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

[Independent voter]

Forty-seven percent of conservatives now say the climate is changing, a leap of 19 points since the midterm elections of 2014, according to the survey released yesterday by Yale and George Mason universities. The poll did not ask respondents whether climate change is caused by people.

The jump accounts for the single biggest change among all voting groups, and it could symbolize a softening among conservatives on an issue that has sharply divided the political parties, according to Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

“In this presidential race, climate change hasn’t come up on the Republican side at all,” he said. “It means that none of the political discourse, the discussion among the Republican Party right now, is addressing climate change at all. That’s actually an improvement in the discourse.”

That might have dulled the partisanship around global warming, he suggests, and made it easier for some conservatives to shift their views “because they’re not hearing a constant barrage of ‘This is a liberal hoax.’”
Despite the change, the findings don’t point to a shift in conservative views on the reasons behind warming. There hasn’t been a rise in the number of Republicans who believe that people are causing climate change.

The poll also found broad support for government policies to expand renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Eighty-four percent of all registered voters support more funding for energy sources like wind and solar, including 91 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans. A similar number, 81 percent of all voters, support giving tax rebates to people who buy energy-efficient cars or solar panels, including 91 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-change/

It depends on how you ask the question, if you ask right wingers something like "do you believe that global warming is something that is happening" then like 71% say yes.

I don't have a problem with people making their minds up about things, look at the evidence, listen to the experts and decide for yourself.

[Endus]

Forty-seven percent of conservatives now say the climate is changing, a leap of 19 points since the midterm elections of 2014, according to the survey released yesterday by Yale and George Mason universities. The poll did not ask respondents whether climate change is caused by people.

The jump accounts for the single biggest change among all voting groups, and it could symbolize a softening among conservatives on an issue that has sharply divided the political parties, according to Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

“In this presidential race, climate change hasn’t come up on the Republican side at all,” he said. “It means that none of the political discourse, the discussion among the Republican Party right now, is addressing climate change at all. That’s actually an improvement in the discourse.”

That might have dulled the partisanship around global warming, he suggests, and made it easier for some conservatives to shift their views “because they’re not hearing a constant barrage of ‘This is a liberal hoax.’”
Despite the change, the findings don’t point to a shift in conservative views on the reasons behind warming. There hasn’t been a rise in the number of Republicans who believe that people are causing climate change.

The poll also found broad support for government policies to expand renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Eighty-four percent of all registered voters support more funding for energy sources like wind and solar, including 91 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans. A similar number, 81 percent of all voters, support giving tax rebates to people who buy energy-efficient cars or solar panels, including 91 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-change/

It depends on how you ask the question, if you ask right wingers something like "do you believe that global warming is something that is happening" then like 71% say yes.

I don't have a problem with people making their minds up about things, look at the evidence, listen to the experts and decide for yourself.

And yet, you're still underscoring that the only people making this a partisan issue are the willfully ignorant minority on the right, not scientists, which was your earlier claim. It's weird how you've completely backtracked on that without admitting you were wrong.

[Jeezy911]

Let me rephrase: Right wing nuts decrying everything that does not align with their worldviews (based on feelings and lack of knowledge) to be left leaning is the problem. Their need to take an antagonizing position on any issues that is proposed by the "others" is utterly moronic, as most of the "left leaning" ideas are just ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved. (Climate change, better healthcare, better education etc.)

So asking the middle class to pay for the healthcare of the lower class " ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?" What if you are a coal miner is Climate change "ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?"

[Elegiac]

So asking the middle class to pay for the healthcare of the lower class " ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?" What if you are a coal miner is Climate change "ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?"

Yes. Because it isn't environmental regulations that is killing coal mining.

[karumayu]

So asking the middle class to pay for the healthcare of the lower class " ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?" What if you are a coal miner is Climate change "ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?"

Apparently asking middle class to fund a increase in tax break for the wealthy or a bloated defense budge is much more worthy than making sure everyone have access to proper health care, be it if they are poor or middle class citizens who are hit by an unexpected health emergency. Certain jobs and fields will be phased out as technology and our understanding of the world evolves.
Jobs that does not exists now:http://www.boredpanda.com/extinct-jobs/

If I'm correct, then the current administration defunded the programs that dealt with re-training of unemployed coal miners into other fields, where they can get a job. Also the health care would be sure to benefit all the coal miners who are now in poverty.

[Independent voter]

And yet, you're still underscoring that the only people making this a partisan issue are the willfully ignorant minority on the right, not scientists, which was your earlier claim. It's weird how you've completely backtracked on that without admitting you were wrong.

What?

Scientists are left wing and seen as such. I think you just didn't understand what I was saying or you wanted to believe what I was saying meant something else.

The left wing nature of scientists is a major stumbling block in getting the right to believe in global warming. How could it not be?

[Endus]

What?

Scientists are left wing and seen as such.

If you mean their personal politics, that's completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about here, which is science.

And you keep straight-up admitting that the partisan bias is coming from the ~30% on the right wing who are so blindly partisan that, by your own admission and sources, they'll straight-up deny simple facts solely because they see the person stating them as their political enemy. These same people would insist that 2+2 could just as equally equal 5, if Al Gore said that 2+2 equals 4. That's how insane their viewpoint is.

I think you just didn't understand what I was saying or you wanted to believe what I was saying meant something else.

You keep focusing on the personal politics of the scientists (without backing it up, I'll add). As if that has any relevance at all. They aren't the ones being partisan.

- - - Updated - - -

So asking the middle class to pay for the healthcare of the lower class " ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?" What if you are a coal miner is Climate change "ideas that are commonly good for everyone involved?"

Coal is dying not because it's a pollutant, but because it's not that efficient a fuel source to begin with, and we have much cheaper and greener alternatives. So why spend extra money on coal just to pollute more than we need to?

Also, issues of political ideology, like universal healthcare, aren't remotely comparable to basic scientific facts, like anthropogenic climate change.

[Heladys]

Scientists are left wing and seen as such.

Climate deniers are stupid and seen as such. Where do we go from here? One side has facts and methodology that can be confirmed by anyone. The other side has rote ignorance and stubbornness and talking points to deflect with.

It's clear which side to choose.

[Thage]

The masses 'lost faith' in the scientific community because for some ungodly reason, America treats anti-intellectual ignorance as on-par with informed expert opinions and coddled a bunch of fucking idiots through their adult lives into believing that their 'gut feeling' is equal to the study and research carried out by people who have devoted their lives to a field of knowledge. edit: Any attempts to conflate the two as equally bad, or blaming the scientists for the reactionaries' response (that being to bury their collective head in the sand, plug their ears, and scream about how it's all a liberal conspiracy), that sounds an awful lot like a smug centrist who adheres to the Golden Mean Fallacy in an attempt to make themselves feel superior, "above it all" by creating false dichotomies.


And considering how many cities have said, "Fuck it, we're adhering to the Accord anyway," all Trump did when pulling out of the Accord is show that, once again, all the bravado and bluster in the world do nothing if you have no allies outside your little circle of yes-men.

[Forogil]

If you mean their personal politics, that's completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about here, which is science.

The subject line is about "Paris accord goals", and that isn't science, but politics.

Thus in order to convince people to change climate policies their personal politics may actually be a problem; https://www.theguardian.com/science/.../2011/feb/13/3

Additionally, for the science part Al Gore is not doing a good job, since extreme weather events are one of his main points. But IPCC's latest published assessment report does not have high confidence in extreme weather events being caused by man-made climate-change (the probability is at most >2/3). However, extreme weather is so visibly interesting that we tend to focus on that.

Finally one wouldn't expect people to act against their own self-interest, but looking at predicted future winners and loser on climate change (in the US) it does not seem as though this is highly correlated with red/blue counties:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...st-your-county
https://www.economist.com/news/finan...and-inequality