Why are repubs still hand waving around Global Warming?

[Takedown3]

"global warming", "climate change", or the apocalypse legislation is silly. Here's why:

- "All the evidence" and those "hundreds of studies" can't seem to explain why current trends show that the earth is currently getting cooler.
- Capping CO2 emission (also known as plant food) is silly, considering that it composes only a small portion of greenhouse gasses.
- Temperatures have increased like 1 degree over the past century. So next time it is 105 in Phoenix.... it will be... 106!!! Oh the heat!!!
- Forcing people to live their lives in a government-approved, environmentally-friendly way is extreme. Nobody wants to have low-flow showers, electric cars, solar panels, and windmills.
- Electric cars are powered by electricity. Electricity is produced by burning coal. Ta da~ It's maaggiccc! Oh wait, we're STILL "killing" the environment
- Cap and Trade - A fine strategy if you think this is a serious problem and we can do something about it (see below). Otherwise, it is a serious energy tax, potentially the largest tax in American history, raising energy prices for all of Americans.
- Regulation = government = money = taxes.
- Cap and trade will cost millions of jobs, decrease growth, and shorten the gap between America and other competing countries.
- Companies will simply outsource manufacturing to China and other countries that are more concerned with economic growth than making sure that sea levels don't gain a couple inches in a few centuries.

If you believe in climate change legislation you have to believe two things:
1) That global warming is a serious threat
2) That the US enacting policies will inspire other countries to follow suit and suddenly "care for the earth"

Nobody has proved either one of those. Nobody has proved if global warming will be a serious problem. Nobody has proved that we can do something about it if it's a serious problem. Nobody has considered whether or not we need to prioritize economic prosperity over saving the earth and to what degree. Nobody has been able to show if this potential climate change is due to natural shifts on Earth or man-made stuff.

There are dozens of questions that need answers, scenarios that need considering, evidence (or lack thereof) that needs to be analyzed, costs versus benefits, etc.

People advocating climate change legislation have not begun to even answer these questions. Who? What? Why? Where? When? How?

Right now it seems like the next excuse to expand government for the sake of expanding government. I can honestly say I am open minded on the issue of this hypothetical "climate change". Until someone has answers to key questions, nobody can responsibly take harsh actions. It's premature and completely inappropriate.


I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

You don't seem to understand quite a lot about conservatives. See, we don't want control. We want people in control of how they live their lives and spend their own money. Al Gore, on the other hand, parades around with images like this, showing New York City underwater

http://gothamist.com/attachments/jen..._floodmap3.JPG

It seems to me that we're not the ones who are trying to scare people and gain control.

i definitely want solar panels. who the FUCK wants to pay the twats at the hydro company 200 bux a month. i'll take my electricity from the sun for free and let it power my electric car, heat my water, cook my food, warm/cool my house and all without generating any kind of negative impact on the environment

go figure!

the evil solar power is here to destroy you

[Takedown3]

We are already space travelers, on a biodome that we are specifically evolved to survive on (for now). What reason would we have for leaving this life sustaining system, when it takes millions of years to reach other systems?

Until there are MAJOR breakthroughs in physics (i.e. we solve the whole space/time travel problem), there is no reason to invest billions into space based ecosystems.

ITT: Earth is a space based eco-system. How about we focus on maintaining our current spaceship, before we spend all of our money on another.

Kinda like building a trailer in your back yard with money you should be spending remodeling your mansion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Domeposter.jpg

[Dimmauk]

I got into my car and it was 115 degrees in there, now I know how the Earth feels.

[Kerberoz]

i definitely want solar panels. who the FUCK wants to pay the twats at the hydro company 200 bux a month. i'll take my electricity from the sun for free and let it power my electric car, heat my water, cook my food, warm/cool my house and all without generating any kind of negative impact on the environment

go figure!

the evil solar power is here to destroy you

Yeah... why wouldn't you want solar panels, provided your home is set up to properly utilize them? Rather pay the electric company just so you can have a pretty roof?

Fuck low-flow showerheads, though.

[Dimmauk]

Fuck low-flow showerheads, though.

http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows...hower_head.jpg

[Rhinox]

Nice job neo you trolled the neocons into posting. All that's needed now is for plow to show up and argue for 3 pages on a word definition/semantics for this thread. Oh and lol at Leif and his ad hominem attack on the IPCC. Last I checked it wasn't them but a rightwing group who put out a list of 500 scientist who disagree with the IPCC's findings only to be discovered that 3/4 of the list was fraudulant and the other part consisted of mainly tv weathermen.

[Serif]

i definitely want solar panels. who the FUCK wants to pay the twats at the hydro company 200 bux a month. i'll take my electricity from the sun for free and let it power my electric car, heat my water, cook my food, warm/cool my house and all without generating any kind of negative impact on the environment

go figure!

the evil solar power is here to destroy you

The only disadvantage of solar panels are the initial cost, over the long run they are worth it but it is just the initial cost that is the bitch.

[Neosutra]

Nice job neo you trolled the neocons into posting. All that's needed now is for plow to show up and argue for 3 pages on a word definition/semantics for this thread. Oh and lol at Leif and his ad hominem attack on the IPCC. Last I checked it wasn't them but a rightwing group who put out a list of 500 scientist who disagree with the IPCC's findings only to be discovered that 3/4 of the list was fraudulant and the other part consisted of mainly tv weathermen.

I just assumed that the neocons would all hold hands and move past the recent anti-intellectual movement (anti-climate change, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-stemcell research, anti-education) when they lost this last election so badly. It didnt occur to me that they would just hold onto the same failing tactics, and just try and spread more dirt and more slander to outrage their base.

Was kinda hoping they would change tactics and move away from anti-intellectualism and more to economics/foriegn policy problems. Since when is it a good political stance of a party to stand for NOTHING but the opposite of your opposing party?

[BerenTebogo]

What kind of moron are you?

1. You've never taken enough of a history lesson to spell my name right.

2. I've made it quite clear that I am open to hearing evidence about global warming. I am not willing, however, to go along with the mainstream "the world will end if we don't" mentality, which is not based on anything substantive.

So far, the best anyone can do seems to be "the laws of thermodynamics" and "countless scientific studies". You can't regulate something if you don't know how much to regulate. You don't know how much to regulate if you don't know how much of this "problem" is man made. You don't know how much to regulate if you don't know the consequences of leaving the problem alone. You don't know how much to regulate if you have not decided how much we are willing to sacrifice. You don't know how much to regulate if you have no idea if other countries will follow suit. Those are all questions that have to be answered before you can even begin to seriously consider emission legislation.

3. Tristam just said I was "wrong", again providing no evidence besides the "laws of thermodynamics". He was not able to answer the important questions. Is it good? Is it bad? How much? Who decides? Can we make a difference? Do we need to make a difference? How much of a difference do we need to make?

4.
By this theory, the natural shifts in the global temperature have to the potential for catastrophe. If 1 degree is all that it takes why are we not all running inland?

If there's honest debate to whether it's getting hotter or colder and who is responsible, we have certainly not answered any of those key questions that need to be addressed. And proof is on the burden of the guy who wants to expand government, raise energy prices, tax Americans, kill jobs, and weaken the economy... all based on some guesswork.

And seriously, people need to be willing to do more than simply proclaim I'm not worth listening to. It feels almost like academia, except here everyone plays video games all day instead of preaching that gender roles are socially constructed.

The natural shifts in global temperature HAVE and WILL cause global catastrophe. How fucking dense are you?

ITT: Earth didn't exist before 1850 C.E.

[Max™]

ITT: Climate Change didn't exist before we noticed it.



Again, climate change is a fact. You can not deny that.
We're doing things which appear to be accelerating the rate of that change, that is a fact.

We're not absolutely certain that the acceleration/forcing effect is a direct result of our causes, but it is a workable hypothesis which seems to fit the data.

We know that processes like this have happened before, I'm not arguing that it isn't our fault at all, I'm simply saying we don't know enough yet to do something as useless as placing blame.

There is wisdom which will hopefully emerge from all this crap, clean up after yourself, learn how to better use your resources, think about those who will come after you.



One more time though, I have to ask, if you could just magically stop the warming right now. Disregarding the inertia of the system for a moment, and just set the global thermostat at a comfortable level for humans. Would you?

What do you think would happen if you didn't have the ability to maintain that state with an iron fist?

[Saga]

As such, it is wrong to tell people what they can and can't do.

So no one can tell you how to spend your money, but conservatives can tell gays they can't marry? gogo strawman

[Max™]

Just to go back and touch on a point about resources in space.

While the argument was already made explaining why someone trying to survive on Mars isn't going to worry about whether the guy working with him is black or jewish, there was also the whole "what about the resources" argument mentioned.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rSystem-en.png

Asteroids are chunks of rocky material, ice, probably some metal content, etc.

From: Asteroid belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbonaceous asteroids, as their name suggests, are carbon-rich and dominate the belt's outer regions.[40] Together they comprise over 75% of the visible asteroids. They are more red in hue than the other asteroids and have a very low albedo. Their surface composition is similar to carbonaceous chondrite meteorites. Chemically, their spectra match the primordial composition of the early Solar System, with only the lighter elements and volatiles removed.

S-type or silicate-rich asteroids are more common toward the inner region of the belt, within 2.5 AU of the Sun.[40][41] The spectra of their surfaces reveal the presence of silicates and some metal, but no significant carbonaceous compounds. This indicates that their materials have been significantly modified from their primordial composition, probably via melting and reformation. They have a relatively high albedo, and form about 17% of the total asteroid population.

M-type (metal-rich) asteroids form about 10% of the total population; their spectra resemble that of iron-nickel. Some are believed to have formed from the metallic cores of differentiated progenitor bodies that were disrupted through collision. However, there are also some silicate compounds that can produce a similar appearance. For example, the large M-type asteroid 22 Kalliope does not appear to be primarily composed of metal.[42] Within the main belt, the number distribution of M-type asteroids peaks at a semi-major axis of about 2.7 AU.[43] It is not yet clear whether all M-types are compositionally similar, or whether it is a label for several varieties which do not fit neatly into the main C and S classes.[44]

Orbits get cheaper to maintain the further from the sun you get, moving outwards is costly, but you can use sails and solar powered lasers for boosts, and falling inwards is damn near free.

So yeah, there is a ton of shit up there sitting around which we could be exploiting and using to fund further exploration... but yeah, it's probably better to focus on rebuilding the Earth first.

Not like it will reduce population pressures, provide a global cause to rally behind, and take peoples minds off troubles at home to send huge numbers of people out into space to bootstrap the rest of us up.

[archibaldcrane]

So no one can tell you how to spend your money, but conservatives can tell gays they can't marry? gogo strawman

Leif doesn't defend the anti-gay-marriage stance.

[Leif]

anti-intellectual movement (anti-climate change, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-stemcell research, anti-education)

Half of those issues are not even conservative issues.

Abortion - I honestly don't think abortion is an issue that lies on one side of the party line. I think it's a personal decision. It so just happens that more Republicans believe in God. Personally, I fully support abortion until age 3.

Climate Change - This doesn't really lie within one party or another, except for the degree of control that it would have over someone's life. Liberals love government. "Climate change" is the perfect excuse to make government bigger. Within rational individuals, it has more to do with what facts are available. As of this moment, there are not too many of those.

Stemcell research - Again, I personally don't care. I think this has more to do with religious and personal beliefs than the conservative philosophy.

Education - I really hope that you are not naive enough to think the liberal approach of "pump more money into the system" is thinking. Programs that increase competition between schools (see: free market, voucher programs) improve schools all around. This has been the case everywhere it has been implemented. Liberals canceled the D.C. scholarship program despite the fact that it educated students for half the cost and produced better results.

Money into education just lets administrators and teachers buy nicer chairs. If by "anti-education" you mean "anti-teacher unions" and "anti-our kids becoming stupider by the minute" then you have a point.

Something is fishy when the districts with the most money for the students (New York, D.C. - spending $15,000 per child per year) produce the dumbest kids.

We need some more discussion of this "education" thing on this forum. Nobody seems to understand how much money they are wasting.

Since when is it a good political stance of a party to stand for NOTHING but the opposite of your opposing party?

This is a pretty much moot point. I think its clear that Republicans want to maximize individual liberty and economic freedom. Democrats want to suppress individual liberty and economic freedom. Does that mean that Democrats stand for "NOTHING" but the opposite of their opposing party?

We're doing things which appear to be accelerating the rate of that change, that is a fact.

At least you bother to be subtle about it. Key word: appear. You are stating essentially, "We might (appear) be accelerating the right of change. That is a fact." Well, lots of things are possible. Thanks for pointing out the obvious!

We're not absolutely certain that the acceleration/forcing effect is a direct result of our causes, but it is a workable hypothesis which seems to fit the data.

At least you admit that it's not certain.

The argument that "the majority of evidence suggests _______" is problematic and cannot be used as the base for climate change legislation. Quite simply, unless scientists say "human activity affects climate change by X amount", it is entirely within the realm of possibility and likelihood that this evidence is being cherry picked.

So no one can tell you how to spend your money, but conservatives can tell gays they can't marry?

I don't really think anti-gay marriage is a Republican issue. It is more of a religious issue or one of those "how you were raised" thing (again, Republicans often read the bible and were brought up with that family values thing). Opposing gay marriage is a completely legitimate belief.

The natural shifts in global temperature HAVE and WILL cause global catastrophe. How fucking dense are you?

What does this have to do with climate change legislation?

Oh and lol at Leif and his ad hominem attack on the IPCC.

I would hardly classify it as an attack. There credibility is clearly in question... I mean... They do have "climate change" in their name.

They didn't even bother to try to swindle people like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" does.

[thomassmith]

Global warming for all you know could be a good thing. But as long as there is money to make from bitching about it people will.

[Xfaustx]

The less Leif posts the happier I become. Whether or not global warming is a real threat, being energy efficient is a benefit to society and in the end saves us money in the long run, aside from helping the environment. But of course moving technically into the future is a bad thing right? Yeah fuck electric cars because they're still using power from outdated sources. Or when we actually find better ways to produce electricity cleanly and efficiently we will already have a beneficial technically available to us. Leif your reasons for not chasing clean technologies are ridiculous to be blunt. Any step in a positive direction is a good thing, it's how progress works, not bullshit excuses to keep ruining the earth and be lazy so we can keep living the usual life style.

[Neosutra]

Wow, so democrats stand for suppression of liberty and freedom, republicans arent anti-abortion, funding eduction is wrong, and republicans arent the key party behind anti-gay marriage legislation.

I cant even count the number of blantant lies and fallacies you just stated Leif.

Seriously, what planet do you live on?

[archibaldcrane]

I think its clear that Republicans want to maximize individual liberty and economic freedom.

You're occasionally interesting when you aren't doing things like this Leif.

Obviously incorrect trollbait is obviously incorrect.

[Neosutra]

I wonder how domestic wire taps, torture, and the illegal detaining of american civilians falls into that "maximizing individual liberties".

[Plow]

You're occasionally interesting when you aren't doing things like this Leif.

Obviously incorrect trollbait is obviously incorrect.

It's true, but only if you explicitly state that you're referring to money, and only money.