What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: jrod





I seriously doubt many will take the time to read thru all of this. I just figured I put this information out there.

The argument that man plays an insignificant on this planet is a null one.

Well you are probably correct.

As far as the argument goes I have seen on several occasions where people have argued the significance of volcanic activity and c02 yet they ignore the fact the world's combined volcanic c02 output isn't even 1% of what humans produce.

So , if we can get half of the people from producing CO2 we have accomplished 2 things.Population Control and CO2 lowered.I do not agree with either side yet as climatology is a very inexact science. Either side that says we are absolutely correct is just taking sides at this point. Yes throughout history and prehistory the CO2 levels have been much higher and much lower than what we have now.I tend to side with the non-man made for the following points:
1) The adjustments of the number to fit (what if I said 2+2=4.125 because you have to take into account the inclination of the earth?)
2) the man made global warming side say (on consensus) they are correct ( the other side says it is possible it is not man made)
3) The amount of CO2 has been rising before the manufacturing age(even in medieval times. No one even tries to explain that)
4) When the CO2 levels and global warming reaches certain levels , the temp plummets and the world is cast into an Ice Age. (the last time this happened was 26000 years ago and NA was under 2' of ice down to half of Texas)
5) None of the doom predicted by the GW side has occurred . We were all supposed to be underwater by now)
Mankind is very innovative. Before this reaches "doomsday" who says we will not create innovative ways to utilize it all and problem solved.

a reply to: here4this
Nothing you wrote supports the argument that the changing climate/chemistry as a result of our activity is a non factor and something we should ignore.

Perhaps after work today if I have nothing better to do I will dissect your talking points.

a reply to: jrod
I believe the original thread topic was "What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?"

a reply to: here4this
The conservative side keeps insisting that the changing climate on this planet is not a concern.

The posts on this thread seem to show that instead of engaging in an honest debate on the subject, the 'conservatives' just bring out claims that have been nullified as evidence, then resort to dishonest and manipulative debate tactics that usually turn these threads into a circle jerk instead of a productive discussion.

a reply to: jrod
Sorry , there are well known instances where the numbers have been "adjusted" and the instruments have been moved to "adjust" . Too much adjustments going on. Should be math , not rigging the roulette wheel

a reply to: here4this
Can you cite specific examples of the numbers being adjusted?

Generally when this claim is made, a cherry picked example is presented that proves nothing.

a reply to: jrod
All over the news for several years now. The emails , the defection of certain climatologists to the other side...you name it. You dont have to look far.

a reply to: here4this

So you cannot cite specific examples that support "the other side", whatever that maybe. Instead you respond with vague answers than once again fail to support to the anti AGW belief.

Please enlighten us, at least make an attempt to convince us that man made climate change is nothing but bovine feces.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: here4this

So you cannot cite specific examples that support "the other side", whatever that maybe. Instead you respond with vague answers than once again fail to support to the anti AGW belief.

Please enlighten us, at least make an attempt to convince us that man made climate change is nothing but bovine feces.

Classic and very much looked for response..In a debate , that would be a weak opening

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
Thinking climate change is a right-left issue just shows we Americans don't even read international news. How can we have a firm grasp on science if we don't even pay attention to Canada?

Google translate can give you a glimpse of what is happening outside the U.S. And the translations are often hilarious.

I never knew you could use Google to translate Canadian, now I can communicate with them. Thanks.

On a side note, when the earth has warmed in the past, surely it has released methane like it is now, yet no runaway greenhouse effect? Why would this time be any different? Would making Siberia and the plains of Canada more hospitable to life and agriculture be a good thing or bad thing?

a reply to: here4this

You do know this thread isn't a debate don't you?

ATS does have a proper debate forum which I am sure jrod would be happy to debate you in on the subject, however the rules would apply to both of you so you would be on even ground with equal expectations to present your cases.

Does that sound like something you would be willing to participate in?

a reply to: johnwick

I can tell you from first hand observation of the last 15 years, that it IS hotter in Vegas than it's ever been. We just had the warmest winter on record. It is out of control warming. My personal observations are correlating to the actual science now.

You then said "tropical paradise". Let me tell you about getting into a car to drive 15 minutes to or from work or mid day for a business meeting or errand. You turn the air on full blast but it does no good. There isn't enough air in the world to cool a car baking under this sun in this warming climate to a comfortable temp in that short a time. This is no tropical paradise...it might have been if we could walk around topless in loin clothes all day, but that's not how our society works. So everything that was in the car, chapstick or anything of that sort has completely melted and you have burns on your hands from the steering wheel and you are covered in sweat and dehydrating at a rapid pace and your energy is draining. You get to your destination and you all of your clothes are covered in sweat, you stink, your dehydrated and dying and have no energy and then it's onto conducting business. Some paradise?

LOL Sorry for the rant guys. I know I sound like the snowball in congress guy! LOL arg.

I need some ice.

a reply to: here4this

Your logic fallacy is tu quoque.

You avoided having to engage in criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism

A discussion is a more productive way to engage the climate problem on Earth than a debate. Debates are flawed when it comes to actually getting the facts straight and finding the truth. If you wish to make a debate about this, there is a forum for that.

What can you add to the discussion that supports the view point that most 'conservatives' share on climate change?

To use conservative and intellect in the same sentence is funny.. I'm joking ....or am I..hmmm

On topic..how can people in this day and age deny man made climate change. After all the chemicals we put in the sky, wildlife they kill for fun which effect the environment, destruction of land and water..etc

You have to be blind to not realize that this climate change is man made.

originally posted by: here4this
:
1) The adjustments of the number to fit (what if I said 2+2=4.125 because you have to take into account the inclination of the earth?)Invalid logic here
2) the man made global warming side say (on consensus) they are correct ( the other side says it is possible it is not man made) 95ish% say global warming is happening, less than 5% say otherwise
3) The amount of CO2 has been rising before the manufacturing age(even in medieval times. No one even tries to explain that) NOT TRUE, no evidence to back up that claim, www.skepticalscience.com...
4) When the CO2 levels and global warming reaches certain levels , the temp plummets and the world is cast into an Ice Age. Not true, again there is no evidence to back this claim
5)None of the doom predicted by the GW side has occurred . We were all supposed to be underwater by now)
Mankind is very innovative. Before this reaches "doomsday" who says we will not create innovative ways to utilize it all and problem solved.NOT true, what exactly is this 'doom' that was predicted?

jrod

a reply to: Grimpachi
That is precisely what I have been trying to get across. In my first post I actually went by the original thread title. I did not expect anyone to want to start a debate...and I sure do not want one. In fact , in my second post I quoted the thread title...and looks as if I will have to do it AGAIN....
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
I merely answered the question
NUFF SAID

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

We do have a right to deride anyone who denies hefty serious scientific evidence supporting a major threat to all of us, not just you or a small group. We do have a right to say something if a group (mostly Republicans) either denies that there is a problem or refuses to do anything about it.

We do have a right to say something if a group (everyone) either denies that there is a problem or refuses to do anything EFFECTIVE about it.

I fixed that for you. Until you can explain what steps any party has taken to effectively change things I think it fits better.

Parties, no. I am not a Democrat, but a progressive independent. At LEAST, however, a much higher percentage of liberals, both democratic and not, admit that there is a problem and are willing to converse about real action. This is demonstrably not true for a much higher percentage of conservatives. That in itself is a problem.

And again, given that there is a real threat inaction, denial, or blocking real action by anybody is actually a threat to us all, and hence worthy of discussion and derision.

Having said that, there very much are real actions being discussed and even negotiated as we speak in the Conference of Parties and United Nations post-2015 sustainable development agenda. In fact, they are negotiating things related to this this very week here in NY.

The problem is that both parties in the US are owned at the high level by big business and elite interests, and seem to be reticent to do much about it.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: FyreByrd

Oh look another bash righty thread made by a lefty, wow how original.

Psst. Don't know if you know this, but you pitical trolls throwing up baited threads are getting sooooooo boring.

The lefties are all idiots.

The eighties are all idiots.

Us not indoctrinated by a idiotic political ideology are all very put off by your constant zealot level blind obedience.

Plz stop!!!!

Plz!!!!

We get it, you think the right are evil, because they don't believe your religion.

So what!!!!

Why is it so important that you get to force your religion on them?

No wonder the lefties like Islamic extremists so much, you guys run with the exact same MO.

Believe as we demand or else!!!!!!

It's not an issue of "belief," but science and evidence. The old saying goes, "you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts."

We do have a right to deride anyone who denies hefty serious scientific evidence supporting a major threat to all of us, not just you or a small group. We do have a right to say something if a group (mostly Republicans) either denies that there is a problem or refuses to do anything about it.

At that point, assuming climate change is a real threat, such people actually threaten my own children and community, as they are blocking action against a threat that affects us all.

You see, here is the problem. You THINK you can actually do something about it.

Now, the Carbon Credit Scam is the only fake "solution" they want to implement which has been proven in Europe to do absolutely nothing but make middlemen, investors, stockbrokers, and government coffers rich at the expense of the common people.

The Solutions are SCAMS. Enron wanted this scam and we have been waiting for a problem to implement it.

Seriously, One very good Volcano eruption and you won't be worrying about warming for years.

Can you show me your knowledge and evidence of ALL solutions being "scams?" I'm sure that some are or are not effective. But there is literally a laundry list of scientifically and even economically valid solutions that in a menu of options DO and will have an effect.

For example, just on the energy front, solar technology just reached cost equilibrium with fossil fuels. It was not in the past. Now it is. Fact. It is projected to become CHEAPER.

End-user efficiency increases already did miracles since the 70's in decreasing the energy intensity per capita. Technology will continue to lead us this way.

There are many routes to mitigating climate change.

The problem is, attitudes like yours will encourage people to engage in what is referred to as the Business as Usual Approach, which unfortunately has already been calculated to have much more severe social, economic, and environmental costs than if we invest now in altering that course.

Let me explain that again. It is going to cost far more in the long run to NOT address it than to address it now.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Climate change is the result of the solar system heating up according to them.

With all due respect, this talking point has been addressed time and time again by scientists and data analysis. Most "deniers" do not understand that many of the very scientists who support and are analyzing anthropogenic climate change are EXPERTS on solar cycles and their effect on weather AND have analyzed how those cycles conform with climate trends. They have already addressed the fact that natural solar cycles do NOT account for all of the climate change we are seeing.

I can provide the sources if you would like. But seriously folks, whoever keeps on telling you that as a talking point either is ignorant of what I just said or is purposefully manipulating.

Ask them next time to account for the data portion that cannot be explained by analyzed natural solar cycles.