What should conservatives do about global warming?

By the very definition of their title... They should do nothing... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Hold the Line on Global Warming

June 18, 2007
By Steven Milloy

...Manzi says we should believe in global warming because of the "underlying physics." He writes, "All else equal, the more CO2 molecules we have in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets."

That is pretty well understood. The relationship is far from linear, but CO2 is the dominant variable upon which all else depends for our atmosphere and temperatures.

But both the underlying physics and historical climate data debunk this statement.

Completely wrong, bunkum, clap-trap, snake-oil for conspiracy theorists.


Simply start with the underlying physics being wrong if you can...

But cleverness will not likely protect our freedoms and wallets from the Greens, Europeans, global bureaucracy, rent-seeking businesses and Congress. These groups need to be sternly faced-down with the scientific and economic realities of global warming...

So it's all a money scam? For the oil and big energy companies, quite so.


Unfortunately, it gets more expensive for everyone as the climate gets more extreme and more rapidly so.

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Senate votes for first rise in car fuel standard in 32 years

Ed Pilkington in New York
Saturday June 23, 2007
Guardian

Democrats in the US Senate have taken a tentative step in the fight against global warming by imposing the first increase in fuel efficiency standards on car manufacturers in almost 20 years.

The Democratic majority fought off resistance from Republicans and fierce lobbying from the big three Detroit-based car companies - Chrysler, Ford and General Motors - to raise average fuel efficiency benchmarks for all new cars to 35 miles per gallon (15km/litre) by 2020. The existing standard of 27.5mpg has remained unchanged since 1989.

Gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive cars, which have to meet an average of 22.2mpg, are for the first time covered by the same regulations as passenger cars.


How backwards can the USA get?! Even those 'improved' numbers show abysmal engineering. Steam engines can do better!

Phew...

Perhaps the USA should just roll over and sink under the waves from sheer Neanderthal embarrassment!

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

How backwards can the USA get?! Even those 'improved' numbers show abysmal engineering. Steam engines can do better!

Phew...

Perhaps the USA should just roll over and sink under the waves from sheer Neanderthal embarrassment!

It's one small step for Man.... the rest of his short journey he'll finish in the Ram Dodge Pickup in which he's never ever picked anything up.

At least it's a step in the right direction. In Europe we've been driving around in tiny cars, but we still manage to collect our Sunday papers in them ;)

---

flaming balloons

Senate votes for first rise in car fuel standard in 32 years

Ed Pilkington in New York
Saturday June 23, 2007
Guardian

Democrats in the US Senate have taken a tentative step in the fight against global warming by imposing the first increase in fuel efficiency standards on car manufacturers in almost 20 years.

The Democratic majority fought off resistance from Republicans and fierce lobbying from the big three Detroit-based car companies - Chrysler, Ford and General Motors - to raise average fuel efficiency benchmarks for all new cars to 35 miles per gallon (15km/litre) by 2020. The existing standard of 27.5mpg has remained unchanged since 1989.

Gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive cars, which have to meet an average of 22.2mpg, are for the first time covered by the same regulations as passenger cars.


How backwards can the USA get?! Even those 'improved' numbers show abysmal engineering. Steam engines can do better!

Phew...

Perhaps the USA should just roll over and sink under the waves from sheer Neanderthal embarrassment!

Good luck,
Martin

Perhaps if you could see what our neanderthal chicks look like...you would understand

---

I fear that public opinion regarding 'idle time' distributed computing may be beginning to turn. Should we consider proposing one or more strategies for getting out in front of these issues? Several possibilities spring to mind, the first of which would be a link to a reputable carbon offsetting facility, coupled to a reliable calculator to allow users the option of offsetting their Seti-related emissions.

Any thoughts...

I would say that the benefits to science gained from PCs running BOINC projects outweigh any additional emissions they may make. Keep crunching and don't worry about it, I say.

Yep, well, that's the opinion of just about everybody that emits: "Wellsir, I would say that the benefits gained from [insert pretty much whatever one wishes here] outweigh any additional emissions [it] may make. Keep doing it, and don't worry about [it,] I say.

Anyone else note the irony here?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yep, well, that's the opinion of just about everybody that emits: "Wellsir, I would say that the benefits gained from [insert pretty much whatever one wishes here] outweigh any additional emissions [it] may make. Keep doing it, and don't worry about [it,] I say.

Anyone else note the irony here?

Don't feed Neaderthal Chicks baked beans or Brussel sprouts?

Phew!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Yep, well, that's the opinion of just about everybody that emits: "Wellsir, I would say that the benefits gained from [insert pretty much whatever one wishes here] outweigh any additional emissions [it] may make. Keep doing it, and don't worry about [it,] I say.

Anyone else note the irony here?

Don't feed Neaderthal Chicks baked beans or Brussel sprouts?

Phew!
Martin

Snigger and sneer as much as you like, but scientific research will take place. And the computers used will continue to cause emissions. Get used to it. At least a cure for Climate Change will be found whilst your hot air will achieve nothing.

---

flaming balloons

Yep, well, that's the opinion of just about everybody that emits: "Wellsir, I would say that the benefits gained from [insert pretty much whatever one wishes here] outweigh any additional emissions [it] may make. Keep doing it, and don't worry about [it,] I say.

Anyone else note the irony here?

Don't feed Neaderthal Chicks baked beans or Brussel sprouts?

Phew!
Martin

Snigger and sneer as much as you like, but scientific research will take place. And the computers used will continue to cause emissions. Get used to it. At least a cure for Climate Change will be found whilst your hot air will achieve nothing.

A cure for Climate Change??

I hate to break it to you, but Climate Change has been going on since the Earth was formed. There isn't any such thing as a cure for Climate Change.

Global Warming however, may be a different story.

If you want to find a cure for something, you should probably pick something that there is a chance of actually finding a cure for.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Yep, well, that's the opinion of just about everybody that emits: "Wellsir, I would say that the benefits gained from [insert pretty much whatever one wishes here] outweigh any additional emissions [it] may make. Keep doing it, and don't worry about [it,] I say.

Anyone else note the irony here?

Don't feed Neaderthal Chicks baked beans or Brussel sprouts?

Phew!
Martin

Snigger and sneer as much as you like, but scientific research will take place. And the computers used will continue to cause emissions. Get used to it. At least a cure for Climate Change will be found whilst your hot air will achieve nothing.

A cure for Climate Change??

I hate to break it to you, but Climate Change has been going on since the Earth was formed. There isn't any such thing as a cure for Climate Change.

Global Warming however, may be a different story.

If you want to find a cure for something, you should probably pick something that there is a chance of actually finding a cure for.

Here we go with showing ignorance about global warming/climate change. And yes of course there has always been climate change. But the Earth has been getting warmer and colder for billions of years. So what? So what if the temperature gets 2 of 5 degrees warmer? Is that going to kill you? No, it's the climate change that the warming causes which is turning areas into desert and causing drought and the storms and the major changes in climate taking place.

It's climate change that will kill us, not temperatures rising in many areas to less than in average temperatures in Florida!

From an earlier post of mine;

... Whoever wrote this (irrespective of what Angel Merkel said) is saying that climate change and global warming are one and the same. Clearly they are not and reflects some of the muddled thinking on this thread which is headed 'global warming' but talks about climate change without any indication that anyone knows the difference, and if it matters that the two are equated when then are not the same.

'Global warming' is the scientific evidence that temperatures of the near surface Earth atmosphere are rising, and that higher temperatures threaten dangerous consequences on planet Earth: drought, disease, floods, lost ecosystems, etc.

The term 'climate change' is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. Generally, this is taken to regard changes in temperature, by monitoring averages, extremes, durations, and geographic coverages. 'Climate change' is caused by natural forces including, but not limited to, human activities.

---

flaming balloons

And just to be totally clear. Man is causing Climate Change which will kill us, our children or our grandchildren. That is CERTAIN.

A CURE must be found, for Man can change the adverse Climate Change tend, so that it doesn't kill the human race.

That is more certain than finding just ONE single alien.


And I never mentioned global warming once! in the above.

---

flaming balloons

Snigger and sneer as much as you like, but scientific research will take place. And the computers used will continue to cause emissions. Get used to it. At least a cure for Climate Change will be found whilst your hot air will achieve nothing.

Not by saying things like "I would say that the benefits to science gained from PCs running BOINC projects outweigh any additional emissions they may make. Keep crunching and don't worry about it, I say." Why? Because like I said, that's what everyone says.

Oh and hey, China is beating the U.S. NOW. What do you think that means for total emissions?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

And just to be totally clear. Man is causing Climate Change which will kill us, our children or our grandchildren. That is CERTAIN.

No, that is just your opinion. Nothing more. It isn't "certain" because you said so, and given the number of arguments presented here, it certainly (heh) isn't certain because of the amount of disagreement within the scientific community.

A CURE must be found, for Man can change the adverse Climate Change tend, so that it doesn't kill the human race.

I wish you the best of luck with that. I dearly hope that you are taking active steps to do just that, conducting research, performing experiments, et cetera, because I can guarantee you that comments such as "I would say that the benefits to science gained from PCs running BOINC projects outweigh any additional emissions they may make. Keep crunching and don't worry about it, I say," are utterly self-defeating. Just sitting around and patting yourself on the back for sending a few e-mails and showing how much you care won't help either.

And I never mentioned global warming once! in the above.

Neither did I.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh and hey, China is beating the U.S. NOW. What do you think that means for total emissions?

We all know that Rush. Its been in the news for weeks now. Whether China does squat should not affect what we decide and how we decide to live (as in whether we recycle or not, re-use rather than replace etc).

Distributed processing is about providing scientists with data. The scientists then go on to influence governments with their findings. What governments, like the Chinese government, do or might do, should not affect our decision to provide that data to scientists, using out computers. Yes for Climate projects the emissions from computers crunching climate data may raise a concern. But you have to carry out the data crunching or the scientists don't get their research and cannot influence government. It starts with us so please stop it with the negativity about China. We know the Chinese are behaving like we did a few decades ago and need to catch up. But that does not mean we should use China as an excuse to do nothing.

Keep crunching!!! I say.

---

flaming balloons

And just to be totally clear. Man is causing Climate Change which will kill us, our children or our grandchildren. That is CERTAIN.

A CURE must be found, for Man can change the adverse Climate Change tend, so that it doesn't kill the human race.

That is more certain than finding just ONE single alien.


And I never mentioned global warming once! in the above.

Just to be totally clear. Humanity is NOT 'causing' climate change. Change has been a feature of the Earth's climate ever since Earth formed a 'climate' (well before Humanity ever trod upon its landscape). That is CERTAIN. Climate change can kill some of some of us. It has killed some of us down through the ages (most well before our technology and environmental footprint grew enough to where we even had the possibility of affecting climate to any measurable extent). And sadly, it doubtlessly will kill more of us in the future. Change is is in the feature set of Earth's climate and would/will be even if Humanity did not exist. Climate changes sometimes in ways that are adverse, sometimes in ways that are beneficial; but change it does.

The question at hand is whether or not Humanity is affecting climate change in ways that are not beneficial to Humanity. Could our activities be either causing climate change to wander outside its normal, 'natural' range or causing the rate at which climate change occurs to speed up to the point that Earth's ecosystems can no longer effectively cope with it (or perhaps both). There is evidence that suggests that we are. However, there is also evidence that suggests that we have not (yet) had a measurable effect on climate change. Furthermore, this question is not really possible to answer with scientific certainty. At the core of developing scientific proof is experiment. One would need to run many experiments on planetary climates, over and over many times, comparing results to unaffected, pristine control groups to establish anything anywhere close to being certain. Well, we only have one planet available at the moment, so that process is out. The only option left to us is to collect data on *this* climate and try to formulate an opinion based on observed trends. The best we can say is either 'we think humanity is having undesired effects on climate change', 'we think it is possible that humanity might be able to have undesired effects on climate change, but see no evidence to suggest that we are doing so now', or 'we think it is not possible for humanity to effect climate change in undesired ways'. Thats all. We can develop informed opinions on this subject but can never have scientific certainty. Anyone that says that we can is trying to sell you snake oil.

You speak of a 'cure for climate change'. Such a cure is certainly beyond our capabilities as a species. However, if you mean a 'cure for any possible effects Humanity is having on climate change', well, there is one sure way for that. Simply put, Humanity would have to return to being under 'the balance of Nature', and eschew any technology beyond the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age, pre-agricultural). Of course, this would have many extremely undesired and distasteful effects, the greatest being mass die-offs of humanity due to starvation and disease. Our numbers are just too great (by a factor of several hundred) for all of us to exist in a society where food production is restricted to being a hunter/gatherer without any agriculture or animal husbandry and our best technology is the flint knife and spear. Earth just does not have that kind of carrying capacity. Humanity would survive for the time being, but with a population of only a few million, not the several billion we have today. While this scenario might eventually be forced on us if the doomsayers are correct and we do nothing, it is far from a desired outcome.

Regardless, if the doomsayers are correct, we need to start taking steps to reduce our effect on climate change. Most of the doomsayers are currently focusing on our emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically, CO2. It might behoove us as a species to move away from energy production that emits CO2 and other greenhouse gases anyway, regardless of any climate considerations. Internal combustion engines have other undesired effects on our environment in addition to spewing CO2 out of their exhaust pipes. Perhaps going electric and generating the electricity from solar/wind/nuclear sources is a good idea even without considering possible effects on climate change. Production of energy from the so-called bio-fuels still emits CO2 and has other problems besides. Cars that use hydrogen-combustion still emit H2O vapor (another nasty greenhouse gas). Even using animals as beasts-of-burden to pull us around in wagons is not optimal, for animal's digestive systems (especially those of the so-called 'domesticated animals') emit CH4... another VERY potent greenhouse gas.

Let us stop deforestation of 'untouched' areas. In addition to their roles as carbon sinks, they are important to us in other ways. Many of our 'wonder drugs' (not to mention 'recreational chemicals' such as booze) came from other living things. Do we really want to eliminate potential sources of new ones before we have had a chance to discover them?

Another problem is that there are so darn many of us. Many technological advances have enabled us to grow our number to what is it... around 7 billion.. Advances in food production, medical care, transportation, the list goes on and on. Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do it. Can we as a species stop squirting out so dang many kids so that our numbers can drop to a value that is much easier on the environment as a whole? Per capita amounts of scarce resources such as food, water, and various minerals would be a lot higher if there were fewer of us. Possible effects on climate change aside, fewer of us would strain our environment a lot less.

And speaking of our teeming masses, we come to a nasty fact of modern life... Urban sprawl. Why can't we build up and down more, instead of sideways? Also, why can't we live closer to where we work? My father-in-law has a two to three hour total commute to and from work every day. That is insane. Anything that would reduce our need for transportation would help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to other forms of pollution. Reducing urban sprawl would allow more of the natural environment to remain intact, or else be available for other uses.

In short, there are plenty of things we can do right now that would have many other beneficial effects on our environment, in addition to lowering the possibility of human-induced adverse effects to climate change. There is no reason why we must wait any longer to start implementing them. However, in the interests of fairness since there will undoubtedly be some that would protest what they would perceive as a reduction in their standard of living or quality of life, we must implement them planet-wide.

But then, maybe thats what all of this 'climate change' felgercarb is... A giant red herring to scare everyone into adopting these changes. Maybe I ought to be quiet about it now.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

We all know that Rush. Its been in the news for weeks now. Whether China does squat should not affect what we decide and how we decide to live (as in whether we recycle or not, re-use rather than replace etc).

It doesn't affect what "we" do at all, because barring some miracle, U.S. emissions will continue to grow as the population grows, most simply because the addition of a person emitting dwarfs the cuts any other single individual can make.

Distributed processing is about providing scientists with data. The scientists then go on to influence governments with their findings. What governments, like the Chinese government, do or might do, should not affect our decision to provide that data to scientists, using out computers. Yes for Climate projects the emissions from computers crunching climate data may raise a concern. But you have to carry out the data crunching or the scientists don't get their research and cannot influence government. It starts with us so please stop it with the negativity about China. We know the Chinese are behaving like we did a few decades ago and need to catch up. But that does not mean we should use China as an excuse to do nothing.

Keep crunching!!! I say.

How about this:

"Heating and cooling your home is about providing your family with a better life. Your children then go on to provide their families with better lives. What other families, like the granola eaters that live in a tent, don't do, should not affect your decision to make life better for your family, using heating and cooling. Yes, to do this the emissions may raise a concern. But people choose to make life better for their families or their family suffers."

The point is that people do just as you just did. They reason for themselves that the use of the resources is more important than the emissions they'll create.

I say: they'll keep heating their homes.
I say: they'll keep cooling their homes.
I say: they'll generally make choices that make their lives better, and then act as if using CFL bulbs has really made a difference.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Humanity is NOT 'causing' climate change.

I accept that this is still a debatable point MajorKong since not all scientists are certain one way or another. 90% of scientists are convinced that Man has caused changes that is affecting the climate adversely right now. But admittedly there is no solid 100% proof one way or the other.

Personally I can't say that Man is or is not the cause. I don't know more that all the scientists in the world, but I tend to go with the 90%. But just in case Man did, I'm going to do what I think I can to help out, including in BOINC projects, just in case the 90% are right. If it turns out they were wrong...... I won't know because I'll probably be dead of Longyears. ;)

### Treat SETIzens fairly ###

---

flaming balloons

We have 16°C here in end of june.
Last year at the same time we had 34°C
Thats "global" warming grrrrrrrr

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Humanity is NOT 'causing' climate change.

I accept that this is still a debatable point MajorKong since not all scientists are certain one way or another. 90% of scientists are convinced that Man has caused changes that is affecting the climate adversely right now. But admittedly there is no solid 100% proof one way or the other.

Personally I can't say that Man is or is not the cause. I don't know more that all the scientists in the world, but I tend to go with the 90%. But just in case Man did, I'm going to do what I think I can to help out, including in BOINC projects, just in case the 90% are right. If it turns out they were wrong...... I won't know because I'll probably be dead of Longyears. ;)

### Treat SETIzens fairly ###

Longshanks, I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. If you reread the first two paragraphs of what I typed, you might better understand what I was saying. But, let me restate things in hopefully a clearer fashion.

First, humanity is NOT causing climate change. The Earth's climate is not static. It is changing over time. It did so long before we, as a species, arrived on the scene, and it will continue to change long after we are gone.

Second, the question REALLY is "Is Humanity causing climate to change in ways in which it would not have had we not been here?" In other words, are WE causing the climate change to change?

The reason that I make this distinction is that anyone that has been alive a few decades can tell you that climate has changed. However, this is not the question we are dealing with in this thread, nor is it even a question.

The rest of my previous post dealt with some things we can do to reduce the possibility that we might 'change climate change', and other non-climate-change related reasons for doing so.

But, personally, my opinion on the 'Great Question' is that it is fairly possible that we are, in fact, causing the process of climate change to 'change'. I do not know for certain if we are, but I consider it quite possible. However there are PLENTY of other reasons, in my opinion, for changing what we are doing, from the economic to the ecological and none of them involve climate change.

Did I make what I said in my last post clearer?

We have 16°C here in end of june.
Last year at the same time we had 34°C
Thats "global" warming grrrrrrrr

Hmmmmm. Another misconception about global warming. Climate change (and global warming) does not simply mean temperatures will rise across the globe. The 'mean' temperatures will go up, but rises will vary. The climate change is about more storms, worse storms, bigger flood surges, more intense weather, more typhoons, more lightening storms or increasing intensity, up-side-down weather (weather being a very short term definition, a day or week).

Climate is chaotic by nature and definition. But that chaos in climate will get worse. Days will be colder that they should be, areas turn to desert while buckets or rain pour in areas which should to have little rain etc.

So don't think about this global "warming" too much. Think climate "change", where change can go on different directions.

### Treat SETIzens fairly ###

---

flaming balloons