The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.

Surely news like this will wake up the people in these states, most of whom are conservative, that this problem needs to be addressed?

Yeah cause Obama has never lied to us before.

So is Obama directing the overall study to lie, or the locally sponsored report to lie?

 

[StrikeS2k]

The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.

Surely news like this will wake up the people in these states, most of whom are conservative, that this problem needs to be addressed?

Yeah cause Obama has never lied to us before.

So is Obama directing the overall study to lie, or the locally sponsored report to lie?

Have you read the study yet?

 

[culdeus]

If there really are real steps taken by the govt. How can we make money of this in the market?

 

[TheIronSheik]

The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.

Surely news like this will wake up the people in these states, most of whom are conservative, that this problem needs to be addressed?

Yeah cause Obama has never lied to us before.

If you like your cooler temperatures, you can keep your cooler temperatures... period.

 

[Chaos Commish]

If there really are real steps taken by the govt. How can we make money of this in the market?

Good read on the topic.

The ocean front real estate market interests me but it's too involved to explain here. The ETF PHO has a fat slice of my retirement pie right now.

 

[DrJ]

Hey tim, 1/2 a gallon of gas and dozens of lbs of CO2 were saved this morning in your honor. And there's more where that came from. Keep up the good fight!

 

[Chaos Commish]

I think we should capture the melting ice and send the water where needed. I know of a DoD group whose research was cancelled decades ago that demonstrated the feasibility of towing icebergs to North Africa and the Aussie outback.

 

[DiStefano]

I think we should capture the melting ice and send the water where needed. I know of a DoD group whose research was cancelled decades ago that demonstrated the feasibility of towing icebergs to North Africa and the Aussie outback.

I can see them being towed to the Aussie coast. But the outback????

 

[jon_mx]

The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.

Surely news like this will wake up the people in these states, most of whom are conservative, that this problem needs to be addressed?

$1,000 says that by 2030 there will not have been $23 billion worth of costs.

It appears even the hard core global doom advocates are not buying into the 'science'. This is settled science, correct? I am like betting against the sun rising in the east and have no takers.

 

[Sand]

If there really are real steps taken by the govt. How can we make money of this in the market?

Do whatever Al Gore is doing.

 

[DiStefano]

If there really are real steps taken by the govt. How can we make money of this in the market?

Do whatever Al Gore is doing.

Preachers used to make money saying: "THE END IS NEAR".

Now it's environmentalists that do.

 

[jonessed]

If there really are real steps taken by the govt. How can we make money of this in the market?

Do whatever Al Gore is doing.

It's always about the money.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I think we should capture the melting ice and send the water where needed. I know of a DoD group whose research was cancelled decades ago that demonstrated the feasibility of towing icebergs to North Africa and the Aussie outback.

I can see them being towed to the Aussie coast. But the outback????

Right, but the idea was to pump the water into arid coastal regions. I consider some of them outback.

 

[datonn]

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

TONS of information (or lies to scare grandma and grandpa as a way to secure more cushy grants to study the "problem," I suppose, if that's how you roll) to digest. I'll check back later to see if anyone's made it through 15-20% of it.

 

[DrJ]

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

TONS of information (or lies to scare grandma and grandpa as a way to secure more cushy grants to study the "problem," I suppose, if that's how you roll) to digest. I'll check back later to see if anyone's made it through 15-20% of it.

Does any of this information include a solution that alarmists like tim won't reject?

 

[TheIronSheik]

One of the weather sites I follow posted this morning that we now how proof that GW has gone away over the past 20 years. Then I open up CNN.com and their main story is that GW is getting worse and we must take action now.

How can it be so far apart?

 

[timschochet]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

 

[jon_mx]

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

TONS of information speculation (or lies to scare grandma and grandpa as a way to secure more cushy grants to study the "problem," I suppose, if that's how you roll) to digest. I'll check back later to see if anyone's made it through 15-20% of it.

It is mostly speculative stuff based on climate models which have proven to be accurate.

 

[DrJ]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

 

[jon_mx]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

3. Global warming is happening and man is probably a major cause, but people have had enough of the fear-mongering exagerations which have proven to be utter BS more times than not.

 

[jon_mx]

And research supports my hypothesis.

Global Warming Scare TacticsBy TED NORDHAUS and MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

APRIL 8, 2014
OAKLAND, Calif. — IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”

Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” popularized the idea that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, “are likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

Since then, evidence that a fear-based approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up the scholarly consensus. “Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s attention and concern,” the researchers wrote, “they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial.” In a controlled laboratory experiment published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use “dire messages” about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.

Many climate advocates ignore these findings, arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.


But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of natural disasters. “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration,” the climate panel noted, “is the most important driver of increasing losses.”

Continue reading the main story Claims that current disasters are connected to climate change do seem to motivate many liberals to support action. But they alienate conservatives in roughly equal measure.

What works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions. Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

One recent study, published by Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project, found that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that “communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society” rather than “on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?

While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming.

 

[timschochet]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

Glad you made that point (again) because I've been thinking about it.

It seems to me that the best way to deal with global warming is for the United States to move away from fossil fuels entirely. There are two ways to accomplish this over time- the first and most popular is a carbon tax. At this point I am opposed to that solution. The second way is for the government to massively fund a "space program" or "Manhattan Project" like effort to move us to alternate energy sources, whether it is nuclear, solar, or natural gas (my understanding is that natural gas, though a fossil fuel, doesn't emit the same C02 levels as oil and coal, and might work for the next 100 years as an "interim" fuel until we can finally solve nuclear fusion or something like it.

Whatever we decide, I think we should set a goal: by the year 2040, no petroleum or coal. If we create the technology, other countries will follow. But it will take a massive investment and we will have to pay for it either by cutting elsewhere, increasing the debt, or raising taxes. Can't be helped.

 

[jonessed]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

I think you are conflating government opinion with popular opinion, but I'm open to you proving that only a very small minority in all other countries don't believe that global warming exists, is primarily man-made, and is a very serious problem.

 

[Thunderlips]

I think we should capture the melting ice and send the water where needed. I know of a DoD group whose research was cancelled decades ago that demonstrated the feasibility of towing icebergs to North Africa and the Aussie outback.

Yup....The BrewsterBerg Project.

 

[Thunderlips]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

3. Global warming is happening and man is probably a major cause, but people have had enough of the fear-mongering exagerations which have proven to be utter BS more times than not.

I would hope that wouldn't be the reason why Conservatives are against it.

 

[jonessed]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

Glad you made that point (again) because I've been thinking about it.It seems to me that the best way to deal with global warming is for the United States to move away from fossil fuels entirely. There are two ways to accomplish this over time- the first and most popular is a carbon tax. At this point I am opposed to that solution. The second way is for the government to massively fund a "space program" or "Manhattan Project" like effort to move us to alternate energy sources, whether it is nuclear, solar, or natural gas (my understanding is that natural gas, though a fossil fuel, doesn't emit the same C02 levels as oil and coal, and might work for the next 100 years as an "interim" fuel until we can finally solve nuclear fusion or something like it.

Whatever we decide, I think we should set a goal: by the year 2040, no petroleum or coal. If we create the technology, other countries will follow. But it will take a massive investment and we will have to pay for it either by cutting elsewhere, increasing the debt, or raising taxes. Can't be helped.

Like a trillion dollar stimulus bill?

 

[DrJ]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

Glad you made that point (again) because I've been thinking about it.

It seems to me that the best way to deal with global warming is for the United States to move away from fossil fuels entirely. There are two ways to accomplish this over time- the first and most popular is a carbon tax. At this point I am opposed to that solution. The second way is for the government to massively fund a "space program" or "Manhattan Project" like effort to move us to alternate energy sources, whether it is nuclear, solar, or natural gas (my understanding is that natural gas, though a fossil fuel, doesn't emit the same C02 levels as oil and coal, and might work for the next 100 years as an "interim" fuel until we can finally solve nuclear fusion or something like it.

Whatever we decide, I think we should set a goal: by the year 2040, no petroleum or coal. If we create the technology, other countries will follow. But it will take a massive investment and we will have to pay for it either by cutting elsewhere, increasing the debt, or raising taxes. Can't be helped.

Aren't we supposed to be dead by 2040?

 

[jon_mx]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

3. Global warming is happening and man is probably a major cause, but people have had enough of the fear-mongering exagerations which have proven to be utter BS more times than not.

I would hope that wouldn't be the reason why Conservatives are against it.

Against what? Being lied to so that an agenda can be promoted which has nothing to do with a solution? Yeah, people should be against that.

 

[timschochet]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

Glad you made that point (again) because I've been thinking about it.It seems to me that the best way to deal with global warming is for the United States to move away from fossil fuels entirely. There are two ways to accomplish this over time- the first and most popular is a carbon tax. At this point I am opposed to that solution. The second way is for the government to massively fund a "space program" or "Manhattan Project" like effort to move us to alternate energy sources, whether it is nuclear, solar, or natural gas (my understanding is that natural gas, though a fossil fuel, doesn't emit the same C02 levels as oil and coal, and might work for the next 100 years as an "interim" fuel until we can finally solve nuclear fusion or something like it.

Whatever we decide, I think we should set a goal: by the year 2040, no petroleum or coal. If we create the technology, other countries will follow. But it will take a massive investment and we will have to pay for it either by cutting elsewhere, increasing the debt, or raising taxes. Can't be helped.

Like a trillion dollar stimulus bill?

It's going to cost more than that, I'm afraid.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with jon that there has been some fear-mongering from the left. The best minds I am able to read (and hopefully understand a little) on this matter don't predict we're all going to be dead by 2040, or 2100. But they do say things are going to get progressively worse and we need to take action now while we still can. If we can get off oil and coal in 25 years, that should do it.

Besides, for those of you who are skeptical of GW, don't you want to get off oil and coal anyhow? Surely you see the advantages to all sorts of areas besides the environment?

 

[DrJ]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

 

[jonessed]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

Glad you made that point (again) because I've been thinking about it.It seems to me that the best way to deal with global warming is for the United States to move away from fossil fuels entirely. There are two ways to accomplish this over time- the first and most popular is a carbon tax. At this point I am opposed to that solution. The second way is for the government to massively fund a "space program" or "Manhattan Project" like effort to move us to alternate energy sources, whether it is nuclear, solar, or natural gas (my understanding is that natural gas, though a fossil fuel, doesn't emit the same C02 levels as oil and coal, and might work for the next 100 years as an "interim" fuel until we can finally solve nuclear fusion or something like it.

Whatever we decide, I think we should set a goal: by the year 2040, no petroleum or coal. If we create the technology, other countries will follow. But it will take a massive investment and we will have to pay for it either by cutting elsewhere, increasing the debt, or raising taxes. Can't be helped.

Like a trillion dollar stimulus bill?

It's going to cost more than that, I'm afraid.

How much money is going to get it done? Is 5 trillion enough? What would we going to get out of an investment that large? That's enough to give several generations free college. The return would have to be immense.

Really cheap energy? Fewer natural disasters? Better weather?

 

[timschochet]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

 

[timschochet]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

Glad you made that point (again) because I've been thinking about it.It seems to me that the best way to deal with global warming is for the United States to move away from fossil fuels entirely. There are two ways to accomplish this over time- the first and most popular is a carbon tax. At this point I am opposed to that solution. The second way is for the government to massively fund a "space program" or "Manhattan Project" like effort to move us to alternate energy sources, whether it is nuclear, solar, or natural gas (my understanding is that natural gas, though a fossil fuel, doesn't emit the same C02 levels as oil and coal, and might work for the next 100 years as an "interim" fuel until we can finally solve nuclear fusion or something like it.

Whatever we decide, I think we should set a goal: by the year 2040, no petroleum or coal. If we create the technology, other countries will follow. But it will take a massive investment and we will have to pay for it either by cutting elsewhere, increasing the debt, or raising taxes. Can't be helped.

Like a trillion dollar stimulus bill?

It's going to cost more than that, I'm afraid.

How much money is going to get it done? Is 5 trillion enough? What would we going to get out of an investment that large? That's enough to give several generations free college. The return would have to be immense.

Really cheap energy? Fewer natural disasters? Better weather?

Hopefully all of that.

 

[jonessed]

I agree with jon that there has been some fear-mongering from the left. The best minds I am able to read (and hopefully understand a little) on this matter don't predict we're all going to be dead by 2040, or 2100. But they do say things are going to get progressively worse and we need to take action now while we still can. If we can get off oil and coal in 25 years, that should do it.

Besides, for those of you who are skeptical of GW, don't you want to get off oil and coal anyhow? Surely you see the advantages to all sorts of areas besides the environment?

Not really. I'm all for cleaner energy, but that's different than CO2 production. Cheap energy powers our economy and we have vast amounts of oil and coal. Diversifying is good, but I see no reason to try and destroy those industries.

 

[DrJ]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

So now we've crossed another solution off of your list... are solar and wind energy going to scale well enough to meet our rising demands for energy? And like jonessed is wondering, how much is all of this going to cost?

 

[timschochet]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

So now we've crossed another solution off of your list... are solar and wind energy going to scale well enough to meet our rising demands for energy? And like jonessed is wondering, how much is all of this going to cost?

Solar and nuclear seem like the most viable long term alternatives.

 

[jonessed]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

So now we've crossed another solution off of your list... are solar and wind energy going to scale well enough to meet our rising demands for energy? And like jonessed is wondering, how much is all of this going to cost?

That's a lot of solar panels. Hopefully China is up to the task.

 

[DrJ]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

So now we've crossed another solution off of your list... are solar and wind energy going to scale well enough to meet our rising demands for energy? And like jonessed is wondering, how much is all of this going to cost?

Solar and nuclear seem like the most viable long term alternatives.

I've noticed a lot of terminology like "hopefully" and "seem like" out of your responses...

 

[timschochet]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

So now we've crossed another solution off of your list... are solar and wind energy going to scale well enough to meet our rising demands for energy? And like jonessed is wondering, how much is all of this going to cost?

Solar and nuclear seem like the most viable long term alternatives.

I've noticed a lot of terminology like "hopefully" and "seem like" out of your responses...

And I've noticed a lack of them in yours. Because I admit that a lot of this stuff is over my head, while you and several of the other conservative doubters around here make definitive statements that are really absurd.

 

[DrJ]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

So now we've crossed another solution off of your list... are solar and wind energy going to scale well enough to meet our rising demands for energy? And like jonessed is wondering, how much is all of this going to cost?

Solar and nuclear seem like the most viable long term alternatives.

I've noticed a lot of terminology like "hopefully" and "seem like" out of your responses...

And I've noticed a lack of them in yours. Because I admit that a lot of this stuff is over my head, while you and several of the other conservative doubters around here make definitive statements that are really absurd.

There's nothing uncertain about your inability to offer a viable solution that is palatable to you.

 

[Thunderlips]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

3. Global warming is happening and man is probably a major cause, but people have had enough of the fear-mongering exagerations which have proven to be utter BS more times than not.

I would hope that wouldn't be the reason why Conservatives are against it.

Against what? Being lied to so that an agenda can be promoted which has nothing to do with a solution? Yeah, people should be against that.

But you're acknowledging its happening and that man is probably a major cause....yet are being spiteful because of your perceptions of "fear-mongering". That's no grownup reason to be against it. If you believe its happening.......get in on the discussion of how to fix it...or at least deal with it.

 

[jonessed]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

3. Global warming is happening and man is probably a major cause, but people have had enough of the fear-mongering exagerations which have proven to be utter BS more times than not.

I would hope that wouldn't be the reason why Conservatives are against it.

Against what? Being lied to so that an agenda can be promoted which has nothing to do with a solution? Yeah, people should be against that.

But you're acknowledging its happening and that man is probably a major cause....yet are being spiteful because of your perceptions of "fear-mongering". That's no grownup reason to be against it. If you believe its happening.......get in on the discussion of how to fix it...or at least deal with it.

Against what?

 

[jon_mx]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

3. Global warming is happening and man is probably a major cause, but people have had enough of the fear-mongering exagerations which have proven to be utter BS more times than not.

I would hope that wouldn't be the reason why Conservatives are against it.

Against what? Being lied to so that an agenda can be promoted which has nothing to do with a solution? Yeah, people should be against that.

But you're acknowledging its happening and that man is probably a major cause....yet are being spiteful because of your perceptions of "fear-mongering". That's no grownup reason to be against it. If you believe its happening.......get in on the discussion of how to fix it...or at least deal with it.

It is not spiteful. It is disgust at the solutions being proposed (lots of taxes) and the unwillingness to look at items like nuclear which could be part of the long term solution. The situation is not nearly as dire as it is made out to be. And if you really want to fix it, simply open up the ozone holes again.

 

[DiStefano]

When environmentalists and liberals really get behind nuclear power, I'll believe that they are serious about the problem. But when the only solutions they come up with are solar and wind, then they are playing with themselves, and trying to cash in on government grants.

 

[culdeus]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

 

[jonessed]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

Revenue positive for whom?The best place for a nuclear power plant is a mile or two offshore, but NIMBYism would likely be difficult to overcome in areas where it would be most beneficial.

Environmentalists are their own worst enemy when it comes to climate change.

 

[DrJ]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

We already have massive tax credits for solar at the home and business level, it's still not enough.

The average car sold today is around 25 MPG, and gas is about $4 a gallon. You're talking about doubling the price of gas, not a $1 per gallon increase.

Wow, these "solutions" are just terrible.

 

[tommyboy]

there is no such thing as global warming. There is climate variation, and we're well within historical avgs.

 

[timschochet]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I like it.