Should R Candidates Talk About Climate Change? --- --New York Times

[Doug Bashford]

Should Candidates Talk About Climate Change?

Keep in mind that Republicans are scared to death
of this issue. But every one of the R candidates
publicly denied Science on the debate stage one day.
That's fine in a room full of Rubes, but how would
anti-intellectualism and reality denial play on
the national stage?

Imagine this political ad:
"Do you REALLY want the man with "The Button"
disconnected from reality? ...to thumb HIS
nose at Scientific information!? Haven't we
learned anything!?" ...cut to photo of George
Bush with his cartoon WMDs.

================

Should Candidates Talk About Climate Change?
--New York Times


http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/should-candidates-talk-about-climate-change/

Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on
Climate Change Communication, just sent the note below about
a new analysis of climate attitudes. I’m posting it here as
part of a continuing effort to point to notable news and
analysis out there in the firehose flood of information:

Today we are releasing a short report that draws upon
data from our latest national survey (March 2012) and other
research to investigate this question: On balance, will
candidates for political office benefit or be harmed by
talking about and supporting action to reduce global
warming?

The short answer is that – at the national level and
among ten key swing states – taking a pro-climate stand
appears to benefit candidates more than hurt them with
registered voters. Of course, the political dynamics in any
given district may be an exception to this pattern, but it
is important to note that the pattern is similar at both the
national and swing-state scales.

A few highlights:

· A majority of all registered voters (55 percent)
say they will consider candidates’ views on global warming
when deciding how to vote.
· Among these climate change issue voters, large
majorities believe global warming is happening and support
action by the U.S. to reduce global warming, even if it has
economic costs.
· Independents lean toward “climate action” and
look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.
· A pro-climate action position wins votes among
Democrats and Independents, and has little negative impact
with Republican voters.
· Policies to reduce America’s dependence on fossil
fuels and promote renewable energy are favored by a majority
of registered voters across party lines.

The full report can be downloaded here: The Political
Benefits of Taking a Pro-Climate Stand in 2012.

This related post is worth exploring: "Obama Ducks and
Covers on Climate." Here’s the core line:

The "C-word," climate, appears to have become to the
Beltway what the "P-word," population, has been in climate
treaty negotiations for a long time — unmentionable.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/the-c-word-vanishes/



Related Posts [links]

Amid Chatter on Climate and Energy Views, a Look at
Deeds
Still Searching for Republicans With Climate Concerns
More On Climate and Energy Procrastination
Machiavelli and Humanity’s Lukewarm Response to Warming
Scientists With Different Politics Speak With One Voice
on Climate

=================


For dittoheads the world is pure black or pure white.
Fact is, they are not bright enough to recognize
and comprehend a world where greys exist, much
less our complex, colorful world.

Of course this only one example of talk show
"education," -- of turning the often boring, often
complex world that our founding fathers demanded
we govern, into a simple, ratings-based cartoon.

The TALK SHOW 'education,' -- turning reality into a
ratings-based cartoon



."People deserve the government they get,
and they deserve to get it good and hard."
H.L. Mencken, 1916

[Bret Cahill]

Fortunately for Repugs & other deniers the moderator of the
presidential debates will be by for of and from the 0.01% media and
only culture wars will be discussed.


Bret Cahill

[Claudius Denk]

On Aug 23, 2:21 pm, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> Should Candidates Talk About Climate Change?
>
> Keep in mind that Republicans are scared to death
> of this issue.

I think they are rightly afraid to discuss the specifics of any
religious belief.

[Rich]

>

Why don't you people call it global warming any more?

[Doug Bashford]

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: Should R Candidates
Talk About Climate Change? --- --New York Times;
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:50:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:

Making statements that are unfalsifiable
is not scientific.
In this case, once again, it sounds meaningless.

IOW: Huh?

Some people find lithium helpful.


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

[Doug Bashford]

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: Should R Candidates
Talk About Climate Change? --- --New York Times;

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:48:32 -0500, Rich wrote:

> Why don't you people call it global warming any more?

Because "climate change" is more precise.
...seems some peple thought global warming
meant "universal warming." ...and so forth.

This distinction only matters to those who
debate it, not to Science.

BTW, The dictionary says GW is AGW.