Yeah, I keep hearing that from a pal in upstate NY. But it’s not like that around here.
(You know, of course, that “warming” does not mean “it’s getting warmer all over the place.”)
I think **sqweels **is more on the money:
A good counter to this would be specific cites to point out where it is getting warmer, currently.
I am 40 years old, I have been a vegetarian for 15+ years, I am (for the most part) extremely socially liberal, am a longtime avid outdoor sports enthusiast, I have been recycling since childhood and I am just basically overall a prime candidate for the type who would typically make up the one of most active, hardcore environmentalist, Al Gore supporting, nature-child type you could ever imagine in your wildest stereotyping dreams…
That said, I am also quite skeptical about human caused global climate change, and what’s more, even IF it is happening and happening right now, I despair of any substantial positive changes being made anytime soon, as China and India are not about to put the brakes on their emerging economies by implementing restrictions that will amount to anything.
I conserve energy to save money, I recycle to save money, I dont eat meat because I feel it’s a healthy way to live my life, not because I have any delusions that my choices will somehow reduce methane gas in the environment or that a child in Africa will have more access to grain or water because I will not eat a burger.
When I want to go on vacation, I happily get on a 747 and sit back with no guilt whatsoever. If I want to ski, I drive on up the mountain and enjoy myself, instead of taking the ski-bus which would burn a couple of extra hours away from my day on the slopes.
My meager efforts to help the environment amount to virtually nothing, but I still somehow feel better about myself for them, small as they may be.
If humans are causing global warming, I feel that I might as well do what ever the hell I want to, because any personal sacrifices made on my part are not even a drop in a drop in the bucket.
Even so, I will still try and do what I can (within reason), even if it’s all for nothing, because there is no reason for me not to…
Quick datapoint to fight ignorance:
Of course, if you’re from the UN=scary monster camp then I can’t help you. But REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) is a huge issue.
There are all sorts of parallels to the US-conservative views. The people with the most property rights over the trees stand (heh) to make piles of money to be made, so na-na-na-na I can’t hear you. That sort of thing.
Approaching the issue is pretty thorny. The Kyoto drafters recognized this and punted the issue for a while (e.g., forest projects didn’t qualify under the CDM). The west has a hard time deciding to give up its Hummers and associated lifestyle. How then to convince a developing nation not to tap into one of the few economic resources it has? How to value a parcel of land in the CO2 regime? Standing carbon? What about land that has no forest yet? Pay by the sequestered year? Who pays? How much? For what? It’s thorny all right.
But aside from the nasty problem of finding an equitable and acceptable solution, it’s not possible to claim that deforestation isn’t a major element of climate change. Well, it’s possible to claim it, but not possible to do so with either a straight face or a shred of intellectual integrity.[sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*This does not preclude debate over the nature of the problem or magnitude over the contribution. Current science is open to change and interpretation. Impossibility claim based on wholesale rejection of the science. [/sup]
Start here (IPCC Summary for Policymakers PDF).
See, for example, figure SPM.3. It graphs observed changes in global average surface temperature, global average sea level from tide gauge and satellite data, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April.
Of course, per the point of the OP if there is just nyuck-nyuck denial, facts and figures don’t make a bit of difference. You’re only wasting your time and annoying the pig.
But conservatism does tend to be the philosophy that takes a just-so position on any numer of issues. Traditional values know best. The conservative position on gay marriage is unambiguously opposed on the grounds that any exception to the traditional rules defining such a social institution could have far-reaching consequences for society in general. That and the extent to which the conservative movement is in consensus that the facts are that preferred facts about homosexuality are that it’s not inborn and subject to reversal, can be held in comparison to other issues as to whether there’s consistency or contradiction.
But there is a vast gulf between 1 and 2 and between those and 3 and 4. The question is, does conservatism come into play in any way in deciding between the 3 options of emissions, something else, or not at all? If it’s too narrow an issue for conservatism to have anything to say, that’s fine.
(I want to rule out discussion of differences in policy options and focus on how the preferred set of facts comes about. After all, the facts precede the policy.)
Cite for this being an articulated position? At best there is* It’s happening, caused by man, but too expensive to reverse so therefore I’ll throw out platitudes, slogans and misdirection under the guise of the free market being the best way to take care of it*.
Unless one radically redefines “free market,” what market mechanism has been proposed that could ostensibly scrap Kyoto et al and yet achieve marginally comparable reductions? While the voluntary market does exist and there are billions of dollars at play, there is nowhere near the volume of the compliance market.
OK, but this might suggest an underlying conservative philosophy that mankind is not capable of harming the Earth, that we’re granted dominion over nature, that the Almighty will one day fix and remake the world, or simply that it’s always been a truism that the vastness of nature is capable of absorbing anything puny humans emit.
Am I kind of on the right track?
While the question is, what is the conservative position, there is no question that YEC is a conservative position. This has been the prevailing position for most of Western history and of course is dictated by the Biblical world view, the belief in which has been handed down within a culture that has dominated society and which is resistent to change.
Indeed, the Biblical world view looms so large when we think of the conservative movement and it’s promotion and defence is so consistent with how we would define classical conservatism, that clarification is in order as to how the movement can embrace widespread deviation from these values.
OK, but given what you’ve learned so far, do you lean in favor of one of the GW options: not happening, occuring natually or human-caused?
But isn’t it liberal to voice skepticism of established orthodoxy?
Well then, what’s all this about intelligent design? It’s apparently a very popular position, so where is it coming from and what’s the name of that place?
And what then is the conservative approach?
Wouldn’t it be great if Starving Artist were to post again in this thread, and fully acknowledge that he was wrong about the various “facts” he posted?
I’m quite surprised I was able to post that with a straight face.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Conservatives have a horrible track record re: ridiculing Liberals et al for trying to save the environment. Another Conservative tactic I’ve seen lately is that AGW is just like the Y2K problem. Hey, that worked out just fine, so clearly the Liberals are wrong on AGW, as well. :rolleyes:
One’s opinion on a scientific matter shouldn’t be based on a political ideology anyway. The data seem to suggest anthropogenic climate change is the case. I wish it didn’t, but there it is. The closer people look the more it does seem to be the case, and that’s not how it generally goes with theories that are wrong.
I’m a big fan of science, but climatology isn’t my thing and I’m not qualified to be skeptical on any meaningful level. The claim certainly isn’t absurd, it’s not easily debunked like UFOs and the like, it doesn’t violate any physical laws, it all holds together as a theory. The theory might well be wrong, and it no doubt needs fine tuning if it’s right, but I have nothing to point at that would make me question the results of thousands of hours of research. Why should I doubt the fundamentals? Certainly not because of Starving Artist’s cherrypicked list of what the hippies said in decades past. I think there’s a preponderance of scientifickal evidence, and the anti- argument is all politically- or financially based. That’s where the ‘debunkings’ seems to come from, anyway: libertarian and conservative publications. Or just from internet denizens who suddenly think themselves in a position to offer expert opinions on the matter.
Do not post personal insults in Great Debates.
A bit of humorous badinage might be acceptable, but it has to be clearly intended as humor and your post is not quite sufficiently coherent to be clearly anything.
This is a Warning to behave yourself.
[ /Moderating ]
Nope. This is it, we’re going to die.
That the average person even has an opinion on Global Warming is idiotic. That it splits pretty nicely along partisan lines is even more ludicrous.
So you think that it is quite possible that the dead might rise to feed off the flesh of the living? How else could you possibly interpret that? I responded to snark with snark.
Man’s activities increase atmospheric CO2; CO2 is increasing; CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such must tend to warm the planet. This much could hardly be disputed by anyone who pays even lip service to science. Debate should be confined to second-order effects, and whether warming is “bad.”
Yet, like junior-high debaters, certain vested interests and their whores will force their opponents to waste time debating each of the points.
One of the quoted points above is correct: market solutions, e.g. carbon tax, are the best way to go.
One thing that would be amusing were the issue not so serious is the Bush-Cheney pronouncements. I may have the dates wrong, but as of May 17, 2003, climate change was uncertain and more research was needed. By May 19, 2003, it was too late to do anything about climate change.
Thus, May 18, 2003 was the very brief window for Congress to act. Too bad they were busy debating another sex scandal.
Given the recent revelations, I believe that virtually all of the data has to be gone over again with a fine-toothed comb.
The so-called “ClimateGate” (I hate that term) revelations do not in any way disprove AGW, but they do cast doubt upon the validity of the “scientific consensus”. If a proper review (conducted by impartial, qualified, scientists, rather than advocates for either side) shows that the data is in fact valid, then we can move forward. If it shows that the data is at best equivocal, that we can relax.
I do tend to believe that there is some warming going on, am not (yet) convinced that there is a significant anthropogenic component, but that the panicmongers (such as Gore and Lovelock) are grossly distorting the science to advance agendas that have little to nothing to do with the subject.
I think it used to be that way. But a lot of things have suddenly changed. It also used to be sound liberal thought that art should be provocative. But after Salman Rushdie, Gert Wilders and the Muhammed Cartoons etc. I hear many liberal commentators say how provocative art is very bad and self-censureship is a virtue that should be practised more actively. It also used to be said that liberals were progressive. The most by liberals loved song in Denmark in 2009 was a song with the text: “Give me back Denmark, like in the good old days.” Natasja “Gi’ mig Danmark tilbage”) which I think is quite telling of a movement that seem mostly concerned about how they can maintain current welfare programs (& etc) rather than develop society in new directions.
There’s no intelligent design around here. Scandinavia. Neither conservative or liberal. There is however a section of liberals that subscribe to a rather fuzzy set of ideals centered around a kind of new-age gaia-ism which certainly contain a number of elements that are not compatible with Darwinism or science in general. Overall I think liberals are more prone to use unscientifically faith or feeling based arguments than conservative.