Why the Right Goes Nuclear on Global Warming

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Why the right goes nuclear over global warming

Most of the heat is generated by a small number of hard-core ideologues.

March 25, 2007

LAST YEAR, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no. In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%.

So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.

ADVERTISEMENT

How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.

But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.

The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.

Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.

National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

[AURaptor 1,126]

Why ? It's really quite simple...Ockam's razor, and all. The Left is lying about the issue, plain and simple. When news reports editorialize with in their pieces with such phrases as " As the evidence for global warming gets stronger ", it becomes increasingly harder to even openly debate the issue. We're told that the evidence gets stronger, but no one dare mentions the flip side, and that not ALL the evidence agrees. And make no mistake, the Left does not WANT any debate. For them, the debate is over. Some on the fringe Left have gone as far to suggest anyone NOT accepting global warming should be criminally charged, and put it on the same level as holocaust denial.

And how does the Left explain the opposition to global warming ? It's all a conspiracy! The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. All part of the vast, right wing agenda, no doubt. Funny how the Dems forget that, when Hillary made that pronouncement in defense of her husband, the President, the slogan stuck, even after it was proven that she was wrong and her husband was guilty after all. Credit the media , once again, for misinforming the public. As it was then, so is it true now.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Al Gore and the rest of the human made global warming cult remind use once again of the paradox that there are more horses asses in the world than there are horses.

If this human made global warming were such a dire threat to our existence, why the hypocrisy from those preaching the threat? I'm sorry, but until these folks that stand to profit from this "crisis" start acting like it is a crisis and begin adopting environmentally conscious lifestyles instead of dictating them to the common citizenry, they will be seen as profiteers by the majority.

I have seen nothing that offsets evidence from actual climatologists that this is a naturally occurring cyclical event. 30 years ago, we were being warned about the evils of global cooling. Anyone else remember that propaganda? We were destined for another ice age unless we adopted hippie lifestyles. Back then, just as now, there were plenty of scientists who proclaimed this theory as fact and the same koolaid drinkers were freaking out. Personally, the only consequence of global warming/cooling is the people promoting the hysteria will get filthy rich off the fears of the ignorant and gullible.

[AFTiger 282]

I thought the liberals believed in the separation of church and state>

Global Warming: Religion or Science?

by H. Sterling Burnett

The “theory” of global warming posits that human activities such as deforestation--but primarily the burning of fossil fuels--are causing an increase in the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. This warming, the theory continues, if unchecked will lead to all manner of apocalyptic events.

I placed the word “theory” in quotes because I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the idea that humans are causing global warming is really more akin to a religious belief--a revealed truth about human sins (fossil fuel use) and their consequences (all manner of calamities)--rather than a testable scientific explanation.

A couple of points lead me to this conclusion: the way climate scientists skeptical of the claims that humans are causing climate change are treated, and the fact that the theory seems to violate the scientific method by being unfalsifiable.

Concerning the first point, proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming have declared that the debate is over--humans are causing catastrophic warming. This oft-repeated declaration has taken on the characteristic of a mystic chant or mantra to ward off further debate. It has caught on in the popular press and on Capitol Hill, but it could not be less true.

Much solid climate change research at best calls into question, and at worst largely undermines, fundamental claims of the “theory”--that human activities are the primary cause of the current warming trend, that global warming will cause unmitigated environmental disasters and that sharply curbing human energy use is the best response to climate change. Yet, when they don’t ignore the research entirely, all too often proponents of the theory label it as “junk science.” Indeed, the typical approach taken by environmentalists is to revert to ad hominem attacks--criticizing the researchers’ motives or their funding sources rather than addressing the substance of their arguments.

The term “skeptic” has historically been a badge of honor proudly worn by scientists as indicating their commitment to the idea that, in the pursuit of truth, nothing is beyond question, every bit of knowledge is open to improvement and/or refutation as new evidence or better theories emerge.

Read More

[DKW 86 7,440]

Looming Ice Age

Coming Ice Age

Natl Geographic says mini Ice age coming...

The Ice Age Cometh

And that took all of about 2 seconds to google.

No Tex, I dont have a clue why anyone would question global warming...

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent.

:lmao: You Libs are too funny, and too confused to even debate.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 426 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there.

I can tell you that anything that France can do, we can certainly do.

[Tigermike 3,053]

When this is pushed on the world by Algore and his leftists Buds, how much will it cost all of us and how much will they be making?

March 23, 2007

Global Warming's Patent Profitability

By Christopher Alleva

Al Gore is well schooled at manipulating the levers of power and money to his benefit. Heads or tails Al Gore almost never loses. It's been this way pretty much all his life. Starting when Daddy Al set up him in fine style, including an annuity from a Zinc Mine Pop finagled with Armand Hammer, the Communists' favorite capitalist, Al's always been well taken care of. By hook or crook, Gore has reputedly piled up more than $200 million in his bank account since his 2000 Presidential run.

It has been said that Donald Trump is an excellent example of what a shrewd man can accomplish when he inherits $40 million. Al Gore is also an excellent example of what one can accomplish with unusually good hereditary access to capital, of the monetary and political sort.

Mr. Gore's Capital Hill encore is the culmination of a long and well-financed campaign. Ostensibly, his purpose Wednesday was to outline a 10 point plan to combat what he declares is the coming catastrophe, more about which in due course. While his accomplices in the drive-by media slickly packaged up his appearance with fawning praise just in time for the evening news, the actual event was a far different story.

Frankly, he needs new writers. Hopping from one cliché to another like his mascot polar bears clambering from one sinking ice flow to the next, with lines like "the proof is in the pudding" and "the greatest generation" just to name a few. I could be mistaken, but it looked to me like Al enlisted William Shatner to coach him on this one. Shatner, famous for totally overacting every part he ever played, just had to be giving him pointers. (Spock..., I'm...dying...uh..uh...I...can'..nt...hold...on...uh). When the audience was warmed up, Gore served up the best messianic oratory he could muster. Although, in his case it always seems like a cheap imitation.

"The time will come, I promise you, (voice quaking) when a future generation will look back and they will ask one of two questions either they will ask, what in God's name were they doing? (recited in sanctimonious staccato) didn't they see the evidence? (progressively raising voice in anger) didn't they here the warnings? didn't they see the mountain glaciers melting in every part of this earth? didn't they see the polar ice caps melting? didn't they here the scientists say it may be gone in as little as 34 years? didn't they here the seismographers tell the earth is shaking because of the glacial earth quakes on Greenland? 32 of em this year up to 5.1 on the Richter scale. didn't they the see the evidence of nature on the run?..."

And it went on like this for several hours. Democrats praising him as the new prophet and a few Republicans, namely James Inhofe, confronting the hysteria Gore has been trying to incite for the last several years.

Interposing his passionate pleas with his 10 point plan to save the world, Gore outlined a veritable grab bag of proposals that somehow all ended with the same solution, more government power, especially by raising taxes. Surrounded by old Washington hands, Gore and his gang demonstrated great ingenuity in the variety of ideas presented, all with one goal in mind, picking the public's pocket. Perhaps the boldest of them all, was his call for the creation of a new government agency "Connie Mae" to create and trade "carbon credits" ala Fannie Mae. Helpfully, he fantasized out loud about a future in which consumers would get out their checkbooks and write checks to Connie Mae right along with paying their mortgages. You could almost see the dollar signs gleaming in his eyes. Cha ching.

So where did this come from? Were Tipper and Al engaged in pillow talk in one of their four mansions one night and suddenly Al the prophet leaps up from the bed crying: "By Zeus, I've got it! Connie Mae!"

I think not. No, this has been in the works for a very long time. Back in November 2006, Fannie Mae was granted a patent for a system to trade greenhouse gas-reduction credits paid by homeowners. The application was filed in April 2005. Fannie is just now getting out from under a huge scandal that threatened the safety and soundness of the housing finance system. In the wake of this, it is unlikely Congress and the regulators will go along with this scheme. Although, I wouldn't make book on it.

Ousted Chief Executive Franklin Raines is listed in the patent as an inventor of a system for verifying cuts in household emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The patent, granted on Nov. 7 and held jointly with a subsidiary of New York-based Cantor Fitzgerald LP, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over a method for pooling and selling credits to companies that can't meet emission reduction targets. According to Bloomberg, Connie Russell, a spokeswoman for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight that regulates Fannie Mae, said the agency is reviewing the patent and wouldn't comment further.

Besides Bloomberg, the patent award was lightly reported by the Washington Post and Marketwatch. There appear to be no press releases from Fannie Mae on this either.

I have not examined the patent award closely but the Patent Office has a lot problems, granting patents when they shouldn't and denying patents they should grant. This is a patent that should not have been granted. It's utility is entirely dependent on a government regulation. Where's the invention in that?

Al Gore and his guys have been very busy laying the groundwork for sweeping policy changes that they can profit from. There is no real value being created here, just a host for a rapacious nest of parasites.

El Linko

[Tiger in Spain 0]

1975 Newsweek article

At the same time that these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, a more dramatic account appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Though the article claimed that "[t]he evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it," the Newsweek article did not make "environmentalist" claims regarding the cause of that drop. To the contrary, it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "[n]ot only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Rather than proposing environmental solutions, the Newsweek article suggested that "simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies" would be appropriate. Nonetheless, the article ended on a cautionary note, claiming that "[t]he longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

In the late 1970s there were several popular (and melodramatic) books on the topic, including The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (although editor Jerry Adler claimed that the article was not "inaccurate" in a journalistic sense)

Hmmm, sounds eerily familiar to the horseshait we're being force-fed today.

I remember this being passed along in school as absolute fact, and the science teacher I had in the 5-6th grades predicting dire impacts for our middle aged years unless we stopped living the way we were. I distinctly recall her saying that a large chunk of the northern hemisphere would be uninhabitable within the next 30 years because of the coming ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[DKW 86 7,440]

1975 Newsweek article

At the same time that these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, a more dramatic account appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Though the article claimed that "[t]he evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it," the Newsweek article did not make "environmentalist" claims regarding the cause of that drop. To the contrary, it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "[n]ot only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Rather than proposing environmental solutions, the Newsweek article suggested that "simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies" would be appropriate. Nonetheless, the article ended on a cautionary note, claiming that "[t]he longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

In the late 1970s there were several popular (and melodramatic) books on the topic, including The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (although editor Jerry Adler claimed that the article was not "inaccurate" in a journalistic sense)

Hmmm, sounds eerily familiar to the horseshait we're being force-fed today.

I remember this being passed along in school as absolute fact, and the science teacher I had in the 5-6th grades predicting dire impacts for our middle aged years unless we stopped living the way we were. I distinctly recall her saying that a large chunk of the northern hemisphere would be uninhabitable within the next 30 years because of the coming ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Heard all the same here myself. TVA buried people in these expensive "Energy Pack" insulation and window packages on their homes back in the late 70s and 80s. Some were so expensive they were financed for 15 years. All because of the looming global cooling crisis.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

[saniflush 0]

All I know is I need a whole lot of meltage before I can have beach front in Montgomery. I sprayed a case of aerosol this morning and I don't think it is helping.

[autiger518 1]

eh...let our kids deal with it...as long as im dead who cares!!!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

BTW Tex, it isn't just evil republicans that are on Gore's ass about this bullarky he's spreading.

William Broad, a NYT's columnist, also raises questions about this snake oil show. The dissents from Gore’s extremism, Broad explains in the article, “come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists” who have “no political ax to grind.” It appears Gore refused to be interviewed directly for the article; he responded to e-mail questions only. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Global Linkage