Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me say at the outset that I've been exposed to this issue for a very long time; it was in 1961, as a sixth-grader that I first encountered the proposition that "increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might one day melt the polar icecaps, and raise ocean levels:.
(And interestingly, within about two years, articles and cover stories about "the coming ice age" also circulated regularly.) Perhaps ten years later, the controversy over CFC's and damage to the ozone layer took center stage, and it wasn't until after the turn of the new millennium that the CO2 issue again became prominent.
I grew up in an area (the anthracite region of Northeastern Pennsylvania) where damage to both the land and water due to indiscriminate mining were commonplace. The outrage, especially among those of us who merely lived downstream, was well documented, but it was a time of recovery from Depression and global war, and the resources to address the issue just weren't there -- not yet. That began to change as the economy continued to grow, and if that portion of the environmental movement with longer time horizons and a true understanding of what an economy can, and can not support, I'll second that point.
The problems begin when environmental zeal is used to override empirical fact and liberties are taken with basic facts in the name of "junk science". Probably no stronger example of this exists than The Carbon Diaries, by British activist and juvenile-oriented author Saci Lloyd, who "predicted" evidence of a sub-tropical climate in the British Isles as early as 2015,
All but the most strident of environmental advocates would recognize that the AGW movement has been losing steam in recent years, further weakened by scandals exposing collusion among some of its leadership and a number of figures identified with the left half of the nation's present polarization,
And I have to point out that the election of President Trump (for whom I did not vote, BTW) represents nothing so much as a growing distrust among working-class voters toward the depiction of environmental concerns as beyond their grasp, and therefore best left to a "progressive" elite.
I don't want to see the real issue of climate change (as opposed to the emotionally-hyped :threat" of "global warming") completely discarded; there is much to be learned -- if left to the relatively-small number of trues scientific professionals who have not succumbed to the temptation of a more prominent (and lucrative) role in a hugely-expanded international bureaucracy which has long been the first objective of the politicians behind this controversy.
The term "conservative: implies foresight -- questioning and rejection of superficial short-term "benefit" in the name of slower, but steadier. and well-tested growth. It was not until the manipulators of Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the more-simplistic portions of Academia discovered the word "ecology" (which, BTW, had been used by libertarian-leaning sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein several years previously) that the term "conservation" fell into disrepute.
But has it ever poured to some of the more strident environmentalists that some of their ideas might be too simplistic?
Physics doesn't care about political ideologies. Carbon dioxide, methane, and other gasses absorb heat and keep the planet warm enough to live on. Adding more CO2 and methane will necessarily increase the earth's average temperature.
Yes, there are people who will use legitimate science for political ends. Beware of them.
The term conservative does not imply foresight. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. It implies to look back and/or to maintain the status quo.
Conservatives have always tried to impede progress. It is in their nature. From child labor laws to acid rain, conservatives have fought laws addressing these wrongs.
You would think conservatives would not be so anti-environmental given that conservative and conservation have the same common root word.
But such is not the case. Conservatives are the ones advocating waste. Conserving resources is anathema to them. It is all about money, greed and living for the here and now with no care for the future.
Denying climate change is not conservative per se it is irresponsibility and abdication of our responsibility to our children.
Politically, I'm a person without a party. Like many of my peers I'm a fiscally conservative/socially moderate pragmatist seeking restorative justice, but willing to promote reasonable policies to preempt unwanted actions if the risk-reward is beneficial. I've got rooftop solar and an EV, but I've also got a V8 Duramax, a rifle & shotgun. My take on conservatism and environmentalism is that historically, the environment use to be a conservative concern. From Roosevelt, to John Muir, to Nixon, these fellows had the foresight (though arguably misguided) to conserve the environment. It seems to me that scientific opinion, theory, and fact get conflated and we are living in an era of distrust and skepticism. We seriously have politicians claiming that God will save us no matter what we do to our environment, which has to reflect the ideology of a good portion of population.
I don't intend for this to sound snarky, but you believe or are agnostic in the thought that pollution and human activity has accelerated the demise of our environment, I would think the conservative approach would be to error on the side of caution and assume there might be some validity to the points being made by the proponents. I'm not suggesting you go hog-wild into a belief system until you can verify, but to dismiss the whole thing or worse, respond with animus (like those who "roll-coal in their diesel vehicles) is a very damaging behavior not just for the environment, but to the civil debate of issue.
It seems to me that when Al Gore took up environmental studies as a passion project, many took his interest as "left issue" and the whole thing become toxic (pardon the pun). Many on the right reflexively rejected the whole idea and skepticism became the anthem of the alt-right. It's a shame who polarized we've become, but there's a growing movement among people to reject political parties and their labels, but to focus on the issues instead. Who knows where this will lead? Everyone has an opinion, but we don't have to be this dysfunctional.
Physics doesn't care about political ideologies. Carbon dioxide, methane, and other gasses absorb heat and keep the planet warm enough to live on. Adding more CO2 and methane will necessarily increase the earth's average temperature.
Let's look at the heat absorbed by CO2 in the principal spectrum, which is 15 um (micrometers). We apply Wien's Law where T (Temperature °Kelvin) = b / Wave-Length, where "b" is a constant = 2,900 um-°K
We have T = b / Wave-Length = 2,900 um-°K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F = -80°C
So Earth radiates Black Body Radiation at 15 um which is equivalent to -112°F and we're supposed to believe that drives up the temperatures on Earth. The laws of physics dictate that "cooler" radiation cannot warm a surface which is already warmer.
On top of that, we're supposed to believe that the Earth's average global temperature should only be 57.2°F.
Where is the science to support such a claim?
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer than present, with average global temperatures clocking in at 67.6°F.
Why should this Inter-Glacial Period be colder than the previous Inter-Glacial Period?
Again, where is the science to support such claims?
The term conservative does not imply foresight. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. It implies to look back and/or to maintain the status quo.
You have a lot of unlearning to do. Thanks, no doubt, to the left leaning minions planted in our classrooms by Clinton, Obama, and the NEA. Entrepreneurship and its end product, capitalism, are the driving forces behind all human progress.
Quote:
Conservatives have always tried to impede progress. It is in their nature. From child labor laws to acid rain, conservatives have fought laws addressing these wrongs.
Prior to the Renaissance and its end product, the Enlightenment, virtually everyone was a field hand -- a serf, just a slave by another name, or a warrior. Periodic wars with the neighboring tribe, rather than raising more food, drew off the excess population. Women were confined to a usually-brutal home life. It was not until the first trades and crafts emerged in a few small communities, that a lucky (and enterprising!) few began to escape, but in the words of the Englishman, Thomas Hobbes, life for most was "mean, nasty, brutish, and short".
As progress spread, slavery died out -- mainly because a slave could only be trusted to do the most simple tasks. And child labor had existed from the beginning, but only within the peasant family. The movement to the cities in the early stages of industrialization set up a more-exploitive version, but it didn't last, for reasons of simple human decency.
Quote:
You would think conservatives would not be so anti-environmental given that conservative and conservation have the same common root word.
But such is not the case. Conservatives are the ones advocating waste. Conserving resources is anathema to them. It is all about money, greed and living for the here and now with no care for the future.
In a truly free society -- a "society without coercion", all resources would be privately owned ad every entrepreneur would have a natural incentive for stewardship -- obviously, that is not practical -- at this point in time. But a more precise identification and definition of resources under the rule of law should eventually lead to a more positive means for their management.
Many of the earliest environmentalists were professionals -- educators and managers; they recognized the difficulties of the process cited above. But beginning in the 1960's, the environmental movement was co-opted by campus radicals -- committed to the thug-logic that any recognition of the individual's right to life, liberty and property could be overruled at any time in the name of some vague "greater common good".
This is a quandary to which I can't offer a simple answer; it will obviously take decades, probably centuries, before the fine points can be developed. But just as expanded material progress has built a huge (and fast-growing) non-profit sector to address, expand, (and hopefully, police) the societal "safety net', a more open, market-driven approach can be allowed to evolve which will define and address environmental issues -- it must.
Quote:
Denying climate change is not conservative per se; it is irresponsibility and abdication of our responsibility to our children.
Because the environmental super-bureaucracy proposed by Al Gore and his groupies has absolutely no incentive to address this issue (let alone develop practical means to undo any damage). It merely wants to build a power-structure (because without a profit motive, power becomes an end in itself) to punish those who dissent from its views.
Finally, I would like to remind you that environmental causes have taken root only in the fifteen-or-so established, tested democracies; places where power is confined via a parliamentary system and free elections, Once power has passed between competing parties exclusively via free elections for a century or more, no tested nation within that group has since taken up the sword against another member.
Environmentalism is fully-compatible with the pursuit of peace, but a reasonably-free, and open economy is also an essential component of the process.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-05-2017 at 09:36 PM..
Some great responses from 2TO and Micrea but frankly what good does it do to continue to argue about causes? I have said it before and I repeat, The Climate Change ship has sailed and there is no calling it back. We would be better off discussing how do we live with the results?
Let's look at the heat absorbed by CO2 in the principal spectrum, which is 15 um (micrometers). We apply Wien's Law where T (Temperature °Kelvin) = b / Wave-Length, where "b" is a constant = 2,900 um-°K
We have T = b / Wave-Length = 2,900 um-°K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F = -80°C
So Earth radiates Black Body Radiation at 15 um which is equivalent to -112°F and we're supposed to believe that drives up the temperatures on Earth. The laws of physics dictate that "cooler" radiation cannot warm a surface which is already warmer.
On top of that, we're supposed to believe that the Earth's average global temperature should only be 57.2°F.
Where is the science to support such a claim?
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer than present, with average global temperatures clocking in at 67.6°F.
What was the sea level during that period? How many people were able to maintain an advanced civilization during that period?
You seem to think such a change would be innocuous. Where is the science to support such a belief?
I've seen no valid proof for AGW.
The climate changes, ok. There is still no valid proof that we're doing it.
Lots of opinions but science doesn't work on popularity, thats fallacy ad populum.
It has become the trojan horse for socialism and has been soundly rejected.
In short , its not science, its scientism.
Let's look at the heat absorbed by CO2 in the principal spectrum, which is 15 um (micrometers). We apply Wien's Law where T (Temperature °Kelvin) = b / Wave-Length, where "b" is a constant = 2,900 um-°K
We have T = b / Wave-Length = 2,900 um-°K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F = -80°C
So Earth radiates Black Body Radiation at 15 um which is equivalent to -112°F and we're supposed to believe that drives up the temperatures on Earth. The laws of physics dictate that "cooler" radiation cannot warm a surface which is already warmer.
On top of that, we're supposed to believe that the Earth's average global temperature should only be 57.2°F.
Where is the science to support such a claim?
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer than present, with average global temperatures clocking in at 67.6°F.
Why should this Inter-Glacial Period be colder than the previous Inter-Glacial Period?
Again, where is the science to support such claims?
If you do the math with the sun's emitted power received at earth, plus the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you get an equilibrium temperature of about 255K (-18C) for the earth. The earth had an average temperature of about 15C before industrial times; we are now at about 16C. The higher temperature is due to the presence of the atmosphere, specifically the "greenhouse gasses" which absorb some of the outgoing radiation.
Adding more greenhouse gasses will necessarily raise the average temperature. Nobody knows exactly how much the temperature will rise, but there is good reason to believe it will be significant (~4C by the end of this century) based on paleoclimate data and climate models.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
