this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
97 points (99.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5052 readers
487 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the polling is interesting but it doesn't prove that any of those people will vote at all.
The 'RV' annotation means it's a poll of people who say they are registered voters.
Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It's likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That's good enough for me
registered voters are not the same as likely voters, nor actual past voters. you made a claim that you simply can't prove and none of the data you've provided is, in fact, proof for your claim.
Likely voter models don't work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.
Using actual voters from 2020 is tough because we had two different third parties there: the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden, and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump. So you see polls showing the combined effect (slightly beneficial to Biden) but not the separate impact of the Green party candidate.
Absolute proof isn't something that really exists in the social sciences, which is why you're never going to find it, the most you find is several decent converging lines of evidence, as we have here.
you can't prove this at all. just because e those people did vote for libertarians or greens does t mean they would have voted for anyone else. in fact, given the option, they did NOT vote for someone else.
your claim was about past elections. the data you provided was about a potential future election. you still don't seem to be able to understand what was wrong with your claim.
It's pretty clear that no amount of data is going to actually convince you.
it's not the volume: it's teh quality and relevance. you haven't given me any relevant data to support your claim.
this platitude isn't even true. lots of things can be proven false in social sciences. the fact that you are (quixotically) defending an unprovable hypothesis doesn't mean there aren't disprovable hypotheses which are possible.
so you have conjecture. you should have just said that instead of stating it as indisputable fact and then trying to snow me with data that doesn't prove your position.
I have:
It's pretty compelling when taken as a whole
i'm of the opinion that democrats spoil green party elections, and if the democrats weren't on the ballot, greens would have won every election for the last 30 years. and i have just as much proof as you do.
The Green candidates are all complete dorks. We have studies on what voters like in a candidate and they have none of those qualities.
you aren't providing any of those studies. further, as i said, a hypothesis framed like this cannot actually be proven (or disproven), so i don't know what good those studies would do.
I'm not gonna waste my time on your bullshit the way Silence will.
"bullshit" would be making a clear claim, then presenting anything except evidence when challenged on it.
this is not a refutation of anything I've said
this is a nonsequitur