People don't go in for radical imposition of misery. The "trick" is to impose it gradually, over decades, so that the people don't recognize that specific government policies are causing their suffering. Then they think the misery is "natural" and immutable, and can be blamed on uncontrollable and unpredictable externalities. But when the changes imposed are radical, the economic realities hit just as radically, and are immediately traceable to the policies which caused them. That's where the modern Democrats are screwing up - big time.
Agree, but they can't help themselves. They bent the knee to the extremists, and now the extremists are dragging them too quickly leftward.
I also think there's a pretty large bubble effect among the Dems. By treating everyone else as contemptible, they shut their senses off from reality, and are constantly surprised when the nation rejects them.
The questions that climate change people seem to stumble on are 1) Why was the earth so much hotter at times before man (or at least industrialization) and 2) what is the perfect climate/temperature? I mean, if we're trying to affect the temperature what are we shooting for? I never can get an answer to that. I guess you could add to that 3) Why do we as arrogant humans think we can actually change the climate (especially when so many major contributors to the issue aren't buying in, ie: China, et al) and 4) Why do the politicians who are espousing the loudest always buy ocean front property if the sea levels are rising? I've got more but I'll leave it at that.
I do believe we are having *some* impact on climate. I also believe that it's been overstated for decades - the simple fact that almost all the models have consistently over predicted warming tells the tale. But, arguing from this angle is mostly a waste of time nowadays, so instead I point out that the remedy being imposed, apart from being incredibly destructive, simply will not work, due to geopolitical realities.
That removes the disagreement over "how much warming" from the conversation, and lets me focus on things that will benefit the world whether or not AGW is mild or severe. Aka nuclear power and geo-engineering research as an "oh shit" reserve remedy.
People don't go in for radical imposition of misery. The "trick" is to impose it gradually, over decades, so that the people don't recognize that specific government policies are causing their suffering. Then they think the misery is "natural" and immutable, and can be blamed on uncontrollable and unpredictable externalities. But when the changes imposed are radical, the economic realities hit just as radically, and are immediately traceable to the policies which caused them. That's where the modern Democrats are screwing up - big time.
Agree, but they can't help themselves. They bent the knee to the extremists, and now the extremists are dragging them too quickly leftward.
I also think there's a pretty large bubble effect among the Dems. By treating everyone else as contemptible, they shut their senses off from reality, and are constantly surprised when the nation rejects them.
The questions that climate change people seem to stumble on are 1) Why was the earth so much hotter at times before man (or at least industrialization) and 2) what is the perfect climate/temperature? I mean, if we're trying to affect the temperature what are we shooting for? I never can get an answer to that. I guess you could add to that 3) Why do we as arrogant humans think we can actually change the climate (especially when so many major contributors to the issue aren't buying in, ie: China, et al) and 4) Why do the politicians who are espousing the loudest always buy ocean front property if the sea levels are rising? I've got more but I'll leave it at that.
I do believe we are having *some* impact on climate. I also believe that it's been overstated for decades - the simple fact that almost all the models have consistently over predicted warming tells the tale. But, arguing from this angle is mostly a waste of time nowadays, so instead I point out that the remedy being imposed, apart from being incredibly destructive, simply will not work, due to geopolitical realities.
That removes the disagreement over "how much warming" from the conversation, and lets me focus on things that will benefit the world whether or not AGW is mild or severe. Aka nuclear power and geo-engineering research as an "oh shit" reserve remedy.