Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 89

Thread: Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming?

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    If this amount of snowfall had occurred in the 1970's, we would have snow staying around the whole winter. Even though it is only the day after the biggest snow storm of the last 150 years, most of the snow is already gone.
    The sowpeople of the world are seriously concerned by this issue as well:
    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_snowmen_march_against
    WASHINGTON, DC—Braving balmy temperatures and sunny skies, millions of scarfless snowmen and snowwomen gathered in cities across the world Tuesday to raise public awareness about the heavy toll global warming is taking on their health and well-being.
    Speakers at the Washington rally included a Chicago snowwoman who had lost three snowchildren to warm temperatures, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Larry Chilly, formerly a 6-foot-tall, triple-segmented Muncie, IN snowman, who had been reduced to a slushy head.
    Centigrade told the slowly melting snowcrowd that as recently as 15 years ago, the average life span of a snowperson built in late December was three weeks to a month. Today, that same snowperson has an average life span of two weeks.
    On a more serious note, the recent cold snap in some parts of the Northern hemisphere does little to disguise the bigger picture:

    2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.
    Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade — due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean — 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.
    http://www.docuticker.com/?p=31594

    Figures just released by NASA's Global Institute for Space Studies (GISS) show that 2009 was the warmest year on record for the southern hemisphere and the second equal warmest for the world as a whole.
    http://article.wn.com/view/2010/01/20/Warmest_year_on_record_for_the_southern_hemisphere/
    The recent cold spell has not been a cold spell throughout the Northern Hemisphere:

    It wasn't sunbathing weather, but January was the warmest on record for the Seattle area, according to the National Weather Service.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...anuary02m.html
    The organisers of the Vancouver Olympics had a stressful January:

    http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-feat...id=404474.html
    VANCOUVER -- In light of recent news of a Pineapple Express in Greater Vancouver and a shortage of snow at Cypress Mountain, it comes as little surprise that this January will go down as the warmest in Vancouver history.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by t8burst View Post
    Wise,

    You are obviously passionate about global warming, convinced that the global mean temperature is rising. I also assume from your posts that you believe that man is responsible for this trend and it is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Is this accurate and if so what is your opinion of what we should do at a macro level as a) the US government who has the ability to regulate and b) as a race who can alter its behavior?

    Tom
    Hi, t8burst. I am not passionate about global warming, just annoyed by people who are denying scientific evidence that it is happening. In the beginning (in the early 1990's), I too was skeptical because the data was not yet convincing. While the 1970's were very cold, the 1980's were warmer than the 1970's, and 1990's were warmer that the 1980's, I did not think that an upward trend over three decades could be said be global warming. I thought that it could be "weather".

    Three developments convinced me that global warming is occurring and that it is probably due to human activities.
    • The melting of the polar icepack and the loss of antarctic and glacier ice that are millions of years old told me that we have warming that is unprecedented over at least millions of years.
    • Atmospheric CO2 measurements have increased steadily in correlation with human activities, particularly use of coal, gasoline, and other carbon-based fuels.
    • We have had only relatively few volcanic eruptions or worldwide forest fires that spewed out enough dust, ashes, carbon dioxide, and other emissions that could block the sun and explain the rapid warming.


    In my opinion, people like Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives who make fun of global warming don't know what they are talking about. Given the importance of what they are talking about, I think that it is reprehensible that they would do so without studying the subject and learning some of the science behind it. I am not surprised that companies, such as Exxon and coal plant operators, are protecting their self-interest and profit. It is therefore paramount that scientists speak out and they have. I have no financial or intellectual investment in this subject.

    What do I think that we should do from a governmental and societal point of view? I support the calls to reduce use of carbon dioxide emitting fuels and activities that create so-called greenhouse gases. It so happens that the use of such fuels has contributed to multiple wars, delivered nearly a quarter of U.S. economy to the countries who happen to possess reservoirs of oil, and so polluted our world that somebody from a century ago visiting here would be totally disgusted.

    It does not take very much for the United States to do the following
    1. to encourage Americans to drive fuel-efficient cars and industry
    2. to provide incentives for non CO2 producing energy generation
    3. to build infrastructure to use sun, wind, and geothermal energy
    4. to conserve use of increasingly valuable oil for synthetic purposes


    The advantages are obvious. It would allow the United States to be energy independent for the first time since World War II. It would reduce pollution in this country and for the world. It would set an example for the rest of the world to conserve. By the way, the great danger is that the United States wasteful lifestyle will become the way of the rest of the world. When that happens, global warming will not be reversible.

    As I see it, it is a win-win-win proposition. We win by reducing global warming, ensuring our energy independence, and preventing pollution of the earth. In addition, it will save oil for other important purposes (oil is the greatest source of carbon-based materials for medicines, clothing, and other purposes), provide a new industry that would help lift us out of the worst recession that since the Great Depression, and set an example for the rest of the world.

    What is there to lose? Well, car manufacturers who build unnecessary gas hogs will die, as they probably should. Oil companies will make less profit, as they surely should, given the profits they have made in the last decades. Coal plant operators should go out of business, as they must because they have polluted enough. If these companies are smart, they would be converting their oil business, energy generation business, and energy delivery business to energy from technologies based on wind, sun, and earth power.

    The technology to achieve fuel-efficient cars has been available for more than a decade. Volkswagon recently demonstrated a car that made 178 miles per gallon of diesel fuel on the highway. Coupled with a hybrid engine that would run on electricity generated by the diesel engine, that could recapture the energy from braking, and that could get some of its energy from a solar panel, we should all be driving cars that make 100 miles per gallon. Most houses should now be getting half or more of their energy from sun, wind, or earth.

    Why conservatives are denying global warming? It is truly happening. Energy conservation and preventing pollution are good, not bad. Don't you think?

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 02-28-2010 at 05:18 PM.

  3. #53
    dr.young,
    i think instead of global warming we should start aiming policies at a new goal.how about earth overpopulation, its easier to prove than global warming.we could then waste another 10 years arguing over whether overpopulation is a real issue or if the lifestyles of some humans are actually more harmful than others,but those that are harming mother earth are not making babies at anywhere near the rate of those who are less harmful.so maybe its not the number of humans but the kind of humans we should be eliminating,maybe we shouldnt be eliminating humans,but trying to get them to adjust their lifestyles.maybe we could penalize those humans that have too many babies.or we could penalize the countries who allow their birthrates to be above accepted standards.but what if those countries who have the high birthrates also have high death rates,should we give extra credit to those countries who have a high death rate?but what if those deaths are caused by their population being old,that means those citizens hurt the earth more than the better younger citizens will if they live to be the same age.

    thats what global warming sounds like to me.argument for the sake of argument.

    energy conservation and preventing pollution are very good.proving or disproving global warming is useless rhetoric.

    i dont deny or accept global warming,i do know that the entire drama has been a distraction from the real issue,and that is a shame.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by jim sampson View Post
    dr.young,
    i think instead of global warming we should start aiming policies at a new goal.how about earth overpopulation, its easier to prove than global warming.we could then waste another 10 years arguing over whether overpopulation is a real issue or if the lifestyles of some humans are actually more harmful than others,but those that are harming mother earth are not making babies at anywhere near the rate of those who are less harmful.so maybe its not the number of humans but the kind of humans we should be eliminating,maybe we shouldnt be eliminating humans,but trying to get them to adjust their lifestyles.maybe we could penalize those humans that have too many babies.or we could penalize the countries who allow their birthrates to be above accepted standards.but what if those countries who have the high birthrates also have high death rates,should we give extra credit to those countries who have a high death rate?but what if those deaths are caused by their population being old,that means those citizens hurt the earth more than the better younger citizens will if they live to be the same age.

    thats what global warming sounds like to me.argument for the sake of argument.

    energy conservation and preventing pollution are very good.proving or disproving global warming is useless rhetoric.

    i dont deny or accept global warming,i do know that the entire drama has been a distraction from the real issue,and that is a shame.
    Jim,

    What is there to disprove? I wish that you would stop saying that global warming is difficult to prove and that humans are not contributing to global warming. Global warming is a fact. That conclusion is based on many observations made by many good scientists using many methods. It is proven. Human generated CO2 accumulation is one of the major causes of global warming.

    The only controversial parts are the predictions of the future, i.e. how fast the global warming will proceed and whether we will reverse the trend by cutting back on CO2 emissions. These are of course based on certain assumptions about our climate and circumstances. But, the trend is clear. If we continue at our current pace, the consequences of global warming will happen. What is unclear is whether it will happen in 20, 50, or 100 years.

    So, it seems that conservatives are the ones who are playing politics and using strawman arguments against global warming as a reason why not to implement the policies that you agree would be good for America. The policies should be done whether there is global warming or not. The policies of conserving fuel and using renewable non-carbon sources of energy are good for the country.

    If you are really interested in the facts regarding global warming, I highly recommend a document written by a David J. C. MacKay in 1998 (Source). Written long before the politics, it cuts through a lot of the "hot air" on the subject and gives much of the basic scientific and technical bases assessing climate change and energy policy.

    Wise.

  5. #55
    dr.young,
    thats the problem,i couldnt care less about the theory of global warming.i dont have to,i know that i/we as a society consume too much and are not careful enough with our planet.why confuse the issue.

    to me its kind of like arguing whether the cigarettes or the extra hundred pounds of fat caused your heart attack and deciding not to quit either until you find out for sure which one caused the problem.

    either way you are going to end up dead if the argument lasts a while.

    you say the conservatives are playing strawman politics,the liberals are wasting there time telling the strawman he has no heart.

    when was the last time anyone said pollution is positive or dependency on oil(foreign or domestic)is good.never right?
    then why do you waste your time arguing about global warming?

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by jim sampson View Post
    dr.young,
    thats the problem,i couldnt care less about the theory of global warming.i dont have to,i know that i/we as a society consume too much and are not careful enough with our planet.why confuse the issue.

    to me its kind of like arguing whether the cigarettes or the extra hundred pounds of fat caused your heart attack and deciding not to quit either until you find out for sure which one caused the problem.

    either way you are going to end up dead if the argument lasts a while.

    you say the conservatives are playing strawman politics,the liberals are wasting there time telling the strawman he has no heart.

    when was the last time anyone said pollution is positive or dependency on oil(foreign or domestic)is good.never right?
    then why do you waste your time arguing about global warming?
    Jim,

    Thanks. I wouldn't waste my breath on this subject if Congress were doing the right thing. For example, if Congress passed laws restricting carbon emissions and required greater fuel efficiency, I would be applauding. The problem is that the oil and energy industry is deathly afraid that Congress will curb emissions and require greater fuel efficiency. This would increase costs of producing energy and reduce sales.

    Oil and energy companies have consequently spent hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby against any law that threatens to do reduce energy use. Do you really think that conservatives in Congress are opposing this because they don't believe in global warming? They don't care whether global warming is or is not occurring on earth. What members of Congress do care about are campaign contributions from oil and energy industry.

    In the past two decade, I have seen something that is very difficult for me to believe. Political spinners on both sides have realized that they can make white seem black and black seem white. It is almost beyond belief that a bunch of industry lobbyists and advertising people can make up data and distort the truth to such an extent that people believe that scientists are making up facts about something as important as global warming.

    Scientists are not our enemies. Most of them are not and don't want to be in the limelight. Few have anything to gain from pushing global warming. In fact, given that all the money is on the side of those who oppose global warming, it is lucrative to be a consultant from the oil companies and get hundreds of thousands of dollars to criticize Al Gore and his movie. To see oil industry funded bloggers, "journalists", and self-appointed experts dig dirt to discredit scientists is very disconcerting.

    Wise.

  7. #57
    wise,i agree whole heartedly,exxon/mobil cant fight any one on the evils of oil on the planet.but they can sure battle global warming.liberals have allowed(i think gore wanted)the argument to be about semantics rather than pollution and overuse of oil(and trees,water,coal etc.etc.).i think many politicians on both sides have used global warming as a side show to keep the eye off the ball.this whole global warming fiasco has played right into the dirty little grubby hands of the status quo.we should stop debating its merits and start focusing on alternate energy sources and improving on the legislation that has helped clean our environment to the point that it is now.electric cars are one way to address both issues at one time.quit the hybrid myth and go straight to all electric and hydrogen.

  8. #58
    It is naïve to believe that either global warming proponents or skeptics have a monopoly on intelligence and altruism or avarice and stupidity. Both sides have a vested interest.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by PaidMyDues View Post
    It is naïve to believe that either global warming proponents or skeptics have a monopoly on intelligence and altruism or avarice and stupidity. Both sides have a vested interest.
    Paid,

    I have not suggested that those who oppose the Global Warming Theory lack intelligence. I have suggested, however, that they lack data and some lack integrity. It is the right of opponents of the Global Warming Theory to be skeptical but not their right to present false or misleading data, to carry out ad hominem attacks of scientists by discrediting them personally, and to suggest that scientists have manipulated data that is widely available for all to see.

    What do you think is the vested interest of the scientists for claiming that global warming exists? It is clear that opponents who represent or are paid by the energy industry do have a strong vested interest. I know several of the scientists who participated in the IPCC and don't think that the data has been manipulated or falsified, or that they were motivated by avarice.

    I am bothered by attempts to discredit the UN IPCC report by personal attacks of Rajendra Pachauri because he consults with companies (Source). He has not "made a fortune" from these consultations, as reporters are claiming without evidence.

    Pachauri was the voluntary chair of the IPCC and donated all his consulting fees to his research institute. Because of his stature, it is not a conflict of interest for him to consult with companies and to serve on the advisory boards of institutions. He released his income tax which shows that he earned less than US$60,000 last year.

    Wise.

  10. #60
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvi...piracy_pt_1_6/

    This is part one of the 6 parts. The rest are on the page to the right. Very interesting insight into all the global warming phenom.
    “If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking.” Gen. Patton

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •