Conservatives and climate change

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Ben): "OK, Mhaze, find one. ONE significant prediction of mainstream science in the last decade about AGW that was wrong in some way other than not predicting how quickly things have gone bad. I am quite certain that my position is defensible...
(And of course, we will want to know about all of the other predictions you could not find fault with even if you find one that was wrong; The fact that we have to argue about ONE when there are dozens shows your position is corrupt.)"
Or, it shows that most predictions of most parties (real scientists) in this global discussion are sufficiently qualified that unusual heat, cold, precipitation, drought, sea-level rise, sea level fall, glacial advance, glacial retreat, fall within the bounds of variability predicted. That is, over the short range ("within the last ten years") , any sufficiently qualified prediction of responsible theorists of climate is "consistent with the observations".

 

[mhaze]

And none of those include the externalised costs of coal, oil, etc, all of which are are an effective subsidy for the fossil fuel users.

This is the kind of argument that you'd think might work to get support to take money out of my pocket and the average guy?

That's pretty funny.

I can see why lying is so popular with alarmists. When they say what they really feel it doesn't go over so well. Let me help you out here.

The sea rise will cover all the coastal areas under 20 feet or more of water.

At first, lying like this may make you uncomfortable. Practicing helps, though. Pretty soon you won't think anything about lying at all. This forum is a good place to practices. We can help.

....latter article notes the global warming concerns complete with a terrific photo of the president holding a cabinet meeting underwater. This guy may be a hypocrite, but he sure knows how to create a photo op.

Yep, lots of con artists jumping on the climate bandwagon.

<and the true believer says> Maybe, but that doesn't have anything to do with the sciency.

Lots of politicians trying to cash in.

<and the true believer says> Wow, look at that arctic sea ice! Where will the polar bears go?

Looks like a lot of money's being wasted on crazy green schemes.

<and the true believer says> We've got to take action now to avoid catastrophe later.

.....

I know how and where I'll place my bets.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . Looking through a juicy few cgate emails, I find this comment by a noted and prominent climate scientist:

...the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort. During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes, and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment policy credible - in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have to be used. And it wasn't, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat "more dangerous than terrorism" the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue. It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some fundamental value systems have to be challenged. . . . ( snip) . . . ​

Concerning the hilited areas: And the name of this noted climate scientist is? And the document in which this quote appears is? These citations are important for judging the validity of your assertions.​

 

[L.Y.S.]

Also known to science-deniers as "The Rapture".

The said part is the world will be virtually destroyed and their god won't come to save them.

I'm 51 and have no children.

It's the rest of you and your off-spring that will have to deal with the consequences. So while I'm doing my part to effect change, if humans are too short-sighted to deal with this issue then ... whatever.

Ten to twenty years ago I'd have said that while humans are pretty stubborn, they'll manage to pull the airplane out of the dive before it augers into the ground.

Now, I'm pretty sure that airplane is going to leave a nice, big crater.

I just think humans need a painful lesson in long-sighted responsibility. I think without this painful lesson humans will not evovle as a species and will go extinct. Billions of deaths may wake us up.

 

[johnny karate]

One of the things that bugs me most about the climate change alarmists...

One of the thing that bugs me about science-deniers is that they cherry-pick random instances of possible alarmism and pretend it's representative of the body of evidence for man-made climate change, conveniently ignoring the significant amount of scientific data they can't possibly refute.

 

[Mikemcc]

This is the kind of argument that you'd think might work to get support to take money out of my pocket and the average guy?

That's pretty funny.

I can see why lying is so popular with alarmists. When they say what they really feel it doesn't go over so well. Let me help you out here.

The sea rise will cover all the coastal areas under 20 feet or more of water.

At first, lying like this may make you uncomfortable. Practicing helps, though. Pretty soon you won't think anything about lying at all. This forum is a good place to practices. We can help.



Yep, lots of con artists jumping on the climate bandwagon.

<and the true believer says> Maybe, but that doesn't have anything to do with the sciency.

Lots of politicians trying to cash in.

<and the true believer says> Wow, look at that arctic sea ice! Where will the polar bears go?

Looks like a lot of money's being wasted on crazy green schemes.

<and the true believer says> We've got to take action now to avoid catastrophe later.

.....

I know how and where I'll place my bets.

You find thousands of deaths from coal and oil emissions funny? Boy, you are really screwed up.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One of the thing that bugs me about science-deniers is that they cherry-pick random instances of possible alarmism and pretend it's representative of the body of evidence for man-made climate change, conveniently ignoring the significant amount of scientific data they can't possibly refute.

Who is a "science denier"? Certainly not Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Bennie Peiser, or Matt Ridley.
How can anyone know what is "representative of the body of evidence for man-made climate change" if critics cannot see the data? The data that people "can't possibly refute" do not support the confidence with which proponents of the AGW theory advance the case for restrictive policy. I mean, both skeptics and proponents accept that water is H₂O, that the Sun is a nuclear furnace, and that F_g=k(m₁m₂)/r². Some proponents for AGW advanced the claim that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were localized to Western Asia (Europe). There's quite a bit of research that supports the conclusion that these events were worldwide.

 

[AlBell]

Concerning the hilited areas: And the name of this noted climate scientist is? And the document in which this quote appears is? These citations are important for judging the validity of your assertions.

It is from climategate, email #4141.

All I've found though are blogs which I hesitate to link to.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You find thousands of deaths from coal and oil emissions funny? Boy, you are really screwed up.

You find tens of thousands of deaths from hypothermia and starvation funny? Boy are you normal, for a AGW proponent. Wealth is positively correlated with longevity, both at the individual level and at the level of countries. Put resources off limits and the death rate rises.

 

[johnny karate]

Who is a "science denier"?

Someone who denies science. I felt the term was rather self-explanatory.

How can anyone know what is "representative of the body of evidence for man-made climate change" if critics cannot see the data?

Is that a rhetorical question, or are you suggesting data supporting man-made climate change is a secret?

 

[DavidJames]

One of the thing that bugs me about science-deniers is that they cherry-pick random instances of possible alarmism and pretend it's representative of the body of evidence for man-made climate change, conveniently ignoring the significant amount of scientific data they can't possibly refute.

You mention cherry picking and it reminds me of something I've seen somewhere else:

Cherry pick data...
Try to mire the discussion in insignificant details...
Just asking questions...
Ignore the evidence based scientific consensus...
Call those that accept the overwhelming support by experts as "true believers", aka sheeple...
Unsourced claims...

That's right, those are exactly what we see here. You can see all the above displayed by deniers in this (the Republican anti-science) thread.

 

[Trakar]

Who is a "science denier"? Certainly not Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Bennie Peiser, or Matt Ridley.

Yes, actually they are. Each of them denies, or refuses to accept and acknowledge significantly large blocks of scientific understandings in fields of physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, economics and climatology, to be fair, for most of these individuals, it is a mere supression of their scientific understandings in support of more personally valued political ideology, but it is still denial.

 

[Trakar]

Ya think? The end user benefits are gas at the pump without waiting in line for a day or two, power in the electric grid 24/7, and food on the shelves. I find that of great benefit.

And completely unrelated to what is being discussed. Though what you seem to fear, is exactly what you are actually promoting.

 

[Trakar]

Is anyone trying to argue that unfettered market forces would result in renewable energy production competing with (or displacing) traditional now?

If not, the revelation that traditional energy gets state support (which is obvious when you consider how much of it is state owned in the world) is not very relevant.

ETA: there also would not be any need for a non-market climate change policy; merely strip traditional energy of support (which would be a good thing IMO, state interference in oil and gas globally is a huge net hindrance to investment in the sector)

How are you defining "unfettered?"

There is, generally considered to be, a desirous middle ground between "State owned" and "Anarchy."

 

[mhaze]

The said part is the world will be virtually destroyed .....Billions of deaths may wake us up.

Thank you for being honest about your concerns. I don't see any evidence that the forecasting which these concepts are based on has validity, but I have my point of view and you have yours.

You find thousands of deaths from coal and oil emissions funny? Boy, you are really screwed up.

There's only one way to respond to your comment. You can reply with explanations of course.

You have lied, since I have not said I find thousands of deaths from coal and oil emissions funny. (I haven't said ANYTHING about coal and gas emissions, nor about thousands of deaths so attributed).

Boy, you are really screwed up.

Now continue. Liar.

But then, it was I who suggested you use this thread to practice lying.

 

[mhaze]

How are you defining "unfettered?"

There is, generally considered to be, a desirous middle ground between "State owned" and "Anarchy."

I had no difficulty understanding her comment. Sometimes, you know, if I'm a bit fuzzy about something I'll, you know, LOOK IT UP.

....The data that people "can't possibly refute" do not support the confidence with which proponents of the AGW theory advance the case for restrictive policy.....

Well, that's certainly my impression. I thought that in this thread, these various resident Warmers, True Believers, and lukewarm agnostics of that faith might enlighten us with facts about the pragmatic basis for their mitigation schemes and alternative energy stuff.

But if that's not to be, we'd just have to take it on faith...

Wait...

 

[johnny karate]

Well, that's certainly my impression. I thought that in this thread, these various resident Warmers, True Believers, and lukewarm agnostics of that faith might enlighten us with facts about the pragmatic basis for their mitigation schemes and alternative energy stuff.

Here's a place to start.

I'm pretty sure mhaze has me on ignore, so I'll doubt he'll respond. And if he does, I'll doubt he'll offer a response of any substance.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Each of them denies, or refuses to accept and acknowledge significantly large blocks of scientific understandings in fields of physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, economics and climatology, to be fair, for most of these individuals, it is a mere supression of their scientific understandings in support of more personally valued political ideology

You have evidence for this, aside from the fact that they disagree with the AGW case for urgent action? What generally accepted math, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, or economics does Freeman Dyson deny? Evidence? What is Dyson's "political ideology"? I read a couple of his books some years ago and I have no idea. He does not seem particularly partisan to me. Let me add a couple more: is Roger Pielke, jr. A "science denier"? Lubos Motl?

but it is still denial.

No. They disagree with your assessment of the implications. That is all.
btw, do you have a normal human name? Can we search for your credentials to assess your competence to question theirs?

 

[Brainster]

One of the thing that bugs me about science-deniers is that they cherry-pick random instances of possible alarmism and pretend it's representative of the body of evidence for man-made climate change, conveniently ignoring the significant amount of scientific data they can't possibly refute.

Wait a minute! Are you saying that the Maldives are not in imminent danger of destruction due to global warming and sea level rise?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Wait a minute! Are you saying that the Maldives are not in imminent danger of destruction due to global warming and sea level rise?

If they survived previous fluctuations in temperature, they will survive the projected 21st century rise, even if AGW theory is correct. Coral grows quickly. All the people have to do is let the reef grow and compost their garbage.

Polar bears survived the previous interglacial. Similar argument.