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

[charrison]

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.

I think there is a large difference between a pollutant and a green house gas.

Life is pretty dependent on CO2, so it is quite hard to call it a pollutant.

 

[shira]

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.

Ah, the "It's only a theory" ploy.

Did you know that evolution via natural selection is "only a theory?" How about general relativity? Yep, only a theory. Quantum mechanics? Yep, just a theory.

Interestingly, though, the claim that mankind's actions have NOT made a significant contribution to climate change is "just a theory," too. Yet all the right-wing zealots behave as though THAT theory is God's revealed truth.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

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.

CO2 has PROVEN harmful effects. We're dumping a TON of it into the atmosphere. That alone is enough to label it correctly as a pollutant unless it's PROVEN not be doing any harm. You're so big on theories being proven, PROVE that one.

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.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the lunatics are running the asylum on the right now. I don't deny there are exceptions, but there are plenty of indications that if you pull one at random, the good money is on them being one of the nutters. Hell, the right as a whole are apparently in denial that it was their policies that were running this country into the ground in the first place. To be fair and show I'm not just hating on the right, they apparently have a lot of company from morons in the middle too. And if the left had 6 unfettered years of running things (or 12 just running congress) I'd be happy to rant and generalize about any stupid shit they do too.

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.

Aren't you the same person that labeled everyone who identifies themselves with a group as not worth listening to? In a thread for an article about how people deny and shield themselves from opposing viewpoints? Like that somehow made you different and not one of the exact people the article was talking about? Yeah, keep on proving yourself special, Mr. Independent.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I think there is a large difference between a pollutant and a green house gas.

Life is pretty dependent on CO2, so it is quite hard to call it a pollutant.

You should dump a carton of salt into a saltwater fish tank and tell all the fish that float to the top how salt isn't a pollutant. If you convince a single fish about the salt you'll convince me about the CO2.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, yet another Shira thread.

 

[cubby1223]

The right has changed their story several times. At first they argued that there's no such thing as climate change. Now they're arguing that there is climate change but it's natural (even though there's no natural driver that can explain the climate change, and even though the physical properties of CO2 are undeniable). Some of them are now moving on and arguing that climate change will be beneficial.

Maybe it's because there is no singular entity known as "The Right".

Gosh, this forum never ceases to amaze me with all the nitwits trying to pretend they possess intelligence...

 

[sonnygdude]

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.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

There is defintely theoretical basis for CO2-temperature coupling, as well as data which supports this. The above paper also supports this. A common theme of the above paper however is that "low" levels of CO2 are <500 ppm, and "moderately low levels" are <1000 ppm. This indicates that we are currently in a period of very low CO2 levels.

The earth has had periods with immense biodiversity when CO2 levels were 10 to almost 20 times today's levels. It may have been hot and sticky, but biologically diverse

The data indicates that all the warnings about how our climate is approaching a "point of no return" are just horse hockey - natural mechanisms were responsible for high CO2 levels, as well as the reduction from those levels to today's levels, long before humans started driving SUVs.

I believe that this is the sort of data that needs to be discussed and reconciled before we state that there is consensus on the validity of the theory of, and magnitude of the risks associated with AGW.

My apologies for being wordy. My point is that there is a body of research that suggests yes, it is perfectly acceptable, and yes, it is safe.

 

[bfdd]

CO2 has PROVEN harmful effects. We're dumping a TON of it into the atmosphere. That alone is enough to label it correctly as a pollutant unless it's PROVEN not be doing any harm. You're so big on theories being proven, PROVE that one.



I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the lunatics are running the asylum on the right now. I don't deny there are exceptions, but there are plenty of indications that if you pull one at random, the good money is on them being one of the nutters. Hell, the right as a whole are apparently in denial that it was their policies that were running this country into the ground in the first place. To be fair and show I'm not just hating on the right, they apparently have a lot of company from morons in the middle too. And if the left had 6 unfettered years of running things (or 12 just running congress) I'd be happy to rant and generalize about any stupid shit they do too.



Aren't you the same person that labeled everyone who identifies themselves with a group as not worth listening to? In a thread for an article about how people deny and shield themselves from opposing viewpoints? Like that somehow made you different and not one of the exact people the article was talking about? Yeah, keep on proving yourself special, Mr. Independent.

There is no proof we are harming our environment with CO2 at current levels. There is no proof that CO2 is causing anything we are seeing today. In fact not a single scientist pushing MMGW has been able to accurately predict climate change at all. None, zip. BTW Close doesn't fucking count. I can guess a shitload too and get close.

Yes people who identify themselves with a group generally don't need to be listened to because they are sheep. That doesn't mean I am so "special" I need to shelter myself from their view points. I am not above apologizing or admitting a mistake when I am wrong. I know I'm not perfect and I know I'm not special. Also, I'm proud of being an independent, it keeps me from being a stupid partisan hack like yourself and so many others in this country.

 

[sonnygdude]

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.

OK - so you do the math and tell me how much heat retention increases. Do it and tell me the answer. I've done the math. Remember we're talking about an atmospheric concentration of 380 PPM - .038&#37; - about 4/100ths of one percent. The heat retention of this concentration of CO2 is miniscule compared to the overall uncertainty in the calculation based on other greenhouse gases and estimates of forcing functions and boundary conditions such as solar irradiance and the emissivity and absorptivity of the earth's surface.

A large portion of the dire predictions of CO2's effect on global temperatures are due to assumptions of the magnitude of feedback effects based on heat retention due to CO2 (including water vapor concentration) that are still not well characterized.

I'm not trying to poo-poo other researchers' work, I just find it interesting that when they talk about their analytical predictions they never quantify the uncertainty in their predictions. Every thermal analysis I do I am required to perform a sensitivity study to indicate the amount of error that can be expected from the assumptions/approximations I've made. When climate models predict that the Earth's temperature will rise 1.0&#176;C in the next 50 yrs, don't be surprised if the error bar on that estimate is +/-5&#176;C

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

Ah yes, like how lead paint flakes concentrate on windowsills, and how the Earth adjusts by absorbing it... with children.

And how asbestos fibers nicely collect in the lungs.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You posit that mankind is powerful enough to inadvertently destroy an entire planet's ecosystem and yet not powerful enough to survive higher temperatures? Considering that mankind lives from the hottest tropics to damned near the arctic circle, that seems a bit, um, silly.

"Humanity surviving," is a pretty low bar. We have refugee populations fleeing war and mass murder who are surviving, but that doesn't mean their situation is an enviable one that we should try to emulate by having everyone become climatological refugees.

Technological societies also have the most to lose. Easier to rebuild a village of grass huts than New York City. Easier to feed your population when you never relied on anything but locally grown products produced by manual labor than when you are dependent on gigantic irrigation projects, artificial fertilization, huge machinery to plant, harvest, and transport the agricultural products, and the infrastructure to support it.

Dude, imagine if the toilet paper factories were destroyed!
Zombie apocalypse I could handle. Lack of toilet paper, though?
I think I'd die just being reduced to Scott.

 

[Double Trouble]

Funny how we apparently need a left wing writer to show us why those on the right are for or against something and what their beliefs are.

Fern hit the nail on the head, we are nowhere near close enough to having scientific consensus on what can be done, how it can be done, what the consequences are to doing it, who should do it, when it should be done etc etc etc. Until we know more, there's no way it would make sense to take drastic steps.

All we know at this point is: man is polluting the earth on a massive scale, and it would be silly to think that didn't somehow impact the environment. We know some of the impacts, we're unsure about others, and for damned sure we don't know how to fix it yet, if indeed it can be or should be fixed.

 

[charrison]

You should dump a carton of salt into a saltwater fish tank and tell all the fish that float to the top how salt isn't a pollutant. If you convince a single fish about the salt you'll convince me about the CO2.

And you can dump those salt water fish into a plain water and they will die because they dont have that "pollutant"

You can die if you drink too much water? Does that make it a pollutant?

Life on this earth would cease without CO2. For that reason alone it is hard to classify it as a pollutant. But yes it does have green house gas properties.

Of course this does mean we should pump endless amounts of stuff into the atmosphere either.

 

[EXman]

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...

the left doesn't understand...

Republicans as a whole could care less what the birthers say or do. They are crazy and Obama has done nothing but serve them crazy pie. But why has this not been disclosed? It does look like their might be something embarassing but not illegal. Typical double standard for a dem?

Iraq not only had WMD's they used them too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Reganomics are you serious we defeated Communism and turned around the Carter recession and set up the nineties to have tons of wealth to fuel the 90's. He lowered taxes and subsequently made tax reciepts go up. Obama should take a lesson here.

So when Libs do not allow free discussion on the climate and say they are right so deal with it. Then by the way our Left elite is gonna make a sitload of cash off the working man by making everyone "green" we laugh. If the left would get off their arrogant we're right shuddup stupid righty horse and discuss the facts, the lies of the Anglo university and Al Gores 37 factual inaccuracies according to the government of U.K. and their blatant "we can make a buck off this" either as a researcher, an entrepreneur, or by blackmailing businesses as "green or eco consultants" maybe we'd listen. Or at least we could discuss it.

The left squelches discussion and will make certain that no public dollars will ever fund anyone who does not confirm thier belief even before they start their research. And then blackball those who deny them with out looking at their research. Label them climate heratics and banish them from the "scientific" realm that their superior left intellect exclusively occupies. Seriously just ask them those left proffesors love telling people how smart they are.

Do you get it yet? That is why Conservatives laugh and distrust the left global warming agenda. Capisce?

Please all you Libs wrap your mighty brains around that one.

 

[sandorski]

Ah yes, like how lead paint flakes concentrate on windowsills, and how the Earth adjusts by absorbing it... with children.

And how asbestos fibers nicely collect in the lungs.

:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[FuzzyBee]

Has anybody ever explained how it is the earth has gotten to our current temperatures from where it was not that long ago (a big chunk of ice)?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There is no proof we are harming our environment with CO2 at current levels. There is no proof that CO2 is causing anything we are seeing today. In fact not a single scientist pushing MMGW has been able to accurately predict climate change at all. None, zip. BTW Close doesn't fucking count. I can guess a shitload too and get close.

By all indications churning out large amounts of CO2 should be harming the environment and causing climate change, but the evidence is spotty on whether it is or isn't, so we should continue doing what we're doing. I just love this line of reasoning denyers use. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it was mentioned in this thread how it keeps being applied t other "theories." Despite what we know of what should be, without undeniable proof that it is, it must be wrong.

Yes people who identify themselves with a group generally don't need to be listened to because they are sheep. That doesn't mean I am so "special" I need to shelter myself from their view points. I am not above apologizing or admitting a mistake when I am wrong. I know I'm not perfect and I know I'm not special. Also, I'm proud of being an independent, it keeps me from being a stupid partisan hack like yourself and so many others in this country.

Thanks for identifying yourself as part of the group "independents," and by your own reasoning admitting you are a sheep and need not be listened to. I was getting tired of this back and forth.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Deny, deny and vilify.

Thanks for coming in and reinforcing my point man.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

I really don't think this is the sticking point. Replace "climate change" with "significant manmade climate change" in the article and the points made still hold.

To paraphrase the author, the right isn't engaging in a scholarly debate on the merits of this study or that, and then framing alternative hypotheses to explain the observations; it's dismissing the science wholesale as a money-driven fraud.

money-driven fraud - So, your complaining that the Conservatives call it like they see it? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just because you believe there is GW does not mean I believe there is. Everyone is allowed to think what they want, that's the beauty of living in the USA. Now if the earth were moving closer to the sun because we had air pollution out the yinyang, then i could understand the impact it might have on the earth. Do you think there and many people in third world countries worried about GW, NO! they are worried about when their next meal is , or whether they will die from some incurable disease.

/rant

 

[MrEgo]

So you discredit those who read up on the subject and change their opinion? Really?

Ask John Kerry how that worked out for him.

 

[Thump553]

I note that the right back nearly identical arguments regarding taking the lead out of gasoline, water pollution and air pollution back in the 60's and 70's-high cost, stifle productivity and economic growth, uncertain scientific foundation, etc. Because of the efforts this country made, we have enormously improved on all three of these fronts (or at least dramatically slowed the damage down). When I was a kid the Connecticut River was literally an open sewer in this area-I remember seeing turds float by on Scout canoe trips. Other local rivers were hopelessly polluted with PCBs. All of that has been corrected. My father would tell me stories about how bad the coal smoke pollution was in this area when homes and the power company used coal almost exclusively (and he was no leftie).

I don't know the answer to why righties think the way they do on the environment. I don't think the linked article definately answers the question. A sympathetic observer might claim they require a higher burden of proof. A less sympathetic person would conclude they are biased to short term gains and to disregard all costs that are not necessarily immediately quantifiable in the marketplace (without regs, that is).

I'm just glad we don't all still live in Charles Dickens world, which is where we'd be stuck if the libertarians/small government fanatics ruled the roost over the last century plus.

 

[Pens1566]

Just a quick 10 minute Google search...it looks like he's not denying MMGW, but rather, as I said, denying its a "crisis". Such as his famous quote



Bolded is mine.

Look more, he denies it.

 

[piasabird]

Global warming probably just precedes the next ice age. Remember we have had ice ages in the past???? We have some indications of periods of long dry drought periods also. The main thing is the evidence of these conditions existed before the industrial age of man. Dont just sit there and beleive everything some egghead tells you without some real evidence. Remember, if they say there is global warming then they are the ones that get the research grants. Money tends to affect scientific study.

Maybe you need to go eat some more bran muffins?

The climate has been changing since I was born and long before then. There is this big yellow ball in the sky that we call the Sun, and that is what heats up the earth.

 

[QuantumPion]

I'd believe the global cooling global warming climate changers weren't full of shit if their 'solutions' didn't involve confiscatory taxes, total government control, and huge profits for themselves yet ignoring any contributions by China or India. And clamoring for all of this to be done right fucking now or we're all doomed, even though the worst-case projections call for tenth-of-a-degree changes over centuries.