• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are There Any Conservatives Here Who Accept the Science of Climate Change?

Hawkeye10 said:
Because the perception is that science is now too corrupt to trust.

There are very good reasons to think in that direction.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if someone holds a certain position and is funding a study to "prove" that position then the study is most likely going show the results that the funder wants. Man made climate change studies are funded by man made climate change believers.
 
jamesrage said:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if someone holds a certain position and is funding a study to "prove" that position then the study is most likely going show the results that the funder wants. Man made climate change studies are funded by man made climate change believers.
Click to expand...

Yup the verdict was in before the trial even started. Guilty until proven innocent...... now pay up :(
 
jamesrage said:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if someone holds a certain position and is funding a study to "prove" that position then the study is most likely going show the results that the funder wants. Man made climate change studies are funded by man made climate change believers.
Click to expand...

And then as often as the so called experts have been wrong about how things work and what is good for us...take what we should eat for example, or giving tens of millions of jobs away for very very little, well, Even chumps wise up eventually......after enough abuse.
 
Crovax said:
Accept the science? Yes

Accept the scaremongering predictions that time and time again have been inaccurate? No
Click to expand...

I'm with you.

I read actual papers, and except for a few like Michael Mann, the research is what it is. They choose their words carefully, and the results are based on starting calculations from "If we assume..." In many cases, the papers recycle the same unverified ideas like the 3.71 W/m^2 for a doubling, and RP 8.5 modelling. This of course leads to very similar results time and again, and the papers are right for what they assume as fact.
Again, the scientists choose their words carefully, as if they are fulfilling the purpose of the grant, without convictions, or being explicit.
 
Winston said:
X you accept the science but, dispute that it's from co2 emissions? Or, you dispute nothing and accept it all?
Click to expand...

Scaremongering is not in the science.
 
Winston said:
So, you just don't think it's a big deal if we break the 2 degree celsius benchmark?
Click to expand...

Why would it be?

Have you read the actual peer reviewed papers so you can tell us what they say, instead of the lies the pundits tell us?

Why is 2 degrees a big deal?
 
Winston said:
From man's greenhouse gas emmissions he contributes an insulating effect on the climate. This will lead to warmer temperatures and warmer oceans leads to higher sea levels which will displace millions.
Click to expand...

A rise of 200-400 parts per million of CO2 will DESTROY THE EARTH!!! Unless you agree to transfer wealth to the UN, restrict your standard of living and give up personal and economic freedoms and liberty. Anything short of doing that is proof you hate your children, hate the earth, deny science and are stupid!
 
Winston said:
Well?

:2wave:
Click to expand...

A better question would be, are there any liberals who accept "the science of climate change"? Of course not. You and your ilk only accept the "science" which aligns with your preconceived notions about "climate change", while rejecting out of hand any evidence to the contrary. YOU, and your ilk, are the true deniers.

Furthermore, if you were really interested in "solving" this "problem", then your solutions wouldn't involve left wing wealth redistribution schemes which only serve to hurt the very people you claim to want to help.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why would it be?

Have you read the actual peer reviewed papers so you can tell us what they say, instead of the lies the pundits tell us?

Why is 2 degrees a big deal?
Click to expand...

Because 50 or 60 people on tiny islands might have to move dammit. :rolleyes:
 
Paralogic said:
No. They are all deniers. Some of them may accept that we spew billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere *every year*, but they will not publicly accept that all that CO2 has any effect whatsoever to the climate, when they know already that it does.

That's the core of Conservatism: Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

We have raised CO2 levels from 278 ppm in 1750 to 390 ppm in 2011 IAW the AR5. The total radiative forcing is just under 500 W/m^2 (494) to give us an approximate 288K average earth temperate.

IAW the IPCC calculations, 5.35 x ln(390/278) = 1.81 W/m^2.

IAW the IPCC, this 40% increase in CO2 only gave us a 0.37% (494 / 492.2 = 1.00365...) increase in radiative forcing. Now if we do simple fourth power math...

2011: 494 W/m^2
1750: 492.2 W/m^2

To derive the change of temperture fro change of radiative forcing with CO2 at 1750 levels to 2011 levels...

(492.2^0.25) / (494^0.25) = 0.999

288 x 0.999 = 287.74

288 - 287.74 = 0.26 degrees.

So we have a 0.26 degree increase for CO2 from 1750 to 2011. The IPCC however claims a 0.85 degree increase. Of course, they are filling in the missing science with the magic feedback forcing of H2O...

With the bulk of the IPCC work, all other variables cancel each other out leaving CO2 and H2O feedback the significant factor.

This just doesn't ad up to anyone competent in he sciences.
 
Winston said:
Well?

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "accept the science of climate change".

Personally, as a conservative, I fully respect that the climate changes, often moves in cycles, and has for the entirety of the planet's existence. I also accept that the industrialization of mankind has contributed, negatively, to the planet's atmosphere. I'm not convinced, however, that man must destroy or beggar the planet's economies to "save" the planet since I have far more respect for the planet's abilities, over man's, to control the environment.

Most importantly, however, I absolutely reject categorically and without hesitation the left's "solutions" for remedial action to "save" the planet - all of which conveniently for them involve some form of wealth redistribution and taxation that takes money out of my pocket to enrich third world countries and leftist causes while allowing the planet's prime polluters, the likes of China and India, not to mention the US, to continue to pollute at will for decades to come. Sorry, but I'm not willing to live out the remainder of my years in financial servitude to government so that Al Gore and his ilk can enlarge his carbon footprint and feel superior - the asshole and his cronies can rot in hell.
 
graeme104 said:
Ahem, no. I believe that climate change exists, and that we have to take action to fight against it. And get this? I'm a conservative who votes republican. Crazy, right?
Click to expand...

The best action we can take is stop using dirty burning techniques of fossil fuels. We need to do away with, or update all old technology. It's not the fossil fuels, but the fact we are no using efficient clean burning techniques in many places of the world.

The climate always changes. Over very long periods of time...

I see the usage of "climate change" as an intentional misrepresentation of fact. We have very long climatic cycles, and there really is no way to say the changes we see are not natural.

Yes CO2 has an effect on both temperature and absolute humidity, but in both cases it is within the normal parameters of weather changes with a climate system.

What bothers me the mos is they only see what they shine the light on. They only look at greenhouse gasses, then have to amplify their effects with hypothesis after hypothesis.

Land use changes have a dramatic effect on the local microclimates. Aerosols from dirty fossil fuel emissions likel have a more profound effect than greenhouse gasses as well.

When you take several hundred square miles of land, and over 200 years go from almost all natural landscape, to over 80% covered by concrete, asphalt, and building... This is dramatic for the immediate area, and affects the temperature for several miles around as well. What is lost is the natural cooling of evapotranspiration. Rain water that once was absorbed in the ground, and cooled he surface as it evaporated, is now channeled int storm sewers and no longer cools. Nearby meteorological stations can never be correctly "corrected" for this loss of cooling and show an unnatural rise in temperatures as this nearby coolng is lost, and the winds blow the right way...

Soot is probably the worse of the problems. The higher latitude coal plants rain invisible aerosols on the ice. The albedo of the ice is changed, Consier that it wakes very litle so, and i is invisible to the naked eye to change the albedo of ice fro 0.85 to 0.70.

Class...

Anyone know what this means?

Albedo is reflectivity. Changing from a 0.85 to 0.70 means the ice went from absorbing 15% tp 30% , or a doubling in the melting rate...... This is why we are losing the norther ice....

Then as more arctic ocean is exposed, the absorption goes past 50%, where it used to be only 15%.

This is the simple parts of the sciences. I really don't know what people trust the pundits instead of seeking the truth.
 
blackjack50 said:
What you won't see me do is ignore that the democrat politicians and the scientists behind the push for the research and green tech and government grants...are all seeing big old dollar signs and job security. And greed does funny things to people. Can you acknowledge that issue with climate change in so far as the political debate is concerned?
Click to expand...

And when Exxon and Shell suppressed climate research going back to the 70's, they were not seeing dollar signs?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Depends on what you mean by "accept the science of climate change".

Personally, as a conservative, I fully respect that the climate changes, often moves in cycles, and has for the entirety of the planet's existence. I also accept that the industrialization of mankind has contributed, negatively, to the planet's atmosphere. I'm not convinced, however, that man must destroy or beggar the planet's economies to "save" the planet since I have far more respect for the planet's abilities, over man's, to control the environment.

Most importantly, however, I absolutely reject categorically and without hesitation the left's "solutions" for remedial action to "save" the planet - all of which conveniently for them involve some form of wealth redistribution and taxation that takes money out of my pocket to enrich third world countries and leftist causes while allowing the planet's prime polluters, the likes of China and India, not to mention the US, to continue to pollute at will for decades to come. Sorry, but I'm not willing to live out the remainder of my years in financial servitude to government so that Al Gore and his ilk can enlarge his carbon footprint and feel superior - the asshole and his cronies can rot in hell.
Click to expand...

Someone who dislikes leftist sneakiness and Al Gore can't be all bad.

;)
 
Winston said:
From man's greenhouse gas emmissions he contributes an insulating effect on the climate. This will lead to warmer temperatures and warmer oceans leads to higher sea levels which will displace millions.
Click to expand...

We have an approximate total earth forcing of 494 W/m^2. Total CO2 forcing is about 32 W/m^2, and the last 1.8 W/m^2 is since 1750.

This is not the boogeyman...
 
countryboy said:
Because 50 or 60 people on tiny islands might have to move dammit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sea levels rise anyway. They have never stopped rising since we came out of the last ice age. We might increase the rate it rises at slightly, bu that is due to melting arctic ice. Ice that is melting due to its decreasing albedo. Not because of CO2.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Sea levels rise anyway. They have never stopped rising since we came out of the last ice age. We might increase the rate it rises at slightly, bu that is due to melting arctic ice. Ice that is melting due to its decreasing albedo. Not because of CO2.
Click to expand...

I was being a smart ass. Which is always better than being a dumbass. :mrgreen:

The fact of the matter is, sea levels have been rising at about the same rate for a very long time. There has been no significant increase in the rate. This is what is so hilarious about this thread, as I said, leftist loons are the true deniers.
 
countryboy said:
A better question would be, are there any liberals who accept "the science of climate change"? Of course not. You and your ilk only accept the "science" which aligns with your preconceived notions about "climate change", while rejecting out of hand any evidence to the contrary. YOU, and your ilk, are the true deniers.

Furthermore, if you were really interested in "solving" this "problem", then your solutions wouldn't involve left wing wealth redistribution schemes which only serve to hurt the very people you claim to want to help.
Click to expand...

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

3% of papers that deny climate change are all flawed, study concludes^

So, who denies science now? Why, the American conservatives deny science, and they are the only people on the planet, I repeat THE ONLY people on the planet that do not accept climate change and treat it as a serious threat.

All this fearmongering about wealth redistribution is LAUGHABLE. Considering you are mad at your boogeyman the left, for supposedly fearmongering about climate change, and then you turn around and fearmonger about socialism.

So, continue to demonstrate your utter contempt for a discussion about climate change, its ramifications, and what humanity should do about it. It's quite entertaining.
 
countryboy said:
I honestly couldn't care less what your cabal of control freaks "study" says. Leftist control freaks have been caught lying so many times, I no longer believe anything they have to say. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And the 97% isn't real the way the pundits spin it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And the 97% isn't real the way the pundits spin it.
Click to expand...

countryboy said:
I honestly couldn't care less what your cabal of control freaks "study" says. Leftist control freaks have been caught lying so many times, I no longer believe anything they have to say. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's all fake, man.

Just ask Rush Limbaugh.
 
countryboy said:
I honestly couldn't care less what your cabal of control freaks "study" says. Leftist control freaks have been caught lying so many times, I no longer believe anything they have to say. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So, you start out by saying liberals are actually the ones that deny science...

and then you deny science.

Classic.
 
graeme104 said:
Ahem, no. I believe that climate change exists, and that we have to take action to fight against it. And get this? I'm a conservative who votes republican. Crazy, right?
Click to expand...

Before reading the rest of the thread, I'd say virtually unique in the USA! AGW denial appears to be a purely political position, since the science is clear.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Before reading the rest of the thread, I'd say virtually unique in the USA! AGW denial appears to be a purely political position, since the science is clear.
Click to expand...

You'll never get certain conservatives to admit climate change is real.

You'd have a better time getting them to admit Obama was a great president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom