The US heat dome is a warning for the 2024 elections

[ding]

Opinion | The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election

And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.

If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.

Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.

It's almost as if they have no clue where CO2 emissions have been increasing for the past 20 years to think the US controls it.

 

[Delldude]

Climate change denial is synonymous with ignorance. Ignorance is synonymous with MAGA. And MAGA has become synonymous with the GOP.

Only trouble there is many on the left think it's bullshit too.

 

[Dagosa]

Only trouble there is many on the left think it's bullshit too.

Wrong….

 

[Crick]

Only trouble there is many on the left think it's bullshit too.

"Many" is subjective. There are people on both sides of the political sprectrum who believe it is true and people on both sides who believe it to be false.

The chart below indicates that 39% of people who identify as republican or lean republican think the government is NOT DOING ENOUGH to protect the climate and the environment. No more than 10% of democrats have the opposing view.

This next chart shows that 62% of republicans favor renewables over fossil fuels
No more than 22% of democrats hold the opposing view.

This next graph shows that 53% of self-identified conservative republicans believe human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. 77% of self-identified moderate to liberal republicans feel the same way. Only 8% of moderate to conservative democrats and 3% of liberal democrats believe that human activity has "not too much/nothing at all" to do with climate change.


All these graphs from

U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy

A majority of U.S. adults say they are taking at least some specific action in their daily lives to protect the environment, though Democrats and Republicans remain at ideological odds over the causes of climate change and the effects of policies to address it.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Delldude]

"Many" is subjective. There are people on both sides of the political sprectrum who believe it is true and people on both sides who believe it to be false.

The chart below indicates that 39% of people who identify as republican or lean republican think the government is NOT DOING ENOUGH to protect the climate and the environment. No more than 10% of democrats have the opposing view.

View attachment 967155


This next chart shows that 62% of republicans favor renewables over fossil fuels
No more than 22% of democrats hold the opposing view.
View attachment 967156

This next graph shows that 53% of self-identified conservative republicans believe human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. 77% of self-identified moderate to liberal republicans feel the same way. Only 8% of moderate to conservative democrats and 3% of liberal democrats believe that human activity has "not too much/nothing at all" to do with climate change.


All these graphs from

U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy

A majority of U.S. adults say they are taking at least some specific action in their daily lives to protect the environment, though Democrats and Republicans remain at ideological odds over the causes of climate change and the effects of policies to address it.

www.pewresearch.org

All your yang yang scabadda info doesn't prove anything to the direct cause of CC, only pushes the propaganda of it's existence.

 

[JimH52]

It's almost as if they have no clue where CO2 emissions have been increasing for the past 20 years to think the US controls it.

It is a world problem....not a US problem...

 

[ding]

It is a world problem....not a US problem...

The US isn't the problem. Look at the numbers.

 

[Crick]

All your yang yang scabadda info doesn't prove anything to the direct cause of CC, only pushes the propaganda of it's existence.

I was only addressing your comment that many on the left don't accept AGW. What those data show is that a much higher percentage of republicans DO accept AGW than the percentage of democrats that DON'T

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chart below indicates that 39% of people who identify as republican or lean republican think the government is NOT DOING ENOUGH to protect the climate and the environment. No more than 10% of democrats have the opposing view.

Now post the poll that says people don't want to pay more than $1 a month to fix things.

 

[Crick]

Now post the poll that says people don't want to pay more than $1 a month to fix things.

Let us know the MOMENT you've got something relevant to add.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let us know the MOMENT you've got something relevant to add.

Americans not wanting to pay more to "fix" global warming is incredibly relevant.

 

[Delldude]

It is a world problem....not a US problem...

So you were told..........

 

[Delldude]

I was only addressing your comment that many on the left don't accept AGW. What those data show is that a much higher percentage of republicans DO accept AGW than the percentage of democrats that DON'T

All based upon some lame ass unproven ideological theory.

 

[Crick]

All based upon some lame ass unproven ideological theory.

No theory is ever proven. It's part of the definition of the word "theory" and a constraint on all the natural sciences. This particular theory is supported by an enormous amount of evidence and is accepted as valid by an extremely large percentage of published experts in the field. That is not what is typically found in something pulled from the "lame ass" category.

 

[Delldude]

No theory is ever proven.

Ye gads.............don't tell Einstein.

 

[Crick]

Ye gads.............don't tell Einstein.

Mathematics and theoretical physics are not natural sciences.

 

[ding]

This particular theory is supported by an enormous amount of evidence...

 

[Delldude]

Mathematics and theoretical physics are not natural sciences.

What did he say?

Wiki:
Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science and physical science. Life science is alternatively known as biology, and physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, earth science, and astronomy. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields). As empirical sciences, natural sciences use tools from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements of the "laws of nature".

 

[Crick]

If you disagree, let's talk about the facts.

 

[Crick]

What did he say?

Wiki:
Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science and physical science. Life science is alternatively known as biology, and physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, earth science, and astronomy. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields). As empirical sciences, natural sciences use tools from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements of the "laws of nature".

I said Mathematics and Theoretical Physics are not natural sciences. Your Wiki quote agrees.