Should conservative climate deniers be despised for the threat they pose...

[monovillage]

So mono are you denying GW this week or just AGW? Don't want to put word in your mouth.

I agree climate change is happening and that some measure of it is caused by humans. It's actually more of a land use problem then a CO2/carbon problem.

 

[Moonbeam]

TastesLikeChicken: I would like to point out to you, once again, that what these scientists agree upon is that they are 90% to 99% sure that AGW is a "major influence" on global warming. Scientifically speaking, that is the equivalent of 'ballparking it.'

M: What does that mean? Do you have links that clarify that argument, if it is one?

TLC: Nor, as you claim, is no action being taken, at least here in the US and in most other first-world countries. Regulations have been in place for some time to restrict CO2 output (along with other pollutants) and those regulations are gradually getting stricter over time. We are also gradually moving towards other more environmentally-friendly solutions like hybrid/electric vehicles, reduced emisions on combustion-engine automobiles, tighter emmission standards on electrical generation plants, etc.

M: Yes, and those with their heads in the sand are getting longer necks as we move forward away from them. Your point? I want to know if we should condemn those who seem not to want to live in reality and slow progress as much as they can.

TLC: I mean, honestly, what do you expect we do? So far nobody has invented an effective carbon dioxide sucking vacuum that can recycle our atmosphere to remove all the GW gasses. If you are so concerned about AGW, as you claim, why don't you get to work on that instead of purely using the issue as a foil and fig leaf to beat dem thar ebil conservatives over the head?

I am concerned with how one goes about furthering conscious evolution, how to bring light to darkness, how to cure the conservative brain defect, how to prevent a large segment of voters and party members from destroying the nation and the world. I want to find a cure for the fact that conservatives can't be reached by reason, what other techniques may there be to save us and them from themselves. I know that addicts seem to do best when they bottom. Does that mean we have to wait till the end of the world for the poor fools to wake up? Obviously, it looks that way. What do you do when a body of people are so asleep their children may die, if you don't give an s about them.

TLC: Don't be part of the problem, Moonpie, be part of the solution.

Love and kisses,

TLC

Love and kisses to you too. As you can see, I have a different idea about what the real problem is than you do. From where I stand denial IS the problem, the fact that conservatives can't face real world issues because of ego fear, or more exactly, they are worse in that department than liberals in a sufficient degree as to show so with scientific testing.

 

[Matt1970]

Conservatives are not stupid.

Really? You commonly refer to us as brain dead.

They just have brains that react to fear in such a way that facts scare them resulting in a denial reaction called rationalization.

Much like the global warming scare you and many liberals are trying to instill in everyone.

I already told Chicken that I'm not any more convinced than he is that man is responsible for heating up the planet.

And yet you start a thread about how conservative climate deniers are posing a threat (More fear tactics) to life on earth for questioning a theory you don't believe in either?

 

[monovillage]

Enlighten me, obi wan.

Otherwise, stop trolling you ignorant fuckwit

Here's a short post about it along with links etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/

JC comments: If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast.
...............

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

M: What does that mean? Do you have links that clarify that argument, if it is one?

Here's a link for you. Dig in.

M: Yes, and those with their heads in the sand are getting longer necks as we move forward away from them. Your point? I want to know if we should condemn those who seem not to want to live in reality and slow progress as much as they can.

Bitch about China and Asia all you want. That is the area currently contributing the greatest to atmospheric, man-made CO2 and they show little sign of reducing that output at this point in time.

I am concerned with how one goes about furthering conscious evolution, how to bring light to darkness, how to cure the conservative brain defect, how to prevent a large segment of voters and party members from destroying the nation and the world. I want to find a cure for the fact that conservatives can't be reached by reason, what other techniques may there be to save us and them from themselves. I know that addicts seem to do best when they bottom. Does that mean we have to wait till the end of the world for the poor fools to wake up? Obviously, it looks that way. What do you do when a body of people are so asleep their children may die, if you don't give an s about them.

Your conservative bogeyman is an irrational figment of your own imagination. You take a small sampling of the worst of conservatives and transpose them over all conservatives and imagine they are collectively evil, each and every one. Should I also assume that all liberals are tree-hugging, vegan, card-carrying PETA fruit loops with a natural affinity for the hatred of their fellow man? That's what you are doing, just with the opposite end of the spectrum.

That 'tude makes you appear a fool.

Love and kisses to you too. As you can see, I have a different idea about what the real problem is than you do. From where I stand denial IS the problem, the fact that conservatives can't face real world issues because of ego fear, or more exactly, they are worse in that department than liberals in a sufficient degree as to show so with scientific testing.

All I've seen is that you compulsively obsess (which is a mental condition, btw) about conservatives and offer no viable solutions to the problem at hand. Your input is utterly non-productive.

 

[Joepublic2]

There is no doubt that the climate is currently in a warming phase.

I don't know whether or not humans are causing a "substantial" part of that warming. We may be 10%, 50, or 100% responsible.

Why does it follow that warming is bad in the first place? A huge portion of the earth is permanently covered by ice right now, and there's thousands of square miles of permafrost in north america and Russia that could be farmed if not frozen all year round. Not to mention that tons of civilizational declines throughout history have been caused/amplified by the onset of a slight cooling period, like the European dark ages for example. We haven't had a full blown ice age as far back as human being have been keeping written records (that have been found of course), and if you think that sea levels rising a couple of feet over a few hundred years is going to cause massive social strife what do you think mile deep ice sheets encroaching into north america, Europe and Russia would do?

 

[ericlp]

The Major problem with GW is... We had an a very liberal person (Al Gore) explain it to the people.

Unfortunately, we had Gore to ring these alarm bells. I guess it's any wonder why conservatives balk at it when the message is was coming from a person they hated!

Could you imagine if the tables were turned? And Gorge W Bush was ringing the alarm bells? A retard like bush? I'm not sure who is more stupid gore or bush but I'd probably lean more towards bush... I'd have a real hard time believing anything coming from bush.

Anyway my point is, I think it makes it harder to swallow for conservatives because of who was telling the story. We needed a high figure conservative like SHRUG... (no one comes to mind) Bush Sr was probably in denial as well.. Reagan ripped the solar panels off the white house... I dunno.... Is there a conservative that's not in bed with oil companies willing to talk about man made GW?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Why does it follow that warming is bad in the first place? A huge portion of the earth is permanently covered by ice right now, and there's thousands of square miles of permafrost in north america and Russia that could be farmed if not frozen all year round. Not to mention that tons of civilizational declines throughout history have been caused/amplified by the onset of a slight cooling period, like the European dark ages for example. We haven't had a full blown ice age as far back as human being have been keeping written records (that have been found of course), and if you think that sea levels rising a couple of feet over a few hundred years is going to cause massive social strife what do you think mile deep ice sheets encroaching into north america, Europe and Russia would do?

I don't typify it as bad or good, personally. imo, it is what it is and we simply have to deal with it one way or another. My only question is "How do we deal with it realistically?" It seems that the first hurdle we need to cross is to eradicate the partisan divide on the issue and, unfortunately, the extremists on each side seem unwilling to do that.

 

[Joepublic2]

I don't typify it as bad or good, personally. imo, it is what it is and we simply have to deal with it one way or another. My only question is "How do we deal with it realistically?" It seems that the first hurdle we need to cross is to eradicate the partisan divide on the issue and, unfortunately, the extremists on each side seem unwilling to do that.

It has a good chance of ending up like the de/reforestation aspect of the debate that produced crappy results but made uninformed members of both sides feel better so it was deemed a success. Pine tree monocultures =/= forest, the only things that live in those are pine beetles and the few birds/reptiles that can scavenge enough of them, while dramatically reducing the quality of the soil (most important resource imo) over time.

 

[Moonbeam]

Matt1970: Really? You commonly refer to us as brain dead.

Mo: But not stupid.

Ma: Much like the global warming scare you and many liberals are trying to instill in everyone.

Mo: Just an example of not using your brain even though you have one. Neurosciene shows conservatives to have an enlarged fear and a shrunken fear suppression center in their brains the result of which is to fear that it's liberals who are afraid. You guys are upside down in your thinking, or rationalizing away the fact you are the ones with the fear problem.

Ma: And yet you start a thread about how conservative climate deniers are posing a threat (More fear tactics) to life on earth for questioning a theory you don't believe in either?

Mo: Stop it, for Christ's sake. Don't try to think when every effort to do so creates a self induced lie. You get everything backward.

 

[cwjerome]

There are a lot of questions.
- Is climate change taking place?
- Is man a cause of climate change?
- Does man cause a lot, some, or a tiny bit of climate change?
- Does man or the US have the ability to alter the trajectory of climate change?
- If so, what are the consequences and is it viable?
- What sorts of things can man or the US do to realistically help with climate change?
- Is climate change good, bad, or neutral?

And the list goes on and on. As you can see it's not a simple yes-no question, there is plenty of room for agreement and disagreement on multiple issues. But the majority on one side seem to take a more alarmist view and the majority on the other side seem to reject the premise outright as a hoax. Both serve no useful purpose and they both feed on each other with deniers refusing to constructively engage in the debate and while alarmists are free to make extreme arguments, which only make deniers even more resistant to accepting anything, and so on in a silly circle.

 

[ericlp]

This....

n 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh, an average of 958 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual consumption at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.

This is what needs to change...

Granted I live in hawaii, and lucky I don't need heat nor AC in winter/summer. It's just not necessary in this state. Granted my house is only 400Sqft. I designed it that way. But I only oink down 2-3 KW's a month. I have all the modern conveniences and I don't feel like I'm living in a second class I have a modern refrigerator... We use a rice maker, have a modern LED 47" TV, couple of computers, Lights, Washing Machine, (no dryer)... Solar hot water and Gas (propane) burners for cooking.

Next step is to go totally solar and cut off from the grid. My point is I live pretty darn comfy off of 2.5 a day KW. I only use half of what the average home in the USA uses per month in an entire year! And if I can cut it down any further I'm going to try! I'd like to be in the 1.5 KW a month. But that would mean giving up rice maker and a few other things like going to extreme swapping out my 13 watt CFL lights to LED 1-3Watts.

I'm gonna wrap this up by saying if we all took energy use seriously we could solve our problems pretty quickly. The answer so it seems is educating people about energy use and trying to get that average monthly household of 1000 kWh's per month down to half of that for a start! I think it's VERY doable. But it's not just the homes but the business's and government that also suck down kW's at even more of an alarming rate.

 

[Greenman]

Glad you understand climate change is happening.:thumbsup:

However, I read what you wrote and it is the same method of arguing against climate change that many deniers use.

I'm not sure why you trolling as a denier means I have a problem understanding what you wrote. You were much cleared in the quote above.

I've never denied climate change. There is no doubt what so ever that the earths climate has been in flux since it solidified.

 

[Greenman]

The Major problem with GW is... We had an a very liberal person (Al Gore) explain it to the people.

Unfortunately, we had Gore to ring these alarm bells. I guess it's any wonder why conservatives balk at it when the message is was coming from a person they hated!

Could you imagine if the tables were turned? And Gorge W Bush was ringing the alarm bells? A retard like bush? I'm not sure who is more stupid gore or bush but I'd probably lean more towards bush... I'd have a real hard time believing anything coming from bush.

Anyway my point is, I think it makes it harder to swallow for conservatives because of who was telling the story. We needed a high figure conservative like SHRUG... (no one comes to mind) Bush Sr was probably in denial as well.. Reagan ripped the solar panels off the white house... I dunno.... Is there a conservative that's not in bed with oil companies willing to talk about man made GW?

It's not just that it was Al Gore, it was also that he stood to make enormous profits from the issue.

 

[monovillage]

He hates himself and blames me for telling him. He follows me around trying to make me feel the pain I know he feels because I feel mine. I have seen this a million times but some folk have it worse than others. He doesn't give a fig about climate.

You hate your children and other peoples children when you scare them with your lies. Here you go Moonie show them this one about drowning puppies and bunnies and score some Green propaganda points.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-rabbits-probed-watchdog-350-complaints.html

 

[cwjerome]

This....

n 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh, an average of 958 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual consumption at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.

This is what needs to change...

Granted I live in hawaii, and lucky I don't need heat nor AC in winter/summer. It's just not necessary in this state. Granted my house is only 400Sqft. I designed it that way. But I only oink down 2-3 KW's a month. I have all the modern conveniences and I don't feel like I'm living in a second class I have a modern refrigerator... We use a rice maker, have a modern LED 47" TV, couple of computers, Lights, Washing Machine, (no dryer)... Solar hot water and Gas (propane) burners for cooking.

Next step is to go totally solar and cut off from the grid. My point is I live pretty darn comfy off of 2.5 a day KW. I only use half of what the average home in the USA uses per month in an entire year! And if I can cut it down any further I'm going to try! I'd like to be in the 1.5 KW a month. But that would mean giving up rice maker and a few other things like going to extreme swapping out my 13 watt CFL lights to LED 1-3Watts.

I'm gonna wrap this up by saying if we all took energy use seriously we could solve our problems pretty quickly. The answer so it seems is educating people about energy use and trying to get that average monthly household of 1000 kWh's per month down to half of that for a start! I think it's VERY doable. But it's not just the homes but the business's and government that also suck down kW's at even more of an alarming rate.

I agree we all need to be better educated and smarter about how we use energy. That can go a long way, but at the same time not everyone wants to live like you. I have a 2800sf house, 2 ACs (it's frickin hot here), 2 fridges, a freezer (I hunt), and a pool pump that runs every day. I have kids, a large in-house shop on horse property, host a lot of get togethers etc. I'm all for people having different interests and lifestyles, as long as there is some thought and effort put into responsible energy use. It's just the right thing to do.

 

[Matt1970]

Matt1970: Really? You commonly refer to us as brain dead.

Mo: But not stupid.

Ma: Much like the global warming scare you and many liberals are trying to instill in everyone.

Mo: Just an example of not using your brain even though you have one. Neurosciene shows conservatives to have an enlarged fear and a shrunken fear suppression center in their brains the result of which is to fear that it's liberals who are afraid. You guys are upside down in your thinking, or rationalizing away the fact you are the ones with the fear problem.

Ma: And yet you start a thread about how conservative climate deniers are posing a threat (More fear tactics) to life on earth for questioning a theory you don't believe in either?

Mo: Stop it, for Christ's sake. Don't try to think when every effort to do so creates a self induced lie. You get everything backward.

LOL, what I posted just proves you are all over the place.

Moon:Science proves Global Warming is real and man made and when Conservatives dispute that they are a threat to life on earth, and it's due to their brain defect, but I am not any more convinced than they are.

Matt: Facepalm

 

[Matt1970]

It's not just that it was Al Gore, it was also that he stood to make enormous profits from the issue.

He claimed the automobile was the enemy of the environment yet always went around in stretch limos.

 

[Greenman]

He claimed the automobile was the enemy of the environment yet always went around in stretch limos.

It was more than that, the private jet, the huge house, all topped by the claim that he was "carbon neutral". It was all such an enormous tower of self serving bullshit that I'm astounded that anyone bought into it. Gores entire dog and pony show was to enact legislation that would make him even richer than he already was. Every word he said, every chart he produced, every heartfelt plea for change, was done for personal profit.

Gore is the quintessential 1%, and a liberal hero, figure that one out.

 

[raildogg]

You should also look at how people are raised. Our way of educating people is also leading to the world collapsing.

This is how it currently works:

1. Get an education
2. Get a good job
3. Buy things
4. Get a better job
5. Buy bigger and better things
6. Repeat

Combine this with an increase in population and the increased longevity and you have a planet that is unhealthy and unbalanced.

Can we go back to the old ways where there was no electricity and we worked with our hands?

Technology and so-called human advancement is really bringing us down, as hard as it may be to believe.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He claimed the automobile was the enemy of the environment yet always went around in stretch limos.

He had to do something to make up for the tobacco money him and his father received.

 

[Joepublic2]

You should also look at how people are raised. Our way of educating people is also leading to the world collapsing.

This is how it currently works:

1. Get an education
2. Get a good job
3. Buy things
4. Get a better job
5. Buy bigger and better things
6. Repeat

Combine this with an increase in population and the increased longevity and you have a planet that is unhealthy and unbalanced.

Can we go back to the old ways where there was no electricity and we worked with our hands?

Technology and so-called human advancement is really bringing us down, as hard as it may be to believe.

How it worked in the past:

1. Don't get an education
2. Beat the earth to make a hardscrable living
3. Die when you're 30 from something that can be treated with a 5$ bottle of antibiotics.

Technology is value agnostic. It doesn't make people miserable, the way it's applied to society can make society miserable if you have a crappy society.

 

[raildogg]

How it worked in the past:

1. Don't get an education
2. Beat the earth to make a hardscrable living
3. Die when you're 30 from something that can be treated with a 5$ bottle of antibiotics.

Technology is value agnostic. It doesn't make people miserable, the way it's applied to society can make society miserable if you have a crappy society.

You are very right. The correct use of technology would not abuse it but rather find ways to help nature and humans co-exist. However, that has not happen and won't likely happen. Technology is making people lazier, greedier and all the other harmful qualities.

We are never satisfied and therefore we always want more and more. This endless cycle is contributing to what we see in the world. If only we were satisfied with current technology. However, this endless pursuit of so-called advancement and modernization is due to us constantly wanting more. Technology simply creates more of it. For instance, we are not happy with 2 cores so we create 4 cores, then 6 cores and so on. How long can this be sustained?

Our so-called modern society is constantly looking for ways to create more and more. They are never happy with one shopping mall in a 20 mile radius so they create one more. How many resources are being taken up?

In India and China and elsewhere in the so-called developing world, they are copying the West and building everywhere. They are copying the West's education system, style of living, consumption - everything. They are moving away from their farming villages into cities or suburban areas - just as in the West.

In the process, these countries, while blindly chasing the supposed dream of "advancement" and "modernization" are destroying the ecosystems of their countries. Why? I guess the allure of our advanced Western society is too much.

If every country in the world is to be like a typical Western country, what will our world look like?

 

[Paratus]

You are very right. The correct use of technology would not abuse it but rather find ways to help nature and humans co-exist. However, that has not happen and won't likely happen. Technology is making people lazier, greedier and all the other harmful qualities.

We are never satisfied and therefore we always want more and more. This endless cycle is contributing to what we see in the world. If only we were satisfied with current technology. However, this endless pursuit of so-called advancement and modernization is due to us constantly wanting more. Technology simply creates more of it. For instance, we are not happy with 2 cores so we create 4 cores, then 6 cores and so on. How long can this be sustained?

Our so-called modern society is constantly looking for ways to create more and more. They are never happy with one shopping mall in a 20 mile radius so they create one more. How many resources are being taken up?

In India and China and elsewhere in the so-called developing world, they are copying the West and building everywhere. They are copying the West's education system, style of living, consumption - everything. They are moving away from their farming villages into cities or suburban areas - just as in the West.

In the process, these countries, while blindly chasing the supposed dream of "advancement" and "modernization" are destroying the ecosystems of their countries. Why? I guess the allure of our advanced Western society is too much.

If every country in the world is to be like a typical Western country, what will our world look like?

It would be just fine. Because once you reach a western style of living birth rates fall below replacement. See Western Europe, Japan and the US to a lesser extent for examples.

Less population and greater efficieny means less demand for fossil fuels and a dramatic drop in green house gases. Plus nobody has to live in the dark ages.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It would be just fine. Because once you reach a western style of living birth rates fall below replacement. See Western Europe, Japan and the US to a lesser extent for examples.

Less population and greater efficieny means less demand for fossil fuels and a dramatic drop in green house gases. Plus nobody has to live in the dark ages.

Until you reach such a level of parity, the problems still increase. While such countries are late to the starting gate, allowing them to finish the race on those terms does no good