Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Conservative answer to Global Warming

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You mean like the huge summits attended by "dignitories" like Al Gore that produce massive amounts of CO2 from their private planes and limos despite their dire warmings of imminent destruction? Seriously, teleconferencing has been a thing for decades. If they don't take their own warnings seriously then why should we?

    Here's where I stand on the issue: is the Earth's climate changing? Probably. That's what the Earth's climate does. Is man causing it? Probably not. Climate change is perfectly natural and normal. Can we stop it or significantly alter it? Unlikely. I suspect we'd have as much success if we tried to stop the sun from rising. Can we still do something to make the Earth a better place to live? Absolutely, but that "better place" is not the socialist utopia that liberals keep trying to sell us.
    It just seems to fall into the pattern of...

    Identify a problem
    Exaggerate the problem to downright scary proportions* (fearmongering, "the day after" videos, threats that 'within 12 years we'll all be dead, etc)
    Propose mega costly solutions that require mega money with no actual proof that any positive benefit will result

    I'm all for doing anything we can within reason, and I've always advocated, as a farmer and rancher, for being good stewards of our planet.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #77
      So I'm just going to summarise. I hope I'm getting people right on this.

      Seer and Adrift suggested the conservative response could entail rolling back regulations holding nuclear power back. Which would result in a cheap, affordable, dependable and long lasting energy source. The contention being that US Democrats (in the form of greenies and hippies) have been responsible for spreading fear and holding that technology back.

      I think that point is entirely fair, as I'm pro-nuclear myself. I'd definitely accept this as a reasonable conservative answer.

      KingsGambit suggests that Cap and Trade wouldn't be about Conservative politics as long as the externality of Global Warming was indeed a reality. I'm very curious about serious, public US Conservative thinkers defending this, especially Conservative think tanks. If you get any links to anything like that I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile Teallaura and Cow Poke have raised concerns about Cap and Trade being abused by those in power. And since (I'm guessing here) US Conservative politics is mainly about minimizing government, that should trump even a well established danger.

      Mountain Man has a point in between his posts that I find reasonable as well. My post didn't actually establish a baseline for how bad things would get in this scenario. He proceeds to mention one extreme option "Will human civilization be wiped out in two-decades because of catastrophic man-caused warming?"

      I don't know of any scientific publication that seriously considers mass extinction of humanity in twenty years, but its fair to point out that my OP didn't give a reasonable baseline, so I'll simply use the conservative estimate from the IPCC, namely 2-3 degrees of temperature increase over the next century, with an estimated negative impact on the gross national product of the planet by 22%, along with a significant reduction of biodiversity.
      Last edited by Leonhard; 07-05-2019, 02:39 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        whether or not it's true makes a big difference
        If you happen to be skeptical of global warming, then presume its happening for this discussion. I'm more interested in whether US Conservative politics could actually deal with it.

        liberal solutions
        I'm not asking about "liberal solutions" I'm asking for whether Conservatives could propose their own solutions, and what those solutions would consist of.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          It's an odd way to frame the question, because whether or not it's true makes a big difference about what solutions are reasonable to accept. Will human civilization be wiped out in two-decades because of catastrophic man-caused warming? In that case, some of the more drastic and economically damaging solutions might be the best option (but I have no confidence that their predictions for two-decades in the future are going to be any more accurate than their wildly wrong predictions from two-decades in the past). Is it normal climatic variations that we are almost entirely powerless to stop, and we just need to be good stewards of the Earth? Then a more modest proposal is needed.

          Let's put it this way: conservatives might be more willing to have a discussion if the liberal solutions to "climate change" were more than their globalist agenda wishlist.
          Yeah...I took it to be a hypothetical for conservatives to ponder or elaborate on...IF AGW was happening, then what would conservatives propose/accept.
          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            ...Meanwhile Teallaura and Cow Poke have raised concerns about Cap and Trade being abused by those in power. And since (I'm guessing here) US Conservative politics is mainly about minimizing government, that should trump even a well established danger.....
            My concern is that Cap and Trade would be, for all intents and purposes, a "bank", which requires a controller or regulator. In the US, that would be the government. No legislation in our country seems to survive without tons of pork added to it, or some big benefits to special interests or lobbies.

            US Conservative politics CLAIMS to be about minimizing government, but it falls back to the same problem we had at the founding of our nation...

            Tax not thou
            and tax not me
            Tax that man
            behind that tree

            I don't trust our current government system to come up with a "clean" program that actually addresses the problem without some politicians getting filthy rich off of it.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Since you requested links: It's not the exact same thing, but here is a Republican site arguing that a carbon tax is perfectly compatible with conservativism.: https://www.republicen.org/learn/carbon_tax_faq

              Note that such staunch libertarians as Art Laffer and Jeff Flake are mentioned as being open to one. I don't read as much into the fact that ExxonMobile and ConocoPhillips are open to one; that seems to be them admitting that some sort of climate change legislation is inevitable and that they think this proposal would be the least harmful one to their bottom line.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                I have no idea what set you off. Were you looking for me to attack you? I wasn't. I just didn't understand why you would say there was a debate to be had about the idea of global warming and then not present support for your position, and I was also trying to say I'm not interested in talking to MM - those always go badly.

                But I was enjoying a friendly conversation with you.

                There was nothing in your posts that I saw as any sort of attack on me, and I had no intention of responding harshly to you.

                I am sorry you perceived my response that way.



                Jim
                It seems self evident to me that even when you (general) think the opposite position is wrong, there at least is one. Surely you (personal) must be aware that there are in fact climatologists who do not subscribe to human caused climate change - which does indicate that a scientific counter argument at least exists. So your post seemed to me to be insisting that I take up MM's argument for merely acknowledging that he has one.

                If I misunderstood, I apologize.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post

                  Mountain Man has a point in between his posts that I find reasonable as well. My post didn't actually establish a baseline for how bad things would get in this scenario. He proceeds to mention one extreme option "Will human civilization be wiped out in two-decades because of catastrophic man-caused warming?"

                  .
                  How extreme is it? Many of my environmentalist-minded friends shared the study that came out several weeks ago and went viral saying that human civilization was looking at being wiped out by 2050.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Since you requested links: It's not the exact same thing, but here is a Republican site arguing that a carbon tax is perfectly compatible with conservativism.: https://www.republicen.org/learn/carbon_tax_faq

                    Note that such staunch libertarians as Art Laffer and Jeff Flake are mentioned as being open to one. I don't read as much into the fact that ExxonMobile and ConocoPhillips are open to one; that seems to be them admitting that some sort of climate change legislation is inevitable and that they think this proposal would be the least harmful one to their bottom line.
                    Thanks

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      How extreme is it? Many of my environmentalist-minded friends shared the study that came out several weeks ago and went viral saying that human civilization was looking at being wiped out by 2050.
                      The closest I can find is this one, but its not peer-reviewed and was put out by an independent think-tank. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb...65336ff23b.pdf

                      At any rate I've long agreed that environmentalists are often their own worst enemies in terms of getting the message across, but that right there is definitely an extreme opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        If you happen to be skeptical of global warming, then presume its happening for this discussion. I'm more interested in whether US Conservative politics could actually deal with it.
                        Of course they could deal with it if there was evidence that it was really happening to a catastrophic extent and that man was the cause.

                        Obviously the first step would be reducing carbon emissions, which the US has done to a dramatic extent. The problem is that we really can't police the rest of the world, and nations like India and China have effectively wiped out any reductions by the US and then some. Carbon tariffs on imports from "carbon abusers"? Maybe, but tariffs are more about short-term leverage than long-term solutions, and we can only impact imports into the US. "Green energy" projects have been a collasal failure despite Obama pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars down that rathole (some of which I'm certain was funneled back into his own pockets). Treaties with other countries have been tried, but those always seem to prioritize hamstringing the US over anything that will actually help the climate. Maybe that's something Trump could revisit with his "America first" perspective, assuming such a remedy is even needed.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Your comment was basically 'sit down, shut up, you're too stupid to understand' - and the idea that only experts can comment on things that affect public policy is just false.
                          Do you believe you can make a contribution to the field of theoretical physics? You appear to be highly intelligent, but not versed in that field or the field of climatology such that you are permitted to make a contribution. There is a reason PhDs aren't just given out.

                          You can dispute how we act on the facts, not the facts themselves. Your client is finding one out of 2000 doctors' diagnoses that supports their opinion of "it's not AGW", close examination of that doctor's conflicts of interest shows their research to be of dubious motivation, would that stand up in court?
                          Last edited by Zara; 07-05-2019, 07:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Plenty to suggest that climatologists are driven by conflicts of interest as well. Tenure positions at universities, research grants, appointments to cushy government panels, publication in "peer reviewed" journals, all depend on them toeing the climate change party line. If one of them expressed a single negative view of climate change, no matter how well-founded, they would be immediately blackballed from the scientific community. Skepticism - which is to say good science - is actively discouraged by "climatologists".

                            As I like to say, science doesn't lie, but scientists do!
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Plenty to suggest that climatologists are driven by conflicts of interest as well. Tenure positions at universities, research grants, appointments to cushy government panels, publication in "peer reviewed" journals, all depend on them toeing the climate change party line. If one of them expressed a single negative view of climate change, no matter how well-founded, they would be immediately blackballed from the scientific community. Skepticism - which is to say good science - is actively discouraged by "climatologists".

                              As I like to say, science doesn't lie, but scientists do!
                              So do people with an economic interest in denying science - i.e., the people making the argument you make above.

                              At this stage, there is no evidence for your claim. If someone comes up with a plausible theory that overturns current climate science, which is entirely possible in the current scientific framework, then fine. However, that person will not be you if it remains your opinion.

                              Like I have argued, your opinion is wilful ignorance of the scientific agreement about the state of affairs. I hope justice comes down hard.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Zara View Post
                                So do people with an economic interest in denying science - i.e., the people making the argument you make above.

                                At this stage, there is no evidence for your claim. If someone comes up with a plausible theory that overturns current climate science, which is entirely possible in the current scientific framework, then fine. However, that person will not be you if it remains your opinion.

                                Like I have argued, your opinion is wilful ignorance of the scientific agreement about the state of affairs. I hope justice comes down hard.
                                "Climate change" as the left understands it exists almost entirely in dozens of wildly inaccurate models, numerous failed predictions, and sketchy "adjusted" data. At this point, there's barely even a viable hypothesis to push back against.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X