Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >

What do you Global Warmers hope to gain?

Posted: 6/24/2014 8:54 PM

What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


Serious question.  I'm just trying to understand Warmers motivations.

1. What are the Warmers goals and do you really think we can achieve them?  Are those goals only to reduce warming or are there secondary goals that make it worthwhile even if warming isn't reduced?

2. Does any of the data, legitimate questions as to the integrity of the data, the unknown accuracy of hugely complex and somewhat speculative computer models, give you any pause whatsoever?  Do the dire predictions that have yet to happen as predicted give you any pause?

3. Is the cost of the so-called remedial measures worth the trillions of dollars and elimination of tens of thousands of jobs worth it?  I mean, do you really, really believe the world is headed for extinction if we don't act and act now?

4.  Does it concern you that whatever we do here and in the advanced world makes little difference in the net global reduction of CO2 when you consider China and other nation's output is increasing?

5.  Do you think we should adopt a more strategic, measured, and slowed approach to achieve reductions?  Why are you for the headlong rush (if in fact you are) to drastically change our energy footprint knowing the pain and disruption it will cause?

Just a few questions as I ponder why Warmers believe what they believe and their motivations behind that belief.  I hope I get a few serious takers.  If the questions I've asked offend you, then I hope you can look past that for a moment and give some responses.

Last edited 6/24/2014 9:26 PM by cazvol

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 9:18 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


Pater Tenebrarum

SNIP:

As we have previously mentioned, back in 1989, we only had “10 years left before it is too late”. In 1982, it was still more generously assumed that a lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”  - i.e., we actually had one year more (for unknown reasons, nothing special seemed to happen on that score in either 1999 or 2000).

In 2007 we were informed that “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late”. In 2008 some additional time was apparently bought, as we had “only 100 months to avoid disaster”. Things became a lot more dire by 20 October 2009, when we suddenly had “fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe”.  On 7 December 2009, it was therefore concluded that all that was left were a mere “12 days to save the planet”.

2009 was an especially fruitful year for predictions of this sort, which exhibited a wide variety timing-wise, fluctuating between “we have hours to prevent disaster” (in March), “12 days”, “four months” and what appeared an overly generous “less than 100 months”  (a repeat from 2008, so presumably it must have actually been “less than 112 months” in 2008).

Imagine our disappointment when we learned in April 2014 that “global leaders have at most two decades to save the world”. (Translation: unless “global leaders” raise taxes even more, we are doomed, but not as soon as previously hoped).


What is wrong with these people? Are we finally going to get to see the fricking apocalypse or not?

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 9:43 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


I don't think the motivations are complicated. They're similar to the concerns that conservatives have about the national debt - specifically, the legacy our generation is leaving behind for our children, grandchildren and future generations. 

I'm going to insert red text with my answers, but if this goes back and forth, I'll probably bail out of the insert-text-into-the-quote box format. 
cazvol wrote:

Serious question.  I'm just trying to understand Warmers motivations.

1. What are the Warmers goals and do you really think we can achieve them?  Are those goals only to reduce warming or are there secondary goals that make it worthwhile even if warming isn't reduced?

See above. I don't know if it's possible or not, but I think it's our responsibility to try. Instead of saying, "warming", I'd replace it with "adverse impacts of excessive greenhouse gases", and yes, reducing those adverse impacts is the only goal as far as I'm concered; no secondary goals. 

2. Does any of the data, legitimate questions as to the integrity of the data, the unknown accuracy of hugely complex and somewhat speculative computer models, give you any pause whatsoever?  Do the dire predictions that have yet to happen as predicted give you any pause?

I guess it depends on what "give me pause whatever" means. I consider the models to be just that, models, not infallible oracles. No, the "dire predictions" that various denialists (if you use "warmers", I can use "denialist", right?) dredge up from somebody or other in the past don't give me any pause at all. 

3. Is the cost of the so-called remedial measures worth the trillions of dollars and elimination of tens of thousands of jobs worth it?  I mean, do you really, really believe the world is headed for extinction if we don't act and act now?

I don't think that human life on earth has to be headed for extinction to warrant action. I think some cost, even if it includes some loss of jobs, would be worth it . .  in pretty much the same way that you might recognize some human costs in drastically cutting into the deficit, but nonetheless believe that a better future is worth it.

4.  Does it concern you that whatever we do here and in the advanced world makes little difference in the net global reduction of CO2 when you consider China and other nation's output is increasing?

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.

5.  Do you think we should adopt a more strategic, measured, and slowed approach to achieve reductions?  Why are you for the headlong rush (if in fact you are) to drastically change our energy footprint knowing the pain and disruption it will cause?

Sure, I agree with the idea of a strategic and measured approach rather than a headlong rush. Duh. Disagreements might possibly come over which strategies fall into which category, however.


Just a few questions as I ponder why Warmers believe what they believe and their motivations behind that belief.  I hope I get a few serious takers.  If the questions I've asked offend you, then I hope you can look past that for a moment and give some responses.

Last edited 6/24/2014 9:58 PM by VandyWhit

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 10:30 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



VandyWhit wrote: I don't think the motivations are complicated. They're similar to the concerns that conservatives have about the national debt - specifically, the legacy our generation is leaving behind for our children, grandchildren and future generations. 

I'm going to insert red text with my answers, but if this goes back and forth, I'll probably bail out of the insert-text-into-the-quote box format. 
cazvol wrote:

Serious question.  I'm just trying to understand Warmers motivations.

1. What are the Warmers goals and do you really think we can achieve them?  Are those goals only to reduce warming or are there secondary goals that make it worthwhile even if warming isn't reduced?

See above. I don't know if it's possible or not, but I think it's our responsibility to try. Instead of saying, "warming", I'd replace it with "adverse impacts of excessive greenhouse gases", and yes, reducing those adverse impacts is the only goal as far as I'm concered; no secondary goals. 

2. Does any of the data, legitimate questions as to the integrity of the data, the unknown accuracy of hugely complex and somewhat speculative computer models, give you any pause whatsoever?  Do the dire predictions that have yet to happen as predicted give you any pause?

I guess it depends on what "give me pause whatever" means. I consider the models to be just that, models, not infallible oracles. No, the "dire predictions" that various denialists (if you use "warmers", I can use "denialist", right?) dredge up from somebody or other in the past don't give me any pause at all. 

3. Is the cost of the so-called remedial measures worth the trillions of dollars and elimination of tens of thousands of jobs worth it?  I mean, do you really, really believe the world is headed for extinction if we don't act and act now?

I don't think that human life on earth has to be headed for extinction to warrant action. I think some cost, even if it includes some loss of jobs, would be worth it . .  in pretty much the same way that you might recognize some human costs in drastically cutting into the deficit, but nonetheless believe that a better future is worth it.

4.  Does it concern you that whatever we do here and in the advanced world makes little difference in the net global reduction of CO2 when you consider China and other nation's output is increasing?

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.

5.  Do you think we should adopt a more strategic, measured, and slowed approach to achieve reductions?  Why are you for the headlong rush (if in fact you are) to drastically change our energy footprint knowing the pain and disruption it will cause?

Sure, I agree with the idea of a strategic and measured approach rather than a headlong rush. Duh. Disagreements might possibly come over which strategies fall into which category, however.


Just a few questions as I ponder why Warmers believe what they believe and their motivations behind that belief.  I hope I get a few serious takers.  If the questions I've asked offend you, then I hope you can look past that for a moment and give some responses.

Thanks.  To prevent this from turning into another argument over whether MMGW exists or not, I'll follow up with these question.  At what cost do you think the effort is worth it?  The costs in increased energy costs and loss of jobs could run into the trillions.  Is this enormous expense worth the gains that we're not even sure we'll achieve?  I don't think I'm exaggerating the expense if we do what the enviros want to do.  You may be reasonable about this, but the movers and shakers, the people driving the agenda are not reasonable IMO.  This is where reasonable people of your viewpoint could attempt to put the brakes on the zealots.  If the more reasonable and rational of the enviros could slow the push to replace carbon fuels before we're ready and able to replace them, then you might get a few more of the conservative persuasion to hop on board.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 10:43 PM

The global warmers are for global hunger. 


Higher energy costs due to regulations will result in scarcer food.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:05 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


From the Dunking Dan  "Numbers dont Lie"  thread.


"Meanwhile, since 2005, China’s emissions have grown by 71 percent, or about 3.9 billion tons, which is about six times the total reductions achieved in the U.S. and Germany. In the Middle East, emissions have jumped by about 600 million tons, an increase that effectively cancels out the combined reductions achieved in both the U.S. and Germany since 2005."
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:10 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


It is all about power and control. Climate just another tool for statist intervention. It's like healthcare.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:14 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



VandyWhit wrote:

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.


I think this is the most significant point of disagreement.

IMO, this opinion seems to be very naive.

In other words, it doesn't matter what we do.  Countries like China and India will NOT follow suit - period.

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that climate change theories are correct - which seems premature at best (so far).
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:46 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


Warming is probably better than cooling.

When we saw the "little ice age" and the bitter cold of the 1770's and 1780's - we saw hunger, war and revolution.   The French Revolution was due in large part to food shortages which were caused by excessively cold weather during this time period.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:52 PM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


1816 - The Year without a Summer


SNIP:
Cool temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests in Britain and Ireland. Families in Wales travelled long distances as refugees, begging for food. Famine was prevalent in north and southwest Ireland, following the failure of wheat, oats, and potato harvests. In Germany, the crisis was severe; food prices rose sharply. With the cause of the problems unknown, people demonstrated in front of grain markets and bakeries, and later riots, arson, and looting took place in many European cities. It was the worst famine of 19th-century Europe.

Farmers south of New England did succeed in bringing some crops to maturity, but maize and other grain prices rose dramatically. The price of oats,[12] for example, rose from 12¢ a bushel ($3.40/m³) in 1815, equal to $1.55 today, to 92¢ a bushel ($26/m³) in 1816 ($12.78 today). 

Farther north, nearly 12 inches (30 cm) of snow was observed in Quebec City in early June, with consequent additional loss of crops—most summer-growing plants have cell walls which rupture even in a mild frost. The result was regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic,and increased mortality.

Food riots broke out in the United Kingdom and France, and grain warehouses were looted. The violence was worst in landlocked Switzerland, where famine caused the government to declare a national emergency. Huge storms and abnormal rainfall with flooding of Europe's major rivers (including the Rhine) are attributed to the event, as is the August frost. A major typhus epidemic occurred in Ireland between 1816 and 1819, precipitated by the famine the Year Without a Summer caused. It is estimated that 100,000 Irish perished during this period. A BBC documentary using figures compiled in Switzerland estimated that fatality rates in 1816 were twice that of average years, giving an approximate European fatality total of 200,000 deaths.

In China, unusually low temperatures in summer and fall devastated rice production in Yunnan, resulting in widespread famine.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 12:10 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



VOLSAREBACK wrote:
VandyWhit wrote:

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.


I think this is the most significant point of disagreement.

IMO, this opinion seems to be very naive.

In other words, it doesn't matter what we do.  Countries like China and India will NOT follow suit - period.

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that climate change theories are correct - which seems premature at best (so far).

To use a football analogy, which probably won't help with VandyWhit but I will do so anyway, it's like the Vanderbilt administration believing that too much of an emphasis is being placed on athletics rather than academics and that universities need to return to institutions of higher learning instead of football factories.  

To accomplish this and to set the proper example, the Vanderbilt administration decides that the football team will sign only student-athletes who maintain a 3.5 GPA or above in high school and score a minimum of 25 on the ACT.  They would rather see Vanderbilt take the lead than doing nothing.  And unless Vanderbilt acts, there is no moral standing to pressure other schools (e.g. Alabama and UT) into doing the same.

Of course, the folly in this is that even though the other SEC schools are conference partners, they are also competitors who are looking out for their own best interests.  The net result of the Vanderbilt administration's actions will be an intentionally inferior product on the football field, an unnecessarily self-imposed competitive disadvantage for the Vanderbilt team, reduced fan support and lower overall revenue for the university.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 1:09 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



highVOLtage wrote:
VOLSAREBACK wrote:
VandyWhit wrote:

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.


I think this is the most significant point of disagreement.

IMO, this opinion seems to be very naive.

In other words, it doesn't matter what we do.  Countries like China and India will NOT follow suit - period.

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that climate change theories are correct - which seems premature at best (so far).

To use a football analogy, which probably won't help with VandyWhit but I will do so anyway, it's like the Vanderbilt administration believing that too much of an emphasis is being placed on athletics rather than academics and that universities need to return to institutions of higher learning instead of football factories.  

To accomplish this and to set the proper example, the Vanderbilt administration decides that the football team will sign only student-athletes who maintain a 3.5 GPA or above in high school and score a minimum of 25 on the ACT.  They would rather see Vanderbilt take the lead than doing nothing.  And unless Vanderbilt acts, there is no moral standing to pressure other schools (e.g. Alabama and UT) into doing the same.

Of course, the folly in this is that even though the other SEC schools are conference partners, they are also competitors who are looking out for their own best interests.  The net result of the Vanderbilt administration's actions will be an intentionally inferior product on the football field, an unnecessarily self-imposed competitive disadvantage for the Vanderbilt team, reduced fan support and lower overall revenue for the university.
It's rather easy for us to cut our emissions as we have ceded the manufacturing battlefield to them leaving  only power-production and "consumer-level" energy consumption in the US.

Without looking at explanations, I suspect the main cause of new and increased Chinese pollution is exponential growth of internal combustion engine use in the PRC as well as power production. Sure, their manufacturers may be expelling CO2 at a heightened, unfettered rate.

After living in a left-wing enforced cage for over 60-years, I don't fault the Chinese is wanting a car, or electricity in their homes. Since their population is so very large, it would be difficult for the Chinese to force their people with their new found consumer freedom back onto the leftist reservation from whence they came.

So, what does the left propose China do to reduce their CO2 rates?
That's a very serious question? The United States being a good "role model" doesn't cut it. We've got our stuff already.

Cut manufacturing and send MILLIONS of people back to the 19th century villages to live in poverty?
Cut electricity production and electrification and force the rural Chinese to return to their figurative caves? Unless
      the left change their opinion on nuclear energy, the Chinese will never provide power to their masses with
      alternative sources.      
Kill a rapidly expanding domestic Chinese auto industry?

China is 75-100 years from being where the rest are right now.  Their people will not destroy their growing economy just as they are exiting the dark ages no matter what the US is doing.

So no degree  of "being a good example" is going to make China send their own people to the dark ages and risk their power base.

Last edited 6/25/2014 1:10 AM by FryeGuy

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/25/2014 9:34 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



cazvol wrote:

Serious question.  I'm just trying to understand Warmers motivations.

1. What are the Warmers goals and do you really think we can achieve them?  Goal would be to limit our carbon footprint so we don't destroy our world and yes I believe we can but no I don't believe we will. Are those goals only to reduce warming or are there secondary goals that make it worthwhile even if warming isn't reduced? Secondary benefit would be reducing dependence on foreign oil.

2. Does any of the data, legitimate questions as to the integrity of the data, the unknown accuracy of hugely complex and somewhat speculative computer models, give you any pause whatsoever?  No.  The climate is warming.  There is no doubt.  The only doubt out there is perpetuated by those who don't understand science.  Do the dire predictions that have yet to happen as predicted give you any pause? No because I don't pay attention to one source.  

3. Is the cost of the so-called remedial measures worth the trillions of dollars and elimination of tens of thousands of jobs worth it?  I mean, do you really, really believe the world is headed for extinction if we don't act and act now?  Extinction?  Probably not in our future or our kids future.  However, will our kids and their kids face a severe situation in dealing with scarcity of resources?  I believe so.  

4.  Does it concern you that whatever we do here and in the advanced world makes little difference in the net global reduction of CO2 when you consider China and other nation's output is increasing?  Of course

5.  Do you think we should adopt a more strategic, measured, and slowed approach to achieve reductions?  We can't be any slower than we are now so no. Why are you for the headlong rush (if in fact you are) to drastically change our energy footprint knowing the pain and disruption it will cause? The whole change in climate thing..  Its a bit like saying if you have cancer and you can cut off your right foot and that would stop the cancer.  Would you do it?  Would you ponder life without a right foot or would you come to your sense and realize you won't have a life at all if you don't cut off your right foot.  

Just a few questions as I ponder why Warmers (I prefer the term "science believers") believe what they believe and their motivations behind that belief.  I hope I get a few serious takers.  If the questions I've asked offend you, then I hope you can look past that for a moment and give some responses.

~The Economist: "Once upon a time the American right led the world when it came to rethinking government; now it is an intellectual pygmy"~


Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 9:50 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



cazvol wrote:
Thanks.  To prevent this from turning into another argument over whether MMGW exists or not, I'll follow up with these question.  At what cost do you think the effort is worth it?  The costs in increased energy costs and loss of jobs could run into the trillions.  Is this enormous expense worth the gains that we're not even sure we'll achieve?  I don't think I'm exaggerating the expense if we do what the enviros want to do.  You may be reasonable about this, but the movers and shakers, the people driving the agenda are not reasonable IMO.  This is where reasonable people of your viewpoint could attempt to put the brakes on the zealots.  If the more reasonable and rational of the enviros could slow the push to replace carbon fuels before we're ready and able to replace them, then you might get a few more of the conservative persuasion to hop on board.

It's impossible to answer questions that are so general. I agree that policy decisions, including decisions about policies related to climate change, should include analyses cost/benefit and risk/reward. But your question boils down to "If an action would cost trillions of dollars more than the alternative and in all likelihood would have no beneficial effect, would you endorse it?" I'd probably say "No." I think most people would agree with the idea that spending heaps and gobs of money for no good reason isn't good policy. The dispute comes over the costs of both action and inaction and the likelihood of beneficial and harmful effects resulting from action and inaction.

In regard to putting zealots in their place, they aren't on just one side of this debate. On one hand, I tend to think it'd be best if everybody, both sides, were reasonable, but OTOH, I also think that extreme views on both sides also have a role to play. Tomorrow's "common sense" is sometimes yesterday's "extreme view."

Last edited 6/25/2014 9:53 AM by VandyWhit

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 10:04 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



VOLSAREBACK wrote:
VandyWhit wrote:

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.


I think this is the most significant point of disagreement.

IMO, this opinion seems to be very naive.

In other words, it doesn't matter what we do.  Countries like China and India will NOT follow suit - period.

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that climate change theories are correct - which seems premature at best (so far).

I think it's unlikely that's the major point of disagreement. I'm not sure where you guys got the idea that I believe that China and India would simply say, "Oh, look at the USA, let's follow their example." I don't. But I think there are other ways to apply pressure, diplomatically and economically. But if we hadn't first taken the steps ourselves, I don't think that we'd be in the best position to apply that pressure. 

I think the biggest point of disagreement is over whether the earth's ecosystem is sufficiently robust to handle successfully any adverse affects of the actions of humans. It seems to me that conservatives believe that the entirety of the aggregated actions of mankind are teeny tiny and insignificant compared to the power of the earth's ecosystem (esp. the atmosphere and the oceans). Liberals, OTOH, believe that there are limits to what the ecosystem can handle. JMO, though.

Last edited 6/25/2014 10:09 AM by VandyWhit

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 10:06 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


Since I pretty much agree with the answers given in this thread, I have to ask the reverse question...

What do the deniers hope to gain?  It's almost like Pascal's Wager except with real world data and real world consequences.  If we are warming the globe with the burning of fossil fuels and we don't do anything, we're screwed.  If we aren't warming the globe with the burning of fossil fuels but we pursue cleaner energy because we think we are, then we still benefit from a cleaner environment.

Why do so many conservatives in this country (almost exclusively) insist on siding with some of the most corrupt, politically influencing, environmentally and economically damaging, money-grubbing industries (big oil and coal) in modern times?  It's just a strange fight to me.

Last edited 6/25/2014 10:09 AM by KnoxKid

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 10:07 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



highVOLtage wrote:
VOLSAREBACK wrote:
VandyWhit wrote:

I don't agree that it makes little difference, but in any case I'd rather see the USA taking the lead than doing nothing. Unless the USA acts, we have no moral standing to pressure other countries (e.g., China and India) into doing the same.


I think this is the most significant point of disagreement.

IMO, this opinion seems to be very naive.

In other words, it doesn't matter what we do.  Countries like China and India will NOT follow suit - period.

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that climate change theories are correct - which seems premature at best (so far).

To use a football analogy, which probably won't help with VandyWhit but I will do so anyway, it's like the Vanderbilt administration believing that too much of an emphasis is being placed on athletics rather than academics and that universities need to return to institutions of higher learning instead of football factories.  

To accomplish this and to set the proper example, the Vanderbilt administration decides that the football team will sign only student-athletes who maintain a 3.5 GPA or above in high school and score a minimum of 25 on the ACT.  They would rather see Vanderbilt take the lead than doing nothing.  And unless Vanderbilt acts, there is no moral standing to pressure other schools (e.g. Alabama and UT) into doing the same.

Of course, the folly in this is that even though the other SEC schools are conference partners, they are also competitors who are looking out for their own best interests.  The net result of the Vanderbilt administration's actions will be an intentionally inferior product on the football field, an unnecessarily self-imposed competitive disadvantage for the Vanderbilt team, reduced fan support and lower overall revenue for the university.

I'm okay with the football analogy, but where it falls apart here is that unless I've missed something, Vanderbilt doesn't wield a lot of power in the SEC. Once Vanderbilt took the first step, then what?  In your analogy, there isn't a next step. When I mentioned "pressure", that's what I was implying.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 10:11 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



KnoxKid wrote: Since I pretty much agree with the answers given in this thread, I have to ask the reverse question...

What do the deniers hope to gain?  It's almost like Pascal's Wager except with real world data and real world consequences.  If we are warming the globe with the burning of fossil fuels and we don't do anything, we're screwed.  If we aren't warming the globe with the burning of fossil fuels but we pursue cleaner energy because we think we are, then we still benefit from a cleaner environment.

Why do so many conservatives in this country (almost exclusively) insist on siding with some of the most corrupt, politically influencing, environmentally and economically damaging, money-grubbing industries (big oil and coal) in modern times?  It's just a strange fight to me.

Good questions.

The one that's been on my mind is whether conservatives are generally as suspicious and cynical about scientific inquiry as they are towards climate science, or whether they think that climate scientists are a special breed of incompetent and/or unscrupulous people?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 10:18 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 



VandyWhit wrote:


The one that's been on my mind is whether conservatives are generally as suspicious and cynical about scientific inquiry as they are towards climate science, or whether they think that climate scientists are a special breed of incompetent and/or unscrupulous people?
Also a great question.  I would add evolutionary biologists to the list with climate scientists.  It seems the scientists that produce new technologies/medicine/weaponry are ok.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/25/2014 10:21 AM

Re: What do you Global Warmers hope to gain? 


All I know is what Al Gore said a few years back.

'Passing Cap & Trade will save the environment, promote world peace and stimulate the economy'...(paraphrased)

Some still believe..................some never did......

 

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >