Here’s one poll the Warmists should really, really like, since the majority of polls tend to go against the Warmists
(Reuters) A significant majority of Americans say combating climate change is a moral issue that obligates them – and world leaders – to reduce carbon emissions, a Reuters/IPSOS poll has found.
The poll of 2,827 Americans was conducted in February to measure the impact of moral language, including interventions by Pope Francis, on the climate change debate. In recent months, the pope has warned about the moral consequences of failing to act on rising global temperatures, which are expected to disproportionately affect the lives of the world’s poor.
The result of the poll suggests that appeals based on ethics could be key to shifting the debate over climate change in the United States, where those demanding action to reduce carbon emissions and those who resist it are often at loggerheads.
Well, sure, why not? They’ve been “spreading awareness” for 25+ years, and haven’t really gotten beyond “spreading awareness”.
Here’s where it gets really fun (you didn’t think I would post this without a reason, did you?)
Two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) said that world leaders are morally obligated to take action to reduce CO2 emissions. And 72 percent said they were “personally morally obligated†to do what they can in their daily lives to reduce emissions.
Huh. “Personally morally obligated”. So, when will Warmists take action within their own lives? When will they give up their own use of fossil fuels? When will they stop using DVRs, ice makers, hair dryers, washers and dryers, turn their AC up to 80 and their heat down to 55? When will they only buy local, grow their own food, live in tiny homes, and make sure that every device that plugs into an outlet is unplugged when not in use? Obviously, those are all rhetorical, because Warmists talk a good game, but that is all it is in their own world: talk.
Of course, these are the same people who do not see it as morally wrong to demand that other people be taxed heavily with that money being redistributed. To themselves. Nor do they see anything morally wrong with abortion on demand.
You’ve brought up this silliness before. I guess it makes you feel good.
You type (repeatedly):
Aside from your slur calling environmentalists “warmists”, do you know that they haven’t changed their lives to reduce their CO2 effluent?
I can only speak for myself, but I certainly have.
You make the absurd demand that ANY CO2 emissions prove that that person is a climate hypocrite. That would be like me demanding that an anti-government party member never use a government service.
You make that argument because you have exhausted any and all arguments based on reason. Global warming is a hoax because some environmentalist, somewhere, drives a six cylinder car. Pretty weak.
CO2 up : warming stopped.
I don’t think you get it Jeffrey. If you were REALLY a believer that CO2 is going to kill us, then, short of not breathing, you’d do everything you can to stop making the evil compound.
Yet you don’t. We know this because you use your computer, which uses electricity created by the combustion of things that make the evil CO2.
I’m assuming you also use lights and a refrigeration unit for your food. These also create CO2. It doesn’t matter that your Mom is paying for it. You’re still the one creating the CO2.
So that’s why no one takes you seriously. You don’t even take your cause celebre seriously enough to stop producing excess carbon dioxide. So why should we take anything else you say seriously?
I have stopped paying attention to the “science” behind global warming or whatever it is being called this week.
Like politicians just pay attention to the global warming community’s actions and don’t listen to their words.
1. Refusing to provide the data that was used to build their models and at one point to avoid producing this data said that the dog ate it (or something to that effect).
2. Blaming global warming for every problem in the world.
3. Seeing that most believers have not made a serious effort to reduce their use of modern conveniences that are supposedly the cause of global warming caused by humans. This is especially true of high profile believers.
4. Expecting us common folk to change our lifestyle while they do #3 above.
5. Watching the politicians and bureaucrats salivate over the new taxes and fees that “stopping” global warming will bring in.
6. Failure of global warming “scientists” to submit their theories to real peer review and their failure to professionally respond to criticisms of their work.
Enough from me add your own…
kevin,
As I stated, Deniers who have given up, or are just too lazy, about arguing science, revert to smearing others.
You use a computer, therefore global warming is a hoax!
Is the fact that I use a computer THE REAL REASON you refuse to acknowledge the science behind global warming? Are you so weak-willed that you let someone else’s behavior dictate your reasoning? Or do you have an argument to make that makes a better case?
I don’t care if Teach and his regular band of howler monkeys takes what I say seriously. I think it’s valuable for you to read about the flaws in your thinking.
Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the Earth is warming as a result of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere. As the Earth continues to warm, humans will be forced to make significant adaptations costing trillions of dollars.
JohnAllen typed:
Every word in that sentence is a lie, including the word “the”.
. Global warming is, after all, global, and as such will continue to have impacts on many natural and human activities. But not every problem.
An ad hominem attack used as a lazy excuse. It will take everyone cooperating to reduce our CO2 emissions.
See rebuttal above to #3.
Another lie.
Another lie. Has the theory of man-made global warming not been thoroughly criticized? Just because most people aren’t persuaded by the Denier arguments doesn’t mean the Deniers haven’t make their arguments. Deniers have their own television network. They write books and articles and blog, blog, blog. Talk radio is Denier friendly. Unfortunately for Deniers, all the science lines up against them. Hence, the lies.
“Is the fact that I use a computer THE REAL REASON you refuse to acknowledge the science behind global warming?”
No. The real reason is that it’s not science. It’s prediction, much like Astrology. And it’s prediction based upon many false premises. Like Astrology. I don’t respect people who believe in either ‘science’ – Astrology or Climatology.
No worries though. You don’t believe the crap they spew either. Otherwise you’d be doing your honest best to end your production of CO2 – which we all know you are not doing.
If you want to do some REAL science, help me figure out how to remove 1ppb acetone from a 99+% isopropanone fluid without using liquid-liquid extraction. I’m at the point where I’m just going to say the non-scientific “No, it can’t be done.”
F*** it. I’m boiling it. More CO2 for you to complain about, Jeff.
I know what you’re thinking, dear reader (Except for Jeffrey, because he’s not a science related person). You’re thinking, “Hey, why not try adsorption? Use a big vat of activated carbon to adsorb the acetone!”
I thought that too. It will not work. The carbon instead adsorbs the propanone, making the resulting product a tiny bit MORE acetone-y.
I’m very frustrated. I hate to have to expend the energy to distill (aka boil) it, but I can’t think of a better idea.
Plus there is the added benefit of making Jeffrey angry. That’s always worth a buck or two :).
Kevin,
Now how could a cutesy lightweight like you make me angry? I guess by distracting everyone.
Can you tell us the difference between acetone (propan-2-one) and isopropanone? Both CH3-CO-CH3. No stereochemistry, right?. Or did you mean isopropanol?
Do you really think that any environmentalist who generates even one molecule of CO2 (except by respiration) is a hypocrite? That’s gotta be the last stand for a smartass Denier.
Kevin,
You say you don’t believe the science but the only argument you make is that I use a computer, therefore it can’t be true.
That’s pure Denier 101.
Then you spew some nonsense about removing a trace of acetone from a lot of acetone.
You were better off just reciting your bon mots. That at least left the illusion that you knew something.
If YOU want to do some real science (rather than that fake nonsense you typed earlier), figure out how myeloid derived suppressor cells turn off T-effector cells in tumors.
“Overwhelming evidence that the earth continues to warm as a result of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere.” He says, with no evidence at all. But of course that’s what people do with “overwhelming evidence” on their side- start a new inquisition.
“Now how could a cutesy lightweight like you make me angry?”
I’m not sure. But I clearly do. Perhaps it’s because I live science, and you merely preach it like it’s some kind of magical thing. I dunno. Thanks for calling me cute though!
Hey, for the record, I am impressed with Jeffy. He googled ‘isopropanone’ to find out it’s just ‘propanone’, which is another name for ‘acetone’.
He’s still an idiot, but he took the time to do that. Props to him.
“figure out how myeloid derived suppressor cells turn off T-effector cells in tumors”
No thanks, Googler Jeff. I left Shering-Plough decades ago. Now I make products that help people.
Kevin,
I guess if you worked for Schering-Plough you would have known how to spell it.
I proved you were lying and I’m the idiot.
We can leave you alone, you’re done.
Good for you – making products that help people. Crystal meth? Depends Diapers? Salad dressing?
Heh. Now you’re telling me I never worked at Schering because I mistyped the name?
You’re silly. But I can’t stay mad at you because you called me ‘cute’.
Thanks again, btw.
For the record, I referred to you as “cutesy lightweight”, but if you take that as a compliment, you’re welcome.
You’re done. Please go back to serving bon mots. It suits you. Your take on science is both “cutesy” and “lightweight”.
Last chance! How much CO2 can an environmentally aware individual (except by respiration) emit before it proves that the theory of man-made global warming is a hoax?
Thank you for calling me cute again. But I’m not done. You should be though. You keep making all that CO2 that is killing the planet!
To answer your question, the amount of CO2 you emit won’t prove or disprove anything about global warming. It only proves or disproves how strong your belief in it is. Apparently for you, that’s not very strong.
You’re done. Please go back to asking people if they’d like fries with that. Your take on science is both condescending and childlike.
Why do you keep claiming that CO2 is killing the planet? Or that CO2 is evil? It’s a molecule, no more, no less. It absorbs radiation in the infrared wavelengths. Humans have increased the atmospheric concentration some 40% in the past century. Because of these facts, the Earth is warming. Most knowledgeable folk understand that the negative outcomes will outweigh the potential benefits.
So, Einstein, tell us how much CO2 an environmentalist can emit burning fossil fuels before they “really” don’t believe their own ideals.
Look back some years and this was a hot topic. Don’t know the status of data sharing today and was only commenting on the behavior occurring at the Climatic Research Unit of EAU before the email excitement.
Plenty of room for disagreement in my comments but not outright repudiation. However repudiation is a common tactic of the global fear mongers. When we get into the scientific weeds I find the deniers arguments for the most part well reasoned, clearly stated without a lot of emotional clutter.
Each to their own way. A grand day to you.
So why not present those “well reasoned” arguments rather than the list you posted? Just because some climate Denier made a claim doesn’t make it valid.
Denier bloggers repeat lies about climate scientists and data time and again:
Climate data have been parsed and vetted to the Nth degree and the Deniers still have nothing. Why haven’t Denier scientists discovered the “magic bullet” to kill the scientific theory?
Love the deflections from Warmists. They know this is all a bunch of mule fritters, since they find all sorts of ways to defend refusing to live the life they think should be forced on everyone else.
Mr Teach’s favorite lefty commenter wrote:
The question wasn’t addressed to me, but I’ll answer it anyway: when I see the
global warmingclimate change champion leadership living their lives in such a manner as to think that they don’t take their positions seriously, yes, that certainly gives me pause. When I hear our former Vice President and Nobel laureate telling us that we have to sacrifice and live more poorly to stopglobal warmingclimate change, but he doesn’t practice what he preaches, especially when he has set up his businesses to profit off of other people paying for cockamamie “carbon credits,” I’m pretty sure that I’m listening to a charlatan.About ten years ago, I sat through a presentation by people ting to generate carbon credits. I work in ready-mixed concrete production, and by using flyash, a waste byproduct from coal-fired electric plants, as a pozzolan — a partial cement replacement — we could sell carbon credits because we were using products which generated less CO2 than portland cement.
As I sat there, it didn’t take long to see through the whole thing. It was not in any way meant to actually reduce carbon emissions, but simply to make money. That’s what the esteemed Mr Gore does.
If the goal is to save the earth by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the last thing an environmentalist would want to do is trade carbon credits: trading carbon credits is a way to allow CO2 emitters to continue to do so, buying credits to offset their emissions rather than having to spend the money to install emissions reductions equipment.
I don’t know you, Jeffrey, and who knows: maybe you have gone all Ed Begley on us and seriously reduced your individual “carbon footprint.” After all, a significant number of the little people of the
global warmingclimate change movement have done so. But maybe you ought to ask why your public leadership is so seriously undermining your message.Dana,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I understand your points.
One quibble, though:
How did the meme that we’d have to live more poorly, or the economy would be destroyed, develop? It’s not true.
That’s not to say that the transition to reduced CO2 emitting energy sources will be painless. As societies transition away from gas, oil and coal, those specific industries will be hard hit and will have to adapt or die out.
Dana,
You cross-out
global warmingand substitute climate change, I suspect as a sarcastic sop to the other conservameme that the description was changed at some time for some reason.Note that the IPCC includes “Climate Change” in its title and was formed in 1988, not recently. The globe is warming and this is causing our climate to change. Get it?
William Tech often asks a question at the end of his blogs, “Why don’t warmers live what they preach.” or words to that effect.
It is a rhetorical question. However, here is the answer anyway.
Most warmers are not environmentalists. Most do not care any more or any less about the enviroment than the rest of us.
Their only interest is that AGW will be used to promote their world view as a SOLUTION to the problem.
It is their world view that they care about.
That is why they do not read your links, or watch your videos, or consider your evidence. It is not only that they have already made up their minds it is irrelevant. It only is important that you think AGW is real, or that you are willing like most people to give it the benefit of a doubt. Then based on that, their world veiw can be implimented.
Most skeptics don’t care ether. They are only concerned that AGW will not be used to rob them or curtail their liberties.
The IPCC does not seem that interested in R&D research to find better alternatives to the combustible engine or heating oil. They give it lip service at best.
Their primry focuss is creating a new world order that promotes their wealth distribution schemes as the prime catalyst.
Those who claim to want to save the world, really want to rule it.
Jeffrey wrote:
Unfortunately for your position, it is true. All of the things you (plural) have proposed cost money, much of it lots of money, to provide the public with no tangible product. Those costs must be passed down to the consumer, so not only will we be paying more for our sparktricity bills, but we’ll be paying more for everything, because corporations will have to pass their higher power bills down to their customers. It will cost us more to get the same things, leaving us with less disposable income for other goods.
In real terms, that’s the definition of poorer.
Jeffrey wrote:
Sarcastic sop? If you wish, but it is actually mockery on my part. It was all global warming, until we started freezing our testicles off. Those of us in the snowbelt would like some global warming right about now!
Mr Taylor wrote:
On that, you are absotively, posilutely correct: the left are attempting to use
AGWclimate change to restrict our liberties and take our money. For them, there is an ever-increasing list of things we just cannot be allowed to do, because they know just so much better than we do how we should run our lives.Most people, myself certainly among them, had dropped the incandescent bulb for most applications, and started using the CFLs, because the CFLs were more cost efficient . . . though not as cost efficient as advertised! But, for the left, that wasn’t good enough: people couldn’t move from incandescents to CFLs because they were freely choosing to do so, no, they had to be told to do so!
And now our esteemed host has reported that the Europeans are moving to ban halogens as well. The Europeans will have to choose between the less-efficient-than-advertised, toxic waste CFLs, and the still very expensive LED bulbs.
I was in college during the early and mid 1970s, when the left were all about freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do whatever the heck you wanted as long as you didn’t infringe on somebody else’s rights.
But not any more! Today the left support freedom of choice on exactly one thing, and even on that, they want people who don’t approve of abortion to have to pay for the abortions of other people. The left support racial discrimination with Affirmative Action, not just to help Hispanics and blacks, but to discriminate against Jews and Asians for being to hard-working and successful. The left want to restrict the freedom of speech, not just with regard to overturning Citizens United v FEC, but through various campus speech codes, so that none of the poor dears will be offended. The left want to completely remove our right to keep and bear arms. The left used to tell us that what they did in their bedrooms was none of our business, but now they insist on telling us what they do, and insist that we not only tolerate it, but approve it as well, and that anyone who wishes to exercise his freedom of religion by not baking a cake for a ridiculous same-sex “marriage” will be punished under the law.
Fascism used to be something thought of as being on the political right, but not anymore: today’s left is as fascist as Benito Mussolini.
man, I wish that these comments had an edit function: it’s too hard-working, not to hard working.
Jeffrey wrote:
When you say that “those specific industries will be hard hit,” what you are actually saying is that their customers will be hard hit. Unless real alternatives are developed — and the most deployment-ready alternative is nuclear power, which the left strongly oppose — electric generation through fossil fuel consumption will continue, and be necessary, and the public will have to pay for it.