Shadow the Cats ownerVolker modern record keeping of weather overall has only been a science for about 120 years total. The predicting of weather patterns even with modern day tech is still a 1 in 3 chance of getting it wrong.
You are talking of weather prognosis not climate. Some climate models start up to 1,000 years ago using data from tree rings, ice drill cores etc.
Shadow the Cats ownerHowever a volcano like Mt Etna or Kilawhwa still releases more in 2 weeks than the largest coal fired powerplant in 1 year.
But it is not just CO2 but lots of ashes that have a cooling effect. When climate scientists tried to approximate the measured temperature development only using natural sources including vulcano eruptions it didn't work. Including manmade greenhouse gases they had success.
Shadow the Cats ownerSo stop saying we are the only cause of climate change in 4.5 Billion years this planet has warmed cooled and will do so again and again.
Sorry but I never said so. I said part of the global warming is manmade. But that is the only one we can influence.
Shadow the Cats ownerTake the Paris Climate Accord. The USA was hammered in it yet China and India the Largest Polluters in the world were allowed to keep going.
The USA weren't forced into the Paris agreement they joined voluntarily. China and India ratified the agreement too. I don't know the goals for the individual countries. If they are lower for China and India thereare reasons.
Here are a few data that might help to understand: Summerazing the global CO2 output from 1850 to 2005 the very few developed countries (incl. USA) contributed 61%, the developing countries (incl. China) 39%. The USA alone produced 27%, China 11%. If you take the per capita output the USA has 16.2 tonnes and China 6.6 tonnes.
Shadow the Cats ownerAlso islands sinking is not because the water is rising it is called weathering and erosion and compression. Start reading up on that before making those claims. Water is one of the most powerful agents in this nation.
Then you know how long the Colorado River needed to dig the Grand Canyon. The latest prognosis is that the sea level might rise 7 ft til 2100.
Shadow the Cats ownerWhy was that simple we are a fully devolped country they aren't yet our President at the time was to dumb to realize that was the goal.
I better don't comment this.Regards, Volker
schlimmMy bill has stayed flat or slightly decreased since 2011, even though the ComEd delivery and recovery rates have increased. Reason? The energy prices have fallen so much because of the shift to gas.
My rate in Minnesota rose about 50% from 2011 to 2017. It is clearly the fastest rising utility cost by far. Minnesota has agressive renewable mandates. What might be the reason for this rapid rate rise? It can't be fuel cost, and the cost of plant and infrastructure does not rapidly change.
So, Minnesota rates are rising fast, but in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the electric rate is 2.5 times the Minnesota rate. That is a fact.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/10/as-energy-prices-fall-electricity-prices-rise/#7daf34846235
EuclidThe people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science.
That from someone who posted not long ago that there were no conspiracy theories.
Discussions work by exchanging arguments to convince someone else of my opion. Succes not guaranteed. Regards, Volker
Euclidyou and I know that to be a fact, but we will never be able to convince those who can explain the economics of competing fuels with just one sentence.
The 125 year you talk of are weather not climate data. The latter go much further back through tree examinating, ice drill cores from Greenland and Antarctica etc.
I can't answer your question directly but perhaps there is a similar mechanism like in Germany.
Here renewable energies have fixed price that is higher than the market value. If renewables are available the have to be taken first. Additionally we pay a fee to balance what industries depending heavily on electricity (Aluminum) don't have to pay. Our cost have more than doubled since 2000.
The plan here was to replace coal by gas power plants. That doesn't work because the energy costs from conventional plant dropped that much because of the preference for renewables the gas plant aren't economical anymore.Regards, Volker
DSchmittSounds like a 100 year flood. The term is misunderstood by most people. They think it means a flood that will only happen once in 100 years.
Thank you for clarifying. That is absolutely correct.Regards, Volker
One thing to keep in mind about climate scientists: their job is effectively to prove the theory right. Almost every climate scientist has entered the field believing that climate change is real. They believe it to the ends of the Earth, personally.
Then factor in that if there's no potential for cataclysmic climate change, then all the funding for their science dries up.
And then factor in that unlike most scientists, climate theories CANNOT be tested. They have their models, but like statistics, those can be faked to no end. If we could trust models, we wouldn't need 30 of them for day-to-day weather forecasting!
Now I'm not saying this discounts ALL of their work, but you have to understand that basically nobody is immune from confirmation bias, especially when the theories are unprovable.
And their field is NOT setup to challenge their ideas. They are NOT looking at studies which could fact-check or disprove their thesis. They're basically just following confirmation bias, and refusing to sign off on any peer-review which calls into question their own findings and personal beliefs.
The problem we have is that science has meet politics in an extremely unfavorable way, with a subject which will always be heaped full of uncertainly.
Al Gore once said that "ten years from now we'll be beyond the point of no return". Guess what: he said that over a dozen years ago. And now he's got a new movie/propaganda piece where he'll rinse, wash and repeat.
Many "cimate deniers", such as myself, are more upset that it is clear that this "science" is not being balanced, and is being forced upon us via higher living costs and less liberty to do what we want to do, all based on untestable "science".
I have trust is science, I'm in school to become an engineer after all. But one simply cannot trust "climate science" in the way that we can trust physics or medicine, because the theories cannot be tested, and there's way too much politics behind it.
You wouldn't take a new drug tested only via models. So you shouldn't blame somebody who isn't believing studies based only on models, as well.
-----
Back to EH Harrison for a moment.
While it's clear to me that his statement was only that they expect a sector to decline and are tailoring their capex to meet that demand, I find it obvious that this is just another topic tainted by the "we hate EHH" crowd.
Unfortunately, it seems much more popular to cut down EHH than to look at anything he's done based on the actual merits, numbers, and history.
Like climate science, this missing piece is quite saddening for those of us who enjoy objective debate and weighing the odds.
SD70M-2Dude--- Nice try with the re-railing but it keeps derailing instantly.
I'm having a thick slice of pan fried baloney for lunch, had a sudden craving.
SaturnaliaUnfortunately, it seems much more popular to cut down EHH than to look at anything he's done based on the actual merits, numbers, and history.
We just witnessed his numbers for the last quarter. They weren't impressive.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
EuclidMy rate in Minnesota rose about 50% from 2011 to 2017. It is clearly the fastest rising utility cost by far. Minnesota has agressive renewable mandates. What might be the reason for this rapid rate rise? It can't be fuel cost, and the cost of plant and infrastructure does not rapidly change. So, Minnesota rates are rising fast, but in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the electric rate is 2.5 times the Minnesota rate. That is a fact. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/10/as-energy-prices-fall-electricity-prices-rise/#7daf34846235
Thanks for the link to the article but he didn't give a definitive answer why they had risen so fast. I suspect the mandate for renewable energy imposed on us by a former governor may have some bearing on that. Normal inflation would also be a factor in rate increases but the ones we have seen in the past several years are not in line with normal cost of living increases.
Sounds like the Youppers are really paying through the nose just to keep the lights on. Michigan's upper peninsula is sparsely populated and with only a few electric utilities making power. I'm almost positive that when their facilities can't meet demand they are forced to buy from other companies on the national grid. The cost per customer to distribute electricity there has to be much higher than in the Detroit area where most of the population is serviced by DTE (aka Detroit Edison). Consumers Power has the majority land area of lower Michigan but with fewer people per square mile and their rates are higher than Edison's.
Several generating stations in Michigan have been forced to shut down thanks to regulation unilaterally imposed without comments from the consuming public allowed. Given some reasonable amount of time for technology to make the burning of coal clean it could still be a viable fuel for years to come. Problem is the regulators wanted those plants to comply with their edict posthaste or be forced into shutting down. Fair to the public? Not in my opinion. It was nothing more than a power grab on the part of the last administration and part of a bigger conspiracy. (schlimm, pardon me for saying that, but the reality of that comment is at least semi-truthful). I'm not usually into conspiracy theories so it was just a passing thought.
As politics go, they are an everyday fact of life we who live here have to live with, but in my time here I have never seen America so divided and hateful toward the other side. Both sides are culpable, and we have to break that mold before we once again become civil with each other. I'm not panning anyone on this forum, but if one reads the comments on news sites the incivility and hatred is obvious while reading the first few comments.
Norm
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science. That from someone who posted not long ago that there were no conspiracy theories. Regards, Volker
Euclid The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science.
Regards, Volker
I never said there was no agenda behind the climate change bandwagon. Seeing through political agendas is not a conspiracy theory. There certainly is a political agenda surrounding manmade climate change. It is plain to see and so it needs no conspiracy to hide it.
Labeling political insight as a conspiracy theory is a debate put down intended to characterize the target as being stupid and having delusions of being given rides in UFOs at night. This is a favorite personal attack tool of the political left to discredit any claimed insight into their agendas.
No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for. What a coincidence. It has all of their objectives including slow growth, eliminating suburbs, militant vegetarianism, public robots replacing private automobiles, transit replacing roads, renewable energy, composting waste, sustainability, and traffic circles for pedestrians.
But they don’t have to get together and hatch a conspiratorial plan because all those pieces of their ideology that are delivered by the global warming agenda are second nature to them. So their agenda springs forth naturally.
SaturnaliaOne thing to keep in mind about climate scientists: their job is effectively to prove the theory right. Almost every climate scientist has entered the field believing that climate change is real. They believe it to the ends of the Earth, personally.
Alex,
Yes, I know you from another forum in which I particapate.
There is something I would ask all participants of discussion forums to bear in mind. That is, like those of professors at universities, they have an interest in keeping the federal grants coming. Are those professors always right? If I knew the answer I would be deemed a genious. Call it 'employment insurance' if you wish. Better than being relegated to street urchins with an MBA or PHD. It's called 'vested interest'. Without those grants they would likely find themselves collecting unemployment and living accordingly. Can you fault them for protecting their own mules?
I have tried hard to remain in the middle, somewhere between skeptical and believing in one side or the other in the discussion. It is the refusal of both sides to acknowlege that both may have valid points that irks me.
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science. That from someone who posted not long ago that there were no conspiracy theories. Regards, Volker I never said there was no agenda behind the climate change bandwagon. Seeing through political agendas is not a conspiracy theory. There certainly is a political agenda surrounding manmade climate change. It is plain to see and so it needs no conspiracy to hide it. Labeling political insight as a conspiracy theory is a debate put down intended to characterize the target as being stupid and having delusions of being given rides in UFOs at night. This is a favorite personal attack tool of the political left to discredit any claimed insight into their agendas. No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for. What a coincidence. It has all of their objectives including slow growth, eliminating suburbs, militant vegetarianism, public robots replacing private automobiles, transit replacing roads, renewable energy, composting waste, sustainability, and traffic circles for pedestrians. But they don’t have to get together and hatch a conspiratorial plan because all those pieces of their ideology that are delivered by the global warming agenda are second nature to them. So their agenda springs forth naturally.
A superb example of Euclid's politically-tinged ideation that colors/distorts his views of reality. I really find it offensive to see the paranoid attacks by him and others on scientists and academia. The notion they are somehow all in league to secure grants is ridiculous. It betrays their ignorance of how things actually work in that field. Attending a departmental meeting and witnessing 'unanimous disagreement' on almost any topic would quickly disabuse them of that delusion.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
His ideas though do have some merit. In Seatlle they now fine you for not composting your food waste instead of throwing it in the garbage. Just look at how PETA and other animal rights groups act towards meat companies throwing funerals for turkeys in stores holding protests inside Chik a Filet during a kids birthday party harrassing cattle trucks throwing up roadblocks at chicken processing plants. They even protested the Westminster Kennel Club dog show saying the dogs where mistreated.
Schilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
Shadow the Cats ownerNot one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
I'm sure they'd let you look at them, Mrs. B.
Shadow the Cats ownerSchilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
You are overlooking what a real cat fight peer review is - if you report a 'new finding' - all your peers want to do is to discredit it and prove that it is nothing new, nothing that your name can be attached to. They don't want YOUR name applied to the finding, they want a finding where THEIR name gets applied to it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmann Shadow the Cats owner Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
BaltACD Shadow the Cats owner Schilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once. You are overlooking what a real cat fight peer review is - if you report a 'new finding' - all your peers want to do is to discredit it and prove that it is nothing new, nothing that your name can be attached to. They don't want YOUR name applied to the finding, they want a finding where THEIR name gets applied to it.
Shadow the Cats owner Schilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
All too true! Trying to read and critically comprehend journal articles outside one's limited field ain't as easy as Mrs E.B. seems to think it would be. Outside my area, I can do modestly well in some neurology journals, especially when closely relted to neuropsychology and assessment and quite well in history journals covering areas I have studied and read in, but that's about it. Even in my own field of clinical psychology, some articles are a real challenge.
VOLKER LANDWEHR erikem Warming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule. The greenhouse effect of water vapor as a natural phenomena is limited as the atmosphere accumulates only a limited amount depending on temperature.
erikem Warming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor as a natural phenomena is limited as the atmosphere accumulates only a limited amount depending on temperature.
Which can be 50,000ppm for water vapor versus the current 400ppm for CO2.
On the other hand the CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since industrialization began.
The primary absorption bands for CO2 are saturated with a mean free path on the order of 100m for IR photons at the absorption peaks. A doubling of CO2 concentration is calculated to increase the radiative forcing by 3W/m2. A quadrupling of CO2 would give a radiative forcing of about 6W/m2 as the forcing is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. From that, a gray body model indicates about a 1.2C rise in temperature.
Water vapor plays a role in manmade warming too as higher temperatures allow higher amounts to be accumulated in the atmosphere strengthening global warming.
An increase in water vapor may also lead to an increase in cloud cover, which may or may not weaken warming. The weakening/strengthening effect depends in part on the altitude at which the clouds form.
These effects are included in the climate prognose models.
The models don't do a very good job of simulating cumulus or cumulonimbus clouds as these require much finer grid scales then what are practical with global climate simulations. In addition, the tropical upper troposphere hot spot forecast by the models is not showing up in either radiosonde or satellite measurements.
FWIW, while I don't have a formal education in meteorology, I do have formal education in electromagnetics and radiation transport along with fluid flow, heat transfer and thermodynamics along with a smattering of meteorology in the process of getting a pilot's license.
EuclidNo, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for.
This seems to be quite a constricted view. I don't believe it is right for the USA and it is for sure not true for Germany. Here it is common understanding among the political camp. The governing CDU/CSU is everything but left. The CSU belongs to the far right of the spectrum, the CDU is more in the middle.
Claiming to see through political agendas and observe a leftist agenda regarding global warming is a conspiracy at least for Germany and most of Europe.
Everything else Mr. Schlimm already said.Regards, Volker
Miningman SD70M-2Dude--- Nice try with the re-railing but it keeps derailing instantly. I'm having a thick slice of pan fried baloney for lunch, had a sudden craving.
I tried using rerailers, but obviously needed the hook instead. Oh bother, may as well sit back and watch the pile-up get worse.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for. This seems to be quite a constricted view. I don't believe it is right for the USA and it is for sure not true for Germany. Here it is common understanding among the political camp. The governing CDU/CSU is everything but left. The CSU belongs to the far right of the spectrum, the CDU is more in the middle. Claiming to see through political agendas and observe a leftist agenda regarding global warming is a conspiracy at least for Germany and most of Europe. Everything else Mr. Schlimm already said.Regards, Volker
Euclid No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for.
You are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy.
The idea is that conspiracies are imagined by certain people as a belief that is unsubstantiated. So, labeling a person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy is a way dismissing their viewpoint as nothing more than an imagined conspiracy. You have done the exact same thing when you say this:
“Claiming to see through political agendas and observe a leftist agenda regarding global warming is a conspiracy at least for Germany and most of Europe.”
It is either true or it isn’t, but instead of debating that point, you dismiss it as a conspiracy. That is what I am talking about, so you make my point.
Ah, climate change (formerly known as global warning).
The climate has been changing since Day 1.
There's no question that mankind has had an effect - the argument is how much. Krakatoa dropped the temperature of the whole world 1.2 degrees Celsius in the course of a day. It took five years for temperatures to return to "normal."
There are people out to make money on the whole thing. Their political affiliation is of little consequence. Of course, they are out to push any information that pads their pockets.
There have been indications that someone has "cooked the books" - that the warming isn't as great as has been reported.
It wasn't that long ago that there were headlines about how the climate was cooling....
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
EuclidYou are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy.
Volker,
Given Euclid's obsessive style of argument coupled with a strong and rigidly-held contention of a vast academic and left-political conspiracy, you won't ever be able to penetrate his belief system.
schlimm Volker, Given Euclid's obsessive style of argument coupled with a strong and rigidly-held contention of a vast academic and left-political conspiracy, you won't ever be able to penetrate his belief system.
Oh bother, somebody isn't bending to your acedemic, leftist (some might say establishment) arguments...they must be...wait for it...DEPLORABLES!
There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other.
As a conservative, I can tell you that when leftists and acedemics proclaim to know the answers to our problems, that they can socially engineer them away thanks to their "studies" and good intentions, and the other side is full of "deplorables," we collectively roll our eyes and check the box for Trump, the anti-acedemic, anti-establishment guy, who, failure or not, isn't from academia or the establishment.
...And we are really piling up now, but nobody ever said disucssions stay on the same track ;)
Saturnaliawho, failure or not, isn't from academia or the establishment.
Yeah, who'd want a smart person running the free world?
Although I laugh at the notion that Trump isn't from the "establishment".
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid You are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy. I debated the merit of your “leftist agenda": This seems to be quite a constricted view. I don't believe it is right for the USA and it is for sure not true for Germany. Here it is common understanding among the political camp. The governing CDU/CSU is everything but left. The CSU belongs to the far right of the spectrum, the CDU is more in the middle. I’m sure your leftists agenda isn’t true for the USA either. When President Trump announced the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris there were a lot of CEO of large American companies asking the President to change his position. Do you really think all these CEOs are leftists? So I think that the commented part of your posts fits the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" quite well: A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspiratorsRegards, Volker
Euclid You are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy.
Well my use of the term “leftist” is only to indicate left leaning as opposed to right leaning. The term might sound like hard left or extreme left, but I did not intend it to mean that. In that context, yes I do believe that many CEOs of corporations are left leaning in their political views. That may come as a surprise to some because a large proportion of leftists hate corporations, so one might expect most corporate management to be right leaning.
But it is small business that most feels oppressed by taxes and regulations, so they tend to be for less government, which is political conservatism. So I would expect the CEOs of most small business to be conservative and few to be liberal. But it is different with CEOs and policy of large corporations.
As to your quoted definition of conspiracy theory, it does not in any way fit my idea of explaining the push to end manmade climate change. Of course it is not a “secret plot by powerful conspirators,” as your dictionary defines conspiracy theory. Where did I say anything like that? For one thing, the push to end manmade climate change is far larger than any conceivable “secret plot” could ever be. And for another thing, it does not require a secrete plot.
In any case, the issue does divide along political lines between the right and left. I don’t know if you would agree with that. But in the U.S., I think it is quite clearly true.
I've been enjoying just reading this thread so far. Why is it that many people today seem to be proud to assert that they don't think?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington I've been enjoying just reading this thread so far. Why is it that many people today seem to be proud to assert that they don't think?
By being proud of their ignorance, it makes them feel better about being ignorant in the first place? You got me.
zugmann Paul of Covington I've been enjoying just reading this thread so far. Why is it that many people today seem to be proud to assert that they don't think? By being proud of their ignorance, it makes them feel better about being ignorant in the first place? You got me.
The old TV show (based on a radio show by the same name),
"It Pays To Be Ignorant" comes to mind for them.
"There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other." - Saturalia
Seeing the US divided into lefties and academics vs themselves (ironically fans of a POTUS who seems enthralled with the 'former' communist KGB crowd) is the epitome of distorted thinking. No wonder they have been "left behind."
What is sad is seeing an area of important science research, climate change, turned into a political football by the Koch Bros. and others with a vested money interest and some folks don't even know how they are being conned and used.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.