Why the right can't accept the truth of manmade climate change

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yeah, we just can't know, because pollution's effects on the environment are as much of a mystery as how magnets work.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yeah, we just can't know, because pollution's effects on the environment are as much of a mystery as how magnets work.

You can put CO2 in a beaker with a thermometer, put it in sunlight, and see the effect on temperature.

 

[shira]

So on the one hand the lefties believe that reducing the human population is good (abortion, eugenics, population control) but on the other hand they want to make the ecosystem more conducive to human life.

Insofar as the climate-change issue is concerned (which is the subject of this thread, or hadn't you noticed?), lefties (and enlightened righties) want to PREVENT the environment from becoming LESS conducive to the welfare of life (not just human life) on earth. We can discuss other left-wing objectives vis-a-vis the environment in another venue. Contact my staff if you'd like to pay me my usual retainer.

I realize that the paragraph above includes a compound sentence - with a qualifying phrase, parentheticals, and an overall complex structure - but if you focus really, really hard, perhaps you can understand writing above your pay grade.

On the other hand, your position is that the right values human life but wants that life lived in an ecosystem that threatens/endangers it.

"On the other hand" implies a contrast, which your two statements don't contain. If you want to establish the needed tension, you need to create a parallel structure: "On the one hand, you claim that lefties believe. . . . On the other hand, you posit that righties believe . . . ." Didn't they teach you anything at all in those writing workshops?

But to pretend you're making sense (one must fight the good fight to keep the discussion moving forward), I haven't written anything about the right's thought processes about climate as it relates to their valuation of human life. Frankly, most representatives of the non-intellectual right (of which you're a solid member) can't keep two independent concepts in their heads at the same time, so it would be pointless to even MENTION two different ideas in the same thread.

Now, you were saying????? :awe:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You can put CO2 in a beaker with a thermometer, put it in sunlight, and see the effect on temperature.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/f-cking-magnets-how-do-they-work

 

[blackangst1]

They're changing their opinions because it becomes harder and harder to argue for each previous position... Not because they're learning and expanding their knowledge. It's actually the opposite. They read very specific non-science sources that reinforce their wishes and beliefs.

Oh OK. So when someone of a political party you agree with changes their position, its because theyre more knowledgable. But if its a party you dont agree with, its because theyre trapped in a corner.

Got it.

BTW how do you know what theyre reading? Is there a list somewhere? Just curious.

 

[monovillage]

So I take it that a "principle" you adhere to is that no one should give credence to reportage by any writer who makes a profit on what they write.

Edit: Or is it the credibility of only left-wing writers that is compromised by the profit motive?

No, he fails in his premise about Catastrophic global warming. I don't have a big problem with him making a big fat profit selling his pseudo scientific religion to the gullible.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have never believed in man made global warming like I do the laws of gravity. I don't have the ability to test and prove global warming. I have seen that our rockets can dock with our spacecraft though. So the same folk that gave me global warming and gravity I have learned to trust. I figure that if most of the kind of thinkers that figured out gravity say humans are the cause and that we should take global warming seriously, I am going to do so. When I see most scientists say one thing and a lot less who also have connections to big oil, etc, I go with the independent majority. But I don't really know if I am right. There isn't any way for me to know if I am right. But I know what is logical and rational and makes sense because science gets into outer space and I've always been really far far out.

 

[Fern]

Just another article by a left wing environmentalist that claims to be able to tell you what conservatives think. It's a fail. -snip-

Yep.

If people will listen conservatives are happy to tell why they unwilling to accept MMGW. There is no need to try and 'make up' their reasons.

The basic question is are we ready to pay trillions and trillions of $'s we don't have and change our way of life to avoid these predicted catastrophic consequences of excess CO2?

I think to answer 'yes' to that question several things need to be confirmed, there are several things to be sure about:

1. Are we sure that we're causing it? If so, then

2. Are we sure that the proposed measures will be effectice at alleviating our contribution to this problem? If so, then

3. Are we sure that the consequences of not investing in the proposed solution(s) are truly catastrophic?

Given the enormous costs, if any of the above questions cannot be answered with a very high degree of certainty I do not think it wise to proceed. These costs cannot be measured in merely money and discomfort, it will costs lives too. How we can bear this additional costs without sacrificing other costs? Do AIDS programs by the West save lives? Do other charitable causes/donations save lives in poor countries etc? What about medical or scientific research, can we maintain that too? How about our health care costs? Where do we cut? Folks, the 'money well' ain't bottomless.

What if we blow our resources but find out we missed the target, what then?

As it stands now I think people are advocating a massive investment based on incomplete data. I cannot support that.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

Like those projections put out by the "scientists" in California that were 350x off costing the state billions?

I should believe "scientists" like those?

 

[Throckmorton]

Oh OK. So when someone of a political party you agree with changes their position, its because theyre more knowledgable. But if its a party you dont agree with, its because theyre trapped in a corner.

Got it.

BTW how do you know what theyre reading? Is there a list somewhere? Just curious.

Haven't you seen the garbage they post here?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa, the amount of the human contribution is that amount of warming created by the greenhouse gases we have put into the atmosphere. That amount of warming is quantifiable because it's a physical property of those gases. You can measure it in a beaker in a lab.

No, because the Earth isn't a beaker. CO2 has sources and sinks. Atmospheric conditions, buffering from oceans, phytoplankton, trees, clouds, temperature and I don't know how many additional variables come into play and several (at least) have a positive or negative feedback on the others.

If this were so simple, then we would have one model which would provide one number.

We aren't close to that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What mankind is putting into the system is being concentrated in certain areas. Over time; the earth wil adjust and is able to absorb the extra emissions without a hiccup. What mankind is doing to itself is a different story. And that is the story that is trying to be exploited

 

[bfdd]

The right can't accept the truth about a lot of things. Obama's US citizenship. Iraq's WMD's. Reaganomics. The list goes on and on and on and on...

Didn't you just post an article stating you're a fucking moron if you say things like you just did? Yeah.... looking good Gonad.

 

[NeoV]

Fern - if your side of the dispute about this topic was really the 'right wing' position on this, we'd all be better off, but the talking heads of the GOP/right aren't saying those things at all - they spout on national news channels when it snows in DC - "WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?!?!", and other crap like that.

Hayabusa, there are actually good models - that have come very close to predicting the climate changes that have taken place - but of course you only hear ( and this isn't at attack on you) about the famous 'hockey stick' BS, not the variant of the climate model that has proven to be very accurate thus far.

I'm open to debating what we should do about, but as to if it's happening or not, that's pretty much a done deal.

 

[charrison]

No, because the Earth isn't a beaker. CO2 has sources and sinks. Atmospheric conditions, buffering from oceans, phytoplankton, trees, clouds, temperature and I don't know how many additional variables come into play and several (at least) have a positive or negative feedback on the others.

If this were so simple, then we would have one model which would provide one number.

We aren't close to that.

And we dont even know if a warmer earth would be a bad thing. And given that the normal state of the earth is very cold should we really worry about a few degrees of change?

 

[bfdd]

Fern - if your side of the dispute about this topic was really the 'right wing' position on this, we'd all be better off, but the talking heads of the GOP/right aren't saying those things at all - they spout on national news channels when it snows in DC - "WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?!?!", and other crap like that.

Hayabusa, there are actually good models - that have come very close to predicting the climate changes that have taken place - but of course you only hear ( and this isn't at attack on you) about the famous 'hockey stick' BS, not the variant of the climate model that has proven to be very accurate thus far.

I'm open to debating what we should do about, but as to if it's happening or not, that's pretty much a done deal.

NeoV, there isn't a single fucking model that has predicted our climate change and close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. A prediction is fucking useless if it's wrong.

 

[bfdd]

Yeah, we just can't know, because pollution's effects on the environment are as much of a mystery as how magnets work.

Are you calling CO2 a pollutant? CO2 is NOT a pollutant moron. Good try though equating the two. No one is in favor of pollution.

 

[Throckmorton]

No, because the Earth isn't a beaker. CO2 has sources and sinks. Atmospheric conditions, buffering from oceans, phytoplankton, trees, clouds, temperature and I don't know how many additional variables come into play and several (at least) have a positive or negative feedback on the others.

If this were so simple, then we would have one model which would provide one number.

We aren't close to that.

Earth isn't a beaker but we have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 40%. Half of our total CO2 output has been absorbed by sinks, and the other half has ended up in the atmosphere. CO2 isn't a mystery. We can measure it directly.

That change is real, and the warming effect of that change is simply a function of that concentration increase. In other words, you increase CO2 by X, heat retention increases by Y. Y=f(x)
There are all kinds of complicating factors, but you can't get away from that f(x) function.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Are you calling CO2 a pollutant? CO2 is NOT a pollutant moron. Good try though equating the two. No one is in favor of pollution.

Anything out of balance enough to harm an equilibrium, in this case an ecosystem, is a pollutant. Learn some science.

Didn't you just post an article stating you're a fucking moron if you say things like you just did? Yeah.... looking good Gonad.

So you're saying the right isn't in denial about Obama's citizenship, does recognize that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and don't tout Reagan as some fiscally conservative champion?

Someone is a fucking moron here, but it's not me.

Considering who I'm talking to, let me clarify- it's you.

 

[charrison]

Earth isn't a beaker but we have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 40%. Half of our total CO2 output has been absorbed by sinks, and the other half has ended up in the atmosphere. CO2 isn't a mystery. We can measure it directly.

That change is real, and the warming effect of that change is simply a function of that concentration increase. In other words, you increase CO2 by X, heat retention increases by Y. Y=f(x)
There are all kinds of complicating factors, but you can't get away from that f(x) function.

That function also has dimishing increases as the CO2 level goes up. And as I recall it is already to a point where adding more co2 does very little to increase the green house effect.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Because of the outright lies by "scientists" claiming this is really a problem and it being used to push a political agenda.

And please answer me this: Why is it okay for non developed nations to increase their C02 output while developed nations must cut theirs? How will this reduce global warming if the same amount of C02 (or more) is being released?

 

[bfdd]

Anything out of balance enough to harm an equilibrium, in this case an ecosystem, is a pollutant. Learn some science.



So you're saying the right isn't in denial about Obama's citizenship, does recognize that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and don't tout Reagan as some fiscally conservative champion?

Someone is a fucking moron here, but it's not me.

Considering who I'm talking to, let me clarify- it's you.

1. It is not PROVEN to harm the ecosystem so it's NOT a pollutant. Remember this is a THEORY and there are other THEORIES besides CO2 being the leading cause of Climate Change.

Also, I'm the one with a problem because you choose to identify an entire group by those things which most probably do not agree with? I didn't realize EVERYONE on the right were in denial about Obama's citizenship. I didn't realize EVERYONE on the right is in denial about WMD's in Iraq. Also, not everyone on the right touts Reagan as some fiscal conservative either.

PS- I don't align myself with the right or left, dem or repub, progressive or conservative. fuck that shit. your dumbass though thinks it's awesome to group everyone into some little shit storm even though the "right"(and the "left") are all over the fucking place.

So again let me clarify, it's you dumbass.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You can put CO2 in a beaker with a thermometer, put it in sunlight, and see the effect on temperature.

Or you could leave infant in a car on hot sunny day with windows closed for an hour . I wonder what the results would be.

 

[Greenman]

You can put CO2 in a beaker with a thermometer, put it in sunlight, and see the effect on temperature.

And you can do it without the CO2.

 

[shira]

Are you calling CO2 a pollutant? CO2 is NOT a pollutant moron. Good try though equating the two. No one is in favor of pollution.

So, since CO2 isn't a "pollutant" in the sense you mean, it's perfectly acceptable if the levels of atmospheric CO2 rise to 10 or 20 times their current levels, is that what you believe? Because if it's not a "pollutant," that means it's safe.

An amazingly convincing argument.