Paleoconservative movement and global warming

[abskebabs]

I know that many political commentators around the world, and especially in the US still doubt anthropogenic global warming and strongly oppose any measures to try and reduce it like the Kyoto protocol, and measures suggested along the lines of implementing a crbon tax.

 

My question concerns primarily this:

Why is it the conservative political movement, particularly the paleoconservatives, so vehemently deny that global warming is taking place? Personally, I agree with a lot on economics, and questions concerning goverment regulation and interference with the market, with Ron Paul, who does himself deny global warming occurring and has support from a lot of paleoconservatives.

 

I guess, if I were to guess the ideological reason for such an opposition, is that it goes part and parcel with opposing government interventions and regulations into businesses on a large scale via the implementation of a global carbon tax. Would you agree with me on this?

 

Do you think people like Alex Jones, would probably not make an issue of whether this was occurring or not, if such "big government" solutions were not being offered as a way to tackle global warming.

[ParanoiA]

It's certainly plausible. Anything that creates business out of GW solutions and uses government interferece to get the product sold does stain the premise behind GW. That's been a big hang up for me. GW as a scientific concept is not hard to accept, and when I absorb the impact and intensity of this issue, I have to throw up my hands in disbelief when some idiot comes up with Carbon Offsets. WTF? All of this drama and biblical catastrophes we are facing and someone's pimping Carbon tax?

 

Come on now, if we're facing such a dire and dramatic event, why is everybody trying to sell me something or take more of my money for taxes? That ain't gonna' fix it.

[Blade]

in my opinion:

 

i would wait for proper peer review papers to find out if this cimatic changes are manmade or not.

 

in any case, clean air, wildlife protection and nature reserves are a really good thing.

 

for both the planet and humans.

[abskebabs]

Would you agree then, that government should stay out of this entirely? Awareness of this issue can be raised, but when it comes down to it, should the action to reduce global carbon emissions be carried out entirely by individuals reducing their own consumption?

 

Personally, I think some of the "solutions" raised hav been short sighted, e.g. subsidising one industry as opposed to another. An example of this can be seen from the subsidisation of Ethanol or the proposals to subsidize nuclear power in the United States. I think that "Green Energy", however can be looked at as a investment, by responsible governments.

 

For example, a sort of tariff scheme I read about a year ago that was being applied in Germany I thought was quite smart, whereby Gas and Electric companies would be charged a certain amount for every amount of electricity they supplied by nonrenewable means, and this same money would subsidize energy from reneweable sources. The tariff placement was temporary however, designed to increase the amount of energy from renewable sources, which has been increasing with the help of this.

I guess it could be used as a "spur" for the industry to get it's act together.

 

On the other hand, I know from reading an article a while back, were an executive from a solar company was asked the best thing the government could do to helps spur growth of his industry, and his response was to stay out of it.

 

Personally, I can understand if people would not be eager to implement such schemes, but I certainly think any remaining subsidies supporting non-renewable fuels should be removed promptly!

 

(On a side note it's funny, how I can post a thread in the Classical physics subsection of this forum, and not get a reply for 3-4 days so far, but get one almost immediately in the Politics subsection:rolleyes:. Not that I'm having a rant or anything:D)

[swansont]

Naomi Oreskes, in the video which highlights the history of the GW actions and that has been linked to twice (or more) in GW threads, contends that it is indeed government non-involvement that is the ideology behind the denialism of several of the major players such as Fred Singer.

 

in my opinion:

 

i would wait for proper peer review papers to find out if this cimatic changes are manmade or not.

 

How many more do you need? The research and resulting papers have been accumulating for decades.

[Blade]

How many more do you need? The research and resulting papers have been accumulating for decades.

 

is it manmade?

 

link?

[Realitycheck]

in my opinion:

 

i would wait for proper peer review papers to find out if this cimatic changes are manmade or not.

 

in any case, clean air, wildlife protection and nature reserves are a really good thing.

 

for both the planet and humans.

 

See this video. Notice the areas in red that pop up. These are areas where man-made CO2 emissions are easily quadrupling the 300-400 ppm CO2 levels that the earth would produce naturally. 1500 ppm is getting on up there.

 

[Blade]

See this video. 1500 ppm is getting on up there.

 

 

ugh borring

[ecoli]

ugh borring

 

Something that's boring must not be true then.

 

 

At any rate, I agree with paranoiA on this one. Global warming is not at all difficult for me to accept. Big government solutions are. They've thoroughly mucked up all sorts of things... why let them get involved in this, aside for providing funds for basic research.

 

IMO, bright green environmentalist solutions will be the most effective, economically and for the environment.

[abskebabs]

IMO, bright green environmentalist solutions will be the most effective, economically and for the environment.

 

I have my own ideas about what these could be. Could you offer some specific ones you know?

[swansont]

is it manmade?

 

link?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

and links therein

 

On the issue of global warming and its causes' date=' the SPM states that:[2']

 

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.

 

Followup discussions along this line belong in one of the several existing threads on the topic. This thread is about the politics involved.

[Blade]

Something that's boring must not be true then.

 

 

At any rate, I agree with paranoiA on this one. Global warming is not at all difficult for me to accept. Big government solutions are. They've thoroughly mucked up all sorts of things... why let them get involved in this, aside for providing funds for basic research.

 

IMO, bright green environmentalist solutions will be the most effective, economically and for the environment.

 

and what exactly is causing the climate the change? Importand question to ask imo.

 

"right green environmentalist solutions" what is that? sound like some of those green front extremist wearing masks that put animal life over human life.

[bascule]

and what exactly is causing the climate the change? Importand question to ask imo.

 

These radiative forcings:

 

[Blade]

is that the consensus?

[bascule]

is that the consensus?

 

It's the only theory that, when tested in a model, successfully reconstructs the historical record.

 

So... yes.

[john5746]

is that the consensus?

 

Well, God could be doing it. I mean, we have to keep that option open.

[ParanoiA]

There must be a way to link the capital to the movement. Economics is about supply and demand, so could it be as simple as campaigning demand? If everyone wants it, the market will give it. For all the time spent lobbying the government to circumvent the people's will and force their causes upon them, they could have spent all of that time simply persuading the masses to get into renewable energies.

 

The drawback being that corn is fraking joke, just stop it, I mean really, stop it. I see no advantage to dropping one finite source of energy for yet another finite source, particularly when we need land for food and the population of the earth isn't shrinking. Hydrogen, solar, these are as infinite as we can realistically expect. I'm completely into it, and can't wait to buy my first hydrogen or all electric vehicle - and I really can't wait to get off the grid and go solar. I hate the electric company.

[SkepticLance]

The key question is what needs and should be done?

 

It is rather obvious that certain idiotic policies have resulted in idiotic responses. Kyoto has resulted in certain European nations importing palm oil to use as biodiesel, which has resulted in certain Asian nations cutting down vast areas of rain forest to grow oil palms. This has resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas emission, not a decrease. Idiots!

 

This lesson, along with corn ethanol (also idiotic) shows the danger of precipitous and panicky action. What is needed is carefully planned, well researched, and well managed action. The action required also needs to be something that will be readily accepted by the population.

 

For example : telling people they have to give up their beloved motor cars and switch to bicycles and public transport is not going to be politically acceptable. However, developing cheap battery powered electric cars for city commuting is far more likely to be acceptable.

 

We also need non-greenhouse gas electricity production. I personally think that the big powers (US, EEC, Japan, China) should be cooperating in developing a nuclear power station design that is safer, cleaner and cheaper, and then mass producing it. We may need 1000 extra nuclear power stations. With abundant clean electricity, a heap of other clean options open up.

 

Care and planning will achieve acceptable results, where panic and stupidity will not.

[swansont]

The key question is what needs and should be done?

 

It is rather obvious that certain idiotic policies have resulted in idiotic responses. Kyoto has resulted in certain European nations importing palm oil to use as biodiesel, which has resulted in certain Asian nations cutting down vast areas of rain forest to grow oil palms. This has resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas emission, not a decrease. Idiots!

 

This lesson, along with corn ethanol (also idiotic) shows the danger of precipitous and panicky action. What is needed is carefully planned, well researched, and well managed action. The action required also needs to be something that will be readily accepted by the population.

 

I'm not sure corn ethanol in the US is a panicky action, I think it's more of a lobby-opportunist reaction to boost subsidies. Doing something that looks green, but doesn't do much to address the problem. Meanwhile, congress waffles on subsidies for solar.

[ecoli]

and what exactly is causing the climate the change? Importand question to ask imo.

People are telling you... it's not my fault you choose to ignore the answers.

 

"right green environmentalist solutions" what is that? sound like some of those green front extremist wearing masks that put animal life over human life.

Actually it's a movement that prefers to let the free market deal with environmentalist issues, rather than big government. Innovative technology not necessarily sponsored by the government.

 

I guess you're not really that good at guessing what things are by how they "sound."

[bascule]

I'm not sure corn ethanol in the US is a panicky action, I think it's more of a lobby-opportunist reaction to boost subsidies. Doing something that looks green, but doesn't do much to address the problem. Meanwhile, congress waffles on subsidies for solar.

 

Corn ethanol is crap, but I have great hopes for algae-based biofuels.

[SkepticLance]

Yes.

We have a research team here is lil ol NZ who have developed a means of growing bio-diesel algae in sewage oxidation ponds. They grow like crazy, and produce biomass that is 50% oil. They can be harvested easily and the oil converted to bio-diesel.

 

Of course, we do not have enough oxidation ponds for all our fuel needs, but there are lots of ways of making biofuel, and all methods combined may do it.

 

For example : if we want ethanol from corn, the smart way is to harvest the corn grains for food, and then put the rest of the plant material into a fermenter that will digest it to sugars for fermentation. Several research groups already claim to have the basic technology worked out.

[Psyber]

Immanuel Velikovsky's version of global patterns, and world change, make as much sense as anybody else's. 30 years ago the mass of scientific opinion suggested we were facing another ice age in the near future. Now the opposite view is popular and equally PC.

 

Both positions are about as proven as the Phlogiston theory was.

[swansont]

Immanuel Velikovsky's version of global patterns, and world change, make as much sense as anybody else's. 30 years ago the mass of scientific opinion suggested we were facing another ice age in the near future. Now the opposite view is popular and equally PC.

 

Both positions are about as proven as the Phlogiston theory was.

 

Citations for this mass of scientific work? Without them this is just an empty claim. Newsweek and Time, et. al, don't count as scientific literature. Neither do articles that merely identify the cooling that actually happened. By this analysis, the mass of scientific papers on the 70's was opposite of what you claim: 7 for cooling, 42 for warming, 19 neutral. At least one of those seven was a prediction based on aerosol levels rising dramatically, so it was (like some GW papers) not a prediction of the future, but a conditional prediction, and is not necessarily wrong (they used a smaller climate sensitivity than has been determined, based on better data, so in hindsight, the analysis is actually flawed)

 

Phlogiston was falsified. Do you have evidence that falsifies the IPCC reports?

 

Velikovsky's work has been thoroughly debunked, though we could go into that as a separate topic.

[Aardvark]

The Global Warming theory is used by many on the left/liberal political spectrum to push for increases in government power and control over all aspects of peoples lives.

 

That is why so many so called 'paleoconservatives' (nice use of perjorative and biased language there) have a problem with the 'consensus' on global warming. especially as so many of the demanded solutions are completely ineffectual or even counterproductive.