He actually had some very nice ideas in that one post, I agree, but his former mis-representation of the data is not the work of a proud conservative in the tradition of Teddy R. I have told many conservative friends there are very good and valid ways to argue against this AGW hoo-ha without misrepresenting or ignoring data. There is actually, in the longest-term datasets, the very real suggestion that we are very due for a significant cold snap. One could argue that we should slow down CO2 output, fine, but keep it at an elevated level for a while, as it could really and truly help us survive the next ice age. I don't happen to embrace that type of argument, but it is more scientific. You can also argue (as many models suggest), that the genie is out of the bottle at this point. National Geographic had a beautiful article recently on the "bathtub" analogy, saying basically that we've loaded the tub with CO2, but now how do you drain it? This will take such a long time that, some would argue, we just have to get used to, at least, our current levels of CO2 (and the ocean levels, etc, that go along with that.) Sincerely, Another Part of the Vast Global Conspiracy to Harm Everything for No Reason
The only facepalm needed, MoJorge, is the one for your distorted and myopic view of the immensity of all climate data, to further your own ends. Well, I'm off to visit a very healthy rainforrest that I've located in a remote section of Brazil. This forrest, in fact, has increased its total biomass in 2009! Someone needs to advance the alternative point of view, before we over-regulate the economies of these important developing nations.
Where your argument completely breaks down is that many scientists' funding ($$$) depends on theories such as global warming being advanced. If that theory starts to break down, so would their funding. Incentives are a great motivator.
The fact that CFCs have been pretty much been eliminated from ALL products tell you not everyone is as willfully ignorant as you. My views have nothing to do with effect of this on my own existance, but that there will be consequences somewhere down the road. It doesn't take a scientist or any genius to tell you that equilibreum is the law that governs nature. When skewed from it, there will be a trade off at some point to restore order.
Doesn't seem to me that they are baffled. The article itself says that the cooling might be due to a fluctuation in the strength of the sun (related to a lack of sun spot activity). models are flawed, they don't predict flucuations. I mean, to think in this age that AGW isn't real is just the modern age stating that the world is flat.
The bottom line is... the vast majority of Republicans are poor or middle class and have been suckered into thinking it's patriotic to protect rich corporations and the rich themselves. They have been suckered so badly in fact that they take environmental regulations for corporations (which are good for every living creature) and tax increases on the rich personally -- as though they were personally harmed by something that only hurts the profits of people far richer than they are. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Where your counterargument completely FAILs is lacking any evidence of real bias in the funding mechanisms or the grant review process. Having served on grant review panels, I can tell you proposals are reviewed anonymously, and with the sole goal of finding proposals that are well-designed, with repeatable, logical, technologically sound experiments, and finding proposals that will have the greatest impact on our knowledge base. But don't take my word for it, go to the NSF site and spend a few days looking at the grants they've awarded for climate research. It's all public access, and you can read at least all the abstracts and see what you come up with. I actually know the person who was running the office of polar programs (at NSF) when the ice core experiments were funded. She doesn't have a political bone in her body or any strong take on AGW. She's as data-driven as they come. The "scientists won't get funded if they don't believe in AGW" is hogwash. Scientists don't get funded if they (like some people in this thread) present a tunnel vision that would pick and choose only certain data for a predetermined narrative, or if they propose experiments on unsound scientific principles or untenable technological suggestions.
Well, if you say so, Bob. Since we all know how unbiased and fair minded you are, everyone should probably just go ahead and take your word for that.
I'm of the opinion that we should take actions that will preserve the environment whether or not AGW exists. I just think it's important to know how much of an impact we are actually having when it comes time to determine what actions must be taken. There has to be a discussion of the effects of acting as well as the effects of not acting. Right now most people are only considering one (THE EARTH WILL EXPLODE!!!) and not really considering what effect taking action will have, as well. I know you hate pretty much anyone who disagrees with you and think we're all ignorant boobs who are stuck in the dark ages but it's not true. There are a lot of people who don't mind taking action to conserve and protect the environment. It's just there needs to be an HONEST discussion of the pros AND CONS of taking action. Right now that does not exist. Furthermore, if one has a set of views that they stick by whether or not it positively affects them, how is that being a sucker? Should I always base my entire opinion on how I am personally affected? That seems to be a horrible way to determine what's right and what's wrong.
The problem though is that the ideological reaction by those who think Global Warming smells of lies and deceits make it difficult for action to be taken to address those issues. While there are probably many conservatives who actually do care about conserving resources and protecting the environment they seem more interested in blocking action that they see from the Left than advancing or advocating for policies that would lead to more conservation.
Frankly I'm not seeing that much honest discussion from those who oppose the idea of man made global warming. What I'm seeing is that conservatives are making as much of a political football out of this issue where some politicians are even campaigning on the basis of being a global warming denier. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/15/gop-candidates-global-warming/ [rquoter]The global warning debate has not yet eclipsed the economy or health care as a campaign issue, but the topic has been coming up at Republican gatherings. The issue was raised last week during a GOP candidate forum at the State Fair. Republican State Sen. Mike Jungbauer of East Bethel proudly declared himself the number-one global warming denier in Minnesota. Jungbauer also held up a state government brochure that he had picked up at a fair exhibit. [/rquoter] How can you have a reasoned debate when a lot of what you are hearing from the otherside is simply "No"? I totally agree that there is a lot of uncertainty in regard to the extent of man made global warming and also in what sort of steps that should be taken but even leaving aside global warming the steps designed to combat it are ones with many other side benefits. Rather than working on how to address those issues, saving resources, elminating our dependence on fossil fuels, developing renewable energy sources, a lot of what I am hearing is merely a defense of the status quo along nightmarish predictions of an economic meltdowns or our civilization being reduced to a pre-industrial state.
Of course there is a lot of money at stake from energy companies and other industries with a vested interest in the status quo.
If you can't trust B-Bob then who would you trust? Shouldn't if be a Family Value to leave your family a livable planet? Shouldn't the Capitalist philosophy be to promote competitive innovation and long term income through sustainability? Shouldn't "conservatives" support conservation? Shouldn't The Vigilant be concerned for all types of threats ?
While I think that program was a little silly, there were many people that purchased vehicles that were more than a 3mpg improvement. Let's assume it was 3 mpg. If you live in the suburbs, you probably buy 12 to 15 gallons of gas a week. That would be 624 to 780 gallons a year. If EVERYBODY were to get an additional 3 miles for each of those gallons, the cumulative effect would become significant in using less gas.
