Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
think

The Green New Deal Could Launch Republican Climate Solutions

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

The Green New Deal Could Launch Republican Climate Solutions

By JUSTIN WORLAND  
February 15, 2019
 

The attention surrounding the Green New Deal rollout last week seemed to underscore the entrenched partisanship of addressing climate change: progressive Democrats demanded a quick drawdown from fossil fuels while top Republicans, including President Trump, dismissed their plan as a “socialist” joke.

 

~Snip~

 

By shifting the conversation to the left, the Green New Deal has given conservative lawmakers an opening to present centrist policy proposals without looking like they are giving Democrats a political win. At the same time, progressive rhetoric surrounding the issue has contributed to a sense of urgency in the public dialogue, encouraging influential corporate lobbyists, who support moderate solutions to address climate change but want to avoid policies that include heavy regulations, to act proactively. Ultimately, Congressional Republicans’ reaction to the Green New Deal may offer a glimmer of hope that a legislative climate solution will pass a divided Congress in coming years.

 

~Snip~

 

That maneuvering may be necessary for the political survival of at least some Republicans. Nearly 3 in 4 Americans, including a majority of Republicans, now agree that climate change is happening, according to a December poll from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “This is an opportunity to articulate a vision,” says Heather Reams, executive director of Citizens For Responsible Energy Solutions.

 

~Snip~

 

While Republicans have almost universally slammed the Green New Deal proposal offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey last week, some conservative analysts have also said in private that it contains some potential areas of bipartisan consensus. Infrastructure funding, as well as clean energy research and development, enjoy strong bipartisan support, for example. And job retraining programs have attracted support on both sides of the aisle in the past. President George W. Bush signed the Green Jobs Act into law in 2007.

 

Read more:

http://time.com/5529135/green-new-deal-republicans-carbon-tax/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is happening. That a majority believes this is unsurprising. Most people believe the earth is a globe too, not exactly newsworthy. I doubt a majority believe humanity has much impact on the climate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeoConvict said:

Climate change is happening. That a majority believes this is unsurprising. Most people believe the earth is a globe too, not exactly newsworthy. I doubt a majority believe humanity has much impact on the climate. 

 

CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources. However man made sources and their impact are well documented:

 

Quote

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, think said:

CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources. However man made sources and their impact are well documented

 

 

CO2 is a gas necessary for  life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, think said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebranding what has been taking place the last 2 decades. Leaders talk one way and deliver their way. Now they believe nobody can stp them socially, so time to bring out ancestral resistance to misdirection done historically. thanks for the opportunity to really show why I exist. Just one male understanding the total sum of how I came to be part of eternally sorted apart now as a lifetime maintaining the species reproduced so far.

 

Nothing more and not a metaphor less than equally psotioned as 7,499,999,999 other human reproductions pretending real is too difficult to understand being alive at the same time in order the populaiton "is what it is.".

 

and behaving exactly as performing ideas projecting themselves larger than eternally sorted apart historically. Go ahead pick a society franchise anywhere in this atmosphere any time recorded in history of failure to exceed life as eternally sorted apart now.

 

remove reasoned doubt now is eternity and everyone has to notice what their own ancestry did and doing here currently cting like they exist after dead even at an intellectual level just because the ir name is recited generation after generation. What empty vanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, think said:

 

CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources. However man made sources and their impact are well documented:

 

 

That is a different claim. The majority of people do not believe Humanity to be a prime driver of climate. Scientists do not believe Humanity to believe a primary driver in climate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeoConvict said:

That is a different claim. The majority of people do not believe Humanity to be a prime driver of climate. Scientists do not believe Humanity to believe a primary driver in climate. 

 

Do you believe humans are a primary source for climate change?

 

If many Republican still don't think humans cause climate change it may be because their Republican president and congress persons  keep telling them that.

 

But NASA and the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying otherwise as pointed out in my source.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, think said:

 

Do you believe humans are a primary source for climate change?

 

If many Republican still don't think humans cause climate change it may be because their Republican president and congress persons  keep telling them that.

 

But NASA and the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying otherwise as pointed out in my source.

 

 

 

hell no. the climate will be what it is regardless humans exist or not.  think back 65 million years numbnuts. Damn I hope you haven't reproduced or spawned more idealists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sole result said:

hell no. the climate will be what it is regardless humans exist or not.  think back 65 million years numbnuts. Damn I hope you haven't reproduced or spawned more idealists.

 

I'll agree with NASA and 97% of the scientific community that humans are the primary driver of climate change.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But one anonymous opinion without any factual basis really doesn't say much does it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, think said:

 

Do you believe humans are a primary source for climate change?

 

If many Republican still don't think humans cause climate change it may be because their Republican president and congress persons  keep telling them that.

 

But NASA and the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying otherwise as pointed out in my source.

 

 

 

No I don't believe humanity to be a primary driver in climate and most scientists don't either. I believe the huge nuclear fireball at the center of our solar system is the primary driver of climate. After that it's under sea and terrestrial volcanic activity.  After that its non human biological contributions. Human activity and industry represent a small fraction of greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly from the factory farming of meat.

 

Those are the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, think said:

 

I'll agree with NASA and 97% of the scientific community that humans are the primary driver of climate change. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But one anonymous opinion without any factual basis really doesn't say much does it.....

why wouldn't you agree with an institution only suplying theoretical facts calculated on relative time lines separating how life is actually eternally sorted apart now? You canot go any other way or betray your scripted character position as a cast of people attempting to become next generations royal we for a couple more generations arrusing everyone picks ideas over understanding life as actually sustained in biologiocal order adding up to the population here now. I understand every angle of intellectual diversion used historically. You employ everyone ever used each generation of my ancestral way of reproducing me here now.

 

Want equality? know how being equally here keeps you alive now naturally not controlled nurtured nature academically, artistically, spiritually, politically, economically, mob mentality collectively.

 

won't stop dishonest policies making people defending corrupted ideologies ancestrally morally, legally, ethically ignoring how life sustains the population behaving as everything going on now.  I offer specific kinetic behavior limited to each lifetime performing it now, you offer better days tomorrow if everyone becomes totally loyal to your group think now.

 

History says everyone will agree with you, but every society only offers the same thing you keep offering.  Time to change reality and get back to basic natural means of reproduction sustains an ongoing species one lifetime at a time now.  that was then purpose of the sept. 1789 radification of America's Constitution. The jan. 1789 was the means to correct correcting human nature and get back to saving organized systems of denial.

 

12 generations later that task is about over and liberty and honesty buried in speculating facts life can be larger than eternally sorted apart now as everyone believes now cannot be Eternity, perpetual universal balancing moment of kinetic compounding added details never duplicated as reproduced so far.

 

Go ahead, say I speak gibberish, crazy, insane. I have the serenity of trying to fix what my ancestry joined in making happen historically. You won't try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, think said:

 

However man made sources and their impact are well documented:

 

 

GARBAGE.   If you've the time, I've got a couple charts you could debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, think said:

 

I'll agree with NASA and 97% of the scientific community that humans are the primary driver of climate change.

 

This is untrue.   97% "of the scientific community" does NOT agree that humans are the primary driver.     Shall we debate that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, think said:

 

I'll agree with NASA and 97% of the scientific community that humans are the primary driver of climate change.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But one anonymous opinion without any factual basis really doesn't say much does it.....

clocks and calendar circumstantial evidence sustaining science fiction and spiritual fantasy as all you recite compared to explaining how each ancestor occupies the moment as reproduced to the total population here now only here as lasting as never the same details achieved/duplicated individual reproduction again?  

 

Fertilized cell to decomposed body doesn't happen beyond part of the simultaneously things going on now universally here kinetically separated and all yu argue and built upon socially is what if one side is this the other does that.

 

male female, 1 mom 1 dad, 2 grandpa, 2grandma, 8 great grandparents, their 16 parents all developed into last generation of reproductions here now. Please, your relative time logistics is 87.875% inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

This is untrue.   97% "of the scientific community" does NOT agree that humans are the primary driver.     Shall we debate that?

 

I stand corrected already.

 

NASA claims "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:"  Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. 

 

I used the wrong group in saying the "scientific community" rather than  "climate scientists". Although the climate scientists that NASA recognizes would be a very important group of scientists considering that is their field of expertise. You may disagree and that is your choice but last time I checked NASA had a pretty solid reputation.

 

Feel free to post your sources. I'm not against hearing differing opinions. But please provide sources. I may not agree with your sources or find them to be of poor quality as you do of mine sometimes but at least you'll have something to base your opinion on.

 

Please don't take offense if I don't respond. This is just a forum and not every post gets responded to. I spend a lot of time researching and vetting sources to use and don't always respond as it's a lot of work to try and source my positions for a serious discussion. 

 

And likewise many times I post and no one responds. So I just make my best case to try and inform people of my position move on. It's up to others to decide if my position is well sourced, vetted and of a high quality worthy of consideration for their own position on an issue.  

 

I posted the above article because it both shows there are Republicans concerned about climate change and that it there may be a possibility for cooperation. A rare thing now days but hopefully even people who may disagree on many issues can find areas they do agree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 10:55 AM, think said:

NASA claims "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:"  Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. 

 

Even that's basically false, *think*.  

 

NASA cites as their source a survey by J. Cook, who runs the dishonest but popular website SkepticalScience.com.  

 

Well here's an article that looked at what Cook actually found in his survey ...   

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#7d2ea047187f

 

 

Quote

 

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

 

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

 

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

 

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

 

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

 

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

 

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

 

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

 

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

 

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

 

 

But you don't intimidate me, think.   Not in the least.   

 

I also posted the following to bludog in an earlier thread.   I'll just substitute your name for his ...


http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/122589-dark-matter-even-more-missing-now/?p=1059317878
 

Quote

 

In the mean time, remember the claim that 97% of scientists support AGW? That’s even less than your 99% claim so you’d think it’s be even easier to prove. That claim came from a study by a guy named Cook who sent out a survey to 10,257 earth scientists. His conclusion from the results was/is cited endlessly by you AGWTruthers. But do you know he asked just 2 questions?

 

(1) “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   

 

(2)  "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

 

Of the 3146 that did respond to the survey, 90% said yes to the first question. Now this doesn’t surprise me, since the pre-1800s era was a period when we were coming out of a Little Ice Age.   Most "deniers" … er, “doubters” … would have answered yes.   I certainly would have.  So that question tells us NOTHING.

 

To the second question, 82% answered yes.  But you have to admit that question is quite vague.  What is meant by "significant"?  It's not defined.   What is meant by "changing"?   Does cooling count too?   Does it matter if the change is for the better?   Any time a question is subject to interpretation like that one, the response to it is going to be less meaningful.  Even you must realize that.

 

But here's the kicker, bludog think. To get the 97-98% figure boasted about by Cook and AGWalarmists, he looked at only a subset of the responses he got.   Only the response of the 77 (out of the 3146 who responded) who listed "climate scientist" as their area of expertise and who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals were counted.   Just 77.   Everyone else was simply ignored, no matter how good the paper might have been.   Of the 77 in that group who answered question 2, 75 of them answered "yes" … i.e., 97.5%.

 

Yep, that's where the often touted 97% statistic came from … from polling only the believers and ignoring everyone else.  And by way, the climate science journals in which acceptable (to Cook) responders had to have papers published were the sort of journals that ClimateGate emails revealed were being *encouraged* by the leaders of the AGW movement to NOT accept papers from so-called deniers of AGW.   The facts show that some of those who controlled the journals were going along with that pre-screening of papers.  So perhaps that's why the other 80 or so climate scientists didn't get more than half their papers accepted?  Because they were questioning the AGW memes.   Sorry, but Cook’s survey result is a good example of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

And what about the 7000+ scientists who didn't respond to Cook’s survey?   Many of us no longer reply to polls at all because we know the mainstream pollsters probably aren't honest brokers.  Because we don't like the way they tailor the questions to fit their agenda.  Because of the way they will selectively use only a portion of the responses to prove what they wanted to prove in the first place.   And these pollsters were asking scientists to give them their names.  If you were an opponent to the AGWconsensus, would you want to tell AGWalarmists about that … tell alarmists who might hurt your career or funding?   Perhaps most of those *climate scientists* who didn't respond feared that happening.  And for good reason. There is no denying that the AGWscientific community has viciously attacked any scientist who has come out against the AGW meme.   They planned such things in ClimateGate emails. This is a documented FACT. In fact, recently the AGWalarmist community has been calling for criminal prosecution (using RICO) of scientists who are outspoken AGWskeptics.  Imagine that!   That’s not a climate conducive to accurate polling of their views, bludog. That a climate in which polls are biased by fear and coercion. That’s a climate devoid of science.

 

Now Cook had another method of measuring *consensus*.  He surveyed the contents of some 11,944 climate related abstracts that were published between 1991 and 2011.  He then produced this chart from the results of his paper survey:

 

Cooketal2013.jpg

 

Note that 7930 (about 66%) were excluded because they expressed no opinion. Again, that by itself suggests the claim of 99% support is absolutely false.  But Cook was again able to come up with a figure of about 97-98% for those explicitly endorsing AGW to one degree or another.  But the truth is that Cook found that only 0.5% (64 papers) explicitly endorsed AGW and checked (i.e., quantified) that endorsement. And of those 64, it's been proven by critics that 23 actually did not endorse AGW like Cook claimed. Did you know that? So it turns out that only 0.3% of the climate science papers published in the 21 years from 1991 to 2011 explicitly stated that global warming was mostly man-made.  That's not consensus. That’s certainly not 99% consensus of “all” scientists, like [bludog] claim[ed].  Even you must see that.   Here are some convenient charts summarizing that result to help you come to grips with this truth:

 

clip_image038.jpg


clip_image040.jpg

 

The truth is that your 99% [or 97%] figure is just plain bogus.
 
How bogus?   Cook quickly dismissed ( http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/an-analysis-of-climate-change-denial/2950084 ) a petition signed by 31,000 US scientists who were skeptical of AGW ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/28/the-worst-“cook”book-interview-ever/ ), claiming they signed their name to a statement "that human activity can’t cause climate disruption".  But that was outright false.  Cook LIED. They signed their name to is a petition saying ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition ) "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." That's not a blanket claim that human activity can't cause climate disruption.   Cook mischaracterized the petition.   He lied about it.  He was in denial of what scientists really think.   And here you are mischaracterizing the 99% figure, too. In fact, I bet you don’t provide us with a source for that claim out of fear of what I’ll now do to it after seeing this post. :D

 

The truth is that Cook dismissed 99.9% of scientists out of hand because "99.9%" of them weren't "climate scientists" (his priests of "ultimate knowledge").   But that's dishonest.  While they may not be "climate scientists", that doesn't mean they can't understand the physics and claims being presented by scientists.  This isn’t rocket science. Indeed, how many true "climate scientists" are there in the ENTIRE world?  How many actually have degrees in that field … because, after all, without the degree they can’t know anything according to Cook?   Right?   I'd wager that quite a few of those scientists know enough science and even enough climate science to judge the validity and reasonableness of AGWalarmist claims.  The truth is that Cook had a misplaced confidence in the meaning of consensus.   As do you.  And he didn’t look with open eyes at the motivations of those who've chosen to be "climate scientists".  As do you.  If he looked, he might been shocked at what he'd discover.  But then Cook thinks ClimateGate was just an aberration. I bet you do too, if you even know what I'm talking about. Instead, regarding skeptics, Cook makes statements like this:  "I could probably count them on both my hands I guess, maybe a half dozen or so scientists that actually published papers that are skeptical that global warming will be bad in the future".  To hold that view, he had to ignore sources like these:   http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm".     The truth is that Cook is the REAL denier.

 


Count yourself one of the manipulated, think.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 7:01 AM, think said:

CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources. However man made sources and their impact are well documented:

But there is no matching warming.

 

6a010536b58035970c01b7c7f4b97f970b-pi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VWEarp said:

But there is no matching warming.

 

Indeed.   The last 130 years of data actually show very little correlation of temperatures with CO2 level or trends in CO2 level.    As I've proven numerous times.    But there is surprising correlation with solar irradiation over that time period (and even longer).   But try to get someone like *think* to discuss that?   I suspect he'd just keep regurgitate the *consensus* meme again, like all the other leftists around here do with the actual data is brought to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Indeed.   The last 130 years of data actually show very little correlation of temperatures with CO2 level or trends in CO2 level.    As I've proven numerous times.    But there is surprising correlation with solar irradiation over that time period (and even longer).   But try to get someone like *think* to discuss that?   I suspect he'd just keep regurgitate the *consensus* meme again, like all the other leftists around here do with the actual data is brought to the table.

I just read today how Australia scientists are revising history again.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-2-24-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 6:01 AM, think said:

 

CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources. However man made sources and their impact are well documented:

 

 

 

This is a non-sequitur.

 

CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources and it's impact is well documented:

 

There, fixed it for you.

 

When you take the liberal out of it, it reads like logic.

 

BTW, conservative green efforts would be small modular nuclear reactors so we wouldn't burn anything for electricity except for the fuel it takes to regularly air launch waste capsules into the Sun.

 

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×