Conservatives and climate change

[bit_pattern]

Why don't you go ahead and try.

Don’t forget the “scientist” part, and by that I mean actual publishing climate scientists.

I won't be holding my breath I noticed that too and had a chuckle about the "scientist" bit, in inerted comma's, as if the OP knows that any vacuous opinion he digs up as an example of alarmism WON'T be coming from a scientist unless it is backed up by statistical probability

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Neither of those predictions you cite can be wrong yet because they are projected for 20-60 years from now. In other words, you fail.

Maybe not. I recall that a few years ago New England had a late start on its winter and some defenders of the AGW theory said: "See? Tolja so! Ski resort owners are doomed."

 

[johnny karate]

Is it related to my questions about economic forecasts? So far, every single warmer is avoiding my question.

Trakker, bit_pattern, citizenzen, ben, sez_me, dc, johnny_karate, clinger...

You know what? When a bunch of people try to change the subject, I kind of like to stay on the subject.

Not sure what "question you're talking about, but the rules of rational discourse dictate that disingenuous people who avoid the questions put to them have no right to demand their questions be answered.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Please reference the sources of these quotes

They're paraphrases. I was going from memory. I do remember the new stories about dry winters and the purported relation to AGW. One problen we will have is that the time scale, Ben's "from the last " so that they can be examined in context and properly evaluated and compared to mainstream science findings and projections.[/QUOTE]

 

[BenBurch]

Maybe not. I recall that a few years ago New England had a late start on its winter and some defenders of the AGW theory said: "See? Tolja so! Ski resort owners are doomed."

What a few media jerks say isn't the same thing as a majority scientific opinion.

Show me where that was mainstream scientific opinion?

 

[mhaze]

Maybe not. I recall that a few years ago New England had a late start on its winter and some defenders of the AGW theory said: "See? Tolja so! Ski resort owners are doomed."

The fact that you can easily find crazy things that have been said doesn't have any true utility. The Believers will turn around and say "Oh, but not by Scientists". Sure, we can find crazy things said by their Sciencyists. But then they will say "Oh, but that's not the CONSENSUS".

Let's say on the contrary, that a substantive lie was used to help pass "climate legislation" in a given country. That certainly is interesting and certainly is occurring. But likely the scientists, with a few exceptions, will be standing back and staying quite while media people try to whip up the fear and guilt bongos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM

The Faithful of the AGW are certainly complicit in this type of stuff. They are responsible for it. But they don't want to talk about it. Just like on this thread they don't want to discuss numerous things and keep harping on their "Science" and their "Scientists", in truth they are largely just pushing political agendas.

Pretty obvious, really.

Just like when Ben would not answer this question:

Here's a simple way to figure it. Europe thought they needed carbon price about $55 per ton to get their overlord control debacle to work. Let's use that figure. Then we'll just take the total number of tons that need to be taxed - world wide - and see what the total cost will be, and the "benefits".

I know you will duck and dodge that one....

If you object to their political agenda, they will claim the science supports them. But they won't defend the actual political agendas, and the science they quote does not support those actual political agendas.

That's why they will try to change the subject.

There's also a great deal of lying done when they try to push the legislation. Like the Waxman bill. Numbers were widely quoted that it represented an approximate 15% increase in taxes for the average person. That was the way the debate was framed. But actually over several decades, that bill called for an 80% carbon reduction and racketed up the taxes to try to achieve that. That's nothing but lying.

Oh, I know ... it's for a Good Cause .... "saving the planet"....

So....by taking your money away they are Saving the Planet.

 

[citizenzen]

Is it related to my questions about economic forecasts? So far, every single warmer is avoiding my question.

Trakker, bit_pattern, citizenzen, ben, sez_me, dc, johnny_karate, clinger...

You know what? When a bunch of people try to change the subject, I kind of like to stay on the subject.

Google is your friend, mhaze.

An unwise man once told me that, and I promised that one day I'd pass it on.




Edit: Any time maze asks me a question, he's going to get that same answer.

Thanks maze, for teaching me that little trick.

 

[SezMe]

... sez_me, ...

Your accuracy in names matches your accuracy in economics.

 

[mhaze]

Your accuracy in names matches your accuracy in economics.

Hey, give me a break now and then.

Not always, of course. Look how nice a guy I am. I've made numerous concessions in the last several pages and agreed to a consensus of opinion on this forum that touchy subjects that might increase evil doubt would not be discussed. In fact, every time I have broached a new subject I have concluded saying that we should not continue discussing it because it disturbed the resident liberal.

Hmmm.....

 

[L.Y.S.]

Why do we care about climate change again?

 

[mhaze]

they're paraphrases. I was going from memory. I do remember the new stories about dry winters and the purported relation to agw. One problen we will have is that the time scale, ben's "from the last " so that they can be examined in context and properly evaluated and compared to mainstream science findings and projections.

[/quote]

Here's one for you. Google is OUR friend.



http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observat...orecasts-always-wrong-but-never-in-doubt.html

Oh, gee golly. Here's another.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/...-cause-spread-of-disease-scientists-find.html

What, there's more?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-rising-seas-wrong-says-Met-Office-study.html

Ohhh...gee....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

 

[mhaze]

Why do we care about climate change again?

because, dude, there's big money in it and you could get some. Think Solyndra, Chevy Volt, many, many others....

Just scare the people till they look the other way, then they won't see the scams. And get your thinking fixed, don't show any doubt. Doubt's a killer, see.

You need that certainty. What was it called? Yeah...git yourself some of that "excessive certainty". And a Prius.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Starting with the original post, we've quoted Peter Wehner, Jim Manzi, and Steve Chapman saying conservatives need to accept the climate science if they want to retain any credibility for the debate over public policy.

Let's look at what four of the Republican candidates for US President have to say about that.

Ron Paul has said global warming is a hoax (at 7:00 in that video).

Next we have Rick Santorum being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh:

I believe the earth gets warmer, and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man through the production of CO2 which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, you know, moisture in the air....It's just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.

So Rick Santorum doesn't accept the climate science.

Next up: Newt Gingrich, who once made an advertisement with Nancy Pelosi in which he said this "country must take action to address climate change."

Gingrich now says that was the dumbest thing he's ever done, which is an impressive superlative. He now says "I actually don't know whether global warming is occurring." He acknowledges that most scientists think it is, while a minority do not.

I'm an amateur paleontologist....I'm agnostic....I would say to all my conservative friends: Don't assume automatically the entire National Academy of Sciences is wrong. And I would say to the National Academy: Don't assume that a vote by renowned scientists is necessarily the truth.

So this is one of the very few subjects on which Gingrich is agnostic.

We can't talk about Mitt Romney's position without specifying a time and place.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney took credit for state regulations that limited carbon dioxide emissions.

In New Hampshire last June, Romney said:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer....And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that....And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.

In Pittsburgh last October, Romney no longer believed in number two:

My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.

So Mitt Romney's positions on global warming are perfectly consistent with his positions on other controversial issues.

 

[JudeBrando]

It is about Bigger Government, Power and Money.


"Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."

 

[SezMe]

Jude, I doubt that $79 billion figure but let's go with it for a moment. That's about $290 million per quarter. That's chump change compared to numbers such as these:

Exxon earned $10.7 billion in the first quarter, up from $6.3 billion. Shell announced profit of $6.3 billion in the first quarter this year, up from $4.8 billion

Note that's Billions for oil profits (not revenue, profit) while your number is in the Millions. In other words, three orders of magnitude. That makes it abundantly clear where the money and power is.

 

[mhaze]

Jude, I doubt that $79 billion figure but let's go with it for a moment. That's about $290 million per quarter. That's chump change compared to numbers such as these:

Note that's Billions for oil profits (not revenue, profit) while your number is in the Millions. In other words, three orders of magnitude. That makes it abundantly clear where the money and power is.

Cool....we can get some o that action, too. Just buy into some of that Exxon stock. You can be an owner too.

It is about Bigger Government, Power and Money.


"Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come"....

Hey yah, that $79B is chump change, the big money is in the cap and trade or carbon taxes. Just think, that Waxman bill for STARTERs would have jacked all those chumps' taxes up about 15%, that's a first year take of about 150B.

First year alone. And the best'd be yet to come, when we jack those rates up later. We'll just tell'em it's ta Save da Planet. And if they complain, we'll tell'em they don't care about Saving da Planet. Then we could move on into taxing, you know, those evil oil companies.

 

[DC]

It is about Bigger Government, Power and Money.


"Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."

interesting i took a look at this blog you linked to.

Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Trakar]

Here's one for you. Google is OUR friend.



http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observat...orecasts-always-wrong-but-never-in-doubt.html

Perhaps you should be more selective in your friends.

A blog copy of a blog post talking about some tabloid/newspaper columnist's opinions and sans contextual (typically distorted) interpretations by sundry researchers and sans contextual, quote-mined snippets of discusstions from stolen emails. All of which has been repeatedly explained and discussed and has generally been judged to be confabulated hyperbole and partisan rhetoric without standing. This by multiple official investigations the overwhelming majority of the mainstream scientific community and, according to any objective long term examination of trends, within the public at large, both within and without the borders of this nation.

The opinions and perspective your posting persona represents has come to exemplify the "grassy knoll conspiracists" of the 21rst century, rather curious and quaint, but thankfully, largely and increasingly, irrelevent.

 

[L.Y.S.]

because, dude, there's big money in it and you could get some. Think Solyndra, Chevy Volt, many, many others....

Just scare the people till they look the other way, then they won't see the scams. And get your thinking fixed, don't show any doubt. Doubt's a killer, see.

You need that certainty. What was it called? Yeah...git yourself some of that "excessive certainty". And a Prius.

This could be an explanation but then if this is the cause to be in support of global warming then we must also acknowledge that large corporate interests play a huge role in ignoring climate change. Either way each position is a sort of paradox if we view climate change from this perspective.

At any rate, I was more of saying why do we care if climate change actually happens? Seeing as most of us won't do anything to change. The world will most likely rot and heat up. I'm in favor of doing nothing and watching billions of people die so that humans can learn a painful lesson in responsibility.

 

[stokes234]

because, dude, there's big money in it and you could get some. Think Solyndra, Chevy Volt, many, many others....

Just scare the people till they look the other way, then they won't see the scams. And get your thinking fixed, don't show any doubt. Doubt's a killer, see.

You need that certainty. What was it called? Yeah...git yourself some of that "excessive certainty". And a Prius.

There's also a hell of alot of money to be made by convincing governments not to do anything about climate change. No carbon taxes to worry about, less regulation, higher sales for the oil and gas industry, etc.

Which do you think is bigger worldwide mhaze, the renewables industry or the oil and gas industry? (And don't reply with some sarcastic comment about me being a loony lefty thinking everything is a Big Oil conspiracy - i'm just posing the counter point.)