Why is The Right (seemingly) so Anti-Climate Change?

[woolfe9999]

No, you are pushing the view that it's pretty much a done deal and that anyone who believes otherwise is a loony denier. There are plenty of experts who do not concur with the views on MMGW, and there are even more experts who correctly say they don't really know specifically what impact humans have on the warming trend --- assuming there really is a warming trend, which is now also disputed.

This is very far from settled, and even if it was, like I posted earlier, it's not really about the environment anyway, the eco-nuts are using it as a vehicle to push a political agenda, and the whole MMGW movement has to be seen from that perspective.

It isn't a "done deal." Strictly speaking, in science, it is never a done deal. I guess you can say that is particularly so here because more data is gathered every year, and that data could cause a revision of the consensus position.

When you talk about the MMGW movement, we need to clarify whether you are talking about climate scientists, or liberals who are pushing a certain agenda that is, in part, based on climate science. Unless you are subscribing to a conspiracy theory that the vast majority of climate scientists are in the pockets of liberal interests, which I *do* think is loony, then these must be treated separately.

The fact is, the policy issues are a legitimate topic of debate even if we are working under the assumption that the majority scientific view is the correct, which, by the way, I think it is wise to assume. If liberal politicians are pushing an agenda that is overall unwise, that doesn't meet the cost-benefit test, then those policies should be opposed. That is far different than denying the science, or elevating the status of a small minority viewpoint to create the impression that this area of science is totally up in the air. That is just spreading FUD. It is a misrepresentation of the situation. So yes, we can and should debate the policies, and keep an eye on how the science evolves over time, without being so arrogant as to think that our opinions have more weight than those who are actively studying the issue.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

lol @ Wikipedia

If you think the Wiki article on this subject is incorrect, you can provide what you think is a more objective or more accurater source, or you can address the actual sources the article is based on, which are cited in the article.

- wolf

 

[DietDrThunder]

My political views fall right in line with yours.
I'm all for alternative energy, drive a Hybrid and actively participate in cleaning up our environment. With that said, I have serious issues with no just the theory of MMGW, but the way it is being used to reduce our freedoms and tax us into poverty.
Living in California, I have seen attempts to ban certain colored vehicles, fine or jail people for driving with under-inflated tires, raise gasoline taxes in order to force people to use mass transportation, the list goes on and on.
Our air resources board has implemented retroactive emissions standards that must be met by diesel powered vehicles used in construction, transportation and farming. These companies have to retrofit new engines or dump their $100K + vehicles for scrap value. I've already seen many companies go out of business because of these regulations, which, like MMGW are based on very questionable data.

It really has become a religion, where anecdotal stories end up as scripture followed by the leaders and if you show any signs of disbelief, you are labeled a denier (heretic) and are ostracized. You are being forced to donate more of your taxes and give up your sinful CO2 emitting ways in order to fight the evil MMGW.

Didn't California just receintly outlaw the sale of Big Screen TVs that aren't LED? So instead of buying a $1500 55" LCD 1080P TV (260 watts, runnig it 8 hours a day, 12 cents per kilowatt hour, and electricity cost per year of $92) , you have to buy the $2300 LED version (170 watts, runnig it 8 hours a day, 12 cents per kilowatt hour, and electricity cost per year of $60) . So, the $800 difference in price divided by the $32 a year in savings by buying the LED TV, break even is in 25 years.

To me if the break even in energy savings isn't achievable in 4 years or less for an appliance or TV, then you're just wasting the consumers money.

 

[woolfe9999]

Didn't California just receintly outlaw the sale of Big Screen TVs that aren't LED? So instead of buying a $1500 55" LCD 1080P TV (260 watts, runnig it 8 hours a day, 12 cents per kilowatt hour, and electricity cost per year of $92) , you have to buy the $2300 LED version (170 watts, runnig it 8 hours a day, 12 cents per kilowatt hour, and electricity cost per year of $60) . So, the $800 difference in price divided by the $32 a year in savings by buying the LED TV, break even is in 25 years.

To me if the break even in energy savings isn't achievable in 4 years or less for an appliance or TV, then you're just wasting the consumers money.

What I've heard os that the law, which takes effect in 2011, sets energy efficiency requirements on TV's, no different than the requirements that have been put refrigerators, air conditioners, and lots of other appliances for decades. It does not ban LCD and require LED. Actually, I am reading that the standards being imposed have largely already been met by the industry. In other words, it is likely to have little effect on TV choices from a consumer standpoint. It is, rather, an incentive for manufacturers to improve power efficiency.

- wolf

 

[boomerang]

As soon as someone can explain to me how taking more money from me, filtering it through some corporations and then giving it to poor countries will change the climate, I'll be on board for sweeping legislation. Actually I won't because I'll never be convinced.

In the mean time, I'll continue doing what I can to reduce my energy consumption.

The right, IMO, are not anti climate change, they're anti sweeping legislation that makes little difference. No one I know (and I run with a conservative crowd) is against reducing our energy consumption, against recycling, against not poisoning our water and so forth.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
With that said, here is what I can't figure out; why does the right seem to be so anti-Climate Change? I understand that there is conflicting data on the subject.

I think you answered the question yourself (see bolded section).

I'm a conservative; I think part of that is to be sceptical.

Like you I hold views that don't seem to jibe. I've left the big cities (NYC, London, Berlin, Paris & Miami for example) to live adjacent to a national forest. I am concerned about environmental issues (unlike what the Left would have one believe about conservatives.). CO2 is 'plant food', the whole thing (MMGW) strikes me as a convoluted way to avoid the more important problem of constantly razing the forest to put in paving and other more pressing enviro issues such as pollution from sulfur or heavy metals (can't eat seafood without risks), nitrogen runoff (from the stupid enthenal effort) killing every damn thing in the Gulf of Mexico for thousands of miles, and illegal dumping (e.g., giant patch of plastic garbage in the Pacific).

The whole "CO2" thing is taking our attention away from real enviro issues and wasting lots of money and effort, however it does have the benefit of being a useful ruse for those who want to increase control through politics and fear.

Pollution IS a problem, but CO2 is not pollution. What I find most disturbing and monumentally stupid is that all the Left's solutions to this bogus problem just produce even more pollution problem's. Ethenol is resulting in increased nitrogen fertilizer in the 'corn belt' resulting in runoff deathly to aquatic life, hybrid and electric autos generate more CO2 to produce and ship than regular autos, their batteries require nasty heavy metals and their resultant deadly pollution. Refining silicon for solar panels requires all kinds of nasty caustic chemicals and generates huge amounts of CO2 being released (the silicon is in the form of SIO2, to purify it you must seperate the O2 by combining it with carbon resulting in CO2) etc.

To all that add that the Left's answer is to pay taxes to the government, wtf? As if sending our money to Washington DC somehow magically makes CO2 disappear?

As a Conservative I would rather, at a minimum, encourage people to live conservatively as not be wasteful, avoid 'McMansions'. E.g., I live in a 1,200 sq ft home (don't have or use air conditioning) and drive gas sipping a 4 cylinder auto. Personal responsibility can make a difference, and I dispise preachy MMGW cultists who fly in private jets, drive in big SUVs and live in giant homes using the electricity of an average home's annual consumption in a single month.

If CO2 can cause warming that is a problem (back when Greenland & Iceland were warm and farmed it doesn't seem to have been a problem?) fine, lets deal with it. But let's combat it with better solutions than those currently proposed. Until then let's not be bamboozeled into rushing into a decision by FUD spreaders. Taking your time and getting it right the first time has never been bad advice.

And of course warm air can hold more moisture than cold air (desert air is hot but has little to no moisture while cold air can be very damp).

Fern

 

[Robor]

I forgot to add the unfaithful even have a religious label of "denier".

What? It's easier to type one word than explain someone who is pro/against, supports/denies, etc.

 

[Craig234]

Because self righteous assholes like algore tells people to cut back in their emissions while living in a 10k sqft home and fly in private jets.

This idiocy again.

Some doctors self righteously tell their patients they should stop smoking, and smoke themselves. Screw them! Smoke!

Some asses who are not self righteous say the same advice about Al Gore. Nothing about the issue, only an ad hominem attack on his negligible lifestyle. Screw Gore! More greenhouse gasses!

All that matters is the allegations of 'hypocrisy' - propaganda publicized by big oil ads and money.

Reminds me a little of the cigarette companies being patriotic by 'siding with smokers', and telling them it's their freedom to smoke as Americans (cue flag and national anthem).

 

[ElFenix]

What I've heard os that the law, which takes effect in 2011, sets energy efficiency requirements on TV's, no different than the requirements that have been put refrigerators, air conditioners, and lots of other appliances for decades. It does not ban LCD and require LED. Actually, I am reading that the standards being imposed have largely already been met by the industry. In other words, it is likely to have little effect on TV choices from a consumer standpoint. It is, rather, an incentive for manufacturers to improve power efficiency.

- wolf

The technology neutral standards mandate that new televisions sold in California should consume 33 percent less electricity by 2011 and 49 percent less electricity by 2013. The standards affect only those TVs with a screen size 58 inches or smaller. For example, a 42-inch screen would consume 183 watts or less by 2011 and 115 watts or less by 2013. Pacific Gas & Electric estimates that over a decade the standards will reduce CO2 emissions by three million metric tons.

i wonder if they regulated vampire power use? that's a big waste on a lot of TVs.

panasonic's latest 42" plasma is close to meeting the 183 watts goal at default (187.17 watts), but adds on the wattage when calibrated. cnet says standby consumption is 0 watts. i also wonder about the test methodology, as plasmas and local dimming LED LCDs use less power when black, whereas regular CFL LCDs use about the same. so if they're testing an unlikely all white scene for an hour they're going to get a larger figure than if they use a typical TV broadcast.

 

[monovillage]

If you think the Wiki article on this subject is incorrect, you can provide what you think is a more objective or more accurater source, or you can address the actual sources the article is based on, which are cited in the article.

- wolf

That's bullshit and you know it. Let's make a deal, i won't quote Limbaugh and you don't quote a biased, cherry picking source like Wikipedia

 

[brencat]

So why does this issue seem to drive people to extremes? Whether climate change is happening is an academic question that should be determined and then a course of (non-partisan) action taken (or not taken) accordingly.

1) Because we are not completely sure if there has been any warming at all
2) Data has been manipulated by scientists who appear to have had a political agenda
3) Inconsistencies in data and weather station locations (near buildings reflecting sunlight and near waste facilities could skew in favor of warming)
4) Not a statistically significant impact either way to justify higher energy costs, higher taxes, increased restriction on our industry, and risk to American economic hegemony.
5) If the planet is warming, is it attributed to man? Or sun spots? Or other naturally occurring phenomina.

I am motivated almost always by wallet issues. And to be frank, I am not willing to give any more money to the govt to piss away on some nebulous goal that may or may not have an impact in mine or my childrens' lifetimes. Bad enough govt at all levels takes nearly 40% of what I make as it is.

 

[woolfe9999]

That's bullshit and you know it. Let's make a deal, i won't quote Limbaugh and you don't quote a biased, cherry picking source like Wikipedia

Wikipedia is the equivalent of Limbaugh? Look, if you have something of substance to refute what is in that Wiki article, then I suggest you present it. We can go back and forth about Wiki versus Limbaugh all day, but Wiki has the virtue of being source transparent. In fact, most of its primary sources can be found online. So if you think the article is inaccurate, there is plenty you can do to test and refute it. And if you think they are cherry picking, then show me what they left out. By the way, what do you consider a neutral source?

- wolf

 

[ilkhan]

1: we can't trust the scientists providing their "data". Numbers are falsified, models are based on data points that have been "selected" and "adjusted", and none of the models can predict anything at all accurately.
2: we don't know what the earth is doing, warming, cooling, nobody knows. Thus the transition from "global warming" to "climate change".
3: IF the Earth is changing (and because of 1 and 2, we don't know that it is or which direction its going), nobody knows IF it's caused by human activity; nor do we know if human activity can stop it, nor do we know how much of a change in society it would take to have any impact.
4: The left is making a HUGE amount of money from advocating human caused climate change. This isn't to deny that the business stands to lose a ton of money if they pass their human caused global warming regulations. Both sides have an interest. No scientific consensus is possible while there's that much money (and control) at stake.

5: (and this is MY view, NOT a generally conservative view) who cares? If we manage to wipe out human life on earth because of, or in spite of, human activity; life will return. It may take a few million years, and it may be totally different than today (dinosaurs -> primates comes to mind) but life will return. I'm not worried about wiping out life on earth, it'll survive in some extreme environment, and it'll return in abundance. We won't be able to see it, and we won't be involved, but that doesn't bother me.

 

[spidey07]

Wikipedia is the equivalent of Limbaugh? Look, if you have something of substance to refute what is in that Wiki article, then I suggest you present it. We can go back and forth about Wiki versus Limbaugh all day, but Wiki has the virtue of being source transparent. In fact, most of its primary sources can be found online. So if you think the article is inaccurate, there is plenty you can do to test and refute it. And if you think they are cherry picking, then show me what they left out. By the way, what do you consider a neutral source?

- wolf

LOL! You didn't know that an employee of wikipedia was busted changing articles and deleting things to make sure it provided a pro MMGM stance? It's considered the LAST place for accurate information on global warming.

 

[CPA]

It is my understanding that the right does not disagree with climate change. Science has proven that the earth's climate is somewhat cyclic. The problem is with the scientific assumptions that climate change is now all man made, is the problem.

No, the problem is that the left thinks taxing the bejeesus out of people and then spending it on stupid shit or handing it over to third-world countries as a means to environmental justice is what will stop any warming/climate change, if it indeed does exist.

 

[woolfe9999]

LOL! You didn't know that an employee of wikipedia was busted changing articles and deleting things to make sure it provided a pro MMGM stance? It's considered the LAST place for accurate information on global warming.

Please provide what you consider to be a neutral source on global warming, or critique the sources in the article.

So far, there is nothing of substance to refute the survey data and other factual assertions in the article. The article is sourced. You can ignore the content of the Wiki article and go straight to its sources.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

1: we can't trust the scientists providing their "data". Numbers are falsified, models are based on data points that have been "selected" and "adjusted", and none of the models can predict anything at all accurately.
2: we don't know what the earth is doing, warming, cooling, nobody knows. Thus the transition from "global warming" to "climate change".
3: IF the Earth is changing (and because of 1 and 2, we don't know that it is or which direction its going), nobody knows IF it's caused by human activity; nor do we know if human activity can stop it, nor do we know how much of a change in society it would take to have any impact.
4: The left is making a HUGE amount of money from advocating human caused climate change. This isn't to deny that the business stands to lose a ton of money if they pass their human caused global warming regulations. Both sides have an interest. No scientific consensus is possible while there's that much money (and control) at stake.

5: (and this is MY view, NOT a generally conservative view) who cares? If we manage to wipe out human life on earth because of, or in spite of, human activity; life will return. It may take a few million years, and it may be totally different than today (dinosaurs -> primates comes to mind) but life will return. I'm not worried about wiping out life on earth, it'll survive in some extreme environment, and it'll return in abundance. We won't be able to see it, and we won't be involved, but that doesn't bother me.

Yup, we can't trust scientists. In fact, we can't trust anything, because it's all a big left wing conspiracy. They control the vertical. They control the horizontal. We don't truly "know" anything. What is a man to do in this state of affairs but retreat into sollipsism.

- wolf

 

[Deeko]

Please provide what you consider to be a neutral source on global warming, or critique the sources in the article.

So far, there is nothing of substance to refute the survey data and other factual assertions in the article. The article is sourced. You can ignore the content of the Wiki article and go straight to its sources.

- wolf

Neutral? Scientists get paid by someone - and with something as politically charged as this, what are the chances of finding a study that's 100% unbiased?

 

[DietDrThunder]

LOL! You didn't know that an employee of wikipedia was busted changing articles and deleting things to make sure it provided a pro MMGM stance? It's considered the LAST place for accurate information on global warming.

It's considered the LAST place for any accurate information on any subject. At my kid's school, if they use Wikipedia as one of their sources for a report, they automatically get 25 points taken off their final grade.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's considered the LAST place for any accurate information on any subject. At my kid's school, if they use Wikipedia as one of their sources for a report, they automatically get 25 points taken off their final grade.

Still not a single refutation of any piece of information in that article. Four posters now "me tooing" on how bad Wiki supposedly is. No one supplying even a scintilla of evidence to contest the data points in the article.

Too lazy to refute the article? Supply what you consider a neutral source and I'll read it. So far no one has done that either...

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Yup, we can't trust scientists. In fact, we can't trust anything, because it's all a big left wing conspiracy. They control the vertical. They control the horizontal. We don't truly "know" anything. What is a man to do in this state of affairs but retreat into sollipsism.

- wolf

One should always treat anyone presenting information to support a particular agenda with skepticism. Saying there is consensus when there is plenty of debate is just a way to try and marginalize those who disagree. There are plenty who disagree, and every day we find out about more scandals, faking/manipulation of data, bad methodology etc, enough that it should create reasonable doubt in anyone's mind.

That's the first half of the equation, determining what, if anything, is even happening and whether it's being caused by human activities.

Once you've come up with an answer to the first part (which I don't think has happened yet), you have to come up with solutions to the problems (if indeed there are any). The left has all the solutions already packaged regardless of the existence of problems because they are just pushing their crazy agenda, it doesn't matter what the actual science is. Their "solutions" always seem to involve more regulation, more restrictions, more government, less free market, less personal choice.

I don't reject the need for preservation, I reject the idiotic solutions and proposals by the eco-nuts to use the guise of global warming to push their agenda.

 

[woolfe9999]

Neutral? Scientists get paid by someone - and with something as politically charged as this, what are the chances of finding a study that's 100% unbiased?

Yes, scientists always receive pay. They don't work for free, and their research isn't free.

Given that state of affairs, you'd expect that scientists would have produced nothing of value in terms of knowledge or that application of that knowledge as technology over the years, because they are working for vested interests rather than in the interests of discovering truth. Oh wait.

Scientists, individually, are of course subject to the vagaries of bias from a slew of factors including money. Yet there is something called a scientific method that they have been trained in, and that method actually works, and has worked for centuries. Doesn't mean you can trust everything every scientist says. But if I have a choice about whether to believe a scientist, or in this case, a large group of them, versus a journalist, blogger, politician, or random internet poster, I think the choice is pretty easy.

- wolf

 

[ranmaniac]

You can't even use Wikipedia in college, unless you want to write a failing paper. As far as "climatology" goes, when you have a collusion of scientists hiding and destroying data, and any skeptics are treated as heretics, then you've created a faith based scientific movement, and rendered yourselves to followers of junk/pseudo science. Might as well let Scientology in to the debate also, maybe thetans have an effect on AGW.

 

[PokerGuy]

Still not a single refutation of any piece of information in that article. Four posters now "me tooing" on how bad Wiki supposedly is. No one supplying even a scintilla of evidence to contest the data points in the article.

Too lazy to refute the article? Supply what you consider a neutral source and I'll read it. So far no one has done that either...

- wolf

I have neither the time nor inclination to go examine the sources and research everything. Suffice it to say that wiki can be very biased and can be edited by just about anyone, so it should never be used as a serious reference.

There is very little in the way of "neutral" information on the topic, because it's become a political topic instead of a scientific one. When you have two sides manufacturing science to support their agenda, it's hard to believe anything you read on the matter.

 

[woolfe9999]

One should always treat anyone presenting information to support a particular agenda with skepticism. Saying there is consensus when there is plenty of debate is just a way to try and marginalize those who disagree. There are plenty who disagree, and every day we find out about more scandals, faking/manipulation of data, bad methodology etc, enough that it should create reasonable doubt in anyone's mind.

That's the first half of the equation, determining what, if anything, is even happening and whether it's being caused by human activities.

Once you've come up with an answer to the first part (which I don't think has happened yet), you have to come up with solutions to the problems (if indeed there are any). The left has all the solutions already packaged regardless of the existence of problems because they are just pushing their crazy agenda, it doesn't matter what the actual science is. Their "solutions" always seem to involve more regulation, more restrictions, more government, less free market, less personal choice.

I don't reject the need for preservation, I reject the idiotic solutions and proposals by the eco-nuts to use the guise of global warming to push their agenda.

I don't want to marginalize those who disagree. I want those who disagree to debate those in the majority, and I want that debate to occur within the scientific community. What I don't want is for people to amplify the level and quantity of disagreement to create a false impression that there isn't, at the present time, a large consensus, because there is. I don't think the skeptical scientists are kooky or that their views should be discounted. I think that the people who know nothing of the science and are championing their views are, however, kooky. The kooks here aren't the scientists - it is everyone outside of science who is politicizing the issue, and that includes some people on the left who are taking the most catastropic predictions about warming and misrepresenting those as being mainstream predictions. Let's keep our political kookiness out of the science, and let them debate and discuss it, but lets not pretend that this issue is as controversial in the scientific community as it seems to be among us, because it just isn't.

- wolf