Posted on 07/10/2013 7:00:45 AM PDT by snarkpup
Someone in the GOP needs to say it: conservation is conservative; climate change is real; and conservatives need to lead on solutions because we have better answers than the other side.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...
Moosake! There is virtually NO issue on which 97% of all scientists agree -- and Climate bull$#!+ i definitely not one of them.
This so-called article is nothing more than Democrat AGW propaganda purporting to tell conservatives how to win elections -- just like Nanzi Pelousy telling them that supporting amnesty will help them win.
There is no "debate" on "Climate Change". It is a propaganda war with conservatives and sound science on one side, and a bunch of lying, greedy, money-driven pseudoscientific liberals on the other. Test it: mention ONE sound scientific fact to one of them -- and you will immediately be called a "denier".
This scientist has been there, done that, and has kicked the @$$3$ of the liberal dumb@$$3$ who questioned his scientific integrity...
No one seems to be reading the article. The point here is that even if global warming were real and man-made, the wrong people are using the issue to promote their economic policies.
This is typical GOP "play nice" half measure appeasement to avoid arguing and criticism. I did read the whole article. The GOP constantly get tricked into arguing details about a false premise. George Bush should have conceded that "privatization" of Social Security is what he was proposing and moved on to why it was a good idea. The immigration bill presumes that ALL illegals will voluntarily come forward to report, pay their fines, go through the legal trouble and start paying taxes. Republicans argue about solutions too often and never challenge the perceived "problems" that democrats are hell bent on solving. We want to debate how best to address gun control instead of denying that citizen gun ownership is a 2nd Amendment right and there is no issue except with CRIMINALS.
This "staffer" who is writing anonymously on behalf of his politician boss is floating an idea to test reaction. It is compromise. We don't have the fortitude to actually take over an issue and lead ON ANYTHING. Republican politicians cower the first time any MSM fires a criticism at them.
I support, instead, Republicans admit to being DENIERS. We we indeed deny that human behavior has any more affect on global climate change than we do on affecting the sea level by putting boats on the ocean. Nothing has been tested and proven scientifically that shows humans have ANY measurable affect on global warming or cooling. We should not regulate energy and raise taxes to experiment with policies based on a false premise and flawed science.
Agreed. See post #22.
It is a perversion of the idea of a free market.
A market is what people spontaneously form when they are free.
What the author is proposing is a market in which half the participants are there ONLY because the government puts a gun to their head.
Not only would what he advocates create a gigantic dead weight on the economy, he further muddles up the concept of markets in the population’s minds.
This proposal is bad, bad, and bad.
I’m all for clean air and water as is everyone. But all one needs to do is look at the “solutions” to “climate change” and they all come straight from Marx. As Mark Levin says, green is the new red.
The only way to buy your way into better weather is to move. It’s a hoax that the proponents are using to redistribute wealth, grow government, and de-industrialize developed economies.
We could do the same with the unicorn problem - you know - corner the Unicorn markets...
The scientific question is actually a side issue. The issue being argued is a political one.
Politicians are using (one side) of the scientific debate as PRETEXT for a massive reconfiguring of our entire economy. And they ADMIT this massive reconfiguration will have almost NO affect on the hypothetical CO2 increase.
If you want to effect political change focus on the political fight.
The earth heats - it cools - been going on like that for millions of years. It’s a self correcting system. If it wasn’t life would have ceased to exist long long ago.
Dems use this scam to gain control and funds. Even if we could join up with the Madoff’s of the world - the scammers and liars - there’s ethical questions to deal with.
Would you like us to push a lie about unicorns damaging the world - and how everyone has to give control to Republicans to save themselves? Isn’t that kind of unethical? I don’t want to ‘get in on the action’ of ripping people off ... this is sick.
Three billion years is enough! Stop cyclical global climate change before the next ice age!
It’s not a good idea to burn billions of barrels of oil every year and treat our atmosphere like a junk yard.
We should move to cleaner energy sources ASAP.
In the past 100 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 325 PPM to 400 PPM. That’s parts per MILLION.
Funny how the people pushing GW are so against nuclear and other clean energy sources. There always for what doesn’t work or is 20 years away. (i.e. anything that will make us poorer in the meantime).
Only in this political world of dumb and dumber do they debate science
Is it a theory which begs investigation and data over time with facts and examples or isnt it?
If it isnt then what is it?
Philosophy is not sound if its not based on truths and its stupid if its based on non truths
The premise is invalid.
I do not dispute your contention that the climate change issue is principally political at this point, bent on turning our energy-driven economy upside down. I hate sloppy science, especially when the result of that sloppy science propels an agenda.
I will not concede there is anthropogenic climate change, but I suppose I could keep my mouth shut and hope the tacticians on the right side of the argument can swing the political tide :)
Depends on your goal. Do you want to sway opinion or do you want to prove you’re right? Two different things. Sometimes you can prove your case and lose the argument.
To anyone seriously interested in this topic, I highly recommend:
www.climateaudit.org
Especially when the argument on the other side isn’t honest.
Most lefties, even if you proved that man-caused global warming is a farce, would still want to implement the proposed solutions
because they believe we are using too much energy and polluting the planet, and this is a lever they can use to stop it.
I believe that man has added to the CO2 levels over the last 150 years. Having said that, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere went from minuscule to minuscule. One major volcano like Pinatubo adds more CO2 than all of man has added since the industrial revolution. If the climate is warming then blame mother nature. Who wants global cooling? THAT would be a problem.
Even using their phony models they admit the most draconian laws would reduce the rise of CO2 by a tiny, insignificant amount. All you have to do is point that out and their political argument falls apart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.