Government is going too far with global warming message

[weso1]

I think the White House is making a strategy error here with this recent push on global warming. I'm not grumping about the science. The science is the science. But with this latest strategy the white house is pushing the idea that global warming is happening now and it's already impacting us. Look, I get that they are doing this for politics. They want their voter base out there because there's a good chance they are going to lose the senate. But if you really believe global warming is the worst things since sliced bread then you should be concerned with the current government message.

My grump isn't that it's wrong, but that this message won't be accepted by the general public. I just don't think the general public feels that global warming is truly impacting the country in a truly significant way right now. I think for people to truly believe something is in dire need of fixing they need to truly feel its impact. With the financial collapse, people felt it. With 9/11 people felt it. And so the population supported TARP and they supported the war in Afghanistan with fairly wide support. But for the government and its supporting media (everyone but Fox News) to say that the global warming disaster is here right now is alarmist. Even if its impact is here right now, the general public is going to think to themselves... well this isn't so bad, except for a minority of the population who are truly feeling the impacts from droughts and naders, etc.

[The Chosen One]

So let's find the root of the problem. Why do so many people believe global warming/climate change isn't real? I wonder who or what would have such a big influence on making people think it's a hoax.

People on my Facebook said it best. Climate change/global warming is a myth because it's still snowing.

Al Gore is probably the best and worst thing to happen. He was the biggest name to alert the people about it? At the same time the hard right will refuse to ever acknowledge global warming/climate change exists because Al Gore lead the movement 8 years ago. That's why environmental proactivity is being looked at as a liberal cause instead of a human mankind one.

[weso1]

I think it's because they just don't feel that it's a huge disaster waiting to happen. I think the solution is for the government to just be honest about it. They need to say... look this is obviously a problem. We are ****ting in our own atmosphere, but we also clearly still need oil for gas right now. So how about we slowly fix the problem. you might not feel it right now, but in the future it could impact your grandchildren. So let's set up a plan that makes sense economically and environmentally.

I think the liberals are being assholes about wanting the fix immediately no matter the impact on the economy and many conservatives are being assholes by denying the whole thing.

[The Chosen One]

I'm reasonable about a time line. It needs to be fixed asap but let's not throw up thousands of new regulations. The biggest hurdle is definitely the oil industry... they will spend big to publicly "debunk" and use the right wing as their vessel for stopping this.

Because of the solyndra fiasco, any liberal proposing investment in alternative energies is going to be greeted by the right with a solyndra failed comment so let's not waste money on this let's let thr market decide.

The market isn't going to decide this because certain companies who have lots of $ at stake are going to deceive the market to continue milking it.

[The Chosen One]

I believe if we take sturg's approach and let the market decide and we take the inaction path that it will be too late and the bulk of the damage will have been done.

[weso1]

By the way my point is that it's not just the hard right that is debunking this right now, but also the general public (the more extreme outlook). And I think the Al Gore philosophy of pedaling extremist global warming is flaming this.

I agree that the market isn't going to decide this and I think in a perfect world the federal government should be in the lead on this. It's a national defense issue in the end. But I just really think they are missing the mark on their propaganda. Even if the propaganda is in reality not propaganda at all but completely true, I just think they are missing the mark here. And I think the White House is putting politics over actually fixing the problem here. They want that voter base at the polls.

[The Chosen One]

White House's tone may be a bit over the top, but it is becoming an extremely urgent issue that many on the hard right continue to mock and make light of as if it doesn't exist. Global warming (unfortunately) isn't going to win elections, just like Benghazi isn't the reason Romney lost in 2012.

If there were no alarmists or activists going nuts about this, would the message be that well received? If there was no urgency by the alarmists, would people take it seriously? I have a strong feeling if it was brought up casually that people would just shrug it off as not important anyway.

Like you said in a perfect world the Federal Government would lead on this... but we live in a world where an entire elected Party is going to fight it just to fight it, and because they have plenty of money to back them to fight it publicly.

I think this is in large part a disturbing trend of decades of science and technology being ignored by a growing segment of the population as just a toy. Like you said, the science is there. But the problem is the hard right has done a great job at appealing to the lowest common denominator and denouncing and stigmatizing science as evil. That's why we're screwed. And again, Gore was the best and worse to happen to this movement. Without him we probably aren't talking about this as much as we are today and the last few years, but because of him the Limbaugh's Beck's O'Reilly's of the world are going to lead their sheep into ignoring and calling it a myth just because it was Al Gore that brought it up to national attention. They'll never concede to Gore on this, which is why they'll always doubt it publicly.

This is no longer about Al Gore being right and who's wrong, it's a situation that needs to be addressed and we need to get the ball rolling fast.

[yeezus]

I think it's because they just don't feel that it's a huge disaster waiting to happen. I think the solution is for the government to just be honest about it. They need to say... look this is obviously a problem. We are ****ting in our own atmosphere, but we also clearly still need oil for gas right now. So how about we slowly fix the problem. you might not feel it right now, but in the future it could impact your grandchildren. So let's set up a plan that makes sense economically and environmentally.

I think the liberals are being assholes about wanting the fix immediately no matter the impact on the economy and many conservatives are being assholes by denying the whole thing.

It kind of is, though. At least that's what the science says, which is impartial.

[BedellBrave]

"At least that's what the science says, which is impartial."

SMH

[goldfly]

[yeezus]

"At least that's what the science says, which is impartial."

SMH

Not agreeing with fantasies doesn't cause impairment to impartiality.

[weso1]

It kind of is, though. At least that's what the science says, which is impartial.

Really the only thing science says about that is that the larger the global temp increases due to human carbon emissions the greater the negative impacts are in relation to the positive impacts. This seems pretty obvious, but it actually has been studied. So if the temp increase is right at the min in the range of possibilities then I doubt we'd see the type of disaster some are expecting and probably not even a disaster at all. Of course if it's on the higher end then maybe my house will become ocean front property. Of course the term disaster is subjective. If my property value increases then I'd hardly call that a disaster.

[50PoundHead]

I think it's because they just don't feel that it's a huge disaster waiting to happen. I think the solution is for the government to just be honest about it. They need to say... look this is obviously a problem. We are ****ting in our own atmosphere, but we also clearly still need oil for gas right now. So how about we slowly fix the problem. you might not feel it right now, but in the future it could impact your grandchildren. So let's set up a plan that makes sense economically and environmentally.

I think the liberals are being assholes about wanting the fix immediately no matter the impact on the economy and many conservatives are being assholes by denying the whole thing.

I don't want to sound like a cynical pr*ck, but since when do Americans buy any type of planning, especially since Reagan (not blaming Reagan, just picking a time frame). Middle class is convinced that there is a conspiracy out to get them and that the global warning is part of a constructed scenario of supposed scarcity that can be wished away.

[Oklahomahawk]

I think the liberals are being assholes about wanting the fix immediately no matter the impact on the economy and many conservatives are being assholes by denying the whole thing.

Gonna be pretty hard to top this one guys. Looks like it pretty much covers the situation as far as attitudes.

[The Chosen One]

Weird. I suggest watching Vice on HBO. The latest episode has a segment specifically on climate change's effects in Texas.

From the beef industry shutting down jobs because farmers have to sell their cattle because no water, to the oil industry buying up a lot of the water to use for fracking and at the same time showing Texas politicians deny global warming exists.

Has clips of the deeply religious devout Christians in Texas who say they don't believe in global warming because god controls the weather...

It's really interesting and after watching it you feel more sorry to know that god isn't going to bring them rain. It touches up a lot of the stuff we've discussed in this thread including a GOP congressman who converted to believing in global warming and was primaried by a tea bagger who used that against him.

He simply said "Al Gore was for it so I was automatically against it until I looked into the science and data".

[Julio3000]

Weird. I suggest watching Vice on HBO. The latest episode has a segment specifically on climate change's effects in Texas.

From the beef industry shutting down jobs because farmers have to sell their cattle because no water, to the oil industry buying up a lot of the water to use for fracking and at the same time showing Texas politicians deny global warming exists.

Has clips of the deeply religious devout Christians in Texas who say they don't believe in global warming because god controls the weather...

It's really interesting and after watching it you feel more sorry to know that god isn't going to bring them rain. It touches up a lot of the stuff we've discussed in this thread including a GOP congressman who converted to believing in global warming and was primaried by a tea bagger who used that against him.

He simply said "Al Gore was for it so I was automatically against it until I looked into the science and data".

It's just those kind of externalities that the public, in large, doesn't get. The public is already picking up the tab for so many things—pollution remediation, environmental damage, increased health care costs—that are direct consequences of our energy policy.

[weso1]

Weird. I suggest watching Vice on HBO. The latest episode has a segment specifically on climate change's effects in Texas.

From the beef industry shutting down jobs because farmers have to sell their cattle because no water, to the oil industry buying up a lot of the water to use for fracking and at the same time showing Texas politicians deny global warming exists.

Has clips of the deeply religious devout Christians in Texas who say they don't believe in global warming because god controls the weather...

It's really interesting and after watching it you feel more sorry to know that god isn't going to bring them rain. It touches up a lot of the stuff we've discussed in this thread including a GOP congressman who converted to believing in global warming and was primaried by a tea bagger who used that against him.

He simply said "Al Gore was for it so I was automatically against it until I looked into the science and data".

Sounds like liberal propaganda. Attach any and all natural disaster to climate change without any scientific proof while simultaneously crapping all over the oil industry, and in this case might as well take a dump on christians as well. What was their scientific proof that linked climate change to the drought in Texas? In fact NOAA released a study on the Texas drought and found no significant link to climate change. The fracking industry is great for the economy of Texas and fracking essentially has nothing to do with the Texas drought. Typical scaremongering tactic pedaled by environmentalists.

I really don't see a difference between those who choose to flat out deny global warming exists and those who believe it's the cause of any and all natural disaster in the world. Both choose to blindly ignore science for political purposes.

[57Brave]

I think it's because they just don't feel that it's a huge disaster waiting to happen. I think the solution is for the government to just be honest about it. They need to say... look this is obviously a problem. We are ****ting in our own atmosphere, but we also clearly still need oil for gas right now. So how about we slowly fix the problem. you might not feel it right now, but in the future it could impact your grandchildren. So let's set up a plan that makes sense economically and environmentally.

I think the liberals are being assholes about wanting the fix immediately no matter the impact on the economy and many conservatives are being assholes by denying the whole thing.

We have the legislative model of health care. Teddy Roosevelt first proposed a national policy - the 1900's ???
2010 we got something -anything through and established a policy by ---- demanding "an immediate fix."
Had (R) had it's way we'd take the political path you embrace and we will be talking mans effect on climate change 100 years from now - with no kind of policy in place.

Unlike health care where people are born everyday ----- we only have one atmosphere so:
I think alarm is in order

[weso1]

We have the legislative model of health care. Teddy Roosevelt first proposed a national policy - the 1900's ???
2010 we got something -anything through and established a policy by ---- demanding "an immediate fix."
Had (R) had it's way we'd take the political path you embrace and we will be talking mans effect on climate change 100 years from now - with no kind of policy in place.

Unlike health care where people are born everyday ----- we only have one atmosphere so:
I think alarm is in order

You have to get people to believe that alarm truly exists though. I just don't think it's going to work when you tell people that global warming's disastrous effects are here right now, whilest for the most part they walk out there front door to nice sunny weather.

After I get a few tornado warnings and don't actually get a tornado, I continue to take each subsequent tornado warning less and less serious.

I think there's a reasonable argument and a reasonable solution to be made. But from my seat here in the stands it seems like the only real solution being offered up by the environmentalists is the most extreme solution.

I think a vast majority of the population believes global warming exists, but aren't ready to do something drastic about it. I would personally propose adding climate change defense to the defense budget. I would argue look how much we spend on defense compared to other countries. So let's take a relatively small piece of that defense budget, without actually lowering the defense budget or increasing taxes, and use that to help lower emissions and potentially use to build sea walls if need be, a rainy day fund if you will, no pun intended. But at the same time let's actually increase oil production here in the states in the short term where we can do it cleaner rather than say Nigeria or Venezuela. Let's build those pipelines rather than ship the oil on large ships. I feel like this is a win win for everyone.

[57Brave]

You have to get people to believe that alarm truly exists though. I just don't think it's going to work when you tell people that global warming's disastrous effects are here right now, whilest for the most part they walk out there front door to nice sunny weather.

After I get a few tornado warnings and don't actually get a tornado, I continue to take each subsequent tornado warning less and less serious.

I think there's a reasonable argument and a reasonable solution to be made. But from my seat here in the stands it seems like the only real solution being offered up by the environmentalists is the most extreme solution.

I think a vast majority of the population believes global warming exists, but aren't ready to do something drastic about it. I would personally propose adding climate change defense to the defense budget. I would argue look how much we spend on defense compared to other countries. So let's take a relatively small piece of that defense budget, without actually lowering the defense budget or increasing taxes, and use that to help lower emissions and potentially use to build sea walls if need be, a rainy day fund if you will, no pun intended. But at the same time let's actually increase oil production here in the states in the short term where we can do it cleaner rather than say Nigeria or Venezuela. Let's build those pipelines rather than ship the oil on large ships. I feel like this is a win win for everyone.

Educate on the difference between Climate and Weather. Lady Bird Johnson led a campaign to stop littering by educating the public on something they just got used to seeing and doing. Look around it actually changed the behavior of a country that was used to just throwing their trash out the car window riding down the road. I personally don't know anyone (except Arlo) that has ever been charged with littering -- all the same our streets and roadways are fairly well kept -- because there was a public relations campaign to educate -- your suggestion of payment it out of the Defense budget is reasonable and some. But, how would that play in Dumbfuchisthan? Koch Brothers would arm their wing of the Tea Party and we get no where.
Again

In a reasonable political climate I agree 100% with your thoughts but, we don't live in a reasonable political climate -- one of our fellow posters credits the stench of political air on greed. With the latest SCOTUS decisions on how campaigns are financed I don't see reasonableness winning without alarm