I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[PeterMP]

Well, I'm moderately conservative, moderate enough to realize that climate change is the reality, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind.  Is it the result of human influence?  My answer is also, almost certainly yes.  Are there other factors in play, such as "natural stuff we can't control?"  Probably not, after all the earth just doesn't change on its own very quickly (save for an asteroid strike or mega-volcano of some sort, which is like a one in everyone 200 million year occurrence). 

 

The question for me has always been this-- where do we draw the line, in particular when we live in this global community where everyone else has to be on board.  Bottom line is that is easier and cheaper to produce goods without restrictive environmental regulation. Less cost, more production, better economy relative to our competitors on an international scale.  If we give a foot, how many inches do we need China to give? Or Russia?  Or India? Is this just a global game of chicken?  And if we submit while our competitors don't, are we going to lose our position as the economic powerhouse?  Does that effect our national defense?  Any here honestly want China acting as the world's police force? Is it too much of a gamble to invest in green energy now, because that's based on an assumption that it will not only be cheaper, but at least equally efficient in 30 years? 

 

Fossil fuel resources remain abundant.  One thing I love about that sneaky little Obama guy (other than the fact that he had the nuts to finish off Bin Laden by invading the sovereignty of a feux-ally) is that the U.S. is now (correct me if i'm wrong) the No. 1 producer of oil in the world, thanks to new methods of extraction (maybe its all forms of energy, I know natural gas and fracking is big).  And we have massive, untapped off shore oil reserves, not to mention Alaska. Gives us a nice little cushion to continue the green energy charge, and I believe we need to take the lead. Just not at the expense of sacrificing too much.

 

Ahh who cares what I think.  This **** is above my pay grade.

 

This is an argument for efforts to (aggressively) mitigate the likely results of climate change.

 

If you don't think everybody else is going to do things about climate change in effective manner, then it would only make sense to start doing things to deal with the likely results.

 

There are various things that could be done in terms of land use issues that many environmentalists would actually eagerly support.

 

Things like limiting growth along water and protecting and even increasing wet lands and flood plains.

 

Better water management practices in many parts of the country will be needed too.

 

Generally, those are all things that environmentalists support.

 

But those things are anti-Republican too.

 

There doesn't seem to be a single thing that the vast majority of elected Republicans seem like they can actually propose with respect to climate change, other than provide excuses.

 

If the Republican party stepped forward and said, this is an issue, but realistically we can't change the whole world so this is likely to happen no matter what we do, but here are 4 things we support doing that potentially will help mitigate the effects in the US based on the current science, the conversation in this thread (and the climate change conversation in general) would be very different.

 

 

**EDIT**

On a side note, last year was the warmest year on record not associated with an El Nino (where El Nino years are normally warmer).

 

This year is going to be even warmer.  May and June were the warmest May and June on record, and while El Nino appears as if it is trying to form (and is probably contributing to the recent hot months), we still don't have an El Nino.

 

We went through a lull where the solar cycle was low (and is still low as compared to previous solar cycles), but we are reaching the peak of this solar cycle if we couple that in the next few years to a good El Nino, we are going to have a scorcher of a year (assuming no counter affecting things like massive volcano eruptions).

Edited August 1, 2014 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

This should not be a left vs. right issue. I urge anyone who is skeptical or accepting of climate change to read this report.

 

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf?elq=fbece7b787a94dc185d1ce50a7385e03

 

It's a recent report published by the American Association for Advancement of Science called ""What We Know: The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change". Here is a small briefer about it. It is written in layman terms and is aimed at informing the public on the scientific evidence for this issue.

 

Scientific agreement that climate change is happening here and now—a consensus held by about 97 percent of climate scientists;

The core science of global warming and its impacts on sea ice, oceans, biodiversity, weather, human health and security;

Projected high-risk scenarios, including collapsing Arctic sea ice and ecosystems.

 

As the world's largest general scientific society, we believe we have a responsibility and a unique opportunity to voice the science community's unified concern about the single greatest challenge of our time—and possibly of all time. If you have not yet visited the What We Know website, I urge you to do so and read the report. 

 

AAAS worked with a team of top climate scientists to produce this report, including Nobel laureate Dr. Mario Molina, at the University of California, San Diego, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Dr. Diana Wall, at Colorado State University's School of Global Environmental Sustainability; and Dr. James McCarthy, at Harvard University.

 

I'm actually planning on somehow incorporating this into my teaching curriculum for next year at my University, even if its just an extra credit assignment.

 

To me this is no longer an issue that can be won by drawing party lines. You have to attempt to inform the public in some way that is independent of politics.

Edited August 1, 2014 by No Excuses

[mcsluggo]

I don't know what the answer is. I honestly think the state of education is so poor in this country that close to half the population can't tell fact from fiction. 

 

do you think a higher percentage of the population in 1985  or 1965 or 1945  would've been better educated and more savvy and able to resist political manipulation (from all sides)?    

Republican bad, democrat good...am I doing it right?

 

not quite....   "boo hoo hoo, my panties hurt and everyone is mean to me.... "

 

 

is a better start

Edited August 1, 2014 by mcsluggo

[mistertim]

Seems a convenient way to be dismissive and ignore the subjects.

I don't know that it's a reasonable position. Look at the gun control threads where it's 15:1 in favor of gun rights.

Deal with the issue not the platitude.

Two of the favorite standbys to ignore the subjects at hand seem to be:

 

"Whatever, this is just partisan nonsense so I will dismiss the actual points or facts brought up with either feigned indignation or mockery"

 

and

 

"Well the other side did x (x may or may not be related in any way shape or form to the original point), so both sides are equally guilty, hence I will ignore the actual arguments"

[btfoom]

You may want to sue the folks who created climate models that were drastically wrong.

 

Or those who keep espousing the false 97% 'consensus' numbers.

 

Or the inconvenient truth that the Earth did not warm in almost 15 years.

 

I understand you really don't like conservatives or the GOP, but there is a tremendous amount of science that directly refutes AGW.  But hey, keep listening to MSNBC and those great scholars, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

[No Excuses]

You may want to sue the folks who created climate models that were drastically wrong.

 

Or those who keep espousing the false 97% 'consensus' numbers.

 

Or the inconvenient truth that the Earth did not warm in almost 15 years.

 

I understand you really don't like conservatives or the GOP, but there is a tremendous amount of science that directly refutes AGW.  But hey, keep listening to MSNBC and those great scholars, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

 

You have posted these same things a million times on this board and each time someone has pointed to you that they are either blatantly false (Which your third link is), a distortion and misrepresentation of the data (second link). Your first link cites Roy Spencer, someone who has been outright caught lying AND manipulating data and posting bull**** most of the time. Please read this:

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

 

How did he fudge?  What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline.  Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline?  The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers.  Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.

[alexey]

Person says:

I am troubled that GOP engages in science denialism on this one issue.

Somebody replies:

Why do you always over generalize? Why do you always say Democrats are right and GOP is wrong on everything?

WTF? That person was talking about ONE specific party's position on ONE specific issue. This is about GOP vs science when it comes to climate change.

Edited August 1, 2014 by alexey

[Mad Mike]

Freedom is obviously a four letter word.

 

The absolute mindless and childish nature of this post is almost beyond comprehension. I weep for the human race. 

[alexey]

The absolute mindless and childish nature of this post is almost beyond comprehension. I weep for the human race.

You done it again twa! Good to see you're still in top form

[Hersh]

Well, I'm moderately conservative, moderate enough to realize that climate change is the reality, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind.  Is it the result of human influence?  My answer is also, almost certainly yes.  Are there other factors in play, such as "natural stuff we can't control?"  Probably not, after all the earth just doesn't change on its own very quickly (save for an asteroid strike or mega-volcano of some sort, which is like a one in everyone 200 million year occurrence). 

 

The question for me has always been this-- where do we draw the line, in particular when we live in this global community where everyone else has to be on board.  Bottom line is that is easier and cheaper to produce goods without restrictive environmental regulation. Less cost, more production, better economy relative to our competitors on an international scale.  If we give a foot, how many inches do we need China to give? Or Russia?  Or India? Is this just a global game of chicken?  And if we submit while our competitors don't, are we going to lose our position as the economic powerhouse?  Does that effect our national defense?  Any here honestly want China acting as the world's police force? Is it too much of a gamble to invest in green energy now, because that's based on an assumption that it will not only be cheaper, but at least equally efficient in 30 years? 

 

 

Even though it would be most beneficial to get China on board with cleaning up the environment, I'm a big believer in taking care of our own back yard before we call out others. China has surpassed us in the polluting department, but we both pollute significantly more than others.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be engaged with other countries, but we need to take care of our own no matter what.

[Mad Mike]

Good luck with that. I'm sincerely hoping you have a crap ton of money to put forward into this lunatic-fringe idea or you know a lawyer as rabidly partisan and crazy as to think this is a good idea and will do it pro-bono.

I truly hope you actually pursue this, as it will be a wonderful form of free entertainment and laughs for myself watching it and by knowing that someone engaging in such an asinine and idiotic endeavor will be spending themselves dry.

I appreciate it, it's always nice to have a laugh before bed.

Nothing, what so ever, that you've yammered on about in any way, shape, or form legitimize any kind of legal action.

 

I dont know how far this idea will go. It depends on how much help I can get.

 

Some people laughed when I said I could make a difference in the Microsoft ant-trust trial. As it turned out, my site was popular reading. I got millions of visits traced back to top computer and technology companies, the DOJ and even NASA. Why? Because I was able to cut through the BS to form a powerful argument. As a result, I was interviewed several times by Wired Magazine, plagiarized by the CEO of Sun Microsystems, and quoted in Time friggin Magazine.

 

Oh, and however minimal the effect of my humble efforts... Microsoft lost. 

 

Laugh away. 

[Mad Mike]

Well, I'm moderately conservative, moderate enough to realize that climate change is the reality, beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind.  Is it the result of human influence?  My answer is also, almost certainly yes.  Are there other factors in play, such as "natural stuff we can't control?"  Probably not, after all the earth just doesn't change on its own very quickly (save for an asteroid strike or mega-volcano of some sort, which is like a one in everyone 200 million year occurrence). 

 

The question for me has always been this-- where do we draw the line, in particular when we live in this global community where everyone else has to be on board.  Bottom line is that is easier and cheaper to produce goods without restrictive environmental regulation. Less cost, more production, better economy relative to our competitors on an international scale.  If we give a foot, how many inches do we need China to give? Or Russia?  Or India? Is this just a global game of chicken?  And if we submit while our competitors don't, are we going to lose our position as the economic powerhouse?  Does that effect our national defense?  Any here honestly want China acting as the world's police force? Is it too much of a gamble to invest in green energy now, because that's based on an assumption that it will not only be cheaper, but at least equally efficient in 30 years? 

 

China to Fight Air Pollution With $1.65 Billion Fund - Bloomberg

 

Russia will not cut emissions under extended Kyoto climate pact | Reuters

 

Russia Picks an Odd Time to Put on Climate Halo - Bloomberg

 

India goes green, drafts policy to lower carbon emissions : SCIENCE : Tech Times

 

And the tea party position is.....

 

E.P.A. Draws Harsh Words From Most G.O.P. Candidates - NYTimes.com

 

 

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota wants to padlock the E.P.A.’s doors, as does former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wants to impose an immediate moratorium on environmental regulation.

Representative Ron Paul of Texas wants environmental disputes settled by the states or the courts. Herman Cain, a businessman, wants to put many environmental regulations in the hands of an independent commission that includes oil and gas executives. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, thinks most new environmental regulations should be shelved until the economy improves.

Only Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has a kind word for the E.P.A., and that is qualified by his opposition to proposed regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Mad Mike

[Rocky21]

I am absolutely baffled that anyone at this point can refute that the world climate is changing. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Doesn't sound like a cause of action to me. Sounds like you should form a competing superpac.

[twa]

I am absolutely baffled that anyone at this point can refute that the world climate is changing.

problem comes after that, most agree there ....then we move on to man caused and how and the **** blows up.   

 

and of course people that think they can tell you the science is settled or impose their opinions on another.

 

you know like the genius wanting to sue   

 

[PeterMP]

problem comes after that, most agree there ....then we move on to man caused and how and the **** blows up. 

 

and of course people that think they can tell you the science is settled or impose their opinions on another.

 

you know like the genius wanting to sue   

 

 

I'll point as I have done for years, the science that says the basic science that supports CO2 has a green house gas and therefore will cause changes in the climate goes back hundreds of years to a famous chemist called Arrhenius and that science essentially stand unrefuted.

[Kilmer17]

I am absolutely baffled that anyone at this point can refute that the world climate is changing.

Who's doing that?

[Mad Mike]

Emissions | Global Carbon Atlas

 

So... we are the number 2 carbon emitter in the world behind china at number 1. China is climbing on board because the shear volume of pollution cant be ignored. India is also beginning to move. Russia is Putin at this point and as long as Putin or someone like him remains in power they must be recognized as enemies who's lead we should never follow. The EU who are our allies are leaders in cutting emissions and they expect us to work with them.

 

EU greenhouse gas emissions and targets - European Commission

 

But  back to China....

 

China trounces U.S. in green energy investments - Apr. 17, 2013

 

 

Analysts attribute China's success to its stable, long-term incentives, such as its target goal to get 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. China's clean-energy push is spurred partly by its mounting pollution problems.

While some U.S. states have set their own targets, there is no federal policy on the matter. The federal approach mainly consists of a variety of tax breaks that depend on being renewed every few years.

"When a country has a strong target and a consistent policy, investors will go invest," said Phyllis Cuttino, director of the clean energy program at Pew.

 

Rather than acting like the economic and technological power house that we claim to be and creating jobs in emerging technologies, we are letting China take the lead. And rather than believing in American enginuity, Republican leadership seems to believe that America can't overcome the challenge and we should not even try. If you want to know why, download that greenhouse plugin or go to opensecrets.org and look up the donors to every republican climate denier. Then please, look me in the eye and tell me "climate change is just an excuse for Obama to raise taxes"

 

Rep. Paul Ryan: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

Look at every single climate denier and tell me what they all have in common....

 

Koch Industries: Summary | OpenSecrets

 

 

 

The total of contributions to candidates from Koch Industries PACs is 3 times larger thancontributions from individuals

[Mocountyskins]

This is what we deserve. Most people are single issue voters or vote for some odd reason. Personally I don't vote because I believe that it encourages the bad behavior from politicians. Me voting for the candidates lets them know that what they are doing is okay. Well its not okay. Our 2 party political system and economy are going to have to burn to the ground before things really change. Politicians use to be afraid of voters they would hold their promises. Now voters are **** on. They don't respect you only view you as tickets to power. Every person who holds office needs to be voted out everyone. People need to look for the people running that actually care. The people that are not yet bought off by major companies. Currently almost none of those people run for office. But if we start replacing all the cancers in office with people who care then more of those people might start to run. Too long have seats been passed down to groomed replacements. But I'm a realist. That will not happen people are too far programmed. Things won't change it will only get worse. A lot of bad things are going to have to happen for people to see that they are being screwed by everyone. Maybe then it will change or maybe not. The people are the ones with power the ones that vote not the politicians and I don't think our country realizes that.

[PeterMP]

This is what we deserve. Most people are single issue voters or vote for some odd reason. Personally I don't vote because I believe that it encourages the bad behavior from politicians.

 

I did a little modelling for a political party several years ago (the McCain/Obama election) as a consultant.

 

Politicians/election modellers love people that don't vote.  You can completely ignore them.

 

I honestly believe if the two major parties had their way, they'd have every election decided by 3 people (realistically, they'd like to have it decided by one person that they knew was going to vote for them, but the simplest model they could both agree on would be 3 people).  One they were sure would vote for them, one they knew that would vote for the other guy, and third that wasn't sure.

 

All they have to do is figure out what the unsure guy doesn't like about the other candidate or the person that is going to vote for the other candidate and they'd win.

 

Go vote.

 

Vote a mixed ticket.  Randomly select names.  Vote for people that have no chance of winning.  Write somebody in.

 

Nothing scares the major political parties more than somebody that is hard to predict and/or hard influence.

Edited August 1, 2014 by PeterMP

[Larry]

Go vote.

 

Vote a mixed ticket.  Randomly select names.  Vote for people that have no chance of winning.  Write somebody in.

 

Nothing scares the major political parties more than somebody that is hard to predict and/or hard influence.

I would think that "vote against the incumbent" might be a productive approach.

----------

I've also had this fantasy, for a while. Seems every election, the TV networks do this thing, where they go out and they get celebraties to try to encourage people to vote. Try to make it patriotic, or cool, or anything. Just anything, to get people to vote.

Me, I've had this idea for a different kind of "get out the vote" campaign.

I'd recruit people who people don;t like. Jessee Jackson. Rush Limbaugh. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi. The head of the KKK. The head of the NRA. The head of the ACLU.  A union boss.  A trial lawyer. 

"Hi. I'm ----------. A lot of people are trying to get you to vote, in this election. Well, I'm here to tell you not to. Heck, your vote probably won;t matter, any way. And it's a pain. And you've got more important things to do. There's probably a line.

"Heck, when was the last time you heard of an election decided by one vote, anyway?

"Don't bother. Send a message. Stay home.

"Let me decide, for you."

[skinsmarydu]

I agree to some degree, MoCo...but don't discount your value at the voting booth. For pretty much my whole life, it's been a game of "the lesser of the evils". (See "why 3rd parties never get to debate"...another game of numbers.)

Nothing is ok with me. There's always something more that can or should be done, a better policy to fight for, etc.

No matter what it is you do, do something. For me, it's getting people out to vote. I'm well-versed on the issues, and I do what I can. And not only for my "side"...like I said in an earlier post, both sides can give a little...it's whether they will or not, and only one side is trying to play fair at this point.

[Mad Mike]

One last thing for now...

 

I'm still waiting for someone to refute the things that I am saying.

 

Tell me why the Republicans, funded by oil billionaires who have pumped god knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars into the right wing to avoid any and all regulations should be trusted to ignore NASA, the military, and science itself to guide our energy policy backward. Tell me how its all a left wing conspiracy. And yes, I have had debates with self proclaimed "rational" tea party people argue the conspiracy claim to death.

 

The Vast Climate Conspiracy | Bob Musil

 

Top Seven Ridiculous Global Warming Hoax Quotes From Climate Change Deniers | Verbicide Magazine

 

But here is one of my favorite right wing claims....

 

Joe ****i: Can an AGW Climatologist Be Truly Objective? — The Patriot Post

 

 

 

Then there’s another big problem: What if you have all this knowledge, you’ve taken a stand on this, and it’s your whole life – how can you possibly be objective? The climate debate and past weather events are needed building blocks for my product. That product involves a challenge each day. In the case of a PhD on the AGW side, they believe the idea is the product. Destroy the idea, you destroy the product; destroy the product, you destroy the person. Therefore, it’s personal. Your whole life – all the fawning students, the rock star status – is all gone. I would hate to be in that position. Each day I get up, and there it is – the weather challenging me. The answeris the fruit of my labor, not the object of it. Because of that, you’ll look for anything to come up with the correct answer, not just a predetermined one where your self-esteem depends on it.

 

There you have it.... one of the "rock star" go-to "scientists" in the denial camp telling you that you cant trust scientist he admits have more degrees and measurably know more about the subject than he does because of the "rock star" status and "fawning students" and because he sees the weather change every day. Or something like that. Frankly I find his ramblings barely comprehensible. But hey.... its good enough for the "Voice of Essential Liberty".... Because "Freedom!"

[Larry]

Oh, my favorite version of that was the people who have actually tried to tell me that you can't let climate scientists inform you about this issue. Because the very fact that they are climate scientists means that they're biased.

[Burgold]

It's also essentially false. Professors aren't beholden to generate certain conclusions because of things like tenure. Besides, they aren't professors if agw, but profs of geology, meteorology, etc.

If all the theories were debunked their jobs would exist. Now, you can argue fairly that grant money may be providing pressure, but pressure towards what end?