[Yoshua]

Friends of global warming. It is time to form a support group for global warming. Concerned Citizens Supporting Global Warming.

The co2 level was 4000 ppm in the atmosphere when complex life started 500 million years ago. The planet used to be warm, moist and green. Life has used carbon dioxide, the building blocks of life, died and been pressed to the earths crust. The co2 level collapsed to 200 ppm, the planet cooled, the poles froze, we started to have ice ages that threatened turn this planet to a snowball and lead to an extinction event.

The burning of fossil fuels has recycled co2 into the atmosphere and reversed the trend.

[Newfie]

Dohboi,
It seems some conservatives, perhaps many, do accept cc/AGW but consider it a worthwhile risk compared to sudden doom of financial collapse.

At least that's what I'm hearing.

Then they pick political fan boys to argue their case, like we pick lawyers to argue a case. They are our advocate, even when lying or telling know half truths.

It's the way the game is played.

[GHung]

The whole world is not the USA, GHung. There are more people in the world who cannot read than who can. There are more literate people who don't know the differences between Republicans and Democrats than do.

Note also one vital phrase " Remember it has to go beyond accepting the science, you have to convince that many people that this is serious enough to change national energy policies."

Now here is where I can only find stats that apply to the USA. Most of the people who pay lip service to AGW/CC do so to get you tiresome fanatics out of their faces so that they can get along with BAU. Something like 2% of the Americans who believe in AGW/CC are in favor of taking any action, as long as they are not inconvenienced and as long as it costs them nothing. Personally I think that 2% is a high number.

The litmus test of a true believer is does he "walk the walk, or talk the talk". I believe I have correctly identified most people here as "Limousine environmentalists". They still own vehicles with fuel tanks, they still consume exotic foods imported from other countries, they still use electricity from a coal-fired grid. This in spite of decades of availability of BEVs, local foods, and green electricity.

In the only way that actually matters, they demonstrate their disbelief in AGW/CC. If I'm not mistaken, you are one who professes belief in AGW/CC, but does not demonstrate such belief with your lifestyle.

One last point. You find in me a critic of people such as you, and it irritates you to no end. I question the science, I question the math, and most of all, I question the motives of you AGW/CC fanboys. Even though almost none of you are qualified by education and work experience to even hold a valid opinion about such things as climate, you DO hold such opinions, and even go beyond the science and declare such things to be "the truth", and demonstrate that this is therefore politics and not science to you.

You said; "The whole world is not the USA, GHung. There are more people in the world who cannot read than who can."

As usual, you filter out the parts that refute your claims. What part of "55% of people polled in 127 countries" do you need explained??? Then you have the gall to go and and say; "...Even though almost none of you are qualified by education and work experience to even hold a valid opinion about such things as climate, you DO hold such opinions"... You don't know what my background is, yet seem to think your background in CS qualifies you? I'm thinking your true background is in burger flipping, and am confident that my background, education level, and real-world experience makes me much more qualified. It doesn't matter to me since one of us has the humility to defer such judgements to people who are much more qualified to make those assessments, and THAT AIN'T YOU. If you don't have a PhD in atmospheric science, climate physics, etc., I suggest you STFU lest you make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

Yep, it irks me when some Silicon Valley computer key pusher tells me all of these scientists are wrong, then goes on to tell the rest of us we're not "qualified".

[GHung]

.....GHung, onlike Yoshua I believe in GW, like those 80 million Americans. I'm just not a GW fankid-fanatic.

Nor am I a "fankid-fanatic, whatever TF that is. Not sure it's a useful term; more of a cop-out for those who can't make the rest of us STFU about saying humans are affecting the climate, especially those making excuses for their inadequate responses to any of the many predicaments facing our species.

One big tell is when people belittle those of us who are trying to adapt, rather than just being honest and saying they aren't going to change their behavior or beliefs. I'm used to that; being perceived as a threat to people who have no intention of changing their lifestyles. Why would they do that?

[dohboi]

Newf said: "...some conservatives, perhaps many, do accept cc/AGW but consider it a worthwhile risk compared to sudden doom of financial collapse."

It may be something like that. I think in most cases though, the denial goes deeper. They can't even accept science, if its conclusions mean that they might have to rethink long held assumptions and values.

The weird thing is, no one has actually said that they have to do so.

If they wanted to, they could come up with all sorts of ways of dealing with the issue that honored their 'conservative' values. But they mostly don't seem to be creative enough to do so. Important conservative leaders in congress did at first seem to accept 'cap and trade,' iirc, but when O looked like he was going to approve it, they freaked out and became even more adamantly and uniformly denialist.

Agent has come up with some ideas. I find them abhorrent on a number of grounds, but at least he has shown that it is possible to come up with ideas to address GW that don't involved more big government.

Hansen, who was a rather conservative Republican before they decided to crucify him, approved of tax and dividend, now championed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, whereby 100% (minus processing expenses) of the tax goes back to households every month. http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics- ... -dividend/

[GHung]

Gosh, pstarr, none of the proposals I've seen look much like what you posit. Here's a synopsis of what Sanders is proposing:

Climate Protection and Justice Act of 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/ ... nline=file

None of the tax would be slated for highway improvements.

Anyway, I don't care if people don't like the idea since I've cut our carbon footprint so much, it will hopefully be a benefit to my family in more ways than one. I had these made; now on our vehicles:

[Tanada]

Newf said: "...some conservatives, perhaps many, do accept cc/AGW but consider it a worthwhile risk compared to sudden doom of financial collapse."

It may be something like that. I think in most cases though, the denial goes deeper. They can't even accept science, if its conclusions mean that they might have to rethink long held assumptions and values.

The weird thing is, no one has actually said that they have to do so.

If they wanted to, they could come up with all sorts of ways of dealing with the issue that honored their 'conservative' values. But they mostly don't seem to be creative enough to do so. They did come up with 'cap and trade' but when O surprised them by saying he would accept something like it, they freaked out and became even more adamantly and uniformly denialist.

Agent has come up with some ideas. I find them abhorrent on a number of grounds, but at least he has shown that it is possible to come up with ideas to address GW that don't involved more big government.

Hansen, who was a rather conservative Republican before they decided to crucify him, approved of tax and dividend, now championed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, whereby 100% (minus processing expenses) of the tax goes back to households every month.

How many folks who think of themselves as Liberal Global Warming believers still fly on any aircraft to go on vacation every year? How many of them set their household thermostats to 65 F or less and dress warmly in the winter time? How many of them drive compact or subcompact cars and use mass transit whenever possible? Not nearly as many as claim to be concerned about Global Warming, which in my book makes them hypocrites and defuses their claim to the moral high ground.

[KaiserJeep]

I am NOT a disbeliever in global warming. In fact, I believe that the globe has been warming (on the long term average) since the Pleistocene glacial period. I also believe that if the activities of mankind have contributed to this warming in any way, they are insignificant contributions, and that negative feedback loops - such as enhanced plant growth in an environment of extra carbon dioxide - will moderate even these modest contributions.

I also maintain an open mind, I examine both the evidence for and the evidence against AGW/CC. In this I am different from almost every other member, as you seek out only material that confirms your prejudice and exclude evidence that disputes it.

I maintain that my approach to the question is open minded in the long traditions of scientific inquiry, and yours is close-minded, prejudiced, and in the tradition of most humans, who are dogmatists, not seekers of truth.

Lastly, I understand how dependant we are upon fossil fuels, and how they enabled the overshoot human population that is killing the environment of this planet. If AGW/CC were real, it might or it might not make it into my top four problems list. We can survive a warming planet, and Greenie prejudices aside, so can the polar bears. We cannot survive - today - without burning huge amounts of fossil fuels. So I act as I believe - and every time I find an AGW/CC fanboy, who advocates that we stop burning FF's, I properly and accurately identify that person as what they are - a person advocating human genocide on a global scale.

Me, I'm an advocate for Humanity. It seems sometimes that I am the only one in this peculiar corner of the Internet.

[GHung]

.....I also maintain an open mind, I examine both the evidence for and the evidence against AGW/CC. In this I am different from almost every other member, as you seek out only material that confirms your prejudice and exclude evidence that disputes it.

I maintain that my approach to the question is open minded in the long traditions of scientific inquiry, and yours is close-minded, prejudiced, and in the tradition of most humans, who are dogmatists, not seekers of truth.....

Who's "you", KJ? In my case, you don't know that any of this is true. You just assume, displaying the same sort of prejudice that you accuse others of. You also assume that most of us haven't looked at both sides of this issue, and made their own determinations based on a preponderance of the evidence. It's clear that you feel you are superior in making these judgements, but I assure you, that isn't the case.

[dohboi]

Yeah, I know, T.

In some ways, that makes for a perfect contrast:

conservatives don't like the science of CC because they don't like the policies it might require...

by and large, liberals accept the science, and they think the only action to be taken is changing policies...

[Newfie]

There ya go Dohboi, now you are on the right track. The denial is not a left/right matter, both side contribute to the problem.

IF you want to do something then you have to find some common ground to unite around. I don't know that is possible.

Let me tell you a story. A VERY liberal friend was writing me telling me we must unite against Trumps dictatorship. Now this chickless hen has told me repeatedly that he doesn't care about AWG since he has no kids, no kin.

So why should I give a shit about his personal hobby horse agenda, (the abridged rights of imprisioned black men) when he doesn't give a hoot if all humanity dies?

So he tells me he is resigned to the fact humanity will exterminate itsel and in the meantime I should allow him to entertain himself with his social justice issues.

I kid you not.

WTF

[dohboi]

"I don't know that is possible."

I doubt it is.

I know that all other issues can seem like worrying who is on what seat in the bus, even as the bus goes over a cliff.

But these are real issues to those actually living them.

I do have concern for my many Muslim neighbors, friends, students, colleagues...in this very frightening time for them...

But I still try to teach them and others about the huge CC tsunami about to/ int the process of overwhelming all other human and non-human concerns.

Even my (to my mind) quite conservative mother just sent out an email about how we are now plunging headlong into fascism. If nothing else, Trumpism has gotten a lot of people's attention. But it has also further distracted us from the Great Game...as Gavin Schmidt recently tweeted, the climate doesn't care about elections.

[Newfie]

That's right Dohboi. That's why it's important o make a list of your 5 most important issues. It's pretty hard to come up with any realistic list and have Trump on it. Unless your like my Liberal friend above.

My current list is (no particular order)

1- over population
2- over consumption
3- resource depletion (including water)
4- climate change
5- excessively complex global financial situation
6- antibacterial resistant drugs

Your list may vary, but I think we know each other well enough to roughly agree on the scope if not the details. Each one of these items presents a massive challange. Taken in combination it is a very depressing list.

So it's a question not of conservatives understanding AGW. Its a question of our ruling class being totally disconnected from the physical perils that face us as a species. There is nothing especially difficult here. Anyone with a middling 9th grade education should be able to understand the logic to these concerns. You don't have to agree with all items, virtually coming to grips with any two, surely for three, would require a response that would drastically improve all the others.

Either that or they are unanimously leading us over a cliff.

Maybe alien worms really did eat their brains.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

You said; "The whole world is not the USA, GHung. There are more people in the world who cannot read than who can."

As usual, you filter out the parts that refute your claims. What part of "55% of people polled in 127 countries" do you need explained??? Then you have the gall to go and and say; "...Even though almost none of you are qualified by education and work experience to even hold a valid opinion about such things as climate, you DO hold such opinions"... You don't know what my background is, yet seem to think your background in CS qualifies you? I'm thinking your true background is in burger flipping, and am confident that my background, education level, and real-world experience makes me much more qualified. It doesn't matter to me since one of us has the humility to defer such judgements to people who are much more qualified to make those assessments, and THAT AIN'T YOU. If you don't have a PhD in atmospheric science, climate physics, etc., I suggest you STFU lest you make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

Yep, it irks me when some Silicon Valley computer key pusher tells me all of these scientists are wrong, then goes on to tell the rest of us we're not "qualified".

Your post is a monument to unclear thinking.

YES I said I remain unconvinced that AGW is either significant or serious. Therefore I'm the one with the open mind on the matter, and almost all the PO.com members have the opposite view that AGW/CC is significant, deadly serious, and opposing opinions cannot be tolerated. They and you are downright intolerant of people who don't agree with them, even though this topic is of no real significance.

There are over 7.4 billion humans and most will go their entire lives without making a telephone call, having enough to eat, or clean water to drink. They will never spend 10 seconds concerned about AGW. They only exist because of the abundance of food caused by mechanized agriculture, petroleum derived pesticides, petrochemical herbicides, fertilizers made from oil and gas, and food processed on electric machinery powered by burning coal.

YOU and all the other AGW/CC fanatics want these people to die, because they represent a tremendous inconvenience to the First World countries. That is in exactly the effect of advocating that we stop burning FF's because there exists the possibility that the planet is warming as a result.

A pox on all you murderous and genocidal AGW/CC fanboys. How about instead of wishing those billions would die less you be inconvenienced, you come up with a way to save them, and give them a quality of life, an education, and a diet like yours?

Now enjoy the rest of your weekend, before you too go back to work at BAU, killing the environment, and (according to you at least) warming the climate.

[Subjectivist]

Dohboi I think many on the left react as if everyone on the right thinks like timmac. See this thread to understand what I mean.
global-warming-a-back-door-to-socialism-un-admits-it-t70183.html

When you treat us all like we are guilty of being conspiricy theory nutbags you get automatic blowback. The hypocrisy of flying to some wonderful vacation spot to hold a global warming conference also does nothing to convince the reluctant, or Albert Gore Jr. Building his massive mansion and not putting in windmills and solar panals to power it when he has all that roof space and land...