Do conservatives have to reject global climate change to be conservatives?

[GenSeneca]

"Name one scientist who opposes AGW that you consider to be qualified as offering legitimate opposition..." - GenSeneca

Can you?

Dr. Roy Spencer

I'm quite certain you will attack Dr. Spencer in an attempt to discredit the man and his work but that will just help prove my statements about the cognitive biases that are present with AGW believers.

Your turn... Can you name one scientist that opposes AGW (that the AGW's have not attacked and tried to discredit) who is considered by the AGW's to be a qualified scientist making legitimate claims against AGW?

 

[dogtowner]

Certainly it is, though it has a long way to go before it will substantially replace fossil fuels. No time like the present to begin, I always say. Nothing is going to happen overnight. It is going to take decades. Get it?

its been decades and nada to show.

that doesot mean we quit looking but for now we leverqe the things we know work.

 

[PLC1]

Dr. Roy Spencer

I'm quite certain you will attack Dr. Spencer in an attempt to discredit the man and his work but that will just help prove my statements about the cognitive biases that are present with AGW believers.

Your turn... Can you name one scientist that opposes AGW (that the AGW's have not attacked and tried to discredit) who is considered by the AGW's to be a qualified scientist making legitimate claims against AGW?

I had a response written, and my **&&!!! modum quit working. A new modum + four hours with tech support, and I'm back on. Sometimes, I yearn for the old days (not really)

Of course, the **&&!! computer erased my response, so I'll rewrite it.

Your doctor Spencer, unlike most of the scientists cited by the skeptics (Is that a good word? We're all skeptics in one way or another) who are syaing that human activities have no impact on climate change, this one is a bona fide climatologist with a reasonable argument.

First, he is not saying that there is no global warming, nor that human activities have no impact.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Climate sensitivity" is the phrase he uses to describe how much of global warming is due to human activities. NASA thinks it is a lot higher than he does.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it.

No, we don't know what the Earth's climate sensitivity is. Dr. Spencer is arguing that it is lower than we thought, but not zero, as some of the scientists in other fields of study are saying, as some of the political pundits with little scientific training at all are saying.

they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

He makes a good argument. I for one hope that he is right. If climate sensitivity is low, then we have a long time to address the problem. We will still have to learn to live with climate change, of course.

Between the voices shouting: "It's all a hoax to enslave us to a world wide Marxist government!

And: "It's a disaster in the making. If we don't all quit burning fossil fuels, we will destroy the Earth!"

there are a few voices of reason. Those voices of reason have a way of turning out to be correct.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I had a response written, and my **&&!!! modum quit working. A new modum + four hours with tech support, and I'm back on. Sometimes, I yearn for the old days (not really)

Of course, the **&&!! computer erased my response, so I'll rewrite it.

Your doctor Spencer, unlike most of the scientists cited by the skeptics (Is that a good word? We're all skeptics in one way or another) who are syaing that human activities have no impact on climate change, this one is a bona fide climatologist with a reasonable argument.

First, he is not saying that there is no global warming, nor that human activities have no impact.





"Climate sensitivity" is the phrase he uses to describe how much of global warming is due to human activities. NASA thinks it is a lot higher than he does.



No, we don't know what the Earth's climate sensitivity is. Dr. Spencer is arguing that it is lower than we thought, but not zero, as some of the scientists in other fields of study are saying, as some of the political pundits with little scientific training at all are saying.



He makes a good argument. I for one hope that he is right. If climate sensitivity is low, then we have a long time to address the problem. We will still have to learn to live with climate change, of course.

Between the voices shouting: "It's all a hoax to enslave us to a world wide Marxist government!

And: "It's a disaster in the making. If we don't all quit burning fossil fuels, we will destroy the Earth!"

there are a few voices of reason. Those voices of reason have a way of turning out to be correct.

Just think how long it took to convince people to ban Lead in Paint, Food cans, and Gas...and how much we knew about how bad they where...Big Buisness always made sure to site some study they made to show Leaded gas did nothing...same with CFCs...

 

[PLC1]

Just think how long it took to convince people to ban Lead in Paint, Food cans, and Gas...and how much we knew about how bad they where...Big Buisness always made sure to site some study they made to show Leaded gas did nothing...same with CFCs...

Yes, it did.
Have we proved that smoking causes lung cancer yet?

or is it just a correlation with no cause and effect relationship?

 

[GenSeneca]

Just think how long it took to convince people to ban Lead in Paint, Food cans, and Gas...and how much we knew about how bad they where...Big Buisness always made sure to site some study they made to show Leaded gas did nothing...same with CFCs...

Yes, it did.
Have we proved that smoking causes lung cancer yet?

or is it just a correlation with no cause and effect relationship?

So you guys want to ban CO2?

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah there is potential. Maybe some day.

Problem is its not VIABLE now. Get it?

It's not viable now because we don't have the infrastructure. Until that infrastructure is built, it will continue to be unviable. But we can certainly start building it today, and that is what many are trying to do. Get it?

 

[orogenicman]

You are the one who complained that not enough people drove hybrids. When asked how many would have to drive them to satisfy you, you respond by asking me if I have a problem with conservation... That's a Red Herring attempt to divert attention away from the question you were asked.

How many must drive hybrids before you think enough people are driving them?

I'll consider answering your question about conservation if, and only if, you answer my question.

I asked because your response "how many would have to drive them to satisfy you" indicated to me that you have a problem with conversation. Now, if you don't have such a problem, why ask such a question?

 

[GenSeneca]

It's not viable now because we don't have the infrastructure. Until that infrastructure is built, it will continue to be unviable. But we can certainly start building it today, and that is what many are trying to do. Get it?

So you're claiming the technology is ready to go right now, the only thing holding it back is a lack of "infrastructure", correct?

Please explain exactly what this "infrastructure" is, where it needs to be, and who is supposed to pay for it...

If "infrastructure" is some kind of magic wand that makes the current expensive, inefficient, and unreliable, alternative energy technology transform into a cheap, efficient, and reliable source of energy, I want to hear all about it.

 

[GenSeneca]

I asked because your response "how many would have to drive them to satisfy you" indicated to me that you have a problem with conversation. Now, if you don't have such a problem, why ask such a question?

Because I really want to know how many people must drive hybrid vehicles before you stop complaining that not enough people are driving them.

Simple as that.

 

[orogenicman]

Very few people get their electricity from geothermal plants because the current technology limits the areas where such plants can operate.


That's been the claim for over 100 years now and despite massive government subsidies, decade after decade of expensive research, forced government mandates, we have seen very little progress.


It's the only viable alternative to traditional power sources currently available. If you're in a hurry to drastically reduce our use of carbon based fuels, nuclear is the only viable option.

1) But then, there are home geothermal units that work just fine. Their main drawback is that capital costs are high. But they do pay for themselves eventually.

2) Nonesense. What has been completely unnecessary and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars is the massive tax cuts given to oil companies. But no one said that research into alternative energy would be cheap. Do you think all those oil dericks out in the gulf of Mexico are cheap? How much taxpayer money went into their design and construction? A lot more than has gone into wind research, would be my estimate. And by the way, there certainly has been a lot of progress on alternative energy. I guess you missed that memo, eh?

3) That's not entirely true. Wind farms can put a sizable dent in our current carbon usage. It is true that they cannot be up and running 24/7, and so we still need more conventional power plants to suppliment the grid when they are offline. But the fact is that wind plants can make a hefty contribution to our energy needs, and reduce the need to built more dirty plants, and likely can result in taking plants in some areas entirely offline permanently. And the best part is that the energy is free and non-pollutiing. What's not to like?

 

[orogenicman]

How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion from my statement that I don't care about our "dependence" on foreign oil?

Moreover, who says that what's good for the country has to hurt "the bottom line"?

If we took away all the government grants, subsidies, and mandates that support alternative energy, it would produce an even smaller percentage of our energy than it currently does.

If you think government grants, subsidies, and mandates are part of the free market, then you have no idea what a free market is.

1) One has to wonder why you don't care about our dependence on foreign oil, when it is a huge drain on our economy.

2) No one is saying that what is good for the country has to hurt the bottom line. In fact, with regard to alternative energy (which would be good for the country and the planet), there is no explanation for the claim that it would be bad for our economy.

3) That is because of the high start up and research investment costs. Do you think our current power grid magically appeared overnight? No. It took decades to build, at a substantial cost to the taxpayer, I might add. The government has always participated in assisting such ventures. Why? Our energy needs are a national security matter. But hey, if you've got a few spare bucks, you can always invest in one of those start ups yourself, and save the taxpayer a few bucks.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So you guys want to ban CO2?

Im sorry, did you have a real question? since no one said Ban CO2 or suggested it , hinted at it, thought it....Man you love your straw men...

 

[orogenicman]

You said we can't afford any more BP oil "disasters", the moratorium on offshore drilling imposed as a result of that incident has reduced our domestic oil sources... Increasing our dependence on foreign oil.

But you don't care, right? So what is your point?

Don't care...

Noted.


Let the free market work and that is exactly what will happen. Trying to force it to happen through the power of the government is creating more problems than it solves.

Exactly how does this work? Much of the capital in the private market is in the hands of the oil companies, and they are only interested in the status quo, rather like you are, I might add. And how is it creating more problems than it solves? GM is ramping up to produce the Volt. Other car makers have similar vehicles in the works. The electric car is coming, Gen. Is this a problem for you? Just curious, since you appear to be saying that it is a problem.

I agree with some of what conservatives believe, libertarians too, but I am first and foremost a Capitalist.

Of course you are. I am top, but I also realize that government by itself is not a solution, and neither does the free market have all the solutions. Which is why I believe that the only real solutions will take a partnership between government and industry. It worked during Apollo and other huge projects, such as our interstate system. Why not for alternative energy, which, by the way, IS a National Security issue, if nothing else.

From our point of view it is you, the lovers of big government, who waste valuable resources in the name of the greater good.

Ad hominem. How is the greater good ever a waste of resources? Would you prefer to live under anarchy?

Individuals working in the private sector and within the free market are far more productive and efficient than any government bureaucracy could ever be.

Yeah, just look at Chrysler.

It is... You should read my blog post about carbon credits. I conserve, reuse, and recycle wherever and whenever it's in my economic self interest to do so. For example, I changed all the lightbulbs in my house over to CFL's because doing so saved me 30% on my electric bills, not because I was diluted enough to think my actions would help to "save" the planet.

So, if there is money to be made or saved, that is your only motivation. Whether it helps anyone else or helps keep the planet clean is irrelevant. Got it.

 

[orogenicman]

Vegetation does not recognize CO2 as a pollutant, they require CO2 to live. Higher CO2 concentrations cause plant life to flourish, which in turn scrubs more CO2 from the air and replaces it with oxygen.


I've said all along, if the AGW crowd just stopped exhaling, human CO2 emissions would be drastically reduced worldwide. It's just a matter of having the courage of your convictions.

1) Back when CO2 was a dominant gas within the atmosphere, cyanobacteria evolved that utilized CO2 and sunlight to make food. They were the precursors for all modern plant life. And today, CO2 is a trace gas. Yes it is true that many species of plants can benefit from increased CO2 in the atmosophere. It is also true that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. And the research as borurne that out, since it can be shown that plants can readily increase their uptake of CO2 only up to a limit, beyond which it becomes detrimental to their growth. And that is because plants have adapted to the concentrations as they exist in the atmosphere, and can only adapt up to a point to ever increasing concentrations, and certainly NOT at the rate we are emitting it into the atmosphere.

2) How Christian of you to say so.