific evidence doesn't support it.  As little as 30 years ago many of the same "experts" were saying that we were headed for another ice age.  Now suddenly it's global warming, and it must be us because they can't figure out anything else to pin it on, even though we aren't using enough additional fossil fuels over three decades to be able to say that we are anything more than a minor factor.  

I'm not saying that we can't look into measures that reduce our potential impact, but we can't go into panic mode and destroy national economies without any real justification for it.  

[pfnaas]

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Come on, this is just wrong.  Science is the foundation that economic progress is built on, and that is the primary Republican platform.  The difference is that they feel that much of the research should be done in and funded by the private sector, not with millions of federal dollars paid out to discover the whichness of the why, with no practical application forthcoming.  

Republicans don't deny climate change - the geologic evidence alone would make that more than stupid.  What they dispute is the contention that human actions are as significant a contributor as the Dems would have us believe.  Proof of climate change exists throughout geological record, but the current changes are too recent and of too short duration to arrive at any scientifically significant conclusion or point to any single factor as being a primal cause.

This is the problem that I have with your take and the claimed Republican position.  What if the pc police are right and humans are the primary cause of global warming and we fail to act quickly enough? The answer seems to me that many folks are displaced and many may die.

If we go with the Dems position and they are wrong what happens? We spend a ton of money on something that isn't needed.

Which would you prefer?

[iacas]

Just now, pfnaas said:

Which would you prefer?

Not really the topic here. This topic is about generalities, not specifics.

[acerimusdux]

2 hours ago, pfnaas said:

If we go with the Dems position and they are wrong what happens? We spend a ton of money on something that isn't needed.

Thing is, the recent IPCC report says that it's a 95-100% chance (extremely likely) that anthropogenic drivers have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since 1950.

That's not the Dems position, it's the scientific position.

[Also, there is high confidence that "about half of the anthropogenic CO2emissions between 1750 and 2011 have occurred in the last 40 years" and they also say that "the best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period"; there's no surprise here, the warming we are seeing is the warming everyone has expected now for decades.]

I think the main reason Republicans and their "think tanks" and media outlets dispute this stuff is the amount of funding they receive from polluting industries which have an economic interest in denying basic scientific facts and evidence. They like to pretend to be scientific about it, but their pseudo-scientific conclusions are mostly bought and paid for.

Maybe there are other issues on which Democrats do something similar, but I can't think of any that blatant, as far as denying the firm conclusions of an entire academic discipline.

[Dave325]

It seems throughout my life, I have been on both the Dem and Rep side. Both have some good points, and we should all try not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I know this may seem a bit more idealistic, but have the idea of "parties" run its course... Like the buggy whip? I somehow think it's time to bind together as Americans and do what's right. 

[dkolo]

On 12/24/2015 at 3:36 PM, Fourputt said:

The US isn't the only place where political correctness is epidemic.  It's PC and popular to believe that we are the cause when real scientific evidence doesn't support it.  As little as 30 years ago many of the same "experts" were saying that we were headed for another ice age.  Now suddenly it's global warming, and it must be us because they can't figure out anything else to pin it on, even though we aren't using enough additional fossil fuels over three decades to be able to say that we are anything more than a minor factor.  

I'm not saying that we can't look into measures that reduce our potential impact, but we can't go into panic mode and destroy national economies without any real justification for it.  

Please drop the "they thought we were going to have an ice age, now they think it's getting hotter" trope. It's tired and false, and does everyone a disservice by invalidly calling into question good research. A small subset of scientists, who didn't recognize that this cooling trend was being caused by a temporary rise in the of aerosols, made this claim, even though it didn't make sense facially. Like, just because things got cooler, temps were still above the baseline, so why would they jump to "ice age!" instead of "it won't be as warm!"? The majority of scientific literature recognized that aerosols didn't stick around long in the atmosphere, we were already shifting away from them, and that carbon dioxide levels continued to rise, and so the majority of the scientific literature at the time correctly maintained that the warming trend would return. So there was nothing ever approaching a consensus on global cooling. The media ran with it because it was exactly the kind of story the media likes. It would be akin to looking back at today from 40 years in the future and saying "Back in the 2000s, scientists thought vaccines caused autism, and now they they're telling us they prevent diseases." Don't extrapolate vocal subsets of to represent the majority. It's not "suddenly" support for global warming in science when that theory has been proposed over a century ago and has had wide support for a majority of that time.

[Pendragon]

It's clearly a flawed poll...I didn't care for the the way some of the positions are written...but I came up with a 7. If you'd asked me ahead of time what I thought my score would be, I'd have probably said 7. Go figure. 

[JonMA1]

On December 24, 2015 at 5:42 PM, pfnaas said:

This is the problem that I have with your take and the claimed Republican position.  What if the pc police are right and humans are the primary cause of global warming and we fail to act quickly enough? The answer seems to me that many folks are displaced and many may die.

If we go with the Dems position and they are wrong what happens? We spend a ton of money on something that isn't needed.

Which would you prefer?

A bit off-topic, but... Do you think humans are capable of making the changes necessary to positively affect the climate?

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I just don't have much confidence in mankind to make the sort of changes that some members of the scientific community claim we'd need to make. 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making logical, incremental (and even compromised) changes that will improve a situation - whether you're talking about the environment, health care, gun laws, national security.... But the knee-jerk reactions of both parties can sometimes cause more harm than good. Gridlock is not always a bad thing. 

---

I've tried to become an educated voter, but it's not easy. The data available is often tainted by studies and polls that are purely self-serving. The media and politicians are the best salesmen/spin doctors in the world, so it's difficult to recognize the truth. Yet, when some folks pick (or inherit) a party, they tend to revel in the information or statistics that supports their "side", while dismissing that which runs contrary.

Not saying I have any kind of a handle on politics, but I'll generally disagree with anyone who claims either party is more intelligent, honest, or concerned for the country than the other.

[jamo]

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

A bit off-topic, but... Do you think humans are capable of making the changes necessary to positively affect the climate?

We've already made noticeable, quantifiably positive changes to the ozone layer when it was identified that CFCs were negatively impacting it. Every single country on Earth signed that treaty.