I got no reply on this post in the debate forum. I will go with science over Republican right-wing ideology. Below are excerpts from an article by a rare moderate Republican, a diminishing breed in the Republican Party.
The Danger in Republican Climate Denial
by GOPLifer
. . . Republicans can’t be blamed for harboring skepticism, but we must realize that our strategy of blind blanket denial is developing into a political suicide pact. We must find a smarter approach to this problem while we still have time. The Earth’s climate is getting warmer and our carbon emissions are a factor in that heating. There is no credible scientific consensus that questions those two facts.
We must stop wheeling in crank “scientists” who wield tactics borrowed from the tobacco industry to “debunk” the credible research on climate change. Once we accept those two undisputed realities there is an absolute wonderland of authentic uncertainty waiting beyond those them. That is the realm where real uncertainty lies and where the policy response to climate change can still be shaped. For example how much, exactly, of the Earth’s warming can be attributed to human activity? Certainly a lot, but no precise figure can be agreed on. How much warmer will it get and under what circumstances? . . . Let’s not forget the most troubling unanswered question: how much do we need to reduce our carbon output to achieve a specific decline in warming? . . . Some scientists expect that regardless what action we take, it may take centuries to mitigate the impact of human-influence climate change.
So how do we address policy questions like whether to implement a carbon tax? Conservatives will lose the credibility required to even participate in that and other policy debates if we continue to tolerate the ridiculous notion that climate change is a hoax. On a political level, Republicans must not confuse climate change with other science vs. belief issues. On this issue public opinion will eventually move in the direction of established facts regardless of how much distortion we generate. . . . When public opinion comes into line with the established science, our denialist position will cost us our opportunity to participate in shaping policy. We are setting ourselves up for a sudden, catastrophic political collapse which could spread beyond this single issue.
Ironically, conservatives are probably in the best position of anyone to shape sensible responses to this problem. America over the past decade scored a shocking, yet hardly noted achievement which hard-core climate activists in the 90’s would have thought nearly impossible. We slashed our carbon emissions by nearly 10%. In fact, by 2020 we are on track to meet all of the emissions reductions envisioned by the cap and trade program that we did not implement.
12 Dec 12
The largest factor in the reduction of US greenhouse gas emissions has been an aggressive natural gas drilling campaign sparked by fracking. That’s right. If you love Mother Earth and worry about climate change you should come down from that tree and hug a roughneck. This shift toward natural gas will not be enough by itself to achieve the kind of carbon reductions that are probably necessary over the long term, but it points to a reality forgotten in this debate. As in most cases, cautious conservative approaches to this problem will likely be more successful than heavy-handed central planning.
Instead of chaining ourselves to denialism, conservatives could be promoting solid science, calming the alarmists, and shaping climate policies that harness the power of private enterprise and respect property rights. If Democrats are free to define the response to climate change purely in terms of energy austerity and central planning, the world will be poorer and we will suffer much more from the effects of warming.
Real solutions are much more likely to emerge from technology and markets than from centrally imposed want, but conservatives cannot participate in shaping these alternatives if the party allows itself to be defined politically by a pack of ridiculous cranks. Categorical climate denial might be the single greatest threat to the long term future of the conservative movement.
For the Republican Party in the U.S., denial is a river that is rapidly running dry.
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2012/12/the-danger-in-republican-climate-denial/
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969Anthropogenic climate change deniers are still rife in the debate forum, but the real warriors on the issue seem to have passed beyond the veil a few years ago. Maybe Mars doesn't get wi-fi anymore.
The graph in this article is all you really need to know about the deniers:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html
Originally posted by apathistThe real problem is politics is reactive not proactive. It won't be acted on till a few more Sandy level storms or Fujikawa energy earthquakes. Well, more than a few.
That's true I guess. Morlocks need Eloi. And vv.
The fact is there are political vested interests in holding the status quo and that will change only when an ice age or something similar starts creeping up on New York City.
THEN they start to act, going, WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THIS COMING, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, tearing off bits of clothing and hair.....
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat should be done?
The real problem is politics is reactive not proactive. It won't be acted on till a few more Sandy level storms or Fujikawa energy earthquakes. Well, more than a few.
The fact is there are political vested interests in holding the status quo and that will change only when an ice age or something similar starts creeping up on New York City.
THEN they s IS COMING, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, tearing off bits of clothing and hair.....
Let me guess, cap and trade?
Will cap and trade effectively lower carbon emissions? No it won't.
Make no mistake, the only political solution to reducing carbon emissions is cap and trade.
I compare cap and trade to the same approach taken to deficit spending. Just focus on increase revenue by a few billion dollars by taxing the "rich" in order to tackle trillions in deficit spending. It's like pissing in an ocean. In the end such actions accomplish nothing other than being punitive towards voters.
Idiots.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeySo in other words, let things proceed as they may, make trillions of dollars in the meantime so the ultra rich can build underground cities with nuclear power and a complete infrastructure so they can survive the next thousand years of human caused catastrophic weather.
What should be done?
Let me guess, cap and trade?
Will cap and trade effectively lower carbon emissions? No it won't.
Make no mistake, the only political solution to reducing carbon emissions is cap and trade.
I compare cap and trade to the same approach taken to deficit spending. Just focus on increase revenue by a few billion dollars by taxi ...[text shortened]... the end such actions accomplish nothing other than being punitive towards voters.
Idiots.
20 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIn other words, put your money where your mouth is. Don't live in 6 different mansions around the world, live a jet set life, and preach to the world that they need to curb their carbon emessions. Then don't make a movie with falsehoods in it to try and sell your dogma. It's like listening to Jimmy Swaggart preach a sermon after a night of whoring around.
So in other words, let things proceed as they may, make trillions of dollars in the meantime so the ultra rich can build underground cities with nuclear power and a complete infrastructure so they can survive the next thousand years of human caused catastrophic weather.
Secondly, if you really believe this stuff then you go nuclear, but those pushing this stuff don't want to do that even though it is carbon free because they are scared of the possible environmental problems it might produce. That tells me that they don't really think these carbon emissions are all that bad. You either create a viable alternative or nothing will ever change. Just saying it is bad but just use less is absurd.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyNo carbon emissions and global warming are definitely bad.
In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Don't live in 6 different mansions around the world, live a jet set life, and preach to the world that they need to curb their carbon emessions. Then don't make a movie with falsehoods in it to try and sell your dogma. It's like listening to Jimmy Swaggart preach a sermon after a night of whoring around. ...[text shortened]... lternative or nothing will ever change. Just saying it is bad but just use less is absurd.
However the green movement is just as irrational as everyone else and many members
have an irrational fear of nuclear.
Nuclear energy should definitely be a major part of the solution.
The green movements opposition to this has resulted in a global increase in coal power.
Which is making matters worse.
This is why I generally want to whack a lot of the green movement over the head a few
times.
20 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeagreed.
No carbon emissions and global warming are definitely bad.
However the green movement is just as irrational as everyone else and many members
have an irrational fear of nuclear.
Nuclear energy should definitely be a major part of the solution.
The green movements opposition to this has resulted in a global increase in coal power.
Which is mak ...[text shortened]...
This is why I generally want to whack a lot of the green movement over the head a few
times.
I think that if the greens get their way, their stupidity, especially with their anti-science anti-industry attitude that threatens to bring us back to the stone-age, will cause a global catastrophe which would cause millions if not billions of us to die.
They are totally wrong about so many things. Yes man-made global warming is real and serious, but they are simply so wrong about everything else including organic farming ( all food is 100% made of chemicals! ) , nuclear energy ( it exists in the sun thus is essential for life so without it we would not exist! ) and genetic engineering ( all living things have been genetically engineered! By evolution! Evolution is nature's geneticist ) and cutting down trees ( you cannot have sustainable forestry without cutting down trees! ) .
21 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSpot on! That is why I refuse to support any measures that do not do just that.
No carbon emissions and global warming are definitely bad.
However the green movement is just as irrational as everyone else and many members
have an irrational fear of nuclear.
Nuclear energy should definitely be a major part of the solution.
The green movements opposition to this has resulted in a global increase in coal power.
Which is mak ...[text shortened]...
This is why I generally want to whack a lot of the green movement over the head a few
times.
Screw Al Gore and his cronies. You do know the game plan don't you? The game plan is to pass cap and trade which will make men like Al Gore richer than their wildest dreams via the Chicago Climate Exchange. They estimate that once passed the Chicago Climate Exchange will be worth close to $10 trillion! 😲
In the interim, they could care less that cap and trade does virtually nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
26 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeNuclear is certainly one answer but doesn't have to be the total story. Wave power, wind, solar should all enter into the equation.
No carbon emissions and global warming are definitely bad.
However the green movement is just as irrational as everyone else and many members
have an irrational fear of nuclear.
Nuclear energy should definitely be a major part of the solution.
The green movements opposition to this has resulted in a global increase in coal power.
Which is mak ...[text shortened]...
This is why I generally want to whack a lot of the green movement over the head a few
times.
The problem with nuclear of course, is this delayed ass biting you get 30 years later when all the waste adds up and what to do with it.
As they found out in Japan, just storing it onsite in pools is not such a great idea.
I think there should be one world wide site where it all goes and don't come within a hundred miles of it unless you are in a spacesuit.
It seems the ultimate solution, albeit with it's own set of problems, not as bad as fission, is fusion. It is not going to be as clean as proponents try to sell it but it will be a lot less long term problem than fission, assuming they can get the process to work, putting out 100 times the energy it takes to start the reactions.
I see fission as a tween technology, certainly not an endpoint, which should be fusion. Perhaps in a few hundred years, antimatter reactions can become commonplace and that would replace fusion but not in this century for sure.