Ask Me Help Desk - Kyoto and the last frontier

Hello skell:

There are still a few righty's who think global warming is Gore's idea. We have some here.

However, it would seem that ordinary conservatives would embrace it for the following two reasons: 1) It would be prudent to embrace a policy that "conserves" the status quo. I don't mean the BUSINESS status quo. I mean the LEVELS OF THE OCEANS status quo. 2) There's jillions to be made in the new industries being created. That too would seem to be right up a conservatives alley.

However, they don't seem to be pleased with the news. I don't know why. Maybe the people who deny global warming aren't real conservatives at all. Maybe they're stockholders in the entrenched polluters. They surely sound like it.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bali organizers cancelled a scheduled press conference Thursday morning by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) - a group of international scientists who protest the scientific basis of climate alarmism.Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again

It’s the second such incident in a week.

The Heartland Institute reports that “earlier in the week. . . (UN official) Barbara Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises. (In addition) ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits.”
U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference - by Tom Swiss - The Heartland Institute

Didn't Bush catch all kind of hell for 'censoring' an alleged climate expert at NASA? It's good to know that silencing critics isn't just a Bush thing...

Skell,

You make a few good arguments in your post.

However, consider that mankind as been around for either 6,000 years or 50,000-150,000 years, depending on whether you believe that Bible or archeology/paleantology. That is considerably longer than the 1500-year cycle of global warming and cooling that we are talking about. Mankind grew and flourished at colder temperatures and at warmer temperatures because we are the most adaptable creatures on Earth. The argument that we need to stop global warming because of our own safety and survival is somewhat lacking, in my opinion. We've survived these natural cycles for a long time.

Second, your argument assumes that anything we do will have an appreciable effect on global warming. If it is a natural phenomenon, then nothing we do is going to change it or slow it or stop it from happening.

Your argument that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from taking action is the best argument out there. And to a certain extent, I agree. But not to the point of creating an economic downturn that will have a greater effect on human survival than global warming ever will. More people will starve to death or die from disease and other poverty-related issues due to economic upheaval than ever will die from global warming. Just take a look at the most poverty-striken parts of the world and tell me that they will be better off for the kind of economic downturn we're talking about. If THEY were given a choice which do you think they go for... action to stop global warming or an improved economic situation in their part of the world?

You, like many others I speak to, fail to realize that the economy effects REAL PEOPLE. When you say "there is downturn in the world economy because of this, but nevertheless we still survive and we live to fight another day. The economy recovers and we move forward" you are forgetting that people are affected by economic decisions, and in some places they are effected in a real life-or-death way. "The Economy" is not some nebulous thing for businessmen and investors and bankers like myself. It is the lifeblood that keeps food on the tables, roofs over the heads, and clothing on the backs of billions of people. And messing with it has huge consequences... and some people won't recover from those consequences. So I don't agree that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. It is true to a point, but only to a point, and past that point, we REALLY need to be very careful of what actions we take toward the economy.

As for using me as your example... last night we had temperatures in the low 20s (farenheit) in my area, and winds gusting into the high 40 MPH range. It was friggin' COLD out there, and it will probably get colder before it gets warmer. I certainly wouldn't mind if temperatures rose an everage of 2-3 degrees in my area over the next two or three decades. As for the really hot places (like Houston, Texas, where my wife's family lives) they already have summers that hit the 120 range. Would an increase in temps of 2-3 degrees really affect them? They already go from their air-conditioned homes to their air-conditioned cars, to their air-conditioned malls, to their air-conditioned offices, etc. The extra 2-3 degrees will not have an appreciable effect on them one way or the other. As I said, we're adaptable. That's why humans can live in climates that range from deserts to tundras to rain forests to mountain ranges. We're the only species on Earth that lives in such a diverse range of climates. Very few other animals can adapt to differing climates as we do. That's why we'll survive, and why global warming isn't all that big a deal to humanity.

And we have the ability to extend our adaptability to other species as well... we have created conservation ranges for near-extinct animals that are now thriving. So we have proven the ability to save other spieces from the effects of global warming too.

Simply put, Skell, it isn't that big a deal.

That said, there are some very good reasons to work on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. The weakness of being reliant on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil sources is the major one, in my opinion. And we should allow the capitalist system to develop a solution to that problem as it has for most other problems we have encountered over the years. But global warming is NOT a reason to make major changes to our economy.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Skuffy is right .......people are bad for the planet !!! Children 'bad for planet' | NEWS.com.au

We already knew that, what with those folks now aborting babies to save the earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello skell:

There are still a few righty's who think global warming is Gore's idea. We have some here.

However, it would seem that ordinary conservatives would embrace it for the following two reasons: 1) It would be prudent to embrace a policy that "conserves" the status quo. I don't mean the BUSINESS status quo. I mean the LEVELS OF THE OCEANS status quo. 2) There's jillions to be made in the new industries being created. That too would seem to be right up a conservatives alley.

However, they don’t seem to be pleased with the news. I don't know why. Maybe the people who deny global warming aren't real conservatives at all. Maybe they're stockholders in the entrenched polluters. They surely sound like it.

Excon the science mon, for someone who bellyaches about losing rights and supports a guy name Ron Paul who says "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards," it seems odd you would take issue with conservatives telling the UN and the Greenies to mind their own business on this.

Like tom and others I believe it makes sense to clean the air and pollute less, but I take issue with the agenda - and it is an agenda - driven by politics and not science.

Take this quote by al-AP reporter Charles J. Hanley on the latest UN global warming scheme for instance:

Quote:

What they decide in the next two years will help determine how much the world warms in the decades to come.

How so seeing as how science can't even guess what the weather will be at 2:00 o'clock, let alone in 2020? I guess they missed the fact that Oklahoma has been under a blanket of ice and snow for the last week.

Steve

When we talk about climate change I'm not so sure we are talking about the people of New York, Houston or Oklahoma. Sometime's the picture is a little bigger than our own back yard.

Whether it is cyclical or not I really don't know, but even in my short life time I have noticed some sharp differences in weather patterns, ocean currents and temperatures etc. I'm surfer and I can tell you now that water temperatures and currents have changed pretty dramatically pretty quickly down here. Dismissing scientists who claim that climate change is a problem is just as easy as dismissing those who don't. But it really appears to me that the bulk of the world now admits there is a problem and that we have contributed significantly to it.

If it was cyclical over 1500 years you wouldn't think id be able to notice a difference over 10 or so would you. I think it would be so gradual that you would hardly notice a difference in a lifetime.

India teams up with China, Pak at climate change meet-India-The Times of India

"At the ad-hoc working group meeting on Monday, India was told, "You have the largest number of billionaires. Why can't you accept cuts and targets."
The riposte from Indian and Chinese officials was almost instantaneous. "We are large countries. Our poverty is just as large," they said"

So India and China feel that climate change regulations will hinder their development.

India 1.12 billion
China 1.32 billion

That is quite a lot of people.

Look at any major US university college and graduate departments in computers , engineering, the 'hard' sciences. These Asians are way over represented compared to their proportion of the general population. These are not dumb or ignorant people, yet their native countries' governments are not marching in step at Bali. Hmmmm...

China and India must be right wing, and don't believe in the wisdom of Gore.