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

[monovillage]

You complaign about Wiki "cherry picking" information and you site that website? A casual perusal of the news it chooses to link and not link is quite revealing. LOL

- wolf

Yes, but you're pretending that wiki is neutral and i say that it's biased. I made no pretense that my links are balanced, you on the other hand think that realclimate.org and wiki are neutral.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, but you're pretending that wiki is neutral and i say that it's biased. I made no pretense that my links are balanced, you on the other hand think that realclimate.org and wiki are neutral.

You really just need to learn to read. I have never linked, or even mentioned, realclimate.org. I doubt I have ever even visited that website.

So far as Wiki goes, I did not claim it is neutral. I cited a wiki article. You and several others said it is biased on climate change. I invited people to critique its sources. I don't care about secondary sources, so long as the primary source is transparent.

So let's set aside Wiki and go straight to the sources. For starters:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Anyone have a reason to doubt this survey? Anyone have a different survey with results at variance with it?

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

Wikipedia: Unreliable? Yes....Inherently Biased? No.

 

[werepossum]

Basically because spending as much money as the liberals want to on global warming would bankrupt our entire economy and knock the USA out of the top position in the world. Of course it still wouldn't save the environment because the Chinese would take over the USAs dominant role and their CO2 releases would keep growing at an astronomical rate.

As we saw clearly in Copenhagen, this is no longer about saving the world, assuming it ever was. (I tend to doubt that because the proposed solutions - giving up individual houses and transportation for high-density housing and mass transit - tend to mirror those proposed by academia for the coming man-made Ice Age in the late 70s and early 80s.) This is about global wealth redistribution, killing capitalism, and empowering government, especially global government. Very little at Copenhagen was directed at actual global climate mediation.

 

[spidey07]

Wikipedia: Unreliable? Yes....Inherently Biased? No.

Lol. You truthers believe your own sources. Hilarious.

 

[sandorski]

As we saw clearly in Copenhagen, this is no longer about saving the world, assuming it ever was. (I tend to doubt that because the proposed solutions - giving up individual houses and transportation for high-density housing and mass transit - tend to mirror those proposed by academia for the coming man-made Ice Age in the late 70s and early 80s.) This is about global wealth redistribution, killing capitalism, and empowering government, especially global government. Very little at Copenhagen was directed at actual global climate mediation.

TinFail

 

[BrownTown]

As we saw clearly in Copenhagen, this is no longer about saving the world, assuming it ever was. (I tend to doubt that because the proposed solutions - giving up individual houses and transportation for high-density housing and mass transit - tend to mirror those proposed by academia for the coming man-made Ice Age in the late 70s and early 80s.) This is about global wealth redistribution, killing capitalism, and empowering government, especially global government. Very little at Copenhagen was directed at actual global climate mediation.

I don't follow the global views nearly so much as I do what congress is proposing so I don't have much insight into Copenhagen. When I can say though is that watching the debates in the senate environment and public works commission it is really sad just how completely clueless the people making the decisions are. For example I am a big proponent of nuclear power and during a debate on nuclear power BOTH sides made it clear that they didn't have even the first clue in hell about how a nuclear plant works or even the basic fundamentals of energy. I am talking about senators making 500 Billion dollar decisions on energy policy and they don't even know what the difference between Power and Energy are and what units of measurement goes with which. Energy production and distribution is an INCREDIBLY complex topic and it is being decided by people with no engineering or scientific background. The views of BOTH sides are inherently biased because there is simply no way a person can make a rational or scientific conclusion about something that don't understand in the least. It is like if you choose a bunch of engineers and had them be the judges of a dance competition. They wouldn't have enough knowledge to pick who danced the best, they would probably just pick the hottest chick.

 

[werepossum]

I don't follow the global views nearly so much as I do what congress is proposing so I don't have much insight into Copenhagen. When I can say though is that watching the debates in the senate environment and public works commission it is really sad just how completely clueless the people making the decisions are. For example I am a big proponent of nuclear power and during a debate on nuclear power BOTH sides made it clear that they didn't have even the first clue in hell about how a nuclear plant works or even the basic fundamentals of energy. I am talking about senators making 500 Billion dollar decisions on energy policy and they don't even know what the difference between Power and Energy are and what units of measurement goes with which. Energy production and distribution is an INCREDIBLY complex topic and it is being decided by people with no engineering or scientific background. The views of BOTH sides are inherently biased because there is simply no way a person can make a rational or scientific conclusion about something that don't understand in the least. It is like if you choose a bunch of engineers and had them be the judges of a dance competition. They wouldn't have enough knowledge to pick who danced the best, they would probably just pick the hottest chick.

Well, DUH!

Cute, Sandorski.

 

[monovillage]

I seriously doubt if that survey would come up with the same answers after Climategate showed the climate scientists fudging data, colluding to keep opposing views from publishing, destroying data and urging other scientists to destroy data to avoid FOIA requests. That along with the numerous errors that have been found in the IPCC AR4 report has changed many peoples minds about AGW including scientists.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't follow the global views nearly so much as I do what congress is proposing so I don't have much insight into Copenhagen. When I can say though is that watching the debates in the senate environment and public works commission it is really sad just how completely clueless the people making the decisions are. For example I am a big proponent of nuclear power and during a debate on nuclear power BOTH sides made it clear that they didn't have even the first clue in hell about how a nuclear plant works or even the basic fundamentals of energy. I am talking about senators making 500 Billion dollar decisions on energy policy and they don't even know what the difference between Power and Energy are and what units of measurement goes with which. Energy production and distribution is an INCREDIBLY complex topic and it is being decided by people with no engineering or scientific background. The views of BOTH sides are inherently biased because there is simply no way a person can make a rational or scientific conclusion about something that don't understand in the least. It is like if you choose a bunch of engineers and had them be the judges of a dance competition. They wouldn't have enough knowledge to pick who danced the best, they would probably just pick the hottest chick.

Which is why "public opinion" on a scientific issue like this means exactly nothing.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Which is why "public opinion" on a scientific issue like this means exactly nothing.

- wolf

On the other hand the promoters of CAGW have been repeatedly caught in fraud. Is dishonest better than ignorant in making policies decisions? Seems to me that the ignorant have a fifty-fifty chance of making the right decisions whereas the dishonest will do so only when it fits their agenda. Also, the ignorant can presumably learn from their mistakes, whereas the dishonest will admit no mistakes unless forced to do so and will then change the subject to pursue the same agenda.

 

[PokerGuy]

Energy production and distribution is an INCREDIBLY complex topic and it is being decided by people with no engineering or scientific background. It is like if you choose a bunch of engineers and had them be the judges of a dance competition.

The people in congress are not supposed to be experts on these things, they are supposed to rely on people who are experts to help them make decisions. That's the way it works on every subject, since there are very few members of congress who have significant expertise in anything but law, lying, cheating and stealing.

 

[ebaycj]

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.

Really? Those trucks are worthless in states without these regulations? What about Mexico?

I call BS.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
Global Warming is a giant ruse to make money. Carbon credits are designed to transfer large amounts of wealth from the haves to the have nots. It just happens that Al Gore's company will be making a nice profit from every exchage. It's the pinnical of American Guilt and greed in once package.
It's a huge fucking joke that the "left" doesn't get.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Because "man-made climate change" is a myth, and the "science" is so cooked and politicized.

 

[JeepinEd]

Really? Those trucks are worthless in states without these regulations? What about Mexico?

I call BS.

Yes, because in this economy, the market for used diesel trucks & equipment is white hot.

Here is an interesting cost analysis. Keep in mind that these rules are based on admittedly faulty science, but hey it's all in the name of fighting global warming:

http://www.cunninghamreport.com/upl...ysis.pdf?PHPSESSID=na006mluedv6hdvjgoou437j51

 

[JSt0rm]

the problem is the religious right thinks the rapture is right around the corner so they aren't thinking about long term survival on this planet.

 

[Munky]

Which is why "public opinion" on a scientific issue like this means exactly nothing.

- wolf

Except that it's been turned into a political issue, and public opinion does matter when it comes to proposed laws and regulations affecting the public.

 

[werepossum]

Except that it's been turned into a political issue, and public opinion does matter when it comes to proposed laws and regulations affecting the public.

I wonder - does anyone believe Algore actually believes what he spouts? Bush owns one modest, very green home. Gore owns a huge, very not green mansion plus several other large homes (including one in San Fran near the beach, which he says is going to be submerged any day now.) He sells carbon credits and invests in fad alternative energy and other green-skinned companies that so far do little except make the original investers very, very wealthy. Last I heard Algore was worth upwards of half a trillion and he uses that money to purchase even more large homes (which are surely conditioned when the Algores are not there, as the staff have to be comfortable) and even larger private jets.

So are people like Algore actually cynically laughing at those sheeple who make him so very wealthy? Or are they true believers who honestly feel that they are inherently special, elite, and not subject to the rules they wish to enforce on others? For that matter are there people who honestly believe in CAGW but put on a face of disbelief to preserve their own elite status at the expense of the world?

 

[woolfe9999]

I wonder - does anyone believe Algore actually believes what he spouts? Bush owns one modest, very green home. Gore owns a huge, very not green mansion plus several other large homes (including one in San Fran near the beach, which he says is going to be submerged any day now.) He sells carbon credits and invests in fad alternative energy and other green-skinned companies that so far do little except make the original investers very, very wealthy. Last I heard Algore was worth upwards of half a trillion and he uses that money to purchase even more large homes (which are surely conditioned when the Algores are not there, as the staff have to be comfortable) and even larger private jets.

So are people like Algore actually cynically laughing at those sheeple who make him so very wealthy? Or are they true believers who honestly feel that they are inherently special, elite, and not subject to the rules they wish to enforce on others? For that matter are there people who honestly believe in CAGW but put on a face of disbelief to preserve their own elite status at the expense of the world?

This sounds like a new "algore" narrative coming from the right. I'm used to the "algore is a moron" narrative. In this one, he is stupid like a fox.

- wolf

 

[BrownTown]

The people in congress are not supposed to be experts on these things, they are supposed to rely on people who are experts to help them make decisions. That's the way it works on every subject, since there are very few members of congress who have significant expertise in anything but law, lying, cheating and stealing.

Obviously, the problem is that the liberals (especially Barbra Boxer who is Chairman of the environment and public works committee) treat anyone in the energy industry as a baby killer and assume everything they say is a lie. The conservatives aren't much better when it comes to climate scientists obviously. So basically they just completely polarize the subject and won't even listen to the first word from the other sides experts.

 

[werepossum]

This sounds like a new "algore" narrative coming from the right. I'm used to the "algore is a moron" narrative. In this one, he is stupid like a fox.

- wolf

I think he lacks a lot of interpersonal skills, sort of borderline Asperger's perhaps, and was never really comfortable in his skin when in politics. He jumped around career wise before settling down in politics as his father required. I can also say he's a thorough elitist, having dealt with his office when he was my Senator. They were polite until they had identified you, but once they had established that you were not powerful or rich (which took as long as learning your name - if they didn't recognize it you became unimportant) they were done with you. I don't think he's particularly bright. But he's not stupid either - he's made money in other fields as well, such as television.

Still, his authenticity is not based on his intelligence. He could be dumb as soup and have handlers that make his financial decisions and still fall either way.

 

[bfdd]

Rofl. The funniest shit to me is the regression in fuel economy over the last 20 years. We went from cars that get equal or greater mpg than the Prius, like the Geo Metro which I believe has a smaller footprint and was CHEAP, to being excited hearing about 30mpg. Seriously wtf? I remember reading some where that a huge cut on MPG has been the smog equipment required to be on all vehicles sold in the USA. Lowers MPG to lower pollution, does the first not the second.

 

[werepossum]

Rofl. The funniest shit to me is the regression in fuel economy over the last 20 years. We went from cars that get equal or greater mpg than the Prius, like the Geo Metro which I believe has a smaller footprint and was CHEAP, to being excited hearing about 30mpg. Seriously wtf? I remember reading some where that a huge cut on MPG has been the smog equipment required to be on all vehicles sold in the USA. Lowers MPG to lower pollution, does the first not the second.

Well, a Prius is a lot nicer than a Metro. But I agree, I was shocked a couple of times. When we bought my wife's truck, I had sold an '85 Nissan that got 28 - 30 mpg when reasonably new. Not only had "small" trucks become huge - our '04 Ranger Edge is at least as big as my grandfather's '75 Chevy full size, and longer since it's extended cab - but its mileage is 19/23. My '03 Tracker 4x4 is the same size as my '97, but the '97 (and my '89 before it) got 30 - 33 mpg. The '03 has half again as much horsepower and gets 26 mpg pretty much everywhere - and it's tiny! (It is true four wheel drive though.) Of course, it's not all bad - I can now carry passengers AND climb a hill on the road AND run the A/C. With the previous two Trackers it was choose any two - at best.

It was surprising that fuel economy had actually regressed during that time period though. And my '89 Tracker had the same engine with the same specs as the '97 but was much more powerful - due only to the air pollution crap. The '89 was every bit as quick as the '03 with half again as much horsepower. Still - gotta have it, else there's nasty stuff in the environment. Well, more nasty stuff than without the pollution crap.

 

[charrison]

Rofl. The funniest shit to me is the regression in fuel economy over the last 20 years. We went from cars that get equal or greater mpg than the Prius, like the Geo Metro which I believe has a smaller footprint and was CHEAP, to being excited hearing about 30mpg. Seriously wtf? I remember reading some where that a huge cut on MPG has been the smog equipment required to be on all vehicles sold in the USA. Lowers MPG to lower pollution, does the first not the second.

pollution controls steal fuel economy. There is no way around that. The problem with fuel economy has been weight. Most cars have gained significant weight over the last several decades(increased size, creature comfort, safety,..). Very few models have kept weight under control. Gas has cheap for a long time so consumers were demand size and comfort, not economy. HIgh gas prices changed and we are starting to see more economical cars.