Why the left fears global warming more than the right

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 06/20/2006 | Dennis Prager

[highlander_UW]

I think you're right. Perhaps Prager would have been more accurate to say liberals worship the "idea" of nature...not nature itself (that might require one to get dirty).

[lentulusgracchus]

I don't think that's going to last, though – for instnace the slope of the curve of atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely portends some quite unpleasant consequences

Such as what? The acceleration of plant growth worldwide?

Global CO2 is such a massive number to begin with, you'd have to produce an awful lot of it that would not be produced by natural phenomena (big volcanic eruptions, for example, which beggar industrial emissions as a source) to have much impact.

[carumba]

And the premise that global warming would be a disaster vs a boon to mankind everywhere. (I would not complain if North Dakota had a climate like Hawaii's.)

[aquila48]

I don't believe the left fears global warming as much as it likes to use it to instill fear on the great unwashed masses so that it can more easily control them.

[Gondring]

Rapid global climate change would not be a boon. Weather is only one aspect of climate change...soil profiles take thousands of years to develop from a change in climate, and we can't wait thousands of years for the soils to catch up with our new weather bands if we want crops to succeed the way they do now. Besides, it's GLOBAL warming, not saying all places will get warmer, just that the average is warming. North Dakota might get colder, since most of the climate change anticipated is toward more extremes.

[montrose]

Here's an interesting chart, based on Antartic ice core data (Vostok): Given this strong correlation, and that CO2 level is projected to double in this century (way off the above chart and unprecedented in over 400,000 years), the concern is clear.

[montrose]

>(big volcanic eruptions, for example, which beggar industrial emissions as a source)

That is just nutty. Total annual volcanic CO2 emissions are 1% that of manmade sources.

What beggars the imagination is the amount of disinformation being spread on the "skeptical" side of the issue.

Really, there is no honest debate left.

[lentulusgracchus]

I said, "big". You said, "annual."

You're talking about normal outgassing from places like the Kamchatka volcanoes, Mt. Mayon, Etna, Mt. Soufriere, other volcanoes with low-level activity.

I'm talking about Mt. Pinatubo in eruption, El Chichon, Krakatoa in 535 and 1883, Santorini. That is very serious emission, not "annual" emission.

You immediately attacked the bona fides of the entire non-Green side. Classical "progressive," Left-wing thinking. "He who is not with me, is evil." It's also argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad populum, the old "bandwagon" argument: "Nine out of ten socialist PhD's agree....."

Thanks for the "discussion".

[lentulusgracchus]

How do you explain the (obviously non-human) CO2 runups in the distant past, and why did they tail off rather than "running away" to create a Venusian-like "greenhouse" environment at temperatures far above anything we've ever experienced?

Please notice also, that these temperature/CO2 spikes do not correspond either with a mass extinction or with the specific extinction of genus Homo.

[x]

Some of his reasons are pretty off the wall. More likely, the reason is that leftists support things which lead to more government power. Climate control is a way to get control over the economy and impose policies on business and the citizenry, which is what the left has wanted for decades.

[montrose]

I am talking about 100 times more CO2 coming from anthropogenic sources sompared to your volcano red herring. Why do you muddy the waters with such irrelevancy? Focus!

[montrose]

I don't know why you presume that CO2 fluctuations in the past should lead to a runaway Venusian situation. CO2 levels rise, and the global temperature rises to the point where infrared radiation into space balances the thermal equation again.

With modern times comes the much greater carbon dioxide input than has existed over that entire 400,000 year interval covered by the Vostok data. Currently we are 100 ppm over the greatest level seen prior, and rising fast.

[lentulusgracchus]

Here you go, here's some more:

Based on information that indicated a solar activity-induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2 over the 20th century (by way of cosmic ray flux reduction), plus the work of others that indicated a globally-averaged solar luminosity increase of approximately 0.4 Wm-2 over the same period, Shaviv calculated an overall and ultimately solar activity-induced warming of 0.47°C (1.7 Wm-2 x 0.28°C per Wm-2) over the 20th century. Added to the 0.14°C of anthropogenic-induced warming, the calculated total warming of the 20th century thus came to 0.61°C, which was noted by Shaviv to be very close to the 0.57°C temperature increase that was said by the IPCC to have been observed over the past century. Consequently, both Shaviv's and Idso's analyses, which mesh well with real-world data of both the recent and distant past, suggest that only 15-20% (0.10°C/0.57°C) of the observed warming of the 20th-century can be attributed to the concomitant rise in the air's CO2 content.
--CO2 Science Magazine, 19 July 2006

Different argument, same bottom line:

Greenies need to unwad their panties.

[SunkenCiv]

for the "better to light a candle than curse the darkness" department:

Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global Warming Baloney Alert)
Townhall.com | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
Posted on 06/20/2006 1:13:56 AM EDT by goldstategop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts

[SamAdams76]

It's basically simple. The conservative believes that once a problem becomes apparent, our capitalist society will quickly bring goods and services to market to deal with that problem.

On the other hand, liberals think the only way to solve problems is to have a big-government solution that involves new laws to conserve or outright ban things.

[Ditter]

I vote for reason #2. I know liberals who believe every word printed in the NYT even when it has been proved to be a lie or an exaggeration.

[Old Professer]

There has now become a point where secular crisis-mongering has met religious Apocalypse simply because people are too outwardly focused to succeed in the ancient way of dog-eat-dog.

We have miniaturized the planet and now we work upon the universe.