Essay by Eric Worrall
“… reducing hostility toward the other side (particularly among conservatives) may facilitate cross-ideological climate coalitions. …”
Climate policy isn’t partisan — research suggests more on the right support it than oppose it
Published: April 29, 2026 2.09am AEST
Emily Huddart Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia
Tony Silva Associate Professor of Sociology, University of British ColumbiaClimate change has become entangled in partisan politics. In Canada, as in other countries, climate concern and support for climate policy are often coded as left-leaning positions. Meanwhile, climate change skepticism or denial is more likely to be espoused by those on the political right.
…
However, we found that having ties to the oil and gas sector did not significantly predict their support for climate policy. Likewise, the degree of conservatism — whether someone identified as centre-right or far-right — didn’t make conservatives less likely to support climate policy either.
…
What mattered most was affective polarization.
Negative feelings toward the left and positive feelings toward the right were by far the strongest predictors of climate policy attitudes, and explained the most variation in support.
In simple terms, people on the right who felt the most hostility toward the left, and the most warmth toward the right, were more likely to oppose climate policy.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-policy-isnt-partisan-research-suggests-more-on-the-right-support-it-than-oppose-it-280912
The abstract of the study;
Negative partisanship, positive partisanship, and variation in climate policy attitudes on the political right
Emily Huddart , Tony Silva , Parker Muzzerall , James N Druckman
PNAS Nexus, Volume 5, Issue 4, April 2026, pgag094, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag094
Published:
28 March 2026Abstract
Conservatives are more likely than liberals to oppose climate policies, resulting in political polarization over climate change. Most research treats this gap as if it reflects two cohesive blocs on opposite sides of an issue. Drawing on original survey data from a probability sample of Canadians (n = 2,503), we find that while liberals are highly uniform in their orientation toward climate policies, conservatives are far more heterogeneous. Further analyses reveal conservatives’ policy positions strongly correlate with their partisan affect—both the extent to which they dislike opposing liberals (negative partisanship) and the extent to which they like fellow conservatives (positive partisanship). These findings highlight the importance of considering variation within, and not just between, political sides. The results additionally suggest that reducing hostility toward the other side (particularly among conservatives) may facilitate cross-ideological climate coalitions.
Read more: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/5/4/pgag094/8553701
The study appears to assume conservatives who oppose climate action are irrational. From the first paragraph of the study – “… Climate mitigation policy in democratic nations requires coordination and compromise between political elites, scientific experts, and citizens. Yet sound public policies are often rejected due to partisan or ideological divides. …”
The determination of whether someone was conservative was based on self identification – “… We use “liberal” and “conservative” to denote respondents’ self-placement on a 0–10 ideological scale (0 = extremely liberal/left, 10 = extremely conservative/right), rather than formal party affiliation …”. This introduces some obvious potential biases.
The unsupported assumption that climate policies are “sound”, and by implication that opposition to climate policies is irrational, is the key mistake which led the study authors to an erroneous conclusion.
When I first heard of the climate crisis I was concerned. It was when I heard the absurd proposed solutions – solar panels and wind turbines – and heard and read claims that nuclear power was too dangerous, that I started digging deeper.
If the world was truly on the brink of a climate catastrophe, how could the risk of a few nuclear meltdowns possibly be worse than a global warming mass extinction event?
It didn’t long to discover the truth of the situation. The reality is claims we are in the midst of a global warming crisis are just as irrational as green opposition to nuclear power. The world is in no danger of overheating – our world has been locked in the Late Cenzoic Ice Age for the last 34 million years, an ice age which shows no sign of ending.
Why would awareness of these facts lead to feelings of hostility towards climate activist politicians?
The ongoing affordability crisis in renewable enthusiast regions like Europe more than demonstrates a world with energy systems dominated by wind and solar would be a world locked in a permanent economic great depression, with industries crushed by the cost of unreliable energy, by having to continuously start and stop the engine of society depending on hour by hour changes in the weather. Not the kind of world most people would want to leave to their kids.
The study authors considered none of this. By blindly assuming climate policy proposals are sound, by inferring respondents who opposed climate action did not have rational reasons for that opposition, without bothering to ask what those reasons are, the study authors confused cause and effect. The study authors leapt to the false conclusion that opposition to climate policy is motivated by emotional prejudice against liberals, without considering the possibility those negative feelings are motivated by reason.
Fact Check FALSE.
I’m A born and bred Republican from a conservative family and believe in conservative ways. My Wife and Daughter are both Liberals and I Cherish them dearly.
And I vehemently oppose unnecessary expenditures for ANY cause (climate included) where the costs vastly outweigh the proposed benefits.
Far cheaper to mitigate any potential problem from a slightly warming climate than to spend massively on avoiding 1/10°C destroying economies in the process.
Not to mention the net Benefit that a warmer climate brings.
—Longer Growing Seasons
—Better Crop Yields
—Better plant water usage
—Enhanced plant growth
—Biosphere Greening
—Oasification
—Lower land use for energy production with FF vs Renewables
Therefore, this question for you: Do you or don’t you think the costs of the US Apollo space missions that landed 12 astronauts on the Moon from July 1969 to December 1972 were (a) unnecessary, and (b) “vastly outweighed” the proposed benefits at that time?
Not at all…we got TANG!!!
And stretching our reach into space required a first step. The Moon was an excellent choice for a first step. Mars is next.
We, (our robots) have already made the ~7 month journey to Mars.
So far none have made the return trip. Your “Mars is next” is a very
long way off and what for?
Long way off or not…it’s still next!
Not if the Vogon Constructor Fleet arrives in neighborhood of Earth in the next, oh, 30 years or so.
Leave it to Vogons
(Democrats)to mess things upThe Vogons destroyed Earth to make way for a new hyperspace bypass. The democrats can’t build a railroad on a flat stretch of California.
Don’t belittle the Vogon’s with that comparison!
Not too long ago, the Moon was a long way off.
Prior to that, low earth orbit was a long way off.
The moon is still kind of a long way off (Artemis II was a 10 day mission just for a once around)
The Earth/Moon system is so big you could place Saturn with it’s main rings comfortably between them.
You could replace Earth with Saturn and our moon would be beyond Dione.
Even Jupiter and it’s rings would fit between the Earth and Moon.
From Google’s AI bot:
“Jupiter’s ring system is composed of four main components with a total width stretching roughly 130,000 km, starting from about 92,000 km to over 226,000 km from the planet’s center.“
[my bold emphasis added]
and
“The distance from Earth’s surface (moon-facing radius) to the Moon’s surface (earth-facing) is approximately 376,300 kilometers (roughly 233,800 miles) on average. This surface-to-surface distance varies from roughly 355,600 km to 397,300 km due to the Moon’s elliptical orbit.”
[my bold emphasis added]
So 2*(226,000km) = 452,000 km (the diameter of the Jupiter’s rings) is much greater than 397,300 km (the maximum Earth-Moon separation).
“Test all things; hold fast what is good”
— The Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Math reads awkwardly but result is correct.
I was confused by the term ‘total width’ thinking that meant outer edge to outer edge, in which case Jupiter and rings would fit between earth and moon just fine. However ‘total width’ refers to the thickness of rings from outer edge to edge closest to Jupiter’s surface, thus TYS’s x2, add gap from surface, add diameter of planet.
Nope. Would not fit.
Well, that really reads . . . ummm . . . awkwardly.
Jupiter? Where’d you get that? He said Saturn.
— the last sentence stated by Bryan A in his comment posted above on April 29, 2026 4:26 pm.
Check it out.
Alas! . . . reading comprehension 101.
And once, the next valley was a long way off when you had to walk to get there.
As TYS was asking… for what?
I’d answer the question “Why Apollo” with “Because politics”.
Space program demonstrated USA could waste that kind of money on making a statement at a time when USSR could not.
One could argue No NASA? Then no GPS wristwatch for you mr jogger, and no cell phone map navigator for you ms driver.
“Why Mars” is a tougher question today, when the cost might help push USA over a “borrowed too much during peace time and can’t even pay interest with tax revenue” line.
FYI, the Global Positioning System (GPS) was developed by, paid by, and launched into space by funding from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), not NASA.
It’s what homo sapiens do- continually push the frontier.
Silly. The robots sent to Mars were supposed to stay there and explore until the couldn’t any longer. They were NEVER intended to come back like a human would. When your car no longer works, you just replace it with another, you don’t have a funeral for it!
There has been SERIOUS discussion on making the early human trips that intend to land on Mars as one-way trips. That is, no return to Earth for persons on those momentous journeys. That approach VASTLY SIMPLIFIES the design and planning of the first Mars landing mission, in addition to achieving about a 10:1 mass reduction in the outgoing spaceship.
I cannot confirm the current status on this, but understand that some well-qualified individuals have agreed they would go Mars understanding it would be a one-way trip, with a stay time on the Martian surface of, at most, one year due to: (a) the limited supplies (food, water, return propellant) that could be transported on the original spacecraft, (b) the fact that Mars-Earth closest approaches happens only every 26 months, and (c) the odds of some critical medical emergency requiring surgery or advanced medical treatment developing among one or more of the landing crew.
Used spaceships are a bit different from used cars.
At trip to Mars would many months. After six months of space travel the astronauts would experience kidney failure. Thus no trip to Mars for humans.
A trip to mars could require rotational synthetic gravity. No Kidney Failure.
BTW Astronauts orbit the earth in Zero G for a year or more on the ISS so 6 months is more than survivable.
Yes, micro-gravity is detrimental to human health.
Space development will include using “artificial gravity” to keep people healthy in space.
Creating an Earth-equivalent “gravity” in space is fairly easy to do using a couple of habitat modules connected together using a cable, where the two modules are connected at each end of the cable and the cable is stretched tight, and the modules are then rotated around the center of the cable.
A vehicle like this would use a cable about one mile long, and the modules would rotate around the center at a rate of one revolution per minute, which would produce “gravity” in each module equivalent to the gravity on Earth.
The U.S. space program should start developing this system now.
If the human race lasts long enough, we will eventually be a space-faring people. I think eventually, many more people will live off the Earth in artificial habitats as live on it.
I have to add my formula for artificial gravity in space:
1 + 1 =1.
One mile in diameter + One revolution per minute = One Earth “gravity”.
“A vehicle like this would use a cable about one mile long, and the modules would rotate around the center at a rate of one revolution per minute, which would produce “gravity” in each module equivalent to the gravity on Earth.”
This, of course, only works with the assumptions that:
(a) no mid-course trajectory corrections (via rocket propulsion thrusting) will be needed . . . look up rotational inertia and gyroscopic precession resulting from applied torques,
(b) that the rocket propellant expenditures required to spin up and spin down the separate habitat capsules at the end of the tether would be acceptable,
(c) that the duplication of life-support equipment, communications gear, spacecraft control gear, and power supply required for two, instead on one, habitat capsules is allowable within the mission’s design mass,
(d) the mission allows only one doctor/physician and one Mars-landing pilot to be in one of the two pods for most of the nine-month+ travel from Earth to Mars, and
(e) the Mars landing vehicle either remains at the center of the cable (and thus remains unexamined for most of the trip), or is split up equally (in mass) so as to be segmented alongside each habitat capsule, and then reassembled in Martian orbit . . . and if the latter, how strong/massive would the “cable” have to be to support the centrifugal loading of this worst case?
“Fairly easy to do” . . . I think NOT!
Have you heard of Buzz Aldrin’s “cycling space station” concept?
I think he should add an artificial gravity improvement to it.
Yep, heard of it, considered the practicality of it, and given that it would be a “one-off”, largely untested-prior-to-first-use spacecraft conclude that, as envisioned, it would be, engineering-wise, totally impractical, even adding “artificial gravity” methods to it.
Want a real world example? . . . how many tries has SpaceX made to just put a Starship into suborbital flight around Earth? Hasn’t yet achieved the first orbital test flight, despite IFT-1 happening in April 2023, more than three years ago.
Aldrin’s “cyclers”are based on using massive, permanently inhabited spacecraft that orbit the Sun, repeatedly passing near Earth and Mars in a continuous cycle. Yeah, right! We don’t even have a solid concept for a one-way, direct mission from Earth to Mars . . . how are we going to create a permanently-manned spacecraft that is in a minimum energy orbit that goes between near-Earth and near-Mars once every 26 months??? Stock it with unicorns to supply food, water, and oxygen to the occupants? Maybe some streaming TV services to prevent the occupants from dying of boredom? /sarc
Buzz deserves credit for being the second Apollo astronaut to set foot on the Moon on July 21, 1969, but his idea for enabling Mars exploration leaves much to be desired.
Most astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts that have been in space continuously for 3 months or longer develop muscle atrophy and (inner ear) imbalance syndrome (including dizziness and vertigo) to the extent they cannot walk upright for any significant distance upon immediately returning to Earth’s one-g surface. In addition, it is commonly known that these space “voyagers” have their eyeballs reform in zero-g to the extent they suffer blurred vision upon returning to Earth’s surface gravity field.
Some knowledgeable pundits have quipped that without the assistance from AI robots, the first “human explorers” to Mars will likely trip stepping off the landing vehicle’s ramp or elevator to the Martian surface and radio back to Earth: “Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”
As for the vehicle to Mars incorporating rotation-induced centrifugal acceleration to the extent needed to mimic Martial surface gravity, get real! Do you have any idea of the amount of additional spacecraft mass, and thus addition propellant expenditure, that would be needed to incorporate this feature on a Martian-bound spacecraft??? To avoid ridiculous Coriolis-effects, the diameter of such would need to be on the size of the Earth-orbiting space station featured in the 1968 (highly optimistic, time-wise) movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Every advance humans have made- was scorned by those who had limited imagination.
Not Brian A, but I just did some quick fact checking. The Apollo space program may not have been strictly necessary, but its existance drove over 2000 spinoff technologies that have fundamentally changed the world for the better. Among the bigger technology categories are microelectronics, computing, and materials science.
And Velcro!
Ohhh Yaaah..Velcro Baby!
Velcro was first patented in 1951.
Rud, agreed. Manhattan Project had the same massive spin-off effects.
The spinoff effects were a large increase of funding for academic research and an enormous increase in defense funding for the military-industrial complex.
Right on, man!
From what I’ve heard and read about is that microelectronics has more to do with the Minuteman program and NSA as opposed to the Apollo program.
On the other, being able to land the Lunar Descent module within 1.5 miles of a Surveyor lander from 240,000 miles away was a huge signal to the Russians about possible improvements in accuracy of American ICBM’s.
NASA may have increased the rate of development in microelectronics. There was already plenty of demand in the rest of the economy.
Computer makers needed to reduce the size of transistors because smaller transistors are quicker, cheaper and draw less power.
The moon program certainly had everything to do with the cold war.
Bingo!
And created how many jobs?
More than the “well paying green jobs” that have yet to appear.
5 Key Insights on the State of US Clean Energy Jobs
https://www.wri.org/insights/clean-energy-jobs-us-report-findings
Yet clean energy jobs still need the fossil fuel industry to exist…
. . . and not the other way around!
Excellent point.
Over their pitiful inefficient, erratic lifetimes, Wind and solar are the most environmentally damaging forms of electricity ever used.
Needing more labor than the all the alternatives is nothing to be proud of, and one of the reasons why renewables are much more expensive than fossil fuel.
And there were no energy jobs before 2020. Remarkable
When one looks at that article, one sees that jobs already in existence were included in the total. That is now jobs. One cannot include the construction workers who are project employed and go back to the soup line when the work is done, much like the New Deal back in the 1930s.
It is also a propaganda site.
Whereas “climate policies” offer us 1700s tech and economy wrecking energy restrictions, all to achieve NOTHING but a pointless and hopeless effort to stop the climate from IMPROVING.
Where’s that “smack my head” emoji when I need one?!
It’s not an emoji but how about this. 😎
Rud, I agree completely.
The point of my question—missed by many—was that it is nearly impossible to foresee that “proposed benefits” will be the actual benefits from any new scientific endeavor, let alone to put $ value on what those resulting benefits might be.
I wish we had such a crystal ball, but we don’t.
And I do believe that it is critical for the long term health and progress of humans (i.e., the benefit of ALL) that humanity takes on “stretch” goals from time to time.
“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time”.
— T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding, 1943
Concur.
And WD-40.
WD-40 was invented in 1953.
OK how about…
memory foam
Cordless power tools
Scratch-resistant lenses
Compact computer processors
Fire-resistant clothing
Space Blankets
Translucent Ceramics
and
Water purification systems
You might have me on the memory foam and space blankets, the rest were either already under development or already in demand.
And, let’s not forget- powerful rockets.
And deadly lasers!!
CO2 scrubbers.
What does “WD” mean? I could fantasize or look it up but I’m lazy.
WD-40 is a lubricant, anti-corrosion, and cleaner.
WD originally meant water displacement.
I’ve been using it for decades but never gave a thought to what the WD meant. It does make sense. So, how will it be made when ff are banned? 🙂
And here he is. An infamous Sophist would will not address the article and will do his best to distract and divert people into a flame war.
Having read further, I retract the above comment.
Thae Apollo Program and what was learned getting humans to the moon and back offered us advantages and opportunities beyond measure but we chose to pat ourselves on the back for the next 50 years and piss-away what was won.
The Space Truck (Shuttle) had its fans but it was kinda like a space program on a leash.
You wanna talk about WASTE? How about we cost-per-mile of high-speed-rail, t
between nowhere and nowhere in California.
Hmmm . . . seems like quite a few readers don’t like questions being asked.
Strange.
I think it was more that the question was unclear, albeit there were an awful lot of down votes for a complex question that I felt required multiple answers. I am prejudiced as most of my career was space technology that built on Apollo. After Apollo, NASA turned into a stinking pile of dog poop and with the help of two branches of government brought all further space progress to a crawl until Musk came along and refused their help. With Musk showing the way, suddenly progress restarted across the globe.
I was not a fan of SpaceX when it started. Everything I and my cohorts at McDonnell Douglas/Boeing believed he was trying to do was either too hard or just plain not feasible. I was wrong. Not afraid to say it. But Apollo was the beginning.
Be careful painting with such a broad brush. I can agree with you about the “human exploration” part of NASA running off the rails, but NASA is MUCH more than that. Please give credit where credit is due.
NASA developed and launched its four Great Observatories (Hubble Space Telescope, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer [Infrared] Space Telescope), after the end of the Apollo Program, between 1990 and 2003. Most recently, in December 2021, NASA launched its incredibly complex James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), that was successfully deployed in an unusual halo obit around the L2 Lagrangian point of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, and that is making record-breaking and previous-science-disrupting observations on the earliest times and most distant matter and energy in our universe.
Every US probe developed by NASA and successfully landed on Mars (nine in total) were launched after the end of the Apollo program, beginning with Viking 1 & 2 in 1976.
These are the dates of the launches of the first US spacecraft (all developed and launched by NASA) that successfully flew by the given planet:
— Mercury (November 1973, Mariner 10)
— Saturn (April 1973, Pioneer 11)
— Uranus (August 1977, Voyager 2)
— Neptune (August 1977, Voyager 2)
— Pluto (January 2006, New Horizons),
all launched after the end of the Apollo program.
Although NASA was not involved in the very first discovery of exoplanet around a Sun-like star in 1995, the agency has led the field in discovering thousands of subsequent exoplanets. NASA’s major contributions began later with missions like Kepler, Spitzer, Hubble and JWST, which have confirmed over 6,000 exoplanets.
Since the last Apollo mission (December 1972), NASA has launched or partnered in the launch of dozens of solely-NASA and NASA-ESA-Canada partnership weather and Earth resource satellites, such as 7 successful Landsat missions, more than 25 GOES and POES satellites.
Since the end of the Apollo program, NASA’s major accomplishments in the field of aeronautics have focused on enhancing aircraft safety, efficiency, and speed. Key innovations since early-1973 include pioneering digital fly-by-wire flight control systems, developing advanced composite materials, enhancing laminar flow for drag reduction, advancing tiltrotor technology (e.g., Bell XV-15), and improving aviation safety.
Fair enough?
Hubble has been in orbit for 36 years! And still going strong!
I would say we got our money’s worth with Hubble.
Want a tissue?
Not that dislike you insinuating. Disagreeing, certainly.
There were people back during the initial space exploration era that raised such questions, too.
You have no idea how many technological advances were made during the early space period you use. You are probably too young to remember. Ceramic tiles capable of handling the heat and pressures of reentry for one. Computer programs and sensors to allow controlled docking (first self-driving system). How to program basic computers to control systems and navigation. Others were new thermal insulation, digital imaging, new lightweight and extremely strong materials used today in prosthetics and robotics. On and on.
Do some research.
I researched your comment and came up immediately with this:
you stated “You have no idea how many technological advances were made during the early space period you use.” That is absolutely true . . . so, please tell me the exact number of such.
Surely YOU remember.
Duhhhh . . . ceramic tiles were never used for reentry during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. All spacecraft on those programs used ablative heat shields. The first major operational use of ceramic tiles for reentry was on the NASA Space Shuttle, specifically debuting on the Columbia Orbiter for the STS-1 mission in April 1981. That would be . . . yeah . . . about 8 years after the last Apollo mission, the end of the period I was referring too. Do some research to avoid stating such misinformation.
Only a Neanderthal would think the moon mission wasn’t a terrific endeavor.
There were Neanderthal’s on Earth during, let alone after, the Apollo moon missions?
Who knew? /sarc
Also this: “terrific endeavor” was never mentioned in my OP question as that term is not objective.
Millions of detractors thought the manned space missions were a terrible waste of money. I was a kid at the time, but if I recall correctly, NASA was always struggling under the threat of budget cuts and outright cancelation.
Interestingly enough, 23 And Me says I have above-average amounts of Neanderthal DNA. I’m debating whether to add that to my LinkedIn profile.
Yes. The benefits outweigh the costs.
Employment. Industries started and continuing today.
New technologies and spinoffs.
Quite true some, maybe more than some would have happened anyway, the the space program accelerated technological development. Yes, so did the military. Space and military are aways coupled and have been since the beginning.
I would not have a job today were it not for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, the shuttles, all of it. I am part of a team that constructs payloads and prepares and launches rockets. Some would call me a rocket scientist.
Why not compare the costs of Apollo to designing, constructing, and deploying 7 nuclear powered air craft carriers? One could make an argument that those costs vastly outweigh the benefits.
Simply question: What is the benefit (in $) of preventing a world-wide nuclear war through deterrence?
Want to debate that?
The “conservative” approach to life is no different to the Hippocratic Oath –
“First do no harm . . . “
Aren’t you the guy who supports all tgese phony US wars no matter how obvious and big the lies are (as long as presented by the party of your chouce).
Must be the hypocrit oath I guess.
If war is always bad, I guess we shouldn’t have fought against Hitler.
Yeah, we should just let the religious fanatics in Iran have all the nuclear weapons they want.
Leftists don’t have a clue. Conspiracy theorists don’t have a clue.
You do realize that the world is not speaking Japanese and German right? When was the last 9/11/2001? How many teams or individuals in sports remain unbeaten by ignoring what their opponents are doing. Maybe you think an Iran with nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them could be persuaded to not use them.
Look up Neville Chamberlain and what he said about Germany accepting appeasement.
whhaaatt?
It all boils down to the Jews with him.
The war in Iran is to hopefully PREVENT WORLD-WIDE HARM by the rabid anti-human Islamic terrorist regime… that you seem to support.
Anti-Americans are convinced that the whole world would get along peacefully with each other. It’s the US that is behind every conflict in the world. Even if they can’t figure out how.
They aren’t really US wars as most of the neighbors support the US efforts. However, the feckless always sound tough and superior but never are. Sigh…
Yep tough choices for leaders. Thank god the US has a leader instead of a manager.
Or a sock puppet like the last POTUS.
And our leader acted just in time.
“How obvious and big the lies are”
Your opinion is noted.
I won’t try to disabuse you of your confusion.
Which wars are phony? Are you saying the combat footage is fake, like the moon landings?
For me it’s my grandaughters: IFYP…..
Lee Zeldin, US EPA Administrator During Hearings Before the US Senate
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin calls out Democrat Senator Sheldon WhiteClub: “I’m not going to take morality lessons from people who join, you know, all‑white country clubs.”
Zeldin explained: “When predictions are made in the past… will have a range of the pessimistic to the optimistic. And to justify, for example, the 2009 endangerment finding, they were adopting the most pessimistic views of the science.
Now, when you get to 2026, great news, you’re able to rely on present day facts in 2026, rather than any bad assumptions from 2009.
And just because you take exception when a member of Congress says in January of 2019, in 12 years the world’s about to end, if we’re sitting here today saying, well, gosh, it’s only four years and nine months left, I don’t think the world is about to end, they want to vilify you as if you’re denying science.
I mean, I just saw a clip yesterday where Al Gore was talking about global freezing. I’m having trouble keeping up. I thought it was global warming, and now it’s global freezing.
And I don’t know what kind of money is made. You want to know how [they’re] making money from their climate grift.
Well, what won’t get referenced by your colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, who bring up the greenhouse gas reduction fund is that the money was going to former Obama and Biden officials.
The money was going to Democratic donors. The conflicts of interests that we saw. The amount of self-dealing, the unqualified recipients.
The Climate United Fund CEO was a special assistant in OMB during the Obama–Biden administration. They received $6.9 billion dollars. And we could go down the list with that entity.
You go through the Coalition for Green Capital, about a Biden–Harris climate advisor serving on the board or joining the board in ’23 while the organization was applying for GGRF.
Power Forward Community CEO, CEO of Fannie Mae during the Obama–Biden administration.
By the way, if we had 10 more minutes, I could just go through conflicts of interest. They’re not offended by that.
So, we just want to stick to the truth. We want to stick to the to the science. And if you don’t agree with them, you don’t follow their logic, well, they’ll want to vilify you.
But hey, as long as we stay true to these facts, it’s good to go.
I told Senator Sheldon WhiteClub today that I won’t be listening to, or caring about, any of his lessons on morality knowing that he joined an all-white Rhode Island Country Club.
I’m also done with the likes of AOC, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the rest of the lying cabal that make stupid climate predictions, plunder tens of billions of tax dollars, enrich their well-connected allies, and are committed to strangulating out of existence entire sectors of our economy.
Climate alarmist AOC wants to be taken seriously while also insisting the world is imminently about to end due to climate change (Just under 5 years remain on her nutty Jan 2019 prediction that only 12 years of life are left on Earth).
Al Gore is now speaking publicly about his concern with global freezing after decades of grift-talking about global warming.
“Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” said Gore in 2006 (There’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round).
Gore also predicted in 2009 ice-free Arctic summers within 5-7 years.
John Kerry warned in 2009 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.
All these people, and their followers, are dishonest, power-hungry hacks.
The GREEN NEW SCAM is DEAD!!!”
To Emily Huddart, Professor of Sociology, and Tony Silva, Associate Professor of Sociology:
Please define what “climate policy” is, or is intended to be?
Is your “climate policy” the same as that of others?
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
No wonder sociology is characterized as a “soft science”!
The sad truth is it doesn’t matter what “climate policy” actually is, the ONLY acceptable result of any of it is to actually reduce the concentration of worldwide atmospheric CO2.
Since that has NEVER HAPPENED in 40 years of trying, I’m way past the point of buying anymore of the Bullshit that anyone proposes will work.
SMR nuclear will work.
For electricity, but that won’t change the need for heating and transport fuels.
And no, battery powered virtue-signaling incendiarys on wheels won’t fill transport needs outside the small box of “I don’t ever go very far and charge at home.” Nor are they any good at moving freight.
Aftermath: China Is Electrifying Freight Trucking
https://prospect.org/2026/04/29/aftermath-china-electrifying-freight-trucking/
Propaganda site.
“The American Prospect is devoted to promoting informed discussion on public policy from a progressive perspective.”
Sure, in Fantasia. Right next to fusion reactors and space based solar. Although the last two may actually be used outside of powerpoint presentations-
Lighten up Francis.
“[T]he ONLY acceptable result of any [Climate Policy] is to actually reduce the concentration of worldwide atmospheric CO2.”
Policy designed to to reduce Atmospheric CO2 is entirely without merit.
There is no down side to increasing CO2.
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. Schemes reduce or sequester CO2 are without merit.
7. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Reducing co2 concentration MUST be the ONLY acceptable climate policy because
It is absolutely impossible to reduce co2 concentration.
Orwell gave us the answer:
The war is not meant to be won , but to continue.
And the climate crisis is just another form of war – on a psychological level.
The non-existent Climate Crisis is not meant to be solved.
It is there as eternal indoctrination element of fear and guilt for the new global religion – the enemy to subju… unite humanity as the Club of Rome wants it.
If co2 concentrations would drop to 280 ppm by tomorrow ,
within 12 month they’d come up with a new global crisis – that does not exist.
You nailed it.
But he forgot to blame it on THE JOOOS!
USA reduced CO2 emissions by improving natural gas turbine generators.
More to the point, why would we want it to work?!
The climate IS IMPROVING.
Yeah, love this weather!
Would it matter if “climate policy” cost taxpayers around the globe, say, $10 trillion USD over the next five years as opposed to, say, only $5 billion USD?
1 penny is 1 cent too much. 🙂
Any policy that does not actually reduce worldwide atmospheric CO2 concentration is doomed to fail because it IS the control switch to solving climate change according to the majority of scientists who comment on it. The price of failure can be accounted for, large or small, but it is still failure.
Oh, please!
I’ll invite you to present a single scientific paper—just one will do—that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the “control switch” (i.e., the primary variable) that controls Earth’s “climate change”, however you choose to define that term against objective metrics, considering:
1) Paleoclimatology evidence over the last 1 million years or so of Earth’s history falsifies that assertion, by comparing galacial/intergalcial cycles to proxies for atmospheric CO2 concentrations,
2) Temperature vs CO2 paleoclimatology evidence from the last 12,000 years or so (since Earth exited the last glacial interval) falsifies that assertion,
3) That the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300 to 1850 AD) falsifies that assertion,
4) That Antarctic and Greenland ice core data falsifies that assertion, by indicating that increases in global temperature generally lead, not follow, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration,
5) Climate and atmospheric experts (such as Happer, Wijngaarden, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Clauser, and Soon) have published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers that falsify that assertion, in particular scientifically arguing that the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas became saturated at a level of about 280 ppm versus today’s level of about 430 ppm,
6) That the last 250 years or so of readily evident global atmospheric temperature increase (as verified by accurate land and satellite monitoring instruments) may be nothing more than the onset of another in the historically-documented, naturally-occurring pattern of Dansgaard–Oeschger events that have no correlation to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
7) Scientific “facts” are not established by consensus.
Now, you were saying something about “doomed to fail” . . .
Why would you ask me? I haven’t written any papers about that.
However, the entire “climate change” cartel the world around claims that CO2 is the control switch, including the IPCC. More CO2, More warming. I’m sure you have noticed the warnings.
Since all efforts to reduce CO2 have never accomplished anything, it is a failure of all policy directed to do just that.
I don’t expect that to change at all in my lifetime.
The sad truth is, it has nothing to do with the environment or CO2 or “climate change.”
It has everything to do with transforming the world to a socialist, command economy and the formation of the One World Order with unelected elites in charge of everything right down to the style of underwear you wear.
Since it has not happened in 70 years… past the point, too.
OK. It’s a communist plot then. I’ve been hearing about them my entire life as well. The problem being that all communist plots have failed miserably as well.
Why anyone would think that this time communism will work is as baffling to me as thinking that any government policy will reduce atmospheric CO2.
You’re confusing “communist plot” (more accurately Marxist plot) with “Communism”. Not the same thing.
Sociology in many university curricula is called ‘Social science’. No university curriculum calls physics, chemistry, geology, or anthropology a ‘science’—that would be redundant.
As a firm rule of thumb, any academic subject calling itself a ‘science’ ISN’T. The most obvious example being ‘climate science’, which leads directly to unnecessary and unworkable ‘climate policy’.
Many of them have nothing whatsoever to do with ‘science’. Their claim to mathematical rigor is at best speculative. So-called ‘Political Science’ is mere indoctrination into marxism. If political science and sociology simply disappeared, the effect on the world would be unnoticeable except for an increased number of people unemployed.
Perhaps. Alternate possibility if elimination of socialism might result in an economic boon where more people are employed, regardless of their lack of talent, experience, and/or education.
They seem to be calling “Science Communication” necessary for science misinformation corrections. Is there Communication Science? Of course, neither is proper. Since academia is now full of categories with numerous ‘specializations’ requiring lots of words, one might argue that such would be necessary for liberals and conservatives to have subcategories for their pejoratives. Academic examples, “School of Mathematical Sciences; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences.” There are much longer ones but I suppose real ‘Climate Science’ only requires two words. Quality not quantity, but its been “sliced.”
“Join us on Thursday, May 7 at 1:00 p.m. ET for our next Science by the Slice event. “Social Media & Science Misinformation: Practical Strategies for Scientists” will be a talk with Duke University’s Véronique Koch.” Sigma Xi, Scientific Research Honor Society teaching policy.
Actually, given what political science and sociology “teach” these days, it would probably lead to MORE people GAINFULLY employed.
My first political science professor told us he could teach us the basic rule of politics and bureaucracy in the first week of class. It was fundamentally the business of accumulating power and influence. More problems, more people, more power, more influence, MORE MONEY.
Money, and the propaganda it buys, seems to be the determining factor in our easily-influenced society.
About 75 million people voted for the moron, Kamala Harris in the last presidential election. Somebody told them that was a good idea.
Somebody told them that was a good idea.
The real problem is the believe it. They have been trained to not think, but to believe.
Yes, I think there is a lack of critical thinking on the part of a lot of people on the Left.
I think a lack of critical thinking is required if one is on the Left of the political spectrum.
As with Biden, they were just voting against Trump. The nominee could have been a sack of rotten potatoes and wouldn’t gotten at least as many votes.
Hmmm . . . here, from https://schedules.caltech.edu/FA2025-26.html . . . are some of Caltech’s exceptions to your “firm rule of thumb”:
— Plant and Soil Science
— Introduction to Computer Science in Industry
— Undergraduate Projects in Computer Science
— Research in Computer Science
— Research in Environmental Science and Engineering
— Introduction to Earth and Planetary Sciences: Earth as a Planet
— Applications of Physics to the Earth Sciences
— Special Topics in the Geological Sciences
— Undergraduate Thesis in the Information and Data Sciences
— Advanced Work in Materials Science
— Fundamentals of Materials Science
— Thermal Science
The main contact number for the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is (626) 395-6811, and the Registrar’s Office number is (626) 395-6354. Give ’em a call.
How many of those “Sciences” require advance calculus, differential equations, vector calculus, or measurement theory.
From the page you referenced.
Claiming to be science:
Computer Science Computing and Mathematical Sciences
Environmental Science & Engineering History and Philosophy of Science
Information and Data Sciences Materials Science
Political Science Social Science
Actual science of the physical universe:
Aerospace Applied Physics Astrophysics
Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Bioengineering Biology
Chemical Engineering Chemistry Civil Engineering
Electrical Engineering Geology Mechanical Engineering
Medical Engineering Physics
And I could go on.
Those with science in their name by and large, have nothing to do with the physical world we live in. Their outputs are models created from statistical treatments of data. They do not create hypothesis with testable and repeatable mathematics relationships.
Those without science in their name, by and large have everything to do with the physical world and how it works. Their outputs are generally hypothesis with testable and repeatable mathematical relationships that are repeatable.
Scientists created physical things you could touch and use and let mankind walk on the moon. Those with merely science in the name can create simulations of what it should look like based on modeling but other than unique individuals can translate that into real things that can be used.
Minor nit, very minor.
Scientists made discoveries that were pass on to Engineers who created physical things you could touch and use.
Guess who takes the theories and equations, massages them into physical relevance, and create experimental apparatus.
I beg to differ. Certainly:
— Plant and Soil Science
— Computer Science
— Earth and Planetary Sciences, and
— Materials Science
have MUCH to do with the PHYSICAL world we live in. And all of these—in advanced treatments/considerations/empirical investigations related to such—do “require advanced calculus, differential equations, vector calculus, or measurement theory” in varying degrees.
Heck, among the math and science specialities you didn’t mention:
— plant and soil science requires deep knowledge of chemistry and genetics and geology,
— computer science requires deep knowledge of topology, matrix (vector) computations, signal processing, electrodynamics and quantum mechanics,
— Earth and planetary sciences (you know, including studying the physical Earth that we live on) involve almost every area of science and mathematics and measurements, including that covering all four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma, as well as advanced knowledge in the broad fields of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, electrodynamics, astrodynamics, optical design and engineering, EM measurement and signal processing, etc.,
— Materials science involves tensor mathematics, chemistry, thermogravimetric analysis, scanning electronic microscopy, atomic force microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, low- and high-cycle fatigue theory/analysis, spectroscopy, microanalysis, etc, etc, etc.
Try justifying the ones you left out of the ones with science in their name.
A weak attempt at deflection.
“Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would be enough,” — attributed to Albert Einstein; this phrase highlights that scientific truth is not decided by consensus, but by empirical evidence.
I offered you the empirical evidence from just one university that falsifies your assertion (aka “firm rule of thumb”), whether you choose to accept it or conflate it is your choice of course.
Here is another one for you.
How many of those subjects you list have “Physics of Measurement” 118ab?
Back at ya’:
You posted
“How many of those “Sciences” require advance calculus, differential equations, vector calculus, or measurement theory.”
See the word “or” in you question?
Anyway, the broad and correct answer is all of them involve understanding both the physics and the mathematical (statistical) treatment of empirical measurements. Not a single one of the fields that I listed as having “Science” in their title is based on purely subjective reasoning . . . they ALL use experiments (lab and/or field) and observations to verify hypotheses and to test conflicting theories/claims. Simply put, they all follow The Scientific Method.
From the other side, putting the word social in front of anything else is instantly negating.
Social science is not science.
Social justice is not justice.
Social security is not secure.
Ummmm . . . social unrest?
“Ummmm . . . social unrest?”
They certainly put a lot of study, time and effort into it. !!
For those that didn’t like my question:
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/emergency/plansoem/shiva/2014-04-23_socialunrest.pdf
At least some think the topic deserves consideration.
It’s Seattle, not the best reference.
“Social murder”
It is obvious that humanities programs are more conducive to slacking off and laziness than those in the hard sciences. There are, of course, great sociologists, outstanding historians, and brilliant psychologists. But whereas a good chemist or physicist can, without being a prodigy, still contribute something concrete to the world and to society, this is not necessarily the case for someone graduating from a faculty of history or sociology. Even though one does not need to be a genius in history, sociology, or psychology to be a talented educator and beloved by one’s students. The problem lies less with the humanities themselves than with what they become amid the massive cultural decline affecting the West. It is not surprising that they are the first to suffer from such a phenomenon. We can also see how the hard sciences may be affected—albeit inevitably (and fortunately) more slowly—by the erosion of the cultural rigor that characterized most education in past centuries and decades.
You have uneducated and even illiterate people who have a high level of wisdom
and can’t be fooled because have an highly intuitiv insight and know exactly how things works but would fail to define most of it (just as all smart humans did before there was a language, let alone complex definitions)
and you have highly educated people who can define a dozen pronouns and genders but can be fooled forever because they believe in those definitions.
Lack of knowledge or not having a nerdy approach to the world is not always stupidity
just as certain knowledge and definitions are proof of stupidity.
You appear to be confusing inability “to define something” (in context, keeping something intentionally undefined) with “lack of knowledge”.
Those terms, again in context, are vastly different.
Maybe a read of Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance would help you out here.
And then you have people who think THE JOOOS are responsible for everything.
Sociology
The art of pontificating utter nonsense from one’s fundament.
“Climate policy isn’t partisan”—an absurd statement. Obama and Biden supported green climate policy, Trump 45 and 47 doesn’t because he is a pragmatic realist pretending to be a Republican. Al Gore was/is a big green ‘climate policy’ supporter, and he was/is extremely partisan.
Sociology professors should stay in their lane, whatever that may be. They fail miserably at ‘political science’.
Sociology professors should stay in both lanes with the result a potential increase in “flying rabbits.”
(Movie reference to what is sometimes called “road kill”).
Climate policy wouldn’t be partisan if it weren’t so partisan.
There are two types of people who support “climate policy” – those who have something to gain from it, (or think they do) and those with less than half a brain, although it can be both.
The purpose of climate policy is to force bigger government on the people under the guise of saving the planet. Global governance is the goal.
Just another opinion to explain divisions in beliefs. We are divided because that’s the goal of the Liberals. Their goal is to promote division because without it they have no political platform.
Divide and conquer!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Seems a goal of the former Soviet Union and then called Communist China.
Which means they have no problems to solve by telling people how to live their lives.
“Emily Huddart Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia
Tony Silva Associate Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia”
Exactly, and a very big problem – they are sociologists. Ad hominems. Rather than pontificate about undefined “Climate Policy”, they should stay in their lane and explain democrat’s necessity to change from their original scare-mongering “Catastrophic Anthropocentric Global Warming (CAGW)” to “Climate Change” which has no meaning whatsoever. Shame on us all for letting them change from their above original losing mantra. Don’t let them them forget that while they were claiming CAGW, and while atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, there was an 18 year “pause” in which temperatures were static, in effect proving that human induced increasing CO2 levels were not affecting climate temperatures. When Virtue Signaling buffoons are wrong, do they admit it? NO! Their Cognitive Dissonance causes them to double down on their dangerous. Their position is still CAGW, not climate change.
Sociology is The Queen of Exact Sciences.
Queen.? ……. as in transvestite??
Nope. Drag Queen. 🙂
Same thing
A synonym for “Virtue Signaling buffoons” is politicians? Have we ever seen a politician rescind one of their virtue signaling laws they pass to grift the taxpayers?
The End of Chevron Deference (AKA The Chevron Doctrine), and a main killer of One-Eyed, One Horned, Purple People Eaters.Summary
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-august/end-chevron-deference-what-does-it-mean-what-comes-next/
The standard left/right scale introduces a bias by itself. Libertarians, for example, cannot be categorized anywhere on that scale. And if the far left is Communism, with it’s full-scale totalitarianism, then what is the extreme right? Noone claims it’s full-scale anarchy.
I hate the left-right dichotomy, as if that’s all there is.
“…then what is the extreme right? Noone claims it’s full-scale anarchy.”
I do, because that is exactly what it is. Leftists (Stalinists) use lies to mislead so that’s why middle-of-the-roaders are labeled extreme right-wing fanatics. The problem is reasonable people unwittingly pick up the language of the Left to the detriment of rational thought. 🙁
While that makes sense, it’s not how the vast majority sees it. For most (especially on the left), they see fanatical authoritarianism, i.e. Nazis, totally ignoring the fact that Nazis were socialists, i.e. far-Left. Thus, there’s the idea that a ‘centrist’ is the best place to be, despite the fact that being a centrist could also mean the worst of both extremes.
The Nolan chart MarkW mentioned below is definitely a better way to categorize, but harder to use to divide people.
There’s also the so called Nolan chart, On one axis there is personal freedom ranging from anarchy to totalitarian and on the other axis there is economic freedom, ranging from no regulations to complete government control of all aspects of the economy.
Only dimwits who hate fossil fuels oppose Climate Realism.
Only dimwits and the extremely deluded think that modern civilization could exist without fossil fuels.
All of their touted “solutions” to the non-crisis of the warming (read: improving) climate are 100% dependent on fossil fuels for their existence. Just like everything else.
For my part, after a long period of disinterest in this subject, I briefly fell into the throes of climate anxiety. I then decided to look into “the other side,” with the feeling that I was committing some kind of faux pas, when in fact I was simply reading popular science. (Note that this is exactly what characterizes a dogma: instilling shame and guilt in people who want to know what is being said outside the fold.) It took me some time to overcome the feeling that I was doing something “forbidden,” before fully freeing myself from guilt and realizing the extent of what was at play.
I don’t think this is new, nor that the distortion of science inherent in the climate issue will be the last of its kind. It is probably the first of its kind in an era where the means of disseminating information are as effective and omnipresent as they are today, which is no small thing. But Malthusians, anti-capitalists, and opportunists of all stripes will find something else to capitalize on their pessimism and pathological misanthropy.
In fact, the absence of Malthusians and frenzied collapse theorists would, in my view, be synonymous with a general absence of progress. The machine has to move forward for people to exclaim that we are “heading straight into a wall.” For centuries we’ve been hearing this, and seeing unscrupulous figures try to sabotage the track in the face of the train’s determination not to derail. The only thing we can do is to keep progressing and prove them wrong.
They didn’t mention the effects of Kool-aid on the climate crisis ideologues.
How did this not get corrected in peer review?
Because “peer review” has descended into “pal review and group think,” most likely.
The minor little problem is that NetZero, the Green New Deal, etc, are utterly
daft.
The laws of physics don’t give a stuff about the beliefs of arrogant idiots.
It’s not a Left or Right thing … It’s a law of physics thing.
Nature did very well for billions of years before we evolved & will do very well long after our species has disappeared.
“… we found that having ties to the oil and gas sector …”
There are “uncontacted peoples” that might not have ties to oil and gas but how would we know?
For everyone else, ties to oil and gas are a given. That includes Emily and Tony, the authors of the study.
[I think they had writting help from wordsmith Kamala Harris.]
But, but, but, if you drive an ICE car, you have ties to oil.
I could go on, but the point is made…. with sarcasm.
ICE = Internal Combustion Engine AND Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Both are evil in the eyes of a Leftist!
” “… we found that having ties to the oil and gas sector …”
EVERYONE in modern society has ties to the oil and gas sectors.
Their whole existence is totally dependant on them… these “sociologists” very much included.
I need another beer.
The comedy continues…
More useless CAGW claptrap. My first thought is were any conservatives involved in the study? Liberal and conservative are pretty fluid terms. For the sake of this post let’s say liberals think the government holds the answers to our problems and conservatives think there are better answers to our problems than what our governments currently propose. Thinking there are better solutions than what government proposes is hardly negative or wrong minded. Rather it is searching for the best solution not just a political solution. If someone tells you you have a problem the first thing to do is insure they are right. The second thing is to realize not all proposed solutions are equal, many proposals will not work. The problem with government is they refuse to admit they have taken a wrong action, that is why we are where we are. So yes conservatives are right to question solutions to perceived problems and only accept proposals that solve the problem. More importantly don’t look for solutions to problems that don’t exist.
Just for interest, what if the actual human intelligent dichotomy is
If it works, do not fix it. Conserve the accumulated wisdom of the past
AND
If it does not work, look for a better or a new solution. Improve the current wisdom to pass down to the following generations to conserve?
All wise people recognise there is much to preserve and some need for innovation.
Saying that conservatives just dislike what the government is proposing now, implies that if government were to come up with a different set of diktats that conservatives would fall in line.
It’s more that conservatives believe that the very nature of government means it is highly unlikely to ever come up with the best ideas and beyond that, the one size fits all solutions that government is limited to will always be harmful to a sizeable fraction of the population.
Thomas Sowell sums up the problems with government “saviors” perfectly – the problem is that they do not suffer the consequences of being wrong.
Well I’ve got news for the “study” authors. A not insignificant portion of my “negative feelings” towards the ” political left” is precisely BECAUSE OF “climate policies.”
The rest being due to THE REST OF their STUPID IDEAS.
One burning question remains unanswered!
Did the ask Greta?
🙂
How DARE you!
(incite a person to some form of arson by enquiry)
“What mattered most was affective polarization.
“Negative feelings toward the left and positive feelings toward the right were by far the strongest predictors of climate policy attitudes, and explained the most variation in support.
“In simple terms, people on the right who felt the most hostility toward the left, and the most warmth toward the right, were more likely to oppose climate policy.”
Curious why the reverse was not mentioned, isn’t it?
It’s the sorting hat masters again.
typical sanctimonious liberal sophistry.
They start with the assumptions that they are always right.
Then the only thing left is to figure what exactly is wrong with those who disagree with them.
yep, that’s the ingrained ideology right there.
Reason / rationality can never prevail while ideology commands the mind.
Opposition to liberals is the only rational position.
Yes, if one values their freedoms.
”Liberals” want to destroy society and take our freedoms away from us.
They are hard at work right now trying to do just that.
Resistance to such is the only rational position.
There are degrees to this.
I prefer opposition to progressives (further left than everyday liberals).
Leftists can’t figure out why people oppose their suicidal climate policies. They think the problem is the messaging. Keep chasing the messaging, leftists, while more people continue to wake up to the irrationality of your policies.
Its not just the irrationality of their policies….
… its that the whole stinking edifice is built on total junk science from the very base of its foundations.
Yes this so-called “science” has, with a straight face, told us that BOTH global COOLING *and* global WARMING are a “crisis.”
Which should tell anyone capable of logical thought that this is NOT “science.”
Apparently, the climate was perfect in 1945, and any departure from that in either direction is a “catastrophe.”
They think the problem is the messaging because they are convinced they are on the correct side of the issue. They don’t realize just how wrong they are.
Why do sociologists always get it wrong?
Because they have basically zero clue of practical reality.
Everything is “feelings” and “make-believe” to them.
If they got it right, they would be out of a job?