Conservatives and Global Warming
Although I can’t possibly say I agree with everything Joseph Romm writes in his article “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped,” I do agree with the main point that American conservatives are willfully blind when it comes to the issue of global warming. And I also agree that they have to change their attitude towards this problem. ASAP.
Oil companies and executives may not be thrilled with it, but the fact of the matter is that global warming is real. Scientists have also shown that mankind contributes to global warming to a very significant degree. It certainly is partially natural, but there’s also a part caused by us. That’s the part we can do something about.
American conservatives could have led on this subject. They could have accepted the rather obvious and they could have come up with conservative solutions to the problem. In the United States, however, conservatives have chosen to ignore the problem, or even to deny its existence. This is sad.
The reality is that conservatives could use this subject to their own advantage. At this moment, progressives set the global warming agenda. The only solutions proposed are progressive. There are no viable alternatives.
Most people, moderates, conservatives and yes, even progressives, complain about that. They realize that something needs to be done, but they’re not quite supportive of the panicky plans of the ‘anti-global warming progressives’ who have set the tone of the debate for years.
Conservatives should agree that the problem is real, but should point out time and again that the situation may not be as simple as progressive activists pretend. Furthermore, they should point out that there are other ways to deal with this problem. There’s no need to overthrow the capitalist system if we want to fight global warming, and there’s also no need to stop producing, to destroy our economies, and so on.
But in order to do that, American conservatives have to acknowledge that the problem exists. If they do not they will, I fear, be completely irrelevant when it comes to this subject ten years from now. Then, progressives will pursue the changes they have pursued for decades (and for other reasons), all in the name of fighting global warming.
And that would be a pity.
Are conservatives really "anti-science", or are they just more cautious about making claims about global warming than liberals. It seems to me that conservatives accused of being "anti-science" fairly often (like when they question evolution).
And there’s reason to be cautious: As you pointed out, the liberal environmentalists support measures that would involve a radical economic restructuring of our society. Which seems to be part of a broader agenda that includes opposition to the Iraq War and the Bush administration, and support of various Eastern religions. I worry that environmentalists will use global warming as kind of a Trojan horse to impose not only a radical economic agenda but a social one as well. If you don’t believe me, try attending a Green Festival sometime. Many member of the radical left represented there, in addition to mainstream groups like Whole Foods.
Now I’m not saying that global warming is not happening. Or that I don’t care at all about the environment; in fact I’m a fairly avid hunter and fisherman, and I spend most of my vacations camping. So I don’t want to see the wild places disappear.
Interesting, Michael. I read the article this morning and was going to post in exactly the opposite direction. There is no real evidence that humans are contributing to global warming more than, say, the sun or the natural climatological fluctuations of the planet. As a proximate cause of global warming, it looks to me like humans are a very distant third.
If conservatives were smart, and some are very much so, they would deal with microclimate problems (such as problems caused by the heat island effect of large cities) that we do know humans are causing. Then again, if progressives were smart, they’d do the same thing. But they have all the high ground on the climate change argument int hat they have a press willing to push whatever they say heedless of what any new data demonstrates.
Michael, here is a short list from the 31,000 scientists who say that man is not a primary cause of gloobal warming and that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. They all agree that any warming caused by man pales in comparison with natural cycles. As you can see some of them were authors of the IPCC.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center **Dr. Tim Ball – Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. ** Dr. Nigel Calder – Former Editor, New Scientist **Dr. John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and Lead Author, IPCC **Dr. Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa **Dr. Piers Corbyn – Weather Forecaster, Weather Action **Dr. Paul Driessen – Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death **Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen **Dr. Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T. **Dr. Patrick Michaels – Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia **Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace **Dr. Paul Reiter – Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute **Dr. Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem **Dr. Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, From 1962-64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service.) **Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA **Dr. Philip Stott – Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London **
Lets Focus in on Dr. Christy for example:
Allow me to introduce Dr. John Christie. Dr. Christie is the scientist who is largely responsible for the methods used in measuring the temperature of the atmosphere. Dr. John Christie was awarded a medal from NASA for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 and in 1996 received a special award from the American Meteorological Society for fundamentally advancing our ability to measure climate. Dr. Christie is also a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He measures climate temperature using satellites and weather balloons.Says Dr. Christie, “What we have found consistently, in a great part of the planet that the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see at the surface and that is a real head-scratcher for us because the theory is pretty straight forward; that if the surface warms the upper atmosphere should warm rapidly. The rise in temperature of that part of the atmosphere is not very dramatic at all and really does not match the theory that the climate models are expressing.”Dr. Christie continued to say that, “I have often heard it said that there is a consensus among thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.”
Here is my article on Dr. Christy – http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/top-scientists-say-you-are-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/ - and here is a Lecture by Dr. Christy on this issue at Auburn University – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
Personally, the argument over whether the warming is natural or human caused is irrelevant. There is no time to assign blame, nor worry that much about whatever agenda liberals may or may not wish to pass alongside environmental policies. Those things can be fought off, but I’d argue that survival is more important than any conspiracies liberals or conservatives may have.
I don’t understand how some people can even deny climate change. Even if it’s not as bad as some scientists say, we can see it with own eyes that things are getting worse. Worse storms, stronger hurricanes, milder winters, more tornadoes. These are not things that can be denied.
So, the question is, what can we do about it? Well, even if there isn’t anything we can do in terms of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases (of which the ever popular carbon dioxide is only one), what we can do is study how the climate is going to change and adapt. Humans seem to have a knack for sitting on their behinds and doing nothing until it comes back to bite them.
I think the worst than can happen for all the study and preparation is that nothing happens. But hey, if it does, we’re not going to go extinct, are we?
Climate change has wiped out species who’ve failed to adapt before. We’re evolved enough to ensure to our own survival, so being complacent will solve nothing.
As Michael said, there is no reason to stop production of goods and destroy the economy in order to fight climate change. That’s why I think the development and offering of several renewable resources (wind, solar, geo, etc), along with others like clean coal and oil are necessary. Develop them all and present them on the marketplace, I say, and the consumer will decide. I’d argue it is in the best interest of oil companies to participate in such a project, since oil is not going to last forever.
Sorry for the essay, but this childish game of finger pointing needs to end, and action needs to start.
Mr Merrit, as conservatives shouldn’t we stick to the science? The National Hurricane Center made it clear that hurricane Katrina, and that season, was simply the peak of the 55 year hurricane cycle and had nothing to do with global warming. Global warming alarmists predicted much worse hurricane seasons following Katrina only to have some of the mildest. The storms that caused the flooding in the mid-west was caused an unfortunate spat of warm and cold air masses meeting together over the Midwest that had nothing to do with global warming. Last but not least, we just came off one of the coldest winters on record. http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab72-1adbdbb1d0d0 Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice AgeLorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." You speak of extinction. During the medievil warming period global temps were so warm that Scotland was producing wine. During the little ice age, also known as the maunder minimum, the Thames river froze over for years and London had ice fairs on the Thames. The simple truth is that while man has been on the planet the earth has been much warmer and cooler than in any time during the last 200 years.
Now now, Chuck Norton, you’re going to upset people dissing their religious views by pointing out inconvenient facts.
the argument over whether the warming is natural or human caused is irrelevant.
Michael, it’s not irrelevant because the warmists want us to spend trillions of dollars and destroy both national and world economies to chase their preferred agenda–one which would have little success by their OWN assumptions, much less any realistic assumptions. Other than that I think you’re right on target–climate WILL change, just as it has countless times in the history of the planet long predating our very existence, and we should put some effort into preparing for that.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png
How can you liberals be so willfully ignorant of basic graphs like this?
Just look at it with your own eyes and **gasp** think for yourself about it. Note that if you graphed CO2 onto the diagram it would be a straight line going up, but the temperature absolutely does not correspond. The only significant event appears to be the 1998 warming caused by a combination El Nino/Solar Maximum.
I live in Louisiana we drill and refine oil .There is no GW here the climate is the same as the day i was born.Ower fishing is the best in the world!So the water is not polluted.I look out my window and see no pollution?Is GB a yankee or left coast disease?The food we grow has no semonela.
Algore is my hero!He set the bar on how much co2 i can exspell before conserving.The problem is i dont own a jet,energy burning mansions,limos and boats.So i guess i wont need to conserve in my life time.
GW was invented for liberal scientist that were given a degree for reciting Carl Marxism.They were to stupid to invented alternitive fuels.So green jobs keep the grants and donations rolling to liberal collages for the noneducation of idiots!
Hey Mike climb out of your sterile bubble!Hurricanes have been here since the beginning of time.In the 1900 the gulf coast saw hurricanes that wiped out islands that disappeared.So keep your panties on !
Hey Mike, look out your window and tell me what does your pollution look like?Im looking out my window and dont see anything?If more liberal parents would have followed threw with abortions we could have less global warming.More gas for me and my suv.
Save more energy than curly light bulbs,TAX computer use!Its the liberal way.
There is indeed a conservative, market-based approach to global warming, but it’s getting little attention: energy recycling. Our energy system is grossly inefficient, throwing away about three quarters of our fuel while producing power. We could slash energy costs AND greenhouse emissions simulatenously by turning manufacturers’ waste heat into electricity. I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does precisely this. EPA and DoE estimates suggest this could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. So what’s stopping it? Simple: regulations. Government rules give monopoly protections to inefficient utilities. There’s no incentive for them to be more efficient! So they’re not. Open the market in the right ways, and more efficient options will emerge.
Goverment already has emission standards.We need no more gov. regulations.We drill and refine oil in Louisiana and there is no greenhouse gas problem and no pollution.Its all in your head.You were educated(brainwashed)in the liberal school system.Ineffcient is called ethonol.Name me ineffcient utilities!They use natural gas or coal.Next winter we should shut off the natural gas pipeline that runs from Louisiana northward.When you are freezing think about the meaning of ineffcient!
Hey Migg,we live in a free market economy if there is a way to make a doller using better energy someone would have done it.This is why liberals have never created the magic fuel to replace fossil fuel.Stop depending on goverment to save you ,you sound like a communist!
We have all the cheap energy here in America but the liberal democrates wont let us access it!They are the true communist.Just like they wanted our troops to fail in Iraq.The only solution is to drill.Mcarthy was right the media and hollywood is 90 percent communist.This election proved it!