Do YOU believe in anthropogenic global warming?

 

Or climate change? [I started this so that we could discuss the issue of a shorter thread]

UPDATE: Here is a simple test that is meant for school teachers in order to demonstrate to children the effects of Carbon Dioxide CO2 on the atmosphere.  Basically the tests calls for a thermometer to be inserted into two different 2 litre plastic bottles, then fill one up with pure CO2 and leave the other with just normal air; place them each under a heat lamp and after 20 minutes, measure both temperatures.  It is estimated that the difference can be as much as 4 degrees higher with the pure CO2 versus the regular air.  Then, lest the little rug rats pooh pooh a 4 degree difference in temperature, the propagandists teachers are instructed thusly:

“Even over a small time period such as 20 minutes we are still able to get a difference of 4 degrees in temperature between the two samples. Students may not be impressed with such a small temperature difference in the lab [we’ll show them!].  However, it needs to be stressed that scientists are in general agreement [this part IS true, as far as it goes] that an average increase of just 2 degrees celsius across the planet could have catastrophic effects on crop production and cause sea levels to increase significantly resulting in major flooding.”

Can my widdle weaders find one widdle prwobwem wid this experiment?

Think hard.

Isn’t this PROOF that the earth’s atmosphere is going to raise 4 degrees, Florida will be under water and we are all gonna die!!!!???

First of all, if the atmosphere ever becomes 100% pure CO2, then global warming will be the least of our worries. We’ll all die due to lack of oxygen. 

Second, pure CO2 only raised the temperature 4 degrees. But wait, John, remember the warning our teachers gave us?? 2 degrees of global warming is enough to cause catastrophic problems. You said you agreed with that, remember? Yes, I agree, there is general consensus that 2 degrees warming is bad and will cause a myriad of problems. However, our atmosphere doesn’t consist of pure CO2, remember?  I’m  not vouching for the chart below, but you get the picture. 

 Gas  % of Atmospheric Molecules Molecular Mass (amu) % times Molecular Mass
 Nitrogen (N2)  78.09  28  2186.52
 Oxygen (O2)  20.95  32  670.4
 Argon (Ar)  0.93  40  37.2
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)  0.03  44  1.32
 Total      2895.44

Carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million in our atmosphere.  When all these global alarmists scream and hollar that man-made activities have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past couple of hundred years, how much are we talking?  Here’s from a typical global warming alarmist’s web page (again, I’m not vouching for the accuracy, I’m citing the numbers for perspective):

….” Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2005 State of the Climate Report. This represents a 35 percent increase in recent history.”

But wait! There’s more alarmism! 

“Almost all of the recent increases in CO2 atmospheric gasses are due to human activities (IPCC, 2001). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.8ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 420,000 years (IPCC 2001).” 

Yikes! We. Are. All. Gonna. Die!  And don’t forget all those other rascally gases, such as Methane, Ozone, Nitrous Oxide, etc. Man made I tell ya! The sky is falling in!

But wait, let’s get back to our experiment, shall we? Remember, the one that contained Carbon Dioxide caused the temperature to rise 4 degrees!  It did, didn’t it? That wasn’t a trick, was it John? No. But the CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t risen to 100%.  It’s roughly 379 ppm.  That’s PARTS PER MILLION. 

But John, BUT JOHN! Scientists have proven that the amount of carbon dioxide has risen in the past 200 years. Yeah, so? It’s measured in parts per million.  Big deal. 

BUT JOHN, they also have proven that in times past, during fluctuations of temperature, when the temperature increases, the amount of CO2 level in the atmosphere increases, also; and likewise, when the temperature goes down, the amount of CO2 level goes down.   Yes, grasshopper, but they have not proven which occurs first.  Global warming zealots claim that the CO2 causes the temperatures to rise (gee, it makes sense, if you have a bottle full of CO2 it causes the temperature to rise 4 degrees!).  Yeah, but we are talking parts per million here.  Besides, there are many who believe that the sun increases the general temperature, and that causes the earth and the seas to give up more Carbon Dioxide into the air. (See  here for pro and con side by side.)  In other words, they believe that the cause of global warming increases has nothing to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Others believe that they feed off of each other (the temp gets higher, creates more CO2, which causes the temp to increase even more).

Can you tell I’m a skeptic? Sorry for the condescending language, but I really resent people trying to use bogus science to persuade me. The “science” experiement ought to be scrapped, and the person who invented it ought to be horse-whipped! A proper experiment would be to add 99 parts per million of CO2 to the bottle and then see how much that increased the temperature in the bottle. I’m guessing that it wouldn’t increase the temperature one bit.

p.s. Oh, yeah. And there is this. Global warming has stopped. That’s why they call it “climate change” now, instead. Then, no matter whether the temp goes up or down, it’s all our fault.

p.p.s. And there is this article in The American Thinker from yesterday. Hat tip AConservativeEdge.

43 responses to “Do YOU believe in anthropogenic global warming?

  1. Thanks, JD !

    Arrived safely. LOL.

    Best regards,

    Steve

  2. Fact or fiction: “winters have been colder the last coulpe of years so globalwarming is a hoax””we had a record snow fall so globalwarming is a hoax””we usually break 100 degrees in the summer and didn’t this year so globalwarming is a hoax”…….ALL FICTION!!! Rush even today connects ambient air temperture to globalwarming. Let’s get it straight…ambient air temperture has NOTHING to do with globalwarming! A few years ago Rush thouht he would poke fun at a research group in antarctic saying they had to turn back while researching globalwarming. This was another example how the truth was twisted. Yes there was a research team and yes they had to turn back because of weather but they were researching the hole in the ozone which must be done in the dead of winter. Rush knows his only dog in the fight has everything to do with ambient air temperture and nothing to do with radient energy which is the real thing behind globalwarming. The heart of matter is greenhouse gass’s and compounds that are known and proven in the lab to deplete the ozone which leads to the effects of globalwarming. Conclusion next… 

  3. Not sure what happened but my last posting from the prev thread posted instead of my new one? I’ll try again sorry

  4. Ok, I made it. Had the grandson again lastnight so no free hand to type with.  

    Carmin sent me a YouTube video from our prev discussion of a “enviromental expert”. Although I refuse to knock the important info it contained…the man came off more like a economic expert rather than a enviromental expert. Humm!

    20 something years ago CFC’s were banned and out came the “experts”. “this will cause job losses””it will drive up the cost of foods””it will tripple the cost to cool our homes” and the fear rumors go on and on…all of which never happened. What was it…40 yrs ago..people that supported natural gas ripped at microwave ovens. Oh “we’re going to get cancer from radiated food”. “The new minium wage law will close small business accross the country””minium wage law will raise unemployment” actually the small business in my area that bought his own TV time to speak out against it opened his 3rd resturant and has since hired 48 more employees. We were told how good it was for oil prices to rise with excuse after excuse and we should support high crude oil prices because it helps our 401k retirement accounts. We all know how that turned out huh!

    What does all this have to do with globalwarming? There is SO much misinformation that twist facts away from the real problem. The grade school expeirment above is no different. Globalwarming is a very complex issue! The one thing I’ve learned when I don’t understand issues completly is to see whose dog in the fight that has the most to lose and screams the loudest. I hate to leave this without adding more scientific facts about greenhouse gases but time is pressing today so I’ll wait and see where this posting goes before adding more.

  5. The fact that people made exhorbitant claims about CFCs and microwaves cuts both ways: the global warming alarmists are the ones making life and death predictions.

    I agree about the see whose dog in the fight has the most to lose. But I also believe that liberals have a certain way of working, they use the same methods again and again. Some of their methods include: Marshall false facts and illogic to support their pre-ordained conclusions.

    But beyond just positing false facts and conclusions, the liberals aim for the heart by actually taking over entire organizations (whether it be a university, an industry such as the movie industry, media outlets, the AARP, or entire countries, etc.).

    Then once the organization is controlled, eliminate dissent. Methods employed by liberals to eliminate dissent include declaring that the debate is finished and their side won; and also attacking any dissenter, by ridicule, personal attacks, impugn their integrity, etc.

    Another favorite liberal technique is to proclaim that the proposed action is an emergency that must be dealt with immediately or dire results will be caused by inaction. “Earth in balance, ten years before the earth comes to an end, fifty days to save the earth,” etc.

    I’ll be honest. I do not trust scientists. Scientists are humans. Humans go to universities. Universities are dominated by liberals. I don’t trust liberals. Liberals taught those scientists. Many of those scientists picked up the liberalism of their professors and became liberals. Did I mention that I don’t trust liberals?

  6. below is a link to the video I was sent. It has much info to consider but like I posted there…he may know about climate change but his experteze 😉 seems to be more on giving a speach on money. More on that later..

  7. Hi, all:

    Thanks for your posts, Videoman. I’ve found the technical aspects of the debate mostly beyond me over the years. Those you’ve touched on here seemed clear, so THANKS ! for that.

    Your remarks on some deniers’ economic motivations ring true as well. Let me take that as a jumping-off place for a tangential consideration.

    Would I find agreement among us that a bedrock conservative (no quotation marks this time, so I mean the real, not the “so-called,” kind) principle is that self-interested power is, at best, a potential danger to our societal freedom ? And that one the founders’ guiding purposes was to hedge the exercise of governmental power around with institutional restraints ?

    I’d submit that economic power is a like case; a necessary mechanism which can do good for the country, if its self-interested nature is wisely restrained. (When you get down to it, I find INFORMATION another such form of power.)

    As regards the current topic, I’m pretty skeptical of those whose input on this critical subject adduces primarily economic arguments. I’ve left with the niggling question whether such input has the purpose of “promoting the general Welfare,” or just making someone a dollar (or protecting those he’s already made).

    The latter (protecting the people’s wealth) is also rightly a conservative principle. But I think we have to recognize that degrees of wealth beyond some point of “power-over-one’s-own-life” constitute power over OTHER’s lives: that that kind of self-interested public power has to be regarded with suspicion, and carefully hedged with restraints. (In this, I consider “conservatives” of the recent past have acted stupidly, contrary to their own principles, and to the harm of the country.)

    All of which is to say (LOL): I agree with your skepticism about the gentleman’s primarily-economic view of the problem. That’s certainly an important consideration, but can’t be the MAIN one when the repercussions of our decisions are far greater.

    That said: in your estimation, as regards the sources and degree of climate-change you see and foresee; what policy (-ies) do you think would do the most good ?

    Best regards all,

    Steve

  8. I think first and foremost that we need to have a real debate as to whether man made pollutants actually have a perceptible effect on long-term global climate. No, we have never had such a debate. Some eggheads may have, but the public has a huge stake in this debate. It isn’t so complicated that it can’t be explained to we peons.

    And the burden of proof is on those who propose that man made activity causes global climate change. Before we spend a penny protecting against something, we need proof that such protection is worth the cost. The best argument that I’ve heard is “what if they are right, and we wait until it is too late to do anything?” Sorry, that does not cut it with me. I’m not willing to spend trillions and to give up freedom on something that may be possible, but isn’t proven.

    Every proof that I have seen is theoretical, and most is modeled from computer programs. As we all know, junk in, junk out. Yes, theoretically, certain gases such as CO2 can trap heat and possibly increase the overall temperature. However, we are talking about trace amounts. It seems to me that a good experiement would be to create two huge glass enclosures that could be controlled absolutely inside. Put one with today’s current amount of CO2 in the air, and another with a 100 parts per million more of it. See if that minute amount of CO2 raises the over all temperature inside. If not, no amount of computer modeling proves a thing. I’m sure that something like this has been thought of before. Hasn’t it?

  9. Hi, JD:

    Gonna be harsh on you again. (I wouldn’t do so if I didn’t think you’ll take it in stride, rather than as a personal attack.)

    “But I also believe that liberals have a certain way of working, they use the same methods again and again. Some of their methods include: Marshall false facts and illogic to support their pre-ordained conclusions…” (through the next few paragraphs)

    Wouldn’t you agree some “conservatives” use exactly those tactics ? Is your distrust and disdain properly toward “liberals,” or toward any who use false and deceptive tactics ? (If the latter, I’m in agreement with you.)

    “I’ll be honest. I do not trust scientists. Scientists are humans. Humans go to universities. Universities are dominated by liberals. I don’t trust liberals. Liberals taught those scientists. Many of those scientists picked up the liberalism of their professors and became liberals. Did I mention that I don’t trust liberals?”

    Doesn’t that (strongly ad hominem) approach disallow your hearing anything except what you ALREADY believe is true ?…especially from scientists, when it’s scientific truth about climate-change we most need to make GOOD decisions ? If scientists are (by this argument) all “liberals”; and “liberals” are all liars; and all liars intend us harm: we’re up a creek.

    I’d suggest the word “some” be added at various of your points: “some” scientists, “some” universities, “some” liberals. I don’t think human beings (or human institutions, theories, ideologies, etc.) are constitutionally capable of being absolute, either good or bad, in any real way.

    I DO think your assertion of absolutes is valid in other regards, however: all of them relating to truth. I’d concur that deceit is, by definition, harmful, and that those whose tactics and purposes intend to deceive INTEND harm. The other side of the coin, also (I think) an absolute, is that good consequences can ultimately only come from decisions predicated on TRUE information.

    I don’t think scientists (or in your terms, “liberals”) are incapable of being truthful. I don’t think all of them are driven entirely by ideological motives, much less a particular brand of ideology. Some are doubtless deceitful from self- (or ideological) interest: so it’s always wise to be wary and discerning. But probably more of them can think beyond self or ideological intents, and perceive that this (and other questions) requires TRUTH to get to a GOOD outcome. If they live in this physical environment, they have as much reason to desire a good outcome for it as any of us, and as much desire to provide TRUE information to that end.

    I’m coming at this primarily from a Christian perspective, again, so let me put it in theological terms. Jesus said He IS “truth.” One implication of His Self-identification is that “truth” is universally Lord. I don’t believe any human being, on the basis of any human construct (nationality, ideology, etc.), is excepted.

    Would welcome, as always, your thoughts.

    Best regards,

    Steve

  10. Steve,
    “That said: in your estimation, as regards the sources and degree of climate-change you see and foresee; what policy (-ies) do you think would do the most good ?”

    that’s a good question indeed Steve. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the wrong policys are being put in place today. I’d like to point out to JD that the problem doesn’t lye with the left or the right. The policys and practices you ‘blanket’ the left with can’t be put at their door step. It is the RADICAL left and the RADICAL right who has the really has the greedy for power and money adjinda. No DJ, I don’t trust scientist either. Nor do I trust bankers, politicans, oil investers, goldline investers, radio talkshow host with exception of Dave Ramsey. But…I do trust the science and trend behind globalwarming. Anyone that can ignor the politics behind the pros and cons can look up the trends of emissions and facts behind the science provided they stay away the sites that are clearly backed by the left and right. It’s sad but conservatives have been labeled the bankers of America. As such they often do nothing or ignor the issue if it has a slight chance of cutting into profits. That is what happened last year when the oil market went unchecked. We all know what happened to the economy from that. Ignoring problems is why we are not in the whitehouse today.

    JD, it’s true the radical left make out like we need to do something yesterday. The same can be said about the radical right. Someone says something about the envorment and Rush spends a hour talking about light bulbs. LIGHT BULBs! Forget whatever point he’s trying to make…it’s lightbulbs for the love of niblets. With all the crap in the world he exaggerates about the new light bulbs. HELLO…they last ten years and cost less to run as well as they don’t have the ‘off’ tent they once did. With radicals like Rush it doesn’t matter if there a good idea. If they help the enviroment they are crap!!!

  11. Steve, sure, conservatives use those same tactics. But conservatives aren’t pushing the global warming hoax. I am cynical of all persons, scientists, doctors, lawyers. I’ve seen too often how you can find a whore to say anything to support a legal position. Anything that is not black and white, or immutable, such as 2 + 2 = 4, can and will be lied about. Since I don’t know which ones I can trust, I distrust them all until they prove that they are trustworthy.

    And even those who are capable of telling the truth, and who are trying to tell the truth, often get it wrong from their own unintentional biases. Pride, money, influence, wanting to be in the “in” crowd. You name it, and humans will be influenced by it.

    And those who are attempting to be honest and who are successfully fighting outside influences often fall prey to illogical conclusions. For instance, many assume that because the overall temps have been rising for the last 150 odd years, and CO2 has been rising as well, that there must be some correlation. Course, they ignore that the temps have likewise risen in previous centuries without any help from man.

    This isn’t rocket science–it can be explained in terms that we all can understand. And even if it were, it could still be simplified. I say let’s set out all the data, and the theories, and the competing analysis, and have a debate. There should be one place that you can go to get all the arguments on each point, both pros and cons, without the personal attacks and the impugning of integrity. Too few seem intent on finding the truth, and too many seem intent on attacking the other side.

    Yeah, Steve, I believe in Jesus and that there is a Truth out there, and that whatever it is is the way to go, in all matters. I believe that we can find out what the truth is, and that once we do we must have the courage to do what the truth dictates. If that means that the truth is man is causing global warming, then I am all in favor of doing what is necessary to stop it. I’m just not convinced. Nowhere near it.

    Radioman, I don’t know about the new lights lasting 10 years, but I do agree with Rush that the “solution” creates more problems and may not be effective. The mercury lights are a biohazard. If they break in a business HAZMAT is supposed to be called. In ten or twenty years when we are suffering increased mercury poisoning, then they will have a new crisis on their hands. I can see that you buy into man made global warming a lot more than I do.

  12. I’m sitting down at the desk lastnight to type this and boom…down goes the server. So I’m back to typing on the fly.
    This my seem to get off point again but it’s not. I’m just pointing how “radical” conservatives pass on false or twisted information to his fans so as to obtain their support. HD, you say you trust no one. So why do you seem to trust Rush’s view points? I’m not picking on you per say. 10’s of thousands do the same. Your remark could almost be taken from Rush’s transcipts.

    “The mercury lights are a biohazard. If they break in a business HAZMAT is supposed to be called. In ten or twenty years when we are suffering increased mercury poisoning, then they will have a new crisis on their hands.”

    A whole pallet of Flouresent light bulbs as opposed to calling them “mercury bulbs” actually contain less mercury than the household thermometer that was used on us as kids. Actually let’s be clear…mercury vapor! Below is a link that explains how much Rush exaggerated the danger.      

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous

    As I said before…Rush used to be better than this type of tabloid reporting. Globalwarming is real! Man-made globalwarming is not. Science not scientist proves the effect all greenhouse gases play on ozone and warming of the atmosphere. The numbers and trends point out most gases ppm are ‘in check’ except CO2. It just so happens CO2 is what industry runs on including the reckless emissions my own is responsable for. I wish it wasn’t CO2 that was on the rise but it is. I wish the right would get off the denial band wagon and stand up to find a responsable solution rather than ignor it…say it doesn’t exist…say it’s a hoax…..,..before liberals put some action in place that puts us into another recession.  

  13. I don’t “trust” Rush about things that I cannot verify. If he tells me that the moon is made of cheese I won’t believe him.

    However, due to past experience I believe him when he makes political predictions, because he has shown himself to me in the past to be an exceptionally astute prognosicator. Not perfect, but he is (as he is fond of saying) often “on the cutting edge.”

    I also “trust” him, I guess you could say, when he says things that I agree with. He happens to say a lot of things that I agree with.

    p.s. WHY do you have such a problem with Rush? Don’t listen to him if you don’t like him.

  14. JD and Videoman:

    “And even those who are capable of telling the truth, and who are trying to tell the truth, often get it wrong from their own unintentional biases. Pride, money, influence, wanting to be in the “in” crowd. You name it, and humans will be influenced by it. ”

    Absolutely agree. Mere human failings ALWAYS come into the equation, and work against making good decisions. The formulation in “The Fog of War” sums it up pretty well (wish I could find the exact quote, but I’m going to have to paraphrase): ignorance, ambition, and incomptence always affect our best-laid plans.

    “There should be one place that you can go to get all the arguments on each point, both pros and cons, without the personal attacks and the impugning of integrity. Too few seem intent on finding the truth, and too many seem intent on attacking the other side. ”

    Absolutely agree. But that’s where I tend to look to scientists (even if “liberal”) more than you would. I don’t rule them out as sources of TRUE scientific information: that is, after all, their job,
    and I think at least SOME are honest workers.

    “I believe that we can find out what the truth is, and that once we do we must have the courage to do what the truth dictates. If that means that the truth is man is causing global warming, then I am all in favor of doing what is necessary to stop it. I’m just not convinced. Nowhere near it. ”

    Again agree, though I’m a bit more convinced than you.

    “I wish the right would get off the denial band wagon and stand up to find a responsable solution rather than ignor it…say it doesn’t exist…say it’s a hoax…..,..before liberals put some action in place that puts us into another recession. ”

    Agree. The “denial bandwagon” has had a large part in keeping any responsible debate, and true information, from taking place for 30 years…that’s a lot of time lost when you’re dealing with a critical issue.

    Look at how much of our discussion here has centered on POLITICS. That’s certainly a factor in some aspects of the matter…but I can’t see that it’s anything but a detrimental red herring as regards the SCIENCE, which we have to look to for truth about the problem (or non-problem).

    When science’ first standard is political correctness (yes, that old chestnut applies both ways) you get BAD science, and disastrous outcomes. Lysenkoism would be one example, Nazi eugenics another. (And note that both examples were products of BAD political philosophies.) A more contemporary example might be “cold-fusion,” the scientific “truth” discovered by Mormon scientists, and voted research funds by the Utah legislature. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to work in the rest of the world. LOL

    Those who so completely politicized the question, and made it a litmus test for “conservatives” that they be on the “denial bandwagon,” did the country (and conservatism) great harm. My take ? Ronald Reagan.

    That’s simply my view of who created the problem: don’t mean it to be the start of a discussion in which we either vilify or defend Reagan. He’s not the point of the discussion as to what we should do in sorting out what we currently have to deal with.

    Best regards,

    Steve

  15. HERE’S WHAT THE UNIV OF CONNECTICUTT HANDLES THE BREAKAGE OF SUCH LIGHTS:

    http://www.conncoll.edu/offices/ehs/7797.htm

    “In the event of a elemental mercury spill of any size:
    Evacuate room occupants (including animals.).
    Secure the area, to keep people from walking through and tracking the mercury outside of the spill area.
    Turn off the heat. Heat volatilizes mercury, creating airborne mercury vapors.
    Turn off the ventilation. The ventilation system could distribute mercury vapors throughout the building.
    Open the window(s) to help remove any vapors.
    Notify the Director of Environmental Health & Safety at X-2252. Because of the requirement for testing to ensure that all mercury has been located and collected, ONLY the Director of EH&S will clean (small) elemental mercury spills. Mercury spills larger than the quantity found in a thermometer will be cleaned by a HAZMAT spill contractor.
    Note: The Connecticut DEP requires notification of all mercury spills, regardless of the quantity. Notification to the National Response Center (EPA) is required for spills in excess of 1 pound (two tablespoons). Spill notification is the responsibility of the Director of EH&S.

    Broken Fluorescent Lamps and Tubes

    As discussed in the Universal Waste Management Plan, fluorescent light fixtures contain a very small amount of mercury vapor.

    If you break a fluorescent lamp or tube, do not vacuum the the debris up with a standard vacuum cleaner! (For vacuum cleaning, only vacuums designed specifically for mercury may be used.)
    Keep all people and animals away from the spill so that mercury-containing debris is not tracked into other areas.
    Don a pair of latex gloves and carefully pick up the larger glass fragments. Thoroughly clean the spill with a damp disposable sponge or paper towel, to remove all glass fragments and mercury containing phosphorus powder. Avoid creating airborne dust from the spilled phosphorus powder.
    Keep the area well ventilated to disperse any vapors.
    After clean up is complete, place all fragments and debris, along with cleaning materials into a sealable plastic bag or other container.
    Wash your hands.
    Dispose of the container into the regular trash.” [NOTE: They throw them in the trash, which ends up in the landfill. Not good.]

  16. And look what happened to this woman in Maine. This made the news two years ago, not just recently.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

  17. Let me correct myself:

    “…both examples were products of BAD political philosophies.”

    Probably not PRODUCTS (i.e., originating there) so much as products of bad science, which was subsequently supported and promoted by bad political philosophies whose purposes they served.

    Best regards,

    Steve

  18. And here is an interesting article on the issue. Not sure how much of it is true, but it rings true.

    http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/524?eid=cc5c6a0a7237dea6eadc5aa452511efd

  19. Steve, I don’t “rule out” going to scientists. I just want a balanced view–I want the pros and cons. The best way to find out who is telling the straight scoop is to get both sides (all sides) of an issue. Usually, the side that is not truthful is pretty apparent. I’m not scientifically trained, but I am very smart, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see glaring errors in facts/logic or whatever when some other rocket scientist is doing the pointing out. But I trust me, once I am fully informed, over some egg head who just says “oh, it’s too complicated, just trust me.”

    I disagree with you about the deniers doing conservatism a disservice. That’s what conservatives do when liberals bring up junk science and try to pass it off as legitimate. What are they supposed to do? To say “Yeah, you guys are right? We are afraid of you labeling us as “unscientific” so we will cave in and do whatever you want?” I predict that in ten years or so, if we successfully fight off these spurious claims that the earth is warming and do nothing, that the earth will be seen to not really be warming, and that we are/were just going through a natural fluctuation.

    You and Radioman are, in my opinion, influenced by all the liberal rah rah. They have you thinking that all reputable scientists agree that man made CO2 and methane are causing global warming. That is bunk, IMHO. There are many dissenters.

    I thought that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the scientific basis for global warming. How about one or both of you putting forth some fact/study or whatever that tends to convince you that 1) the earth is warming; and/or 2) that man activities are causing it. Then we can discuss it rationally. Certainly we can all learn from such a discussion.

  20. Oh, gemme a break with so many links. I’m on a iPhone LOL. It’s hard enough to type let alone surf the net lol.

    (((((((((((There has been a couple of more post added before I could add this so before you read on I’d like to point out a couple of things. There has been facts towards the science and proof that globalwarming exist already put in this discussion but been ignored. There has not been ONE quote even hinting it is manmade…just the opposite in fact and that seems to be ignored. And although I claim to be conservative just because I accept the facts as true and disagree I am still labeled liberal. This is the not the conservative way but seems to be by some.))))))))) 

    To answer your question: “p.s. WHY do you have such a problem with  Rush? Don’t listen to him if you don’t like him.”—-I like many others years ago felt like we finally have a voice in the media with Rush. As of the last 6-7 years Rush has become a radical hince a liability instead of asset to the conservative party. Liberals were the first to see this and were the first to label him “the voice of the republican party”. Rush fell for it for several weeks then realizing the ‘poke’ he denounced the title. I won’t deny he can still make good points but they are far and few between. Turning the radio dial may take him off my radio but it doesn’t stop the damage to my party.

    On to the link:http://www.conncoll.edu/offices/ehs/7797.htm

    I noticed at the top of the page it is titled: ELEMENTAL MURCURY—and then goes on to explain the dangers. I wouldn’t EVEN down play the danger to handle murcury in it’s elemental form but that’s not what we’re dealing with. Murcury vapor is far less toxic and the trace amount in a single ‘screw’ bulb which is barely detectable. The ppm mercury vapor from a single broken bulb can be cleaned effectly by cleaners we use in our home if done properly and is  less dangerous than inceticides we use around the house. This debunks the other links. Using your link I pasted goes on with detailed procedures to clean a broken light bulb much as my link did. For their protection they must follow EPA’s suggested procedure however my link goes on to explain the actual danger is far less than it sounds and both sites demonstrate this by saying to toss out the broken bulb with the trash.
     

  21. Radioman, nobody is calling you a liberal, or if they did, I missed it. I didn’t see any facts about global warming in your comments. Don’t be coy, bring them up again if I missed them.

    I disagree vehemently with you about Rush being a radical (of course I would, I agree with him on most issues, and I do not consider myself a radical). I also disagree with him doing the Republican party harm. I think you only believe that you know what he is saying, based solely upon what the liberal media reports. LISTEN to him, all the way through, for a few days.

    Beyond that, I guess I need you to be specific. Tell me exactly what he says or does that harms the party. It is hard to discuss somebody’s opinion unless you know what facts and specific events went into making that opinion.

  22. JD, thanks for your comments.

    “I disagree with you about the deniers doing conservatism a disservice. That’s what conservatives do when liberals bring up junk science and try to pass it off as legitimate. What are they supposed to do?”

    That leaves open a couple of important questions. What do conservatives do when liberals bring up REAL science ? And what do conservatives do when CONSERVATIVES bring up junk science ?

    The denier stance is ideological, having nothing to do with what’s scientific truth, or what’s good policy to achieve the best results: it’s predicated entirely on the idea that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is either “liberal” or “conservative.”

    It’s a cartoonish view of reality, giving rise to cartoonish value-judgements: “conservative, good !!! Liberal, EVIL.”
    I think that’s detrimental to honest debate (on ANY subject), to conservatives’ self-image, and (most importantly) to determining and doing what’s good for the country.

    I’d agree that you personally, and a good many other conservatives in this country, are very smart: that’s exactly the reason I’m amazed that so many are deceived by the promoters of such simplistic (and wrong, and harmful) ideologies into adopting it yourself !

    I’d mention as well the fact that ideology, ungrounded in reality, is extremely fluid (or let’s say MALLEABLE, since the changes it goes through are consciously and deliberately crafted by human beings, for some particular purpose).

    My favorite example is abortion. It’s currently a litmus-test for being a “real conservative.” But prior to, and even sometimes after Roe v. Wade, the “conservative” bandwagon was that the abortion question was an open-shut case of damnable government interference in the most personal lives of citizens. The “conservative” governor of California (Reagan) signed into law what was at that time the most “pro-abortion” statutes in the country.

    Not arguing here whether being anti-abortion is “conservative” or “liberal.” The only question that makes sense to ask about it is whether it’s right or wrong, the question on which hinges whether it does our country and people good or ill. (Abortion…in case you wonder whether I’m “influenced by all the liberal rah rah”… I consider manifestly murder, and a great EVIL. But then, I felt that way before it became the “conservative” position de jour.)

    Ideology isn’t rooted in, and changes to fit other agendas than, what’s true or good. I think it’s unwise to make ideological stances the basis of our identity, or the filter through which we see everything. (If nothing else, such people have to have a lot more energy than discernment, to keep up with the shifting currents of what they MUST believe, or may NOT believe, if they’re to remain qualified as “real” conservatives. LOL.)

    As to climate-change: here are a couple items probably worth looking at on one aspect of the subject. WARNING: both incorporate research by university scientists, though one is released by NASA, which presumably implies that agency’s vetting of the research. (The latter was released by NASA under GWB’s administration, if that makes a difference.)

    Both make reference to the Reagan assertion that “Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation” (which I was trying to verify when I ran across these studies) with qualified approval
    (though the NASA press-release quotes that study as cautioning that its conclusions”do not provide any evidence that responsibility for air pollution can or should be shifted from humans to trees.”

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25456

    http://www.met.tamu.edu/news/622-zhangs-work-shows-that-man-made-activities-can-affect-blue-haze

    I’d tend to think these studies are worth taking into account, as regards the specific questions they address (i.e., neither can fairly be characterized by cartoon-ideology bloggers as scientific “proof Reagan was RIGHT !!!” or “proof global-warming is a LIBERAL LIE !!!”)
    Where their findings fall on the political spectrum, I can’t say (actually, in this instance, probably somewhat “conservative”). I’d STRONGLY insist that doesn’t matter. But their work DOES seem to be honest science, and on that basis should have some claim to be taken into account.

    Best regards,

    Steve

  23. Not sure what happened but on my end all postings other than the first one has been deleted from the blog. Hummmmm

  24. JD not sure what you or Steve can pull up but on my end all messages and coments are deleted except your first and last along with Steves last. Why are they gone? Hummmm

  25. Hi, Videoman:

    Looks like on my browser/computer everything is still there.

    Best, Steve

  26. Ok, now I found them…gotta stop using the phone for all this political stuff…it’s confusing the microchips lol

  27. Videoman, click on “Older Comments” written in blue. They haven’t been deleted, they are just sitting off to the side to save space.

    Steve, your comment was held in moderation. The blog thinks that you might be a spammer when you include links. As soon as I notice such posts, I OK them and they show up.

    WHOA, Steve. You evidently have a different definition of “deniers” than I do. I just mean by deniers people who deny that global warming is caused by human activity. I deny that, because I do not believe that the science exists to prove it. At least I have not seen any yet. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, just that nobody has proven anything to me.

    And what I do read makes me very suspiciuous. Any time somebody gives me the bums rush, and tries to treat science like a Barnum and Bailey Circus commercial (can you say Al Gore?), I become skeptical. Al Gore has made millions off this scam, and he stands to make millions more. And he refuses to debate or answer questions. Sure, my bias against him may be partially to blame, but he has given me a lot of independent ammo to cause me to not believe him.

    And Steve, I sure as heck am not saying do not believe liberals when they bring up real science. If it is true, and provable, the truth is the truth. But unfounded assertions, and computer models, and unproven junk science, those I draw the line at believing, no matter who espouses them.

    And Steve, about abortion and Reagan, there are several strands of “conservatism” which exist in America. That causes confusion. The western strain of “conservatism” traces its history through Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and is very “libertarian” in its views of social policy. That strain of conservatism would ideally legislate that whatever grants the individual the most freedom to do with their own body whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. I can see how a Reagan conservative would believe that it isn’t up to the State to determine what a woman does with her own body.

    Another strain, which traces its history through, for example The Moral Majority (and, I would argue, through the Founding Fathers), believes that a State does have the right to “legislate morality” within reason. This strand would legislate that abortion is wrong, and outlaw it.

    Of course, this is a gross simplification of the “Western Conservatives” view and of the “moral majority” view. Both might come to the conclusion that abortion should be outlawed if the individual person espousing such views held the belief that a fetus was a living person. A western conservative might believe that a fetus is a living person, and that the state has the right to protect a fetus, and still seek to have abortion safe and legal, I suppose, if they felt that since reasonable minds can disagree about whether a fetus is a person, better to err on the side of “freedom.”

    I’m more of a “moral majority” type of conservative. I believe that libertarians confuse liberty with licentiousness. The reason I believe that the State has power to enforce morality is because when this country was enacted, the states did have the power to enforce morality. We had blue laws, we had laws against divorce and pornography, against swearing, against bigamy, homosexuality, you name it. So to argue that the Founding Fathers were “libertarians” in any sense of the word is ludicrus, IMHO.

    Now, reasonable persons can disagree whether, for instance homosexual marriages should be legalized, or whether swearing should be illegal. The point at which I vehemently disagree is when persons argue that doing either is a constitutional question. It should be up to the legislators–not the courts–of each individual state to determine what that state’s laws are. For the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that citizens have a federal constitutional right to commit sodomy in the privacy of their own homes is ludicrus. It stands history and logic on its head and is a dictate from unelected ex-lawyers.

    I don’t know what you are talking about when you say: “The denier stance is ideological, having nothing to do with what’s scientific truth, or what’s good policy to achieve the best results: it’s predicated entirely on the idea that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is either “liberal” or “conservative.”

    And ” It’s a cartoonish view of reality, giving rise to cartoonish value-judgements: “conservative, good !!! Liberal, EVIL.”

    And: ” I think that’s detrimental to honest debate (on ANY subject), to conservatives’ self-image, and (most importantly) to determining and doing what’s good for the country.”

    I literally do not have a clue what you are talking about. Not trying to be dense, just honest. I don’t know anybody who takes the conservative viewpoint just to be contrary. I USUALLY take the conservative position because I have a system of looking at the world, and a set of values and principles, which cause me to look at a problem and come to a determination of what I think is correct.

    But I don’t always come down on the conservative side. For instance, I’m moderately pro-union (hate union bosses who are reflexively pro-liberal, but I’m for the working stiff, so long as the unions don’t get too powerful, which almost inevitably they do, which is why I’m only moderately pro-union); and I’m against Federal Tort reform (hey, I’m a lawyer, but also I am a state’s righter; it’s not up to the Feds to tell states what to do).

    This might be disjointed, I was talking to several people through out this email. I’ll go read the sites that you linked to and discuss them when I’m done.

  28. Thanks for your post, JD.

    It’s a good LONG one, so I’m gonna have to read and digest more, BUT do want to say quickly…

    It sounds like I may have mischaracterized some of your arguments; and from that, gotten wrong ideas about where you’re coming from. My apologies on both !

    Want to read this post more thoroughly; but hopefully with a better grasp of your stance(s)…

    Best regards,

    Steve

  29. “Disjointed” is a good characterization of the discussion, for sure. LOL. Oh well, it probably promotes our mental flexibility.

    And on the “disjointed” front: a couple general, but possibly OT, questions (after which I hope to read and digest more of your post, and get back ON topic).

    “It should be up to the legislators–not the courts–of each individual state to determine what that state’s laws are. For the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that citizens have a federal constitutional right to commit sodomy in the privacy of their own homes is ludicrus.”

    But don’t you consider that judicial review (Marbury v. Madison, albeit that doesn’t specifically relate to state courts’ review of state legislation) a GOOD principle in providing a check-and-balance on the possible abuse of governmental power by legislatures ?

    And didn’t we determine (rather bloodily) that the principle of “states rights” you’ve referred to approvingly several times will NOT be a major operative principle for this country or it’s government ?

    Best regards,

    Steve

  30. “Disjointed” yes it has…but regardless of the differing view points it’s been entertaining. I’m going to back off till this evening when hopefully I can continue at the desk. That is if I can get the server back up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s