Can you be a conservative and still believe in climate change?
I say Yes, it's not agreement or disagreement with the Theory that determines whether or not you're a true conservative but what do you do about it? In a word Nothing:)
Most conservatives go all out to debunk global warming and the reason for that is all the regulations, laws and international treaties that would go into effect should it be definitively proven. To me a libertarian type conservative would say if global warming exists what of it? enjoy your life and move on. Expected soapie to chime in here.
Oh yeah but while we're on the subject what about that rather significant snowstorm we had two days before Halloween up here in NY? I had this thought on that day, I should be raking leaves two days before Halloween not shoveling snow.
The snow doesn't have anything to do with it beyond illustrating how the whole pattern is being screwed up. That's what global warming is doing; screwing up the patterns.
Lets not forget that Liberals only care about very important things like Global Warming, organic breakfast cereal, Seedless Watermelon, Green Dry Cleaners, Open borders, the United Nations, Illegal Immigrants, and saving the Planet,
Conservative’s only care about, Corporate Profits, Greedy Employers, Women’s Rights, God, Country, and themselves.
I have to admit Saty even if global warming is true should it concern me? All it means is that I wouldn't have to shovel snow as much. Mal is exactly right, we all have different priorities, for instance personally I'm not into recycling at all. Doesn't make me a bad person.
I blogged about this once before but what I love about the global warmers is they'll take the most anomalous snowstorm and point to it as evidence of global warming, disrupting the patterns so the more it snows the more the Earth is heating up or something like that.
Surface temperatures are on the up and up and that has much to do with all the global warming hysteria as well as solar activity. Many many different factors at play here.
This idea that by curbing your behavior you're going to 'save' the earth is a canard. The earth is going to continue changing and evolving as it has done since it's creation. It will outlive all of us.
As individuals we should be responsible with respect to our energy usage and overall impact on the environment but we don't need to get all crazy about it.
There's a reason we evolved beyond Ox plows and washing clothes by hand.
I remember the time when aerosol cans were the villain, stop using them (ok) and everything will be better. So wait, by using a can of hairspray we're really cutting a hole in the ozone? Maybe the real question isn't so much about global warming as should we even be concerned about it?
Global Warming may very well be Occurring, yet what is Debatable is whether or not Man is the Cause. Instead of Man Causing it, what is really happening is a Normal Warming and Cooling Cycle that has been Going on since the beginning of Time. I Guess this is sort of the Same as what Soap Said.
Actually Saty there are over 1,000 of them. The thing that needs to be understood is that yes, surface temperatures have risen. It is only sensible they would. Your house is going to considerably warmer if you invite forty people over versus two.
Atmospheric or global temperatures are quite something else and there is plenty of data which calls to question the notion of man's culpability and the perception of the deleterious effects thereof.
In 1830 the world human population reached 1 billion; a hundred years later it had doubled. In 2111 there are 7 billion of us. The average per capita energy consumption is 1.5 tons oil equivalent per year. I suppose the impact of that can be argued, but those that deal with the future need recognize that thermal effects on the ecosystem may well affect society; the exponential nature of these phenomena are cause for concern in the ares of disease, starvation, population shifts and internecine war. Probably why responsible government sectors are concerned, as we note from this 450 page study ...
I do not take at all seriously a climate change "study" from any branch of the United States military given the destructive nature of the United States military and really the military in general.
To me this is pretty basic obvious stuff but my brain is wired along different lines than ordinary folks so let me explain.
Take a system that involves producing stability out of a lot of constantly changing variables. Homeostasis. For example let's use the human body and specifically let's use the example of potassium. In the blood potassium is only therapeutic in a very narrow window, from 3.5-5.5. Move not very far out of those parameters, you're very sick; move a little further than that, you're dead. So the maintenance of serum potassium relies on a lot of things but quite heavily on the kidneys.
Okay, so day in day out you don't take vitamins or anything, you don't eat anything special, you just carry on and your kidneys do all this nonstop regulation of this and that, little tweaks here and there, to make sure your potassium levels are okay.
But then you get some e.coli gastroenteritis from eating at Soap's unregulated, uninspected deli (it was your first visit and so you had no idea). And you get the major pukes AND the poops too. You can't keep anything down or in. So now your potassium levels are going wild. Your kidneys are trying desperately to keep up with the monstrous changes going on, and at first they do, but as you keep up with the puking and the pooping it's stressing every system in your body, getting you totally dehydrated, and as a result things get past the point where the body is able to maintain its homeostasis, and your potassium level gets to a critical point, you go into a fatal arrhythmia, and you die.
The point being that a system can maintain its homeostasis only so far. It is unreasonable to think that you can puke for 36 hours nonstop, or have unrelenting diarrhea for days, and still maintain that homeostasis. In the same way, it is unreasonable to expect that we can dump trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (that would not otherwise be there if natural processes were going on), and at the same time clearcut millions of acres of trees (that in a normal, unadulterated system would work to balance the excess co2) and not see any adverse effects of the same.
You're screwing the system from both ends-by adding the gas and at the same time removing its remedy-but you expect the system to be able to keep up?
That is a completely irrational expectation and goes against all sense whatsoever.
Satyavati, "Well, and there you have the definitive answer. Now just to get the real scientists to believe you."
I'm Basing this on what Real Scientists have said, Satyavati. The Main Cause that Environmentalists Deny is that of Solar Activity. Soap is the one who has been Explaining it the Best.
"This idea that by curbing your behavior you're going to 'save' the earth is a canard. The earth is going to continue changing and evolving as it has done since it's creation. It will outlive all of us."
"and there is plenty of data which calls to question the notion of man's culpability and the perception of the deleterious effects thereof."
Sure Man may have some thermal effects on the ecosystem, as BB put it, yet Scientists Disagree on Exactly how much of this Warming is Really Due to the Activities of Man. Until Scientists are more in Agreement about it, I'm just not buying it.
Scientists Disagree on Exactly how much of this Warming is Really Due to the Activities of Man. Until Scientists are more in Agreement about it, I'm just not buying it.
So let me apply this to my analogy..
'the family disagrees on whether the e.coli gastroenteritis was caused by the mozzarella sticks or the antipasto platter. Until they decide which one was the culprit, the patient's not going to the ER.'
Basically what you're saying is that you're going to ignore symptoms, going to ignore possible causes for problems, going to just not give a shit until it's too late.
Fatal arrhythmia. All because you were too damn stubborn to intervene before it was too late.
And yeah, this 'changing and evolving' would be absolutely spot on true, except it's not 'changing and evolving' as it's always done.
We're fucking with it in monstrous ways that have never happened in its entire history.
We're completely unbalancing the system, we're dumping gases into the atmosphere and at the same time taking away the trees that have always previously absorbed those gases.
Does this not make any sense to anyone at all? Sure, if the earth was working according to its own processes, yeah, but we're screwing with it from both sides of the coin! How do you expect there NOT to be problems??
I am utterly convinced that the reason people choose to believe that anthropogenic global warming IS real is because the solutions would inconvenience them.
I am utterly convinced that the reason people choose to believe that anthropogenic global warming IS NOT real is because the solutions would inconvenience them.
I believe in being a responsible individual with respect to energy and the environment. I recycle. I turn off lights when they're not in use. I have some low flow aerators in my home. I grow alot of my own organic food, etc.
When you start getting into industrial plants, multi-national corporations and the like, their footprint becomes much much larger.
We certainly could go to great lengths to curb their behavior and in many cases this is already occuring.
I'll be honest, I am not want to forego my Jeep Grand Cherokee, my computers and smartphone, and all the other modern conveniences the production of which requires, in some cases, massive amounts of energy to produce.
We can and should be smarter about energy and the environment but in my opinion, far far too much of the solutions being hurled by the environmental movement of today is fascist in nature.
It is, as Czech President Vaclav Klaus described it, something of a communist/fascist/collectivist movement (hwhich is packaged under the guise of "saving the earth" or "going green".
We don't need huge massive governmental solutions to these issues. To infer otherwise is really to advocate for the confiscation of private property and governmental authority to regulate and take over massive sectors of the economy.
Their are alterior motives in much of this entire movement. I am naturally skeptical of them.
Like Usual, there is Truth on Both Sides of this Issue, yet the Environmentalists are all the Time Taking the Issue to Extremes, especially here in California.
I'm Still in Agreement with Soap. I Agree with everything that he has said.
Right... those leftist bastards that want to protect national parks, make sure the water and air stay clean, keep radioactive waste from giving little kids cancer, protect oceans and keep wildlife from being harmed by things like massive oil spills.
Point of information: The National Park system's largest advocate and proponent was Teddy Roosevelt a Republican (politically speaking from the right).
Man's actions can and have had at times a deletarious effect on ecosystems and his environment. There are and have been instances where man's actions have been beneficial to ecosystems and the environment. The forces of nature and earth itself has had a greater impact on the planet than man's relatively short existence ever has.
Teddy Roosevelt (politically speaking from the right) Yep, Lincoln and Eisenhower as well. Those three wouldn't get a straw in the current Iowa Poll, the right having shifted beyond the pale....
Hey Sat you should love that show on cable, forget the name of it but it's kind of sci-fi-ish story taking place sometime in the Future when the human species is no more. Dunno man, the ultimate liberal utopia?
Again you have to define exactly what is meant by "beyond the pale." Maybe beyond the pale is a good place to be, depends what the pale is but I believe we've had these discussions before.
The Left has been a "the Scourge of the Job World and Economy". We Need to Weigh all of our Regulation Decisions against, not Only Environmental Concerns, but against Economic Concerns as well and this is something that the Left is not Willing to do. To me, this is a no Brainer.
Beyond the pale..consider the eight durrent GOP candidates. Then consider the GOP history, the heritage: ""I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln - ..... .."I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual – a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enourmous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course be aimed merey at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits." - Teddy Roosevelt - ..... "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny spliner group, of course, that believes you can do these things...their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Dwight Eisenhower - ....just sayin...
Perhaps I'm a RINO too. Perhaps that is nothing more then a Label that Extremists Place on People who they do not Like because they Compromise once in awhile.
BB I believe most conservatives want to reform SS and not to abolish it, even Rick Perry doesn't really talk about doing away with it entirely anymore. I think you're talking about the hardcore libertarians and I'll let him speak for himself.
Is that why they're the party of 'No'?
ReplyDelete"Can you be a conservative and still believe in global warming?"
ReplyDeleteI dunno, can you be a conservative and still believe in the moon?
Most conservatives go all out to debunk global warming and the reason for that is all the regulations, laws and international treaties that would go into effect should it be definitively proven. To me a libertarian type conservative would say if global warming exists what of it? enjoy your life and move on. Expected soapie to chime in here.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah but while we're on the subject what about that rather significant snowstorm we had two days before Halloween up here in NY? I had this thought on that day, I should be raking leaves two days before Halloween not shoveling snow.
ReplyDeleteThe snow doesn't have anything to do with it beyond illustrating how the whole pattern is being screwed up. That's what global warming is doing; screwing up the patterns.
ReplyDeleteA conservative believe in global warming?
ReplyDeleteof course not
Lets not forget that Liberals only care about very important things like Global Warming, organic breakfast cereal, Seedless Watermelon, Green Dry Cleaners, Open borders, the United Nations, Illegal Immigrants, and saving the Planet,
ReplyDeleteConservative’s only care about, Corporate Profits, Greedy Employers, Women’s Rights, God, Country, and themselves.
Mal is in a knot because he can't cope with the fact that USMC veterans are standing behind the Occupy movement as OccupyOMC...
ReplyDeletewww.occupymarines.org
I have to admit Saty even if global warming is true should it concern me? All it means is that I wouldn't have to shovel snow as much. Mal is exactly right, we all have different priorities, for instance personally I'm not into recycling at all. Doesn't make me a bad person.
ReplyDeleteI blogged about this once before but what I love about the global warmers is they'll take the most anomalous snowstorm and point to it as evidence of global warming, disrupting the patterns so the more it snows the more the Earth is heating up or something like that.
ReplyDeleteSurface temperatures are on the up and up and that has much to do with all the global warming hysteria as well as solar activity. Many many different factors at play here.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that by curbing your behavior you're going to 'save' the earth is a canard. The earth is going to continue changing and evolving as it has done since it's creation. It will outlive all of us.
As individuals we should be responsible with respect to our energy usage and overall impact on the environment but we don't need to get all crazy about it.
There's a reason we evolved beyond Ox plows and washing clothes by hand.
I remember the time when aerosol cans were the villain, stop using them (ok) and everything will be better. So wait, by using a can of hairspray we're really cutting a hole in the ozone? Maybe the real question isn't so much about global warming as should we even be concerned about it?
ReplyDeleteGlobal Warming may very well be Occurring, yet what is Debatable is whether or not Man is the Cause. Instead of Man Causing it, what is really happening is a Normal Warming and Cooling Cycle that has been Going on since the beginning of Time. I Guess this is sort of the Same as what Soap Said.
ReplyDeleteInstead of Man Causing it, what is really happening is a Normal Warming and Cooling Cycle that has been Going on since the beginning of Time.
ReplyDeleteWell, and there you have the definitive answer.
Now just to get the real scientists to believe you.
Actually Saty there are over 1,000 of them. The thing that needs to be understood is that yes, surface temperatures have risen. It is only sensible they would. Your house is going to considerably warmer if you invite forty people over versus two.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
Atmospheric or global temperatures are quite something else and there is plenty of data which calls to question the notion of man's culpability and the perception of the deleterious effects thereof.
In 1830 the world human population
ReplyDeletereached 1 billion; a hundred years later it had doubled. In 2111 there are 7 billion of us. The
average per capita energy consumption is 1.5 tons oil equivalent per year. I suppose the impact of that can be argued, but
those that deal with the future
need recognize that thermal effects on the ecosystem may
well affect society; the exponential nature of these
phenomena are cause for concern
in the ares of disease, starvation,
population shifts and internecine
war. Probably why responsible government sectors are concerned, as we note from this 450 page study ...
I do not take at all seriously a climate change "study" from any branch of the United States military given the destructive nature of the United States military and really the military in general.
ReplyDeletePot>Kettle>Black.
I'm a freeze baby, I WISH global warming was real!
ReplyDeleteTo me this is pretty basic obvious stuff but my brain is wired along different lines than ordinary folks so let me explain.
ReplyDeleteTake a system that involves producing stability out of a lot of constantly changing variables. Homeostasis. For example let's use the human body and specifically let's use the example of potassium. In the blood potassium is only therapeutic in a very narrow window, from 3.5-5.5. Move not very far out of those parameters, you're very sick; move a little further than that, you're dead. So the maintenance of serum potassium relies on a lot of things but quite heavily on the kidneys.
Okay, so day in day out you don't take vitamins or anything, you don't eat anything special, you just carry on and your kidneys do all this nonstop regulation of this and that, little tweaks here and there, to make sure your potassium levels are okay.
But then you get some e.coli gastroenteritis from eating at Soap's unregulated, uninspected deli (it was your first visit and so you had no idea). And you get the major pukes AND the poops too. You can't keep anything down or in. So now your potassium levels are going wild. Your kidneys are trying desperately to keep up with the monstrous changes going on, and at first they do, but as you keep up with the puking and the pooping it's stressing every system in your body, getting you totally dehydrated, and as a result things get past the point where the body is able to maintain its homeostasis, and your potassium level gets to a critical point, you go into a fatal arrhythmia, and you die.
The point being that a system can maintain its homeostasis only so far. It is unreasonable to think that you can puke for 36 hours nonstop, or have unrelenting diarrhea for days, and still maintain that homeostasis. In the same way, it is unreasonable to expect that we can dump trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (that would not otherwise be there if natural processes were going on), and at the same time clearcut millions of acres of trees (that in a normal, unadulterated system would work to balance the excess co2) and not see any adverse effects of the same.
You're screwing the system from both ends-by adding the gas and at the same time removing its remedy-but you expect the system to be able to keep up?
That is a completely irrational expectation and goes against all sense whatsoever.
Satyavati,
ReplyDelete"Well, and there you have the definitive answer. Now just to get the real scientists to believe you."
I'm Basing this on what Real Scientists have said, Satyavati. The Main Cause that Environmentalists Deny is that of Solar Activity. Soap is the one who has been Explaining it the Best.
"This idea that by curbing your behavior you're going to 'save' the earth is a canard. The earth is going to continue changing and evolving as it has done since it's creation. It will outlive all of us."
"and there is plenty of data which calls to question the notion of man's culpability and the perception of the deleterious effects thereof."
Sure Man may have some thermal effects on the ecosystem, as BB put it, yet Scientists Disagree on Exactly how much of this Warming is Really Due to the Activities of Man. Until Scientists are more in Agreement about it, I'm just not buying it.
Scientists Disagree on Exactly how much of this Warming is Really Due to the Activities of Man. Until Scientists are more in Agreement about it, I'm just not buying it.
ReplyDeleteSo let me apply this to my analogy..
'the family disagrees on whether the e.coli gastroenteritis was caused by the mozzarella sticks or the antipasto platter. Until they decide which one was the culprit, the patient's not going to the ER.'
Basically what you're saying is that you're going to ignore symptoms, going to ignore possible causes for problems, going to just not give a shit until it's too late.
Fatal arrhythmia. All because you were too damn stubborn to intervene before it was too late.
And yeah, this 'changing and evolving' would be absolutely spot on true, except it's not 'changing and evolving' as it's always done.
ReplyDeleteWe're fucking with it in monstrous ways that have never happened in its entire history.
We're completely unbalancing the system, we're dumping gases into the atmosphere and at the same time taking away the trees that have always previously absorbed those gases.
Does this not make any sense to anyone at all? Sure, if the earth was working according to its own processes, yeah, but we're screwing with it from both sides of the coin! How do you expect there NOT to be problems??
I am utterly convinced that the reason people choose to believe that anthropogenic global warming IS real is because the solutions would inconvenience them.
Period.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteI am utterly convinced that the reason people choose to believe that anthropogenic global warming IS NOT real is because the solutions would inconvenience them.
If that were true, Saty, then why would Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, not practice what he preaches?
ReplyDeleteBeth,
ReplyDeleteI don't care what Al Gore does.
Do you care what I do? Like, do you care what light bulbs I use? Or how much trans fat I eat?
ReplyDeleteI believe in being a responsible individual with respect to energy and the environment. I recycle. I turn off lights when they're not in use. I have some low flow aerators in my home. I grow alot of my own organic food, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen you start getting into industrial plants, multi-national corporations and the like, their footprint becomes much much larger.
We certainly could go to great lengths to curb their behavior and in many cases this is already occuring.
I'll be honest, I am not want to forego my Jeep Grand Cherokee, my computers and smartphone, and all the other modern conveniences the production of which requires, in some cases, massive amounts of energy to produce.
We can and should be smarter about energy and the environment but in my opinion, far far too much of the solutions being hurled by the environmental movement of today is fascist in nature.
It is, as Czech President Vaclav Klaus described it, something of a communist/fascist/collectivist movement (hwhich is packaged under the guise of "saving the earth" or "going green".
We don't need huge massive governmental solutions to these issues. To infer otherwise is really to advocate for the confiscation of private property and governmental authority to regulate and take over massive sectors of the economy.
Their are alterior motives in much of this entire movement. I am naturally skeptical of them.
Far more pressing of a matter in my opinion is a total collapse of the dollar; an economic crisis not an environmental one.
ReplyDeleteMan is the scourge of the Earth, an old familiar theme of the Left.
ReplyDeleteLike Usual, there is Truth on Both Sides of this Issue, yet the Environmentalists are all the Time Taking the Issue to Extremes, especially here in California.
ReplyDeleteI'm Still in Agreement with Soap. I Agree with everything that he has said.
"Man is the scourge of the Earth, an old familiar theme of the Left."
ReplyDeleteYou denying the truth of that statement?
The actual true statement is that the Left is the scourge of the Earth.
ReplyDeleteRight... those leftist bastards that want to protect national parks, make sure the water and air stay clean, keep radioactive waste from giving little kids cancer, protect oceans and keep wildlife from being harmed by things like massive oil spills.
ReplyDeleteThose leftist bastards!! How DARE they!!
Point of information: The National Park system's largest advocate and proponent was Teddy Roosevelt a Republican (politically speaking from the right).
ReplyDeleteCarry on with your left/right arguments.
Man's actions can and have had at times a deletarious effect on ecosystems and his environment. There are and have been instances where man's actions have been beneficial to ecosystems and the environment. The forces of nature and earth itself has had a greater impact on the planet than man's relatively short existence ever has.
ReplyDeleteTeddy Roosevelt (politically speaking from the right) Yep,
ReplyDeleteLincoln and Eisenhower as well.
Those three wouldn't get a straw in the current Iowa Poll, the
right having shifted beyond the
pale....
Hey Sat you should love that show on cable, forget the name of it but it's kind of sci-fi-ish story taking place sometime in the Future when the human species is no more. Dunno man, the ultimate liberal utopia?
ReplyDeleteThe right hasn't shifted yet BB. If they had, you wouldn't have half of the Tea Party caucus voting to raise the debt ceiling.
ReplyDeleteAgain you have to define exactly what is meant by "beyond the pale." Maybe beyond the pale is a good place to be, depends what the pale is but I believe we've had these discussions before.
ReplyDeleteThe Left has been a "the Scourge of the Job World and Economy". We Need to Weigh all of our Regulation Decisions against, not Only Environmental Concerns, but against Economic Concerns as well and this is something that the Left is not Willing to do. To me, this is a no Brainer.
ReplyDeleteI Assume that Beyond the Pale Means Past the Balanced Center. The Right has Shifted Way Left and this is not a Good Thing.
ReplyDeleteLeft/Right paradigm in full effect here.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the pale..consider the eight
ReplyDeletedurrent GOP candidates. Then consider the
GOP history, the heritage:
""I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln -
.....
.."I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual – a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enourmous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course be aimed merey at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits." - Teddy Roosevelt -
.....
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny spliner group, of course, that believes you can do these things...their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Dwight Eisenhower -
....just sayin...
They were just RINOs, BB.
ReplyDeleteNot REAL conservatives/Republicans.
Perhaps I'm a RINO too. Perhaps that is nothing more then a Label that Extremists Place on People who they do not Like because they Compromise once in awhile.
ReplyDeleteBB I believe most conservatives want to reform SS and not to abolish it, even Rick Perry doesn't really talk about doing away with it entirely anymore. I think you're talking about the hardcore libertarians and I'll let him speak for himself.
ReplyDelete