Former Vice President Al Gore says US may meet Paris Accord goals

[Endus]

The scientific community lost faith with the masses. They should've been more non-partisan and not so left wing.

The scientific community was entirely non-partisan. And remains such today. Thinking that facts and science are "left-wing" is a position rooted in willful ignorance; you don't like the facts, so you refuse to admit them and hope that this changes reality for you. It doesn't. It just makes you obstinate and wrong.

The only partisan behaviour in climate change science is by deniers, and it's pretty unique to the American political sphere (yes, there are deniers outside the USA, but they aren't given any political heft).

I think Pope Francis came out and said that climate change was a problem. After that most of the right changed their minds and admitted climate change is a problem. Heck most of Trump's administration admits climate change is a problem.a

Trump himself has expressed doubts.

And to repeat a prior point; denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying that cancer exists, or claiming that the Earth is flat. It involves pretty much the same levels of blind ignorance and refusal to consider the actual facts. That a President of the USA is this willfully ignorant over major issues should be shocking and apalling.

All that was needed was a non-biased person or group, someone who had the trust of most of the right to come out on the climate change side and behold, most of the right now believes in climate change.

You realize you're explicitly admitting that those on "the right" who were convinced by this were deliberately ignorant and uninformed, and only changed their views because of blind, unthinking faith in their party's leadership, right?

This doesn't support their stance. It condemns it.

[Masark]

Deep beneath all the issues, isn't it just 'war industry' and worldwide 'national security' issues that needs reliable oil first and foremost? To safely operate it needs diverse sources (best would be... Enitre world's economy) of it. World going green is a threat to safe diverse sources of oil.
At the end of the day, your car may run fine on electricity, your house may be powered by solar panels or wind, but tanks, smaller ships, fighter jets and whatnot need high energy density of oil, without it, your country's defense crumbles.

AFAICT, the military (or at least the Navy) would just as soon not have to deal with fossil fuels, for the strictly pragmatic reason of logistics.

The US Navy has been doing work on in-situ hydrocarbon fuel production, requiring nothing but seawater and (nuclear-reactor-provided) electricity. This has the obvious benefit of a carrier group no longer being dependent on fleet oilers running all over hell's back 40 between the fleet and civilian ports to supply the planes and non-carriers, but instead can go and sit wherever they please, running off E=mc² for as long as they like.

[Adam Jensen]

He didn't say that.

And even if he did, Al Gore is not a scientist. He might be pushing for action to curb CC, but that doesn't make him an expert.

- - - Updated - - -

The scientific community lost faith with the masses. They should've been more non-partisan and not so left wing.

They wouldn't appear to be "left wing" if the right hadn't decided that facts are meaningless and that CC was a liberal conspiracy..

[Travis B]

They wouldn't appear to be "left wing" if the right hadn't decided that facts are meaningless and that CC was a liberal conspiracy..

Climate change deniers in a nutshell:

[Deleted]

AFAICT, the military (or at least the Navy) would just as soon not have to deal with fossil fuels, for the strictly pragmatic reasons of logistics.

The US Navy has been doing work on in-situ hydrocarbon fuel production, requiring nothing but seawater and (nuclear-reactor-provided) electricity. This has the obvious benefit of a carrier group no longer being dependent on fleet oilers running all over hell's back 40 between the fleet and civilian ports to supply the planes and non-carriers, but instead can go and sit wherever they please, running off E=mc² for as long as they like.

Little as I know about that, aren't there barely few ships capable of supporting this kind of process in the entire World, leave alone just single country? And nuclear fuel, even if it lasts longer isn't it still far more scarce than oil? All it takes is to take those few ships down or those relatively few uranium/plutionium/whateverium enrichment plants or storages and defenses crumble. Even if it's difficult, taking down entire world of oil-based economy seems far more difficult.

[Peebuddy]

I'm confused, I was under the impression that the US dropped out of the Paris accords because it involved us paying billions to countries to off set their economical impact of going greener, so they too would join in. We didn't drop out so we could go back to getting our power from tire fires.

Why is it any shock that we will continue to be greener when there is such a large push for it?

[Independent voter]

The scientific community was entirely non-partisan. And remains such today. Thinking that facts and science are "left-wing" is a position rooted in willful ignorance; you don't like the facts, so you refuse to admit them and hope that this changes reality for you. It doesn't. It just makes you obstinate and wrong.

No, the scientific community is left wing, academics are almost always left wing and scientists are academics for the most part. They should've remained neutral or found a neutral spokesman at least.

I'm not going to blame a bunch of non-scientific types for not trusting the scientists, it's the scientist's job win over support.

The only partisan behaviour in climate change science is by deniers, and it's pretty unique to the American political sphere (yes, there are deniers outside the USA, but they aren't given any political heft).



Trump himself has expressed doubts.

And to repeat a prior point; denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying that cancer exists, or claiming that the Earth is flat. It involves pretty much the same levels of blind ignorance and refusal to consider the actual facts. That a President of the USA is this willfully ignorant over major issues should be shocking and apalling.



You realize you're explicitly admitting that those on "the right" who were convinced by this were deliberately ignorant and uninformed, and only changed their views because of blind, unthinking faith in their party's leadership, right?

This doesn't support their stance. It condemns it.

I don't think they were deliberately uninformed, they had an opinion that contradicted the opinion of the scientific community. Everyone is equal here, if you want to persuade a group win their trust.

Trump would change his opinion 3 times a day if he found it in his interest.

Scientists will tell you themselves that it's okay not to believe in a scientific theory, it's part of the scientific process.

[Elegiac]

No, the scientific community is left wing, academics are almost always left wing and scientists are no different. They should've remained neutral or found a neutral spokesman at least.

I'm not going to blame a bunch of non-scientific types for not trusting the scientists, it's the scientist's job win over support.

Anti-intellectualism at its finest.

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm confused, I was under the impression that the US dropped out of the Paris accords because it involved us paying billions to countries to off set their economical impact of going greener, so they too would join in. We didn't drop out so we could go back to getting our power from tire fires.

The short answer to that is no, especially since the Paris Accords were voluntary and non-binding so we could just as easily have stayed in and declined to provide the agreed-upon funds with no repercussions.

[Allybeboba]

Did he fly in his private jet to make that announcement? Nothing worse than a hypocrite, also Bernie and his multiple mansions paid for by college kids.

Nah, I bet he rode on over on his bicycle. Al would never ever be a climate hypocrite. I would imagine he lives in a tiny house that is Platinum LEED certified.

[Endus]

No, the scientific community is left wing, academics are almost always left wing and scientists are academics for the most part. They should've remained neutral or found a neutral spokesman at least.

This is just partisan bullshittery. Nothing more. Particularly since the political leanings of the scientists in question are irrelevant, since science is non-partisan to begin with.

You're inserting partisan garbage where it has no business being, and then blaming everyone else for you doing so. It's ridiculous.

I don't think they were deliberately uninformed, they had an opinion that contradicted the opinion of the scientific community.

You repeat yourself.

If you don't understand the scientific basis of a subject, and you don't educate yourself as to what that is, then you don't know anything about that subject. Refusing to do so and still expressing your viewpoint is where you take a stand while deliberately ensuring you remain uninformed.

Everyone is equal here, if you want to persuade a group win their trust.

The difference, of course, is that science relies on people looking at the evidence with logic and reason, whereas you are suggesting people discard evidence, logic, and reason solely because of partisan dickery. And you expect that to be the reasonable position, somehow.

Scientists will tell you themselves that it's okay not to believe in a scientific theory, it's part of the scientific process.

Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that whether you believe in said theory is irrelevant, because it will continue to be true while you insist on being wrong about how things work.

It isn't about belief. It's about understanding. And if you don't understand the body of theory, then you don't actually know anything about the subject and really should take some time to educate yourself before spouting off an ignorant and uninformed opinion.

And, because I do this every time, I'm not going to hand-wave and say "the information is out there somewhere. Here you go, readers; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

That'll answer just about any question you might have on the physical science basis behind AGCC. If you have further questions, its sources will take you right to the primary data. It's not a short document, because it's a thorough document.

[Santti]

No, the scientific community is left wing, academics are almost always left wing and scientists are academics for the most part. They should've remained neutral or found a neutral spokesman at least.

I'm not going to blame a bunch of non-scientific types for not trusting the scientists, it's the scientist's job win over support.

They are not scientists to begin with, if politics dictate their research. They can be as left or right leaning for all I care.

I'm going to partake in some mild nation bashing, because what you are espousing is rather typical for US. It's almost caricatural in how ludicrous it truly is.

[Jeezy911]

Might as well toss in Hillary and Benghazi to complete this set of retarded talking points.

Yea lets stick to fact based arguments like Russia hacked the election for over 6 months now.

[gyrados]

regardless if people believe in climate change or not we should take care of our planet its only one we got atm we call home im js oh and question about climate change do yall feel like we are screwed regardless of what we do i mean have we crossed that line ?

[Sky High]

Yea lets stick to fact based arguments like Russia hacked the election for over 6 months now.

If you want to continue to derail then go right ahead without me.

[Independent voter]

They are not scientists to begin with, if politics dictate their research. They can be as left or right leaning for all I care.

I'm going to partake in some mild nation bashing, because what you are espousing is rather typical for US. It's almost caricatural in how ludicrous it truly is.

It's complicated. Scientists are academics, academics tend to be left leaning. I don't think politics dictated their research into climate change, I think they legitimately followed scientific methods. However, them being leftists for the most part gave them a credibility gap with right wing voters.

We don't have a tradition of intellectuals, people who the voters trust who could make them believe climate change was a thing.

[Glorious Leader]

No, the scientific community is left wing, academics are almost always left wing and scientists are academics for the most part. They should've remained neutral or found a neutral spokesman at least.

I'm not going to blame a bunch of non-scientific types for not trusting the scientists, it's the scientist's job win over support.




I don't think they were deliberately uninformed, they had an opinion that contradicted the opinion of the scientific community. Everyone is equal here, if you want to persuade a group win their trust.

Trump would change his opinion 3 times a day if he found it in his interest.

Scientists will tell you themselves that it's okay not to believe in a scientific theory, it's part of the scientific process.

This is deeply stupid and you should probably reconsider what you wrote. Thanks to a right wing propoganda campaign, the publics faith in the institution of science is undermined and thats the scientists fault for merely presenting their research

- - - Updated - - -

It's complicated. Scientists are academics, academics tend to be left leaning. I don't think politics dictated their research into climate change, I think they legitimately followed scientific methods. However, them being leftists for the most part gave them a credibility gap with right wing voters.

We don't have a tradition of intellectuals, people who the voters trust who could make them believe climate change was a thing.

Thats not really the role of science anyway. In so far as it people believeing intellectuals you can attribute that to clown right wingers and folks like yourself who spread garbage undermining any trust the public might have in those individuals or institutions.

[Deletedaccount1]

That article is basically just a plug for his new movie.

[Forogil]

It's complicated. Scientists are academics, academics tend to be left leaning.

Even if academics in general are more left-leaning it does not follow that climate scientists are more left leaning. It may be the case - but it doesn't follow (it could be academics in other fields), and most importantly the actual climate doesn't care about politics.

However, there are certainly left-leanings persons who want to use climate change to promote anti-capitalist causes (N. Klein is one); some might want to portray themselves as scientists when they are not - or as climate scientists, even if they work in other fields; but that is even more prevalent among climate-change deniers.

And journalists preferring to frame it as a debate between two sides - since that is cheaper, or pick up exaggerated claims; icebergs melting sounds ominous - the sea rising an inch doesn't; and most people of the western world aren't that scared by heat - that's why a movie about climate change such as "The Day after Tomorrow" features New York freezing.

- - - Updated - - -

The scientific community was entirely non-partisan. And remains such today. Thinking that facts and science are "left-wing" is a position rooted in willful ignorance; you don't like the facts, so you refuse to admit them and hope that this changes reality for you. It doesn't. It just makes you obstinate and wrong.

For what has happened with the climate and what will happen due to specific actions (like releasing more CO2) it is non-partisan.

However, when we get to how to deal with climate change (carbon tax, cap-and-trade, subsidies for solar cells, or just doing nothing) we enter the realm of political science where facts are more partisan (one of my professor, who also happened to become an MP, said as much).

[karumayu]

It's complicated. Scientists are academics, academics tend to be left leaning. I don't think politics dictated their research into climate change, I think they legitimately followed scientific methods. However, them being leftists for the most part gave them a credibility gap with right wing voters.

We don't have a tradition of intellectuals, people who the voters trust who could make them believe climate change was a thing.

The problem is not that scientists or intellectuals are left leaning, it's that the idiots have taken over the conservative agenda.