Conservatives and climate change

[Tricky]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct! You are right.

Evaporation. Condensation. Water vapor. Clouds. Shade. Rain. Cooling. Oh whatever shall we do?!

Man, despite the profound arrogance of some of them, is not a threat to the magnificently self-correcting mechanisms of creation.

I see you completely ignored the most important part about CO₂. This is just the sort of cherry-picking that we expect from AGW deniers.

 

[mhaze]

Now if we could just find a case where deficit spending actually worked as people like you believe it does. Unfortunately the end is more often hyperinflation rather than economic growth and increased tax receipts that reduce the deficit..

He wouldn't know about the history of hyperinflations in Argentina, Brazil, China, Russia, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Mexico, Israel, or any of the other useful places that we can actually learn from.

Actually learning things on this subject would result in a realization that money doesn't grow on trees. That would destroy the premise that endless amounts of government money can buy the wind and solar farms that the fantasies of the greenies think will save the world.

That can't be allowed.

Meanwhile, in the real world, what nations just got their credit downgraded?

 

[bit_pattern]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct! You are right.

Evaporation. Condensation. Water vapor. Clouds. Shade. Rain. Cooling. Oh whatever shall we do?!

Man, despite the profound arrogance of some of them, is not a threat to the magnificently self-correcting mechanisms of creation.

You fail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius–Clapeyron_relation

Water condenses, carbon dioxide doesn't.

 

[lomiller]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct! You are right.

Evaporation. Condensation. Water vapor. Clouds. Shade. Rain. Cooling. Oh whatever shall we do?!

So you agree H2O isn't a factor in climate change, of course we are not discussing H2O nor suggesting it's causing climate change, so what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Still doesn't make any sense. You want people to do nothing, so they'll "hurt" and learn to do something. Instead of just doing something. And if you want blood, just get a Nuclear war and the human population reduced to 10,000 and back to the Stone Age.

I don't have to do jack because most societies are stupid enough to do it to themselves.

 

[uke2se]

I don't think you read enough of them if you actually believe that.

Oh, I think so. I have just been reading different sources than you.

Saying it's a "witch hunt" is complete rubbish, nor was it conducted by an "empowered science denier".

No, it isn't, and yes, it is.

It might have been spurned on by the "denial machine" as some like to call it, but there was enough there for some legitimate regulating and scientific bodies to have to sit down and go through them to see what exactly was going on.

What was there? The emails again? What about the four separate independent investigations into those? How many investigations do you think is enough?

Why, if something was there, hasn't anything been found?

Further, had they surfaced sooner there would have been some serious consequences for the "shenanigans" they were playing. In the end there was a legitimate concern for the lack of transparency.

I'd say "apparent" lack of transparency. Mann and friends didn't like McIntyre pestering them with frivolous FOI requests as it took up time and effort that couldn't and shouldn't be spared on the likes of him. Everything McIntyre asked for was already out there. Nothing was actually hidden.

It doesn't do anyone any good to sit here and try to defer blame (although trying to martyr Mann is endlessly amusing) Be a Mann, own up.

Own up to what? That the "Climategate" non-scandal failed miserably to stop research into AGW? And nobody is trying to defer blame but Cuccinelli and fellow science deniers.

 

[DC]

What nonsense? What better possible description for merely using any pretense of environmental alarmism to dictate government and business policy influencing if not determining impacts on the lives of everyone as a result?

It is definitional truth.

dictate? i life in a democracy, here the people vote over it, no dictate at all.
if there were dictates in that matter, we would not need science or debates, we simply could dictate.

Even as we see our glaciers melt away, there is no dictate but rational debate and scientific evidence and votes.

so what has it to do with fascism? do you see fossil fuel subsidies as fossil-fascism?

 

[DC]

"Useful idiots."

those that fall for the nonscientific AGW denial?

 

[DC]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct! You are right.

Evaporation. Condensation. Water vapor. Clouds. Shade. Rain. Cooling. Oh whatever shall we do?!

Man, despite the profound arrogance of some of them, is not a threat to the magnificently self-correcting mechanisms of creation.

oh yeah having a rational debate with that sort of people is impossible. their sky daddy will take care. we all just have to pray.......

the not so usefeull IDiots

would one be able to convince them with the scientific evidence we have, that their system is not correcting itself in a fashion that is beneficial to humanity, they would just think , oh well its gods will, it's the end times so what can we do but repent and pray?

one more thing where religion destroys everything.

 

[Furcifer]

Oh, I think so. I have just been reading different sources than you.

No. the sources are the same. It's how you read it that differs. I read for comprehension and understanding, you?

No, it isn't, and yes, it is.

Nailed it.

What was there? The emails again? What about the four separate independent investigations into those? How many investigations do you think is enough?

14 1/2

Why, if something was there, hasn't anything been found?

Because it's well hidden? We are talking about some of the smartest men and women on the planet. (I'm being facetious)

I'd say "apparent" lack of transparency. Mann and friends didn't like McIntyre pestering them with frivolous FOI requests as it took up time and effort that couldn't and shouldn't be spared on the likes of him. Everything McIntyre asked for was already out there. Nothing was actually hidden.

And yet every investigating body suggested transparency.

Own up to what? That the "Climategate" non-scandal failed miserably to stop research into AGW? And nobody is trying to defer blame but Cuccinelli and fellow science deniers.

So naive.

 

[DC]

isn't this supposed to be about politics? this sounds more like the usual CT stuff atm.
the alleged world wide conspiracy of climatology.

 

[DC]

hide the decline

 

[uke2se]

No. the sources are the same. It's how you read it that differs. I read for comprehension and understanding, you?

Me too. That's why I say it must be the sources. I tend not to peruse pseudo-scientific blogs like WhatsUpHisButt.org and ClimateAudit.org. You?

Nailed it.

Glad you agree. Why did you claim differently before?

14 1/2

Didn't you understand my question? Let me rephrase. How many independent investigations exhonerating the accused scientists will it take for you to accept that there is no merit to the accusations?

Because it's well hidden? We are talking about some of the smartest men and women on the planet. (I'm being facetious)

I sure hope so.

And yet every investigating body suggested transparency.

Yes. The reason being that it would (in the investigators minds) limit the impression of the climate scientists as corrupt by the stupid parts of the population.

So naive.

Yes, you apparently are.

 

[uke2se]

isn't this supposed to be about politics? this sounds more like the usual CT stuff atm.
the alleged world wide conspiracy of climatology.

Pretty much, but you must remember, for the science deniers AGW is entirelly political, as they have no scientific ground to stand on.

 

[DC]

Pretty much, but you must remember, for the science deniers AGW is entirelly political, as they have no scientific ground to stand on.

yeah most of them propably is more worried about the latest prediction of the date of Judgment day.

 

[bit_pattern]

Denier = Truther. Same mentality, same logic.

 

[BenBurch]

Denier = Truther. Same mentality, same logic.

And there is a lot of crossover.

Do you ever wish that these guys were smart enough to make an argument that really was difficult?

 

[citizenzen]

Denier = Truther. Same mentality, same logic.

And this actually goes back to the OP. As more and more conservatives come out admitting Climate Change is a real, it will further marginalize the remaining deniers until the only ones left are the Orly-Taitz-certifiable-nutcases.

But in the meantime, there are still some rational, though misled people in the denier camp. What I'd ask them is "What evidence could convince you to change sides?"

It will be (admittedly sadistic) fun to see the denier ranks shrink and the remaining hold-outs squirm and rationalize their increasingly fringe position.

 

[mhaze]

Act like a conspiracy theorist and consistently present conspiracy theories to support and argue for your perspective of subject material, and it is both rational and legitimate to properly characterize the nature of your arguments and behavior. I am talking policy, you are the one attempting to refute fact and policy discussion with tales of unsubstantiated and unsupported conspiracy. ....

It looks to me as if you are a believer in a green blueprint such as Spain followed blindly.

That didn't turn out too well. Yet you didn't learn from this or other failed models - and right now there are many failed green models.

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

Why do you continue on a path that has been shown to be ridiculous?

Anyway, don't we need to actually figure out, what "green is". Let's take a look at that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJcjgAdsS1k&feature=related

Meanwhile in the Eagle Ford shale development in south Texas, all the hotels are booked 2 years in advance, every restraunt parking lot is jammed with pickup trucks, and 46,000 new jobs are coming in the next 2 years alone. Example of housing product:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxuGhEoqI8&feature=related

And earlier I mentioned methanol for vehicle fuels. Those who are green (or green and red) on the inside may find this of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsbyhxZmbMA&feature=related

....Economists recommend deficit spending to moderate or reverse recessions......

This is a very naive statement. I offer the following two videos in response, although many have already seen them. The lyrics actually incorporate the key ideas of several schools of economic thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

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

 

[Trakar]

Does anybody know what the greatest "greenhouse gas" is? Anybody?

Is this a policy related question?

The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride (http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/Bil301/Kaiser Paper/p151.pdf ).

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

As there is an abundance of surface water on our planet and the average surface temperature of our planet is a bit above the triple point of water, the only way we can control how much water vapor is present in our atmosphere is by changing the temperature of our planet. Coincidentally, this happens to be exactly what we are doing. Every gram of carbon from outside the active carbon cycle that we introduce to the atmosphere warms the atmosphere sufficiently that it now can hold more water vapor. As temperature changes so does the atmosphere's ability to hold water vapor.

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

((BTW -acknowledging and discussing the science of the greenhouse effects of water vapor completely invalidates and refutes any attempt (past, present or future) to deny the science of greenhouse gas effects))