mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-04-14, 03:56   #1
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default An observant proctologist's view on climate change

This article doesn't seem to fit in either the "Scientific Evidence" thread (because it's about trust, politics and other things besides the plain scientific evidence) or the "(Dis)Information Campaign" thread (because it only briefly mentions the disinformation campaign).

"A Message from a Republican Meteorologist on Climate Change

Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal"

http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissa...g20120329.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Douglas

I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up, long-term. ...

. . .

Some TV meteorologists, professionals who are skilled at predicting short-term weather, are still in denial. Why? Some don’t like being upstaged by climate scientists; we’ve all been burned by weather models, and some (mistakenly) apply the same suspicion to climate models. Others haven’t taken the time to dig into the climate science. “It’s all political” one local TV weather-friend told me recently. No, it’s science. But we’ve turned it into a political football, a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. Weather and climate are flip-sides of the same coin; you can’t talk about one without understanding the other.

Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal


My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-90s I noticed gradual changes in the weather patterns floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.

. . .

“Actions Have Consequences.”

Trust your gut - and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about “insuring more fat government research grants.” I have yet to find a climate scientist in the “1 Percent”, driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab. I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today. What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another – and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years/row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either “The Mother of All Coincidences” - or the trends are real.

My father, a devout Republican, who escaped a communist regime in East Germany, always taught me to never take my freedom for granted, and “actions have consequences.” Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually. To pretend this isn’t having any effect on the 12-mile thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window. It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales, about a world where actions have no consequences - where colorless, odorless gases, the effluence of success and growth, can be waved away with a nod and a smirk. No harm, no foul. Keep drilling.

In 2008, before it became fashionable to bash climate science, I had the honor of welcoming Iraqi war veterans back to Minnesota for a banquet. The keynote speaker was my hero, Senator John McCain. At dinner I asked him point blank “is it possible this warm, freakish weather is all one great big, cosmic coincidence?” He rolled his eyes, smiled and said “Paul, I just returned from the Yukon. The Chief Elder of a local village presented me with a 4,000 year old tomahawk that had just melted from the permafrost. The short answer? No.” How did we get from there – to here, with an entire party in perpetual denial? Is it still Al Gore? Fear of a government land-grab? My party needs to step up and become part of the solution, which, this century, will generate far more jobs and GDP than legacy, carbon-based industries.

. . .

Biblical Scripture: “We Are Here to Manage God’s Property”

I’m a Christian, and I can’t understand how people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes when the subject of climate change comes up. Actions have consequences. Were we really put here to plunder the Earth, no questions asked? Isn’t that the definition of greed? In the Bible, Luke 16:2 says, “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.” Future generations will hold us responsible for today’s decisions.

. . .

Climate Change: The Ultimate Test for Capitalism. Let The Markets Work

I’m an entrepreneur. The eight Minnesota companies I’ve created ultimately employed hundreds of professionals. Where others see chronic problems I see opportunity. One of my companies is Smart Energy, with a new level of wind forecast accuracy for global wind farms. Last summer, in response to the most severe two years since 1816, my partners and I launched a new, national cable weather channel (“WeatherNation Television”) - to keep Americans updated with 24/7 storm reports. “Global Weirding” has arrived. Why bother? Because it’s the right thing to do. And because going green will generate green. As in profits. We won’t drill our way out of this challenge; we’ll innovate our way into a new, lower-carbon energy paradigm. Something we’re pretty good at. Professional skeptics will hold up Solyndra as a reason why this will never work. For the sake of our nation’s future - don’t believe them.

. . .

... Curing our addiction to carbon won’t happen overnight. But creative capitalism can deal with climate change. I’m no fan of big government or over-regulation. Set the bar high. Then stand back and let the markets work. Let Americans do what they do best: innovate.

“The Mother of All Opportunities”: Turning America Into The Silicon Valley of Energy


We can figure this out. Frankly, we won’t have a choice. But I’m a naïve optimist. We can reinvent America, leaving us more competitive in the 21st century, launching thousands of new, carbon-free energy companies - supplementing, and someday surpassing anything we can expeditiously suck out of the ground and burn, accelerating an already-warming planet. We don’t have to bury our heads in Saudi sand – we’ll never “frack” our way to a sustainable future. It’s time for a New Energy Paradigm. There’s no silver bullet. But there’s plenty of (green) buckshot, if we aim high and point America in the right direction. We need real leadership, and a viable, bipartisan blueprint for inevitable energy independence from President Obama and Congress. Yes, healthcare is important. So is the long-term health of our air, land and water.

. . .
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-14, 05:40   #2
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts
Default

Thank you so very much for the link, and more importantly, thank you so very much to the author
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-14, 15:21   #3
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5×701 Posts
Default

God originally intended for the Earth(or possibly the universe) to sustain us for eternity, so it would make sense that we should be able to innovate our way out of this problem. If climate change is real, than obviously gas-powered vehicles were only intended to be a temporary solution to our transportation problems with something better intended later on.

It's a similar thing with world hunger. Take away human selfishness and gluttony and the planet could probably easily sustain 15 billion people or more.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-14, 19:27   #4
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

11,399 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
God originally intended for the Earth(or possibly the universe) to sustain us for eternity
Odd that he/she/it did not take similar care in designing the sun. But I suppose that's just an issue of the "designed for innovation" issue you mention.

Also odd that "for eternity" only begins 4.5 billion years into the earth's existence. Rather a long "warmup period", wouldn't you say?
ewmayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-14, 20:18   #5
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
May 2003
Down not across

5×19×107 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
Odd that he/she/it did not take similar care in designing the sun. But I suppose that's just an issue of the "designed for innovation" issue you mention.

Also odd that "for eternity" only begins 4.5 billion years into the earth's existence. Rather a long "warmup period", wouldn't you say?
Americans, pah! Irony is wasted on them.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-15, 05:44   #6
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5·701 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
Odd that he/she/it did not take similar care in designing the sun. But I suppose that's just an issue of the "designed for innovation" issue you mention.

Also odd that "for eternity" only begins 4.5 billion years into the earth's existence. Rather a long "warmup period", wouldn't you say?
The 4.5 billion year thing is an opinion, everything that is needed for any species to survive is already encoded into the DNA. That's why there's so much resemblance between, say, a yeast mold and a human being. DNA isn't similar because of a common ancestor, it's similar because of a common God.

You want proof? Ask God if He exists. Those who truly seek God will always find Him.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-15, 17:24   #7
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

2×32×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
everything that is needed for any species to survive is already encoded into the DNA.
What happened to the dinosaurs and the dodo?
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-15, 19:05   #8
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

16DA16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
DNA isn't similar because of a common ancestor, it's similar because of a common God.
Are you implying that God has DNA? How do you explain viruses?
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-15, 20:17   #9
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

769210 Posts
Default

Moderators:

See what happens when you mess with the thread title? :-)

- - - - -

Folks,

I apologize for forgetting to explain in my OP that I hoped this thread could be limited to presenting and discussing conservative/Republican views on climate change, with the purpose of greater understanding rather than trying to convince. For that purpose, for this thread I personally pledge to try not to persuade anyone to change their opinions about AGW, but only to ask questions to improve my understanding of views other than my own. (I probably will continue to try to persuade in other threads, but not in this one.)
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-15, 20:52   #10
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Folks, could we, in this thread, please let everyone explain the conservative/Republican/religious views in a non-antagonistic way, using that group's references and terminology, and let questions be for the purpose of clarification rather than for contrary argumentation?
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-09-07, 05:29   #11
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

I don't know whether this MarketWatch columnist is a conservative, but he does illustrate a current approach to persuading conservatives to stop denying AGW reality:

Aim at their wallet$.
Cite the Pentagon, historians and meteorologists(not climatologists).
Point out dramatic current events.
Don't mention climate science (or any other kind).

"Get rich in the ‘Age of Megafires’: 2014-20
Commentary: Sectors set to soar when the deniers quit denying"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/get...-20-2013-08-28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul B. Farrell
New investment strategies, dead ahead. Not just for America’s 95 million investors. But for the climate-change deniers like Big Oil and the Koch brothers. The trigger: “megafires” destroying treasures like our national parks. Time for a “mega-wakeup call.”

Act now, because the climate deniers will soon do a megashift and stop denying. Got that? Denialism will soon stop. End. So get out in front of this historic shift.

Big shift? Yes. “Megafires” are dominating the media. More immediate than such climate disasters as rising seas, floods, smog, dying bees, melting glaciers, even superstorms. All of those are easier to deny. But, every year now, these once-rare “megafires,” burning 150,000 acres at a time, are destroying forests and homes at an accelerating rate. This is the “new normal.” And it’s highly visible.

Megafires are fulfilling the Pentagon’s two-decade-old prediction, reported by Fortune, that “by 2020 there is little doubt something drastic is happening.”

“As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks,” that prediction continued, “an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would emerge” and “warfare is defining human life."

. . .

12 economic sectors burning hot

True investors take the long-term perspective.

Here’s our strategic investment model based on the 12-part formula in Jared Diamond’s classic “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” ...

1. Water as the new gold: . . .
2. Become a farmer and invest in commodities: . . .
3. Land banking and land development: . . .
4. Forest lands: . . .
5. Fossil fuels, oil, coal, natural gas: . . .
6. Alternative energies: . . .
7. Solar Power — plus space rockets and robots mining asteroids: . . .
8. Ozone protection — geoengineering climate change: . . .
9. Mining, chemicals, minerals — economic growth vs. public health: . . .
10. Species diversity: . . .
11. Population growth to 10 billion by 2050: . . .
12. New nations with ‘China dreams’: . . .
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Climate Change David John Hill Jr Science & Technology 1585 2020-05-28 22:19
alternative ( points of view ) cmd cmd 51 2019-09-28 14:56
Is Climate Change A Problem or Not? davar55 Soap Box 3 2015-11-07 21:44
Global Cooling / Climate Change Information Campaign cheesehead Soap Box 9 2012-04-14 03:12
possible climate change reducer ? science_man_88 Lounge 33 2010-07-31 20:31

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:58.

Fri Aug 7 21:58:39 UTC 2020 up 21 days, 17:45, 1 user, load averages: 1.58, 1.91, 2.00

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.