Conservative answer to Global Warming

[Zara]

Let's use your doctor analogy: suppose your doctor was following the "consensus of medical science", but he could not demonstrate that the "consensus" opinion would lead to a correct diagnosis or cure, and that the "consensus" had been wildly wrong about both in the past, regularly predicting the exact opposite of what happened in reality. Would you still be willing to swallow the pill he just handed you?

You aren't a doctor (I presume, you might be), so, unless you're expressing the opinion of doctors, it doesn't really matter how you interpret the situation. I do not trust your ability to interpret the science or its conclusions.

The world's most prestigious doctors are in agreement that there is a problem, the international community is in agreement, so are business leaders - ignoring those with a direct financial interest in the status quo. They believe that we need to limit climate forcing gasses as much as possible, with a 2.0C warming limit by 2100 to mitigate a very likely to be extremely expensive and disruptive problem. This is also about risk mitigation. I agree with them, so I would swallow that pill. Do I want to swallow that pill? No. Just as the person diagnosed with HIV will have a very difficult set of decisions in front of them, ignoring the illness and spreading it, because they refuse to listen to the doctor, is criminal. But that's the cards we are dealt. It is simply how things are, I will still have a rich full life, so will the next generation, even if some of the toys and choices that people feel entitled to are no longer available.

[Mountain Man]

I agree with them, so I would swallow that pill.

Even when there is good reason to question the validity of your doctor's science, and you can't be confident that the "consensus" has even correctly identified the disease, and in fact has a long history of misdiagnosis, and has been caught countless times fudging the data to produce the results the pharmacutical companies want? This is who you think is worthy of your trust? Sorry, I'm not nearly as gullible as you. I will hang on to my reasonable skepticism.

[Zara]

Even when there is good reason to question the validity of your doctor's science, and you can't be confident that the "consensus" has even correctly identified the disease, and in fact has a long history of misdiagnosis, and has been caught countless times fudging the data to produce the results the pharmacutical companies want? This is who you think is worthy of your trust? Sorry, I'm not nearly as gullible as you. I will hang on to my reasonable skepticism.

Again, I do not believe you are capable of making that judgement. Your scepticism is therefore wilful ignorance. I hope justice comes down hard. Ironically, the industry that has most to lose from climate change mitigation, also found evidence of their product leading to increased temperate: http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/ if you have time. They predicted that 1.0C anomaly would not be reached until the second or third quarter of this century, it was reached in the second decade. Their CO2 ppm prediction is almost spot on though. Here is what Shell said: http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/19...rt-greenhouse/ , BP, http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/19...rt-greenhouse/ .

[Mountain Man]

Again, I do not believe you are capable of making that judgement. Your scepticism is therefore wilful ignorance. I hope justice comes down hard. Ironically, the industry that has most to lose from climate change mitigation, also found evidence of their product leading to increased temperate: http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/ if you have time. They predicted that 1.0C anomaly would not be reached until the second or third quarter of this century, it was reached in the second decade. Their CO2 ppm prediction is almost spot on though. Here is what Shell said: http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/19...rt-greenhouse/ , BP, http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/19...rt-greenhouse/ .

Are you claiming this is a fulfilled prediction based on the data that has been "adjusted" accordingly by organizations like NOAA and NASA? That's like painting a target around where your arrow landed and calling it a bullseye.

[Littlejoe]

You suggested conservatives could get on board regenerating forests, but that it needs to be done carefully? That doesn't sound like a bad idea. What about stopping deforestation, that seems to be cheaper and immediately effective?

FWIU, deforestation is primarily happening in 3rd world countries by people who are just trying to survive any way they can. How do you propose to stem that? Pay them not to do that? Also, FWIU, new growth actually is far more effective in Carbon sequestration than old growth so, planned deforestation and replanting (which is a lot of what's happening in the lumber industry) seems to be a good thing doesn't it?

[Teallaura]

No, actually you can't. And the reason you cant is because of the physics, the data, and the math. Real science is driven by the data, the math, and the scientific principle. But those are the things this sort of discussion avoids, partly because the starter of the thead doesnt want to, and partly because some othersdont want to or cant.

But that is the difference between this sort nebulous, subjective discussion and science.

In this sort of discussion someone can make a statement like the one you just made, and one person's assertion is as good as anothers. But if we pull out the data and the math and the physics, then the nutcase assertions get slammed immediately, and the possible fits to the data get debated and new expriments get created to show, objectively, which ideas have merit and which ones don't.

And by engaging in that process only the most incompetent or the grossly ignorant are left wondering if the world is flat or the stars are little fireflys.

Jim

Yes, I can - like I said right circumstances. For the extremes I mentioned the pressure would have to be greater than anything I could reasonably bring to bear. For less extreme examples, it becomes easier - much easier.

Survey instruments are so easily skewed that writing sound, valid questions is the hardest part of the job, when you are intending to do it right. It's easier if you're attempting to get a particular result. .

Humans are both readily predictable and wildly unpredictable - studying them is tougher than particle physics could hope to be (particles don't try to help or try to muck things up!). But we do understand some things about human behavior and anyone can be manipulated sometime.

This, by the way, is why we take conflicts of interest into account. It's also why 'consensus' is not evidence - presenting it as such being a form of bandwagon fallacy.

For the part you missed - the actual work/evidence/case is what matters. Zara would have us simply accept whatever consensus dictates. She is perfectly free to do so herself but I prefer to examine the merits rather than climb on the most popular wagon.

[Leonhard]

Sorry OP.

If you're sorry, then why did you proceed to derail the thread?

Oxmixmudd, Zara, MountainMan, I get that you have very strong opinions on whether Global Warming is happening. But I wasn't interested in having another thread about that. What I wanted to know is whether the political ideology of US Conservatives would even be able to deal with it. I stated that fairly clearly in the OP, and I don't think its unreasonable subject.

Can some mods please snip out that discussion and put it somewhere else? Or is this thread now a lost cause?

[rogue06]

If you're sorry, then why did you proceed to derail the thread?

Oxmixmudd, Zara, MountainMan, I get that you have very strong opinions on whether Global Warming is happening. But I wasn't interested in having another thread about that. What I wanted to know is whether the political ideology of US Conservatives would even be able to deal with it. I stated that fairly clearly in the OP, and I don't think its unreasonable subject.

Can some mods please snip out that discussion and put it somewhere else? Or is this thread now a lost cause?

I put in a request but it might take a day or two.

[Teallaura]

FWIU, deforestation is primarily happening in 3rd world countries by people who are just trying to survive any way they can. How do you propose to stem that? Pay them not to do that? Also, FWIU, new growth actually is far more effective in Carbon sequestration than old growth so, planned deforestation and replanting (which is a lot of what's happening in the lumber industry) seems to be a good thing doesn't it?

Actually. there is potential here rather than stick doomed seedlings in the dirt. Rotational grazing has a proven track record both here and abroad (been researched more extensively in Africa and there have been impressive results). It's not the only promising and feasible technique coming down the pike, either. Techniques that show rapid improvement without the need for much, if any, new infrastructure have great potential in the Third World and beyond.

[Zara]

Are you claiming this is a fulfilled prediction based on the data that has been "adjusted" accordingly by organizations like NOAA and NASA? That's like painting a target around where your arrow landed and calling it a bullseye.

It shows that even the industry believes climate change has a man made cause. Here is what they said:

Capture.jpg

[Leonhard]

Zara, quit it or leave. I just pointed out that I wanted a cease fire on that, and a return to the point of the OP. You're completely ignoring that.

[JimL]

Conservative politicians, in general, are basically about power and money, so they don't, for the most part, give a hoot about climate change.

[Cow Poke]

Liberal politicians, in general, are basically about power and money, so they, for the most part, really push climate change.

Fixed it for ya, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

Conservative politicians, in general, are basically about power and money, so they don't, for the most part, give a hoot about climate change.

I dont think its quite that simple. They might care, but to be repulican thay cant say so or they must be very careful what they say about it because the power base of tge republican party is firmly aligned with/duped by anti-AGW pseudo science.

I do think wonder if either political party is capable of finding workable solutions to the problem. The extremism that is often found on the left when it comes to environmental issues is often no better than the environmentally abusive mindset often found in big business.

Jim

[Teallaura]

I dont think its quite that simple. They might care, but to be repulican thay cant say so or they must be very careful what they say about it because the power base of tge republican party is firmly aligned with/duped by anti-AGW pseudo science.

I do think wonder if either political party is capable of finding workable solutions to the problem. The extremism that is often found on the left when it comes to environmental issues is often no better than the environmentally abusive mindset often found in big business.

Jim

Psst! We're trying NOT to further derail the thread.