What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

In an ongoing effort to assist the 'righties' actually supply decent sources for their opinions, I give you:

grist.org...

Grist is an environmental news and commentary site so I suppose would likely be considered 'to the left' (why, I don't know, as the word conservative implies being in favor of conserving things) and, and as such, likes to know what potential opposition forces are likely to say (a common 'lefty' trait).

The preamble:

The Republican presidential field consists of people who refuse to accept the science of climate change and people who just don’t want to do anything about it. This is partly because the most popular right-wing pundits on Fox News and talk radio, like Rush Limbaugh, attack Republican politicians who do trust the overwhelming scientific consensus. No surprise there, since anti-intellectualism is intrinsic to the appeal of right-wing talk radio.

But what about conservative intellectuals? Do they have anything more to offer? In an attempt to find out, I looked through their op-eds, opinion magazines, and policy journals. I found that most of them fall into three broad categories: those who argue for adaptation instead of trying to stop climate change (the Adapters), the anguished advocates of a carbon tax (the Handwringers), and those who simply deny climate science (the Deans of Denialism).

It lists the best arguments of the 15 respected conservative thinkers.

What do some think of it? They are banking on it, literally, anything to make a quick buck, even the end of the world. They think science will help them live forever, and they have bought science, lock, stock, and barrel.

And others don't want to watch the world burn, but have no power to put out the flames.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Oh look another bash righty thread made by a lefty, wow how original.

Psst. Don't know if you know this, but you pitical trolls throwing up baited threads are getting sooooooo boring.

The lefties are all idiots.

The eighties are all idiots.

Us not indoctrinated by a idiotic political ideology are all very put off by your constant zealot level blind obedience.

Plz stop!!!!

Plz!!!!

We get it, you think the right are evil, because they don't believe your religion.

So what!!!!

Why is it so important that you get to force your religion on them?

No wonder the lefties like Islamic extremists so much, you guys run with the exact same MO.

Believe as we demand or else!!!!!!

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: FyreByrd

Oh look another bash righty thread made by a lefty, wow how original.

Psst. Don't know if you know this, but you pitical trolls throwing up baited threads are getting sooooooo boring.

The lefties are all idiots.

The eighties are all idiots.

Us not indoctrinated by a idiotic political ideology are all very put off by your constant zealot level blind obedience.

Plz stop!!!!

Plz!!!!

We get it, you think the right are evil, because they don't believe your religion.

So what!!!!

Why is it so important that you get to force your religion on them?

No wonder the lefties like Islamic extremists so much, you guys run with the exact same MO.

Believe as we demand or else!!!!!!

It's not an issue of "belief," but science and evidence. The old saying goes, "you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts."

We do have a right to deride anyone who denies hefty serious scientific evidence supporting a major threat to all of us, not just you or a small group. We do have a right to say something if a group (mostly Republicans) either denies that there is a problem or refuses to do anything about it.

At that point, assuming climate change is a real threat, such people actually threaten my own children and community, as they are blocking action against a threat that affects us all.

a reply to: johnwick

I wonder if you are able to read or comprehend the written word.

Here I am, giving you actual agruments for your - well, whatever, you do - and you spout completely irrelevant non-sense.

Not very sporting of you.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It looks pretty straight forward to me, I can even point to a quote from Bastiat (which I normally use for other reasons).

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

-Frédéric Bastiat

This is simply the pièce de résistance, in this case with the earth itself playing the part of the unwitting victim of the free market's evil 'machinations'.

We all want the same thing, we just believe that it will be achieved through different means.

Most anti-pollution ecological improvements came about due to private investment and experimentation. Under normal circumstances, regulations necessarily come after the solution has been found so that the bill can be accurate.

People erroneously credit the issuers of the edict for compulsory practice of the solutions as the producers of the improvement.

What has been proposed is nothing less than an open-ended across the board tax on human exhalation among other things.

a reply to: greencmp

That is a really good quote BTW!!!!!

I do want to produce less pollution, I do want cleaner industries!!!!

I just don't want it at the barrel of a gun like the lefties demand.

Their science is also extremely flawed.

For example.

There is not one shred of evidence "out of control warming" can even happen.

It never has before, even though co2 levels have been many times higher in the earths history.

How do they parse that?

They don't, they ignore it, because "the science is settled".....

There is no evidence a warmer climate will even be bad.

In fact the geological record tells us warmer climate is actually very good for life.

How do they parse this?

They don't, they complain about polar bears, and accuse me of not caring.

I have done some pretty in depth research into this subject myself, I really don't see their hysteria being justified.

The only thing we have done by releasing trapped carbon into the atmosphere, it put the carbon present in the atmosphere back in the days of the dinosaurs back into it.

And we have barely even put any back at all honestly.

Most of it is still trapped underground.

I really don't see the need for their chicken little screeching about this.

Much more co2 existed in the atmosphere and it resulted in a tropical paradise the world over for millions of years.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

We do have a right to deride anyone who denies hefty serious scientific evidence supporting a major threat to all of us, not just you or a small group. We do have a right to say something if a group (mostly Republicans) either denies that there is a problem or refuses to do anything about it.

We do have a right to say something if a group (everyone) either denies that there is a problem or refuses to do anything EFFECTIVE about it.

I fixed that for you. Until you can explain what steps any party has taken to effectively change things I think it fits better.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The conservative party long ago used to have a strong stance on conservation issues. It used to be much closer to the middle on things and would refer to science instead of ostracizing those who did. Politics today has become so polarized that the stances are comical and sad. It has all gone down hill at an extremely fast pace ever since corporations gained such political power.

My father was an intellectual conservative and on the issue of climate change he was deeply troubled with how the party addressed it. He passed 2 years ago and from talks with him he wasn't liking how the party was trending.

originally posted by: johnwick

There is not one shred of evidence "out of control warming" can even happen.

It never has before, even though co2 levels have been many times higher in the earths history.
....

Not true!!!

There is concern about a runaway effect as it is possible warmer temperatures will release more CH4(methane, aka natural gas a potent greehouse gas) in the atmosphere and this could trigger a runaway effect.

In fact most of what you wrote is what most would call disinformation.

Your side always calls us "chicken littles" because we are concerned about the changing chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans. This is a form of ridicule and can be considered a manipulation tactic. However most who parrot the "chicken little", "humans are too insignificant to change the climate", "CO2 is plant food, therefore good for the air" are misinformed and simply just run with what sounds good. I think Dunning-Kruger explains this phenomenon well, that is why those who have no background and have done no real research on the man made climate change are so insistent that they are right, and climate change is just a bunch of hype to raise taxes, destroy capitalism, or whatever straw cause that sounds good.

The discussion about the climate changing is not a left vs right(however in the US it is clear the Republican side chooses ignorance on the issue), it about those who are aware of the problem and those who are ignorant and unwilling to accept there is even a problem to begin with.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: johnwick

I wonder if you are able to read or comprehend the written word.

Here I am, giving you actual agruments for your - well, whatever, you do - and you spout completely irrelevant non-sense.

Not very sporting of you.

OK, let's be sporting.

Prove "out of control warming" us even possible.

Co2 has been many times higher, it didn't happen.

Why will it now?

Warmer temps have historically been very good for life.

Let's assume this warming will actually happen.

Prove it will be bad for life.

Because it has already been proved that it is actually good for life.

There is already plenty of evidence agw is way out in left field.

There is plenty if proof it is wrong.

That means it is in the agw court to disprove the millions of years of historic evidence that says it is dead wrong.

Both about co2 even being able to cause "out of control warming".

And that if it does, the warming is a bad thing.

So far agw science has proved neither.

The only thing the "settled science" has proved is that manipulated numbers punched into flawed comp models says it will.


Here is your chance.

Show me one time in the billions of years of earths history that co2 even at thousands if ppm caused "out of control warming".

Or out if hundreds of millions of years, higher temps didn't cause an abundance of life.


Either one, just show me the proof.

And don't play bs word game like, the tens of thousands of degrees from a meteor strike burned the dinosaurs out.

And don't point to Venus. That atmosphere is nothing like ours, it has factors more gas trapped around the planet than we do, our atmospheric pressure is 14 psi on average depending on elevation.

Venus is at over 900 psi on average, with a completely different make up.


Please enlighten me here.

I mean I am obviously completely ignorant on this subject.

Educate me.

a reply to: johnwick

Prove "out of control warming" us even possible.

Venus

Co2 has been many times higher, it didn't happen.

Solar output was significantly lower as well.

Warmer temps have historically been very good for life.

That is a straw argument. It isn't the temp it is the speed it changes that is the issue.

Rapid changes have been historically named as mass extinction events.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: johnwick

There is not one shred of evidence "out of control warming" can even happen.

It never has before, even though co2 levels have been many times higher in the earths history.
....

Not true!!!

There is concern about a runaway effect as it is possible warmer temperatures will release more CH4(methane, aka natural gas a potent greehouse gas) in the atmosphere and this could trigger a runaway effect.

In fact most of what you wrote is what most would call disinformation.

Your side always calls us "chicken littles" because we are concerned about the changing chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans. This is a form of ridicule and can be considered a manipulation tactic. However most who parrot the "chicken little", "humans are too insignificant to change the climate", "CO2 is plant food, therefore good for the air" are misinformed and simply just run with what sounds good. I think Dunning-Kruger explains this phenomenon well, that is why those who have no background and have done no real research on the man made climate change are so insistent that they are right, and climate change is just a bunch of hype to raise taxes, destroy capitalism, or whatever straw cause that sounds good.

The discussion about the climate changing is not a left vs right(however in the US it is clear the Republican side chooses ignorance on the issue), it about those who are aware of the problem and those who are ignorant and unwilling to accept there is even a problem to begin with.

So...
Stating known facts is "disinformation"?

Wow good job you win!!!!!!!

I can't possibly use facts, you know, known quantities, things that are established irrefutable, written in stone, FACTS!!!!

To debunc obvious misrepresentations of....well facts.

I am just curious why we aren't using these methane reserves for fuel.

It is one of the most efficient forms of fuel known at present.

It is 1carbon and 4 hydrogen atoms.

This hydrocarbon releases much less co2 than any other known hydrocarbon that I am aware of.

It produces water vapor and a tiny amount of carbon when burned as fuel, compared to coal or oil.

I assume your mentioning the right or ignorance on the subject was not aimed at me.

Because I am not on the right or ignorant of this subject.

Just do your own investigation.

Don't believe what you ate told and look up the facts I have mentioned.

They are fully accurate.

Co2 being much higher didn't cause out of control warming.

And higher temps didn't end the world.

Agw is wrong on both the supposed cause, and the effect.

It is honestly as hard as googling the things I have mentioned.

a reply to: FyreByrd

" conservative policy intellectuals "


LOL , Taint' No Such Animal ..........

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: johnwick

Prove "out of control warming" us even possible.

Venus

Co2 has been many times higher, it didn't happen.

Solar output was significantly lower as well.

Warmer temps have historically been very good for life.

That is a straw argument. It isn't the temp it is the speed it changes that is the issue.

Rapid changes have been historically named as mass extinction events.

Lol....you said Venus!!!!!!


Omfg that is hilarious.

Its atmosphere is as close to ours as Jupiters.

Its atmosphere gas nothing in common with ours, besides both planets have an atmosphere.

It has hundreds of times more atmosphere than we do, it is much closer to the sun, its atmosphere is not made up of even close to the same things as ours.

That is absolutely the dumbest example you could have pointed out.

Thanks for the laughs!!!!

BTW, prove solar output was "significantly" lower.

It has changed little in the last couple hundred million years.

You see, a son unless very large, like millions if tines the mass if ours, changes next to nothing in a couple million years.

They change by the billions.

a reply to: johnwick

BTW, prove solar output was "significantly" lower.

It has changed little in the last couple hundred million years.

You see, a son unless very large, like millions if tines the mass if ours, changes next to nothing in a couple million years.

They change by the billions.

I don't know what you mean by prove.

Science was used to determine millions of year ago that c02 was much higher. Science was also used to determine those millions of years ago that solar output was about 4% lower.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined net effect from CO2 and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas.link

I am sure you are not the type of person who would make statements about things like c02 that has been discovered by the scientific method and then dismiss other related discoveries that were made through the scientific method simply because you don't like what they say because that would be highly hypocritical.

Maybe you will prove me wrong and you will be that type of person, but I hope not.

originally posted by: johnwick

So...
Stating known facts is "disinformation"?

You have not stated any 'facts', writing fact after a statement does not make it true

I can't possibly use facts, you know, known quantities, things that are established irrefutable, written in stone, FACTS!!!!

To debunk obvious misrepresentations of....well facts.
....

Do you have any legit sources to back up these so called facts?

Because I am not on the right or ignorant of this subject.

Just do your own investigation.

Don't believe what you ate told and look up the facts I have mentioned.

They are fully accurate.

Co2 being much higher didn't cause out of control warming.

And higher temps didn't end the world.

Agw is wrong on both the supposed cause, and the effect.

It is honestly as hard as googling the things I have mentioned.

I have researched and debated both sides and in the past have made some die-hard global warming alarmist look silly on the subject. I also have taken some complex courses where we crunched numbers and looked at real world data.

If you have truly researched the topic, then you should be able to do residence time calculations for CO2, CH4, and O2. Let see those calculations!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: johnwick

BTW, prove solar output was "significantly" lower.

It has changed little in the last couple hundred million years.

You see, a son unless very large, like millions if tines the mass if ours, changes next to nothing in a couple million years.

They change by the billions.

I don't know what you mean by prove.

Science was used to determine millions of year ago that c02 was much higher. Science was also used to determine those millions of years ago that solar output was about 4% lower.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined net effect from CO2 and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas.link

I am sure you are not the type of person who would make statements about things like c02 that has been discovered by the scientific method and then dismiss other related discoveries that were made through the scientific method simply because you don't like what they say because that would be highly hypocritical.

Maybe you will prove me wrong and you will be that type of person, but I hope not.

Grim, I respect your contributions in the discussions on this sight.

I think you are very!!!! Intelligent!!!!


But you are honestly going to try to tell me that a over thousand fold increase in co2 ( the devil) combined with a 4% decrease in solar activity is the same example as.

Thousands of times less of co2 ( the dreaded trace gas of death) combined with 4% more solar output is a dead mans scenario?


Come on man!!!!


The agw crowd acts like a few tens of ppm is life or death.

That is obvious bs.

Recognize that, and all the rest kinda just falls apart.

The science is not close to "settled".

There are more holes in the theory than a slice of swiss cheese.


Just for the next week, put on your tinfoil hat.

I am not asking that you convert.

Just explore the things you know are wrong with this theory.

You will like likely be very surprised.

a reply to: johnwick

Are you going to try to tell us that an observed 40% increase of CO2 concentrations over the past half century is not a significant one?

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: johnwick

So...
Stating known facts is "disinformation"?

You have not stated any 'facts', writing fact after a statement does not make it true

I can't possibly use facts, you know, known quantities, things that are established irrefutable, written in stone, FACTS!!!!

To debunk obvious misrepresentations of....well facts.
....

Do you have any legit sources to back up these so called facts?

Because I am not on the right or ignorant of this subject.

Just do your own investigation.

Don't believe what you ate told and look up the facts I have mentioned.

They are fully accurate.

Co2 being much higher didn't cause out of control warming.

And higher temps didn't end the world.

Agw is wrong on both the supposed cause, and the effect.

It is honestly as hard as googling the things I have mentioned.

I have researched and in the past have made some die-hard global warming alarmist look silly on the subject. I also have taken some complex courses where we crunched numbers and looked at real world data.

If you have truly researched the topic, then you should be able to do residence time calculations for CO2, CH4, and O2. Let see those calculations!

So it isnt a fact co2 was many times higher many times with no out if control warming?


So it isn't a fact bthst higher temps always corisponded with more life?

Please elaborate!

Because the fossil record disagrees in the extreme!!!!