I have degrees in Astronomy and Physics and know the science of it. There is no doubt the added CO2 is man made, it is a fact that this will block more IR radiation from leaving the planet, and the simplest science says the planet should warm. But the weather is not simple and there are all kinds of feedback processes, both negative and positive, that can add to or subtract from the greenhouse effect, so predicting a climate change with any accuracy is not so easy. Still, we have changed the chemical balance of the natural air by over 30% already. The rate of change is increasing. This is simply alarming.
I believe the people who scream it is a scam and hoax just dislike the actions needed to do anything about it SO badly that they are in denial about the reality so they don't have to deal with the problem. Like the smoker who would rather believe smoking doesn't really cause cancer or heart disease because that is easier than quitting.
I've become more liberal over the years. The only party I have ever been a member of is the Republican Party, although I voted mostly Libertarian over the years. I would go to Libertarian Party meeting and there were some highly intelligent people there, and others that were just whackos. I think the whackos are taking over the part, although I did vote Libertarian in the last presidential election.
While I support a strong defense, the U.S. spends an insane amount of money on it now--as much as the next 9 countries combined. This is despite the fact that there is no conventional military threat to the United States whatsoever. There is a nuclear and terrorist threat, but it doesn't justify that kind of spending. The purpose of the U.S. military is to meddle around other places in the world, not defend the U.S. The U.S. will end up spending several TRILLION dollars on the Iraq War, which found no WMDs, destabilized Iraq and has left us to deal with ISIS. Thank you Cheney and Rumsfeld.
My view of economics has changed as it's become clear that the ideas of the free marketeers tend to fail miserably, at least as employed. Laissez faire economics led us to the Great Recession, and if it weren't for people like Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson, who took a very activist policy, the U.S. would still be floundering like Europe, which practiced greater austerity.
Also, the free market as practiced in the U.S. tends to be not free at all, but manipulated by those in money and power. More and more tax burden has been shifted away from those that can afford it to those that can't, so income disparity keeps growing in the U.S. This is despite the fact that higher U.S. growth has occurred in eras with HIGHER marginal tax rates. With lower taxes overall, our national debt has grown so big that we waste a large fraction of government revenue just servicing the national debt. Thank you Reagan.
As I mentioned, modern conservatives seem completely out of touch with both military and economic reality, and their denial of reality extends to science. They have found about 5 scientists that support their viewpoint, and ignore the thousands of others that don't.
They are essentially betting the future of the world on the beliefs of those 5 scientists.
I don't really know? I dont like any of the parties really, they are much too dogmatic and set in their ways.
I am against too much goverment interference and I intensely dislike beaurocratic institutions, so I suppose that would make me more like a conservative.
I cannot understand why the democrats are called liberal, they are the least liberal party of all excepting the communist party, they seem intent on controlling and regulating everything.
However the Republicans are way too capitalistic .
In the UK there is a new party called UKIP their policies seemed to be based on commonsense, which I like, I am not sure if I would like to see them in power, but for now, they sure are making the established parties sit up and take notice, and take a double look at their own policies which has to be a good thing.
Usually I avoid politics and do not take sides, because when I look at them what I see is mainly faults bad ideas, lack of itegrity, lying and conniving and deciding which is the least worse is not something I wish to do.
As for AGW no they are not influenced by politics and would really like to see all the political parties abstain from interfering, we can never have true science with all this interference, unfortunately scientists are only human, and cannot afford to go against the tide of opinions when their salaries and careers are on the line.
With regards to whether I accept the science of AGW, my politics shouldn't matter. Unfortunately, shouldn't is just an ideal.
Nevertheless, conservatives respect science and scientists. Such conservative presidents as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan respected scientists.
Politics do matter when it comes to solutions to AGW. I wonder why the right would rather deny AGW than come up with free enterprise solutions. But, personally, I will support anything that works.
Very liberal.
I respect individual rights that tee off the left and right.
I'm undecided on global warming/ global cooling / global calming. ... whatever it's called this week.
I know that it is scientific consensus and not fact at this point.
I also know that consensus has been wrong many times throughout the years and even worse consensus has been deliberately skewed to manipulate.
I would not be surprised if it were real, a mistake or even a hoax.
I am as liberal as I feel I can be. I have no problem with people living life as they want to and don't have anything against people with different races, different life styles, etc, but that really has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It was Democrats like Bull Conner who really worked against civil rights. I don't like it when people feel they have to force their views on me and others and in that regard I am very conservative. I am very conservative economically because it is the only thing that works. In that regard, I am liberal, compassionate, practical and conservative. There is a lot of misconceptions about conservatives but I don't hesitate exposing those misconceptions. Liberalism used to mean something very different in the US. JFK for example, wouldn't be welcome in today's Democratic Party.
I have argued forever that political leanings is the primary reason for people to be alarmists and certainly it is a reason for being a skeptic but there are plenty of left leaning skeptics who I am sure that I irritate from time to time.
After reading through these again, Sagebrush's answer was perfect and made me laugh, not laughing at him, just laughing at the sentiment and irony.
Interesting - If you believe in science and not a political agenda, then you must support GMO's since over 97% of genetic scientists state this is a safe and beneficial process based on years of proven science. You then also accept nuclear power because again over 97% of nuclear scientists have proven that nuclear is a safe and effective means to generate power. And since over 97% of geologists have shown fracking to be safe and effective to get oil, this is also something you must fully support. If you don't accept any of these, then you just pick and choose what others say based on nothing more than your politics.
There are plenty of liberal skeptics. Thomas Fuller is not a full skeptic, but he is a full liberal. Steve McIntyre is liberal, I think even by Canadian standards. He is decidedly uncomfortable with the people who are most supportive of what he has to say, and I think he goes out of his way at conservative conferences to present things with the intent of upsetting his audience. For example, saying that global warming could be very severe.
I agree with you that the policies involved is what is driving support and opposition. If you say the answer to global warming is nuclear power, support from liberals would collapse, with the exception of James Hansen, and conservatives would stop calling it a hoax.
I favor work ethic, free enterprise, balanced budgets and traditional family values. I have a socialist relative that classifies my politics as somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun, so my values are not socialist values. I am also a physicist that specializes in applications of molecular spectroscopy for food and medical problems. I understand that AGW is a problem that must be addressed to avoid problems with food supplies, water shortage and conflict.
I am best described as a Left. Don't call me a Liberal because a) US liberals are way too conservative for me, and b) Liberal generally means conservative in Europe.
... and your view of Global Warming?
I know it's bad form to ask similar questions, but it was a while ago and, though avatars may come and go, the claim that AGW is a liberal scam rather than a scientific phenomenon; that claim persists! Conversely, AGW "skepticism" is often said to be a product of a conservative mindset!
Now, I am probably fairly liberal by most people's standards; I am also an AGW proponent. Yet my understanding of the subject comes from my knowledge and interest in physics; if I was more conservative, my understanding would be the same!
So what about you? How would you describe your politics and what is your view of man made global warming?
... and is there any connection; do your politics affect your AGW views or vice versa?
I'd particularly like to hear from any liberal skeptics or conservative proponents; people who don't fall into either of the stereotypes. I'm sure there are some of you out there!
Two closing points; Firstly, I see this as a "warming neutral" question and will keep this in mind when deciding on best answer. Finally, I'm aware that the meaning of "liberal" varies across the globe; it seems to be rather a derogatory term in the USA. It might help to include what you understand by the word.
So over to you; how liberal are you, your AGW view and is there a connection?
Thanks in anticipation ...
I don't know if it's liberal of me,
but I'd bet dollars or donuts that
we could solve the global ecologic catastrophe by providing livable villages with
free food & housing to everyone.
Entitlements to heal the planet & Society-- Is that communistic?
I'm an Independent who believes in global warming because you can see the effects of it everywhere. Just look at the polar ice capsules that are melting every day.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I think I'm far, far, far more conservative in my latter years than I was in my earlier years yet, I find myself much more "liberal" than ever: It's a relative label that today, would include Ronnie Regan.
Do I believe in Global Warming - Yes. I must confess that it is more of a belief than it probably should be. Somewhere during the times of the Ozone Layer and rain forest discussions, I came to learn that Timbuktu existed, a bit about the American Dust Bowl, and that the Sahara was on a geometrical march outward. At the same time, I could see shrinking glaciers from my back yard while my mini-skirts helped me realize localized temperature differences caused by increased blacktop acreage and what I could only describe as climatic differences caused by increasingly taller buildings down town. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring became my personal warning canary. I believe, can cite multiple individual instances and studies linking carbon deposits to changes in glacier behavior, but am not current enough to present a comprehensive argument supporting warming on a global level.
Whether you are concerned about global warming, the ozone layer, destabilization due to resource distribution issues, clean air, potable water, or chemical contamination - So many of the solutions, particularly on an individual level, are the same and/or similar. Keeping to the current eco-friendly cornerstones of Reduce, Recycle, Re-Use, and Re-Purpose with an over-riding theme of sustainability it works if you're Mean Manufacturing or saving the planet.
I am all but sick at heart to read that Liberal Love Censorship (LLC) is an MIT graduate and unable to see any evidence that human activity has any effect on climate change. I can understand that LLC may or may not be caught up in the politics and polarization of the current global warming debate on a global level. But, going back to the Roman Empire there is evidence of localized, climatic changes resulting from habitat and ecosystem changes and/or over utilization of natural resources. In more recent history, the Dust Bowl saga gave us many lessons that, while taught as "farming" history, are in actuality a land management saga that we are re-visiting today with better testing and measurement only to find localized climatic changes are created too. In Africa, we can stay the edge of the encroaching sands of the Sahara, push them back, and create tested and measured, localized climatic change. In the United States, we have the data that links snow temps, snow melts times, and glacier melting to carbon deposits from air pollution; we can further link this to vegetation, insect, and ambient aridity changes which thus is creating some localized, climatic changes. The City of Chicago has some pretty good data on climatic differences that their green walls, planters, and other inner-city vegetation codes are creating; of course, their primary motivation is energy reduction. There are many, many more instances of test, measured, and evidenced local climate change that can be affected both positively and negatively as a result of human activity. If nothing else, turn to the world of gardening in which folks are encouraged to generate changes of micro climates within their yards. Extrapolate a back yard micro-climate change or any one of the slightly larger, instances of recognized and measured localized climate change and you cannot but help to acknowledge the potential for climate changes on a global scale. - Granted, like the systems that Deming spoke of, actually defining a larger system at a static point in time is nearly impossible but, honestly defining all of the effects of even one small change is impossible because systems are dynamic in nature and changes make them all the more so.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I graduated from MIT, and I see no evidence that human activity has any effect on climate change.
Humans have never been able to create one thunderstorm by artificial means. It's ludicrous to imagine humans can change the climate of an entire planet.
You asked specifically about warming. There has been no measurable warming for 15 years now. It's preposterous to imagine that warming can just go on hold for 15 years, and yet expect it will start up again any minute now.
Face it, global warming is over.
Global temperatures increased over the past 500 years because the Mini Ice Age ended 500 years ago. The earth has spent 500 years warming up back to normal.
15 years ago, it arrived. This is it, this is normal.
No more warming.
It's that simple.
well just take the average temp of this planet in the last 50 plus yrs an you will find an increase of about a couple degrees, now that isn't very warming now is it
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I like to stay away from politics. Science is my game. Science has benefitted man, politics has not.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I like to stay away from politics. Science is my game. Science has benefitted man, politics has not.
Basically I think anyone should be free to do anything that does not harm others. I guess that's pretty liberal.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I'm against worrying about the politics of it, there's too many liars period.
I like to stay away from politics. Science is my game. Science has benefitted man, politics has not.
I like to stay away from politics. Science is my game. Science has benefitted man, politics has not.
I like to stay away from politics. Science is my game. Science has benefitted man, politics has not.
