Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

If the current depression were the only way to address global warming in the near term, you'd have excellent point. Since it is not, you may want to re-translate, which should allow you to replace "objectively crazy" with "highly accurate".

How about let's try this

...."and the idea of fanatical ecofascists, that we should burden economies with huge costs in "carbon taxes", said economies being already in the most severe economic downturn since the great depression, is even crazier"...

 

[TheSapient]

How about let's try this

...."and the idea of fanatical ecofascists, that we should burden economies with huge costs in "carbon taxes", said economies being already in the most severe economic downturn since the great depression, is even crazier"...

I guess I'd say there is little point in discussing science and policy with people who believe anyone who isn't a true believer is an energy-hating fascist. That you need to "translate" what other's say into something outlandish before you can respond to it says far more about your position than theirs.

 

[mhaze]

I guess I'd say there is little point in discussing science and policy with people who believe anyone who isn't a true believer is an energy-hating fascist. That you need to "translate" what other's say into something outlandish before you can respond to it says far more about your position than theirs.

I apologize, not for my statements, but for not knowing how to respond to you except to note the obvious facts. You (or those that desire carbon taxes) do in fact want a depression on top of a depression.

Now you can say "it's for the greater good" or whatever.

But I have only one question for the prescient believer who is so certain of the impact of our lifestyles today fifty years hence.

Please point me to an economic forecast dated fifty years PRIOR (on or about 1962) that comes anywhere near in accuracy to predicting today. Let's see it. Look for key phrases and buzz words like...

personal computer, SARS, router, velcro, ipad, mobile phone, GPS, space shuttle, linux, cadcam, predator drone, ETF transfer, on line banking, satellite tv, genetic engineering, nanotech, on line dating....

I'll stop there. You get the picture. Let me know about this, please. Because given the exponential rate of technology growth, the next fifty years should dwarf the last fifty years. Since the world economy is highly dependent on these factors, surely you are up to this small task?

I think it's a reasonable question and a practical approach. If you don't, let me know why.

 

[TheSapient]

I apologize, not for my statements, but for not knowing how to respond to you except to note the obvious facts. You (or those that desire carbon taxes) do in fact want a depression on top of a depression.

No need to bold untruths. They are apparent enough.

I'll say it again. Your need to misrepresent people who don't agree with you only demonstrates the weakness of your position. I mean, is this really your argument? That you don't need to support your wild claims because everyone else is just a fascist who hates energy and wants the world to be in perpetual depression?

Feel free to quote anyone anywhere who is specifically calling for depression on top of a depression.

 

[citizenzen]

Your friend Google whispers to you.

I don't think that would work.

I'm asking you why chose to use those words.

Google's good, but I don't think it has access to our brains ... yet.

 

[mhaze]

No need to bold untruths. They are apparent enough.

I'll say it again. Your need to misrepresent people who don't agree with you only demonstrates the weakness of your position. I mean, is this really your argument? That you don't need to support your wild claims because everyone else is just a fascist who hates energy and wants the world to be in perpetual depression?

Feel free to quote anyone anywhere who is specifically calling for depression on top of a depression.

Okay, let's not call it that. Let's call it some happy words, then ignore the economic impact of cap and trade.

We'll call it "saving the planet" and just toss those unpleasantries in the closet.

Happy now?

 

[TheSapient]

Okay, let's not call it that. Let's call it some happy words, then ignore the economic impact of cap and trade.

We'll call it "saving the planet" and just toss those unpleasantries in the closet.

Happy now?

To be clear, I do not object to your characterization of people who don't subscribe to your views on science and economics because I find those characterizations mean. I object because the characterizations are obviously and wildly untrue.

At the risk of repeating myself too many times, I will say again that when you can only defend your views by calling everyone who doesn't agree fascists and opponents of energy and claim they want a global depression, your position is too weak to continue to hold.

 

[mhaze]

....At the risk of repeating myself too many times.....

Yep.

 

[SezMe]

I'll stop there. You get the picture. Let me know about this, please. Because given the exponential rate of technology growth, the next fifty years should dwarf the last fifty years. Since the world economy is highly dependent on these factors, surely you are up to this small task?

I think it's a reasonable question and a practical approach. If you don't, let me know why.

I don't. You want to continue on the current disastrous approach because someone, somewhere will somehow come up with a some technological solution at some time in the future that will magically change the course of energy consumption. Is "mhaze" short for "miraculously hazy"?

 

[bit_pattern]

I don't. You want to continue on the current disastrous approach because someone, somewhere will somehow come up with a some technological solution at some time in the future that will magically change the course of energy consumption. Is "mhaze" short for "miraculously hazy"?

Yeah, that's not the first time I've seen the logic of denial lead to this point. It like the Grand Conspiracy, everyone gets there sooner or later because it is the only logical conclusion of the denial POV.

 

[Travis]

Sometime in the near future a GOP Presidential candidate is at the podium giving his acceptance speech for his party's nomination.
​

[applause dies down]

....yes.....yes...I will always be with you on that.

Now, folks. I want to get one of the main issues that I know you want me to fight when I obtain the Presidency: the liberal lie about Comet Mease-Arnold.
​

[a shower of boos]

Yes, I hear you. For too long liberals and their scientist allies have been trying to scare us with the prospect of this comet hitting our planet two years from now. Well we all know what this really is? A plot to destroy our economy in just the way they have always wanted to in their cold Communist sympathizing hearts.
​

[applause]

Just look at their "plan?" They want to establish three new agencies to deal with this. That's a lot of new union jobs coming straight from our taxes. And one of these new agencies is tasked with trying to reconfigure our existing manufacturing base to deal with this "crisis."
​

[boos]

MY FRIENDS THAT IS SOCIALISM!
​

[more boos]

Those Left Coast Liberal Elites want to destroy our economy and remake it into something new. Something they prefer. Something they can they use in their new secular culture run by Al Qaeda.

And look at the taxes to pay for this initiative!?! And do my eye's deceive me or are most of these taxes on the rich?
​

[BOO]

The job producers! The makers! The innovators! Right now in this economy?
​

[more boos]

And all this after those emails got hacked out of Pisa University! The emails that showed that, at that time, they didn't really know if it'd even hit Earth.

And that wasn't enough for the liberals to admit that this was just was a hoax. Just another in their long line of plans to reach the tendrils of their government interference into as many aspects of the free economy as they can with their porked up union jobs to follow. And if we don't stop them now we will wake up in a country that will look nothing like what we grew up in, it will operate in ways contrary to all logic, to all decency and with that our culture as we know it will be dead.

And that's why folks......with this nomination not only will I fight against the lie of the comet impact. I will stop all these new agencies. I will stop the construction of the CIT2 rocket interceptors. And I will do my best to defund all that malarkey pseudoscience that the liberal liars tried to use to suck us into their plan. I WILL SAVE YOU FROM THEM! YES I WILL! GOD BLESS YOU ALL. AND GOD BLESS AMERICA.
​

[THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE]

 

[Trakar]

Sometime in the near future a GOP Presidential candidate is at the podium giving his acceptance speech for his party's nomination.
​

[applause dies down]

....yes.....yes...I will always be with you on that.

Now, folks. I want to get one of the main issues that I know you want me to fight when I obtain the Presidency: the liberal lie about Comet Mease-Arnold.
​

[a shower of boos]

Yes, I hear you. For too long liberals and their scientist allies have been trying to scare us with the prospect of this comet hitting our planet two years from now...​

Get a kick out of the analogy but 2+ years detection of a comet is an awfully long lead time. Comets usually go from first sighting to Earth orbit range in a matter of months. It would have to be really big, and would depend on a lot of luck to detect that early, they often aren't sighted until they are much closer and start outgassing (usually around the orbit of Jupiter). Hale-Bopp was a fairly good size comet (30-40km nucleus), it was detected about 20 months before it reached perihelion.

By the time it was announced people would be able to see the comet in the night skies and watch it grow brighter each night, denial would not be as easy. Climate change, even rapid unprecedented, climate change is still a rather slow and drawn out process compared the human perspective.​

 

[Travis]

Uh, yeah but some comets are detected quite a ways out there.

And if you were convinced of the "comet = liberal lie" idea it wouldn't matter if you could see the comet in the sky. After all, that's the one that will just miss.

 

[bit_pattern]

And if you were convinced of the "comet = liberal lie" idea it wouldn't matter if you could see the comet in the sky.

 

[DC]

ah true believers of cometism. its just a scam so Al Gore can make more money.

 

[mhaze]

I don't. You want to continue on the current disastrous approach because someone, somewhere will somehow come up with a some technological solution at some time in the future that will magically change the course of energy consumption. Is "mhaze" short for "miraculously hazy"?

The bolded part has the same imputation of motive that was noted shortly ago in my comment "you want a depression on top of a depression".

None the less, asking if we have accurate past 50 year forecasts is reasonable, IF YOU ARE SAYING we need to believe your 50 year future forecast.

No way around that...

 

[TheSapient]

I don't. You want to continue on the current disastrous approach because someone, somewhere will somehow come up with a some technological solution at some time in the future that will magically change the course of energy consumption. Is "mhaze" short for "miraculously hazy"?

I think it is amusing that he is simultaneously arguing that

a) economic futures are too unpredictable to make policy changes now

and

b) anyone who doesn't back his policy ideas without question is trying to create an endless depression.

 

[mhaze]

I think it is amusing that he is simultaneously arguing that

a) economic futures are too unpredictable to make policy changes now

and

b) anyone who doesn't back his policy ideas without question is trying to create an endless depression.

Hey, no problem. We'll all just agree to BELIEVE the liberal 50 year forecast which lock step leads into give them all your money for ......(current subject) SAVING THE WORLD.

....without any past evidence that any past 50 year economic forecast has any statistical validity (or with considerable evidence to the contrary, which hasn't been presented).

No....problema!

Now are you happy?

We'll just not discuss Alarmist forecasts of the past which are so very embarrasing. This was we will look like modern progressive elitists, with knowledge, with science at our side, with certainty, instead of total morons.

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (Population Bomb 196

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)​

The Apocalypse is always set just a few years off from the current date.

 

[citizenzen]

Hey, no problem. We'll all just agree to BELIEVE the liberal 50 year forecast ...

Who is we?

These forecasts have shifted over the past few decades, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them change again.

Is it possible for you to discuss this issue without painting the opposition in such ridiculous and fallacious ways? I doubt it.

But as someone else noted ... you do provide amusement.

 

[bit_pattern]

Hey, no problem. We'll all just agree to BELIEVE the liberal 50 year forecast

I don't BELIEVE anything, I simply accept the clear and empirical line of reasoning that supports AGW. Big difference.

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

What climate research has Ehrlich authored, Mhaze? Why do you think his opinions from 40 years ago matter?

which lock step leads into give them all your money for ......(current subject) SAVING THE WORLD.

See, this is what the OP was on about. It's a real shame conservatives can't stop denying the science and come to the party with their OWN policy for reducing emissions that is simply a fantasy based denial of the problem. How are conservatives going to stop this nefarious wealth redistribution if you don't have any alternatives?

Give me an alternative conservative policy for doing something and maybe I'll get on board with your criticisms. But criticism is not constructive if it is void of solutions to the problem.