when even the research funded by the Koch brothers shows that climate change is real....

[Anonymous]

They funded it to the tune of $150K and conservatives said they would support its conclusions, whatever they might be....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/richard_muller_and_science_the033168.php

...then changed their mind when it concluded that...oops....climate change is real, after all.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/climate-change-deniers-abandon-befuddled-warmist-physicist-who-came-around-on-global-warming.php

[Anonymous]

The real shocker is that they did not edit the scientists' conclusions as seems to be the conservative custom.

[Anonymous]

WE DIDN'T LISTEN, GLOBAL warming is coming TOMORROW

[Anonymous]

I don't think people deny climate change, they argue over what to do about it. Unless we can stop China's and India's future growth it is all a moot point isn't it? So might as well worry about engineering solutions.

[Anonymous]

PP - your point is just stupid. Because China and India has significant growth and probably will in the near future, we should abandon our effects to curtail our footprint? You're so niave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people deny climate change, they argue over what to do about it. Unless we can stop China's and India's future growth it is all a moot point isn't it? So might as well worry about engineering solutions.

Maybe you are writing from a foreign country and haven't been States-side for many years? I know that the Dutch already have a 200-year plan to deal with climate change, but here some people are still arguing that the Universe is 5000 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people deny climate change, they argue over what to do about it. Unless we can stop China's and India's future growth it is all a moot point isn't it? So might as well worry about engineering solutions.

Yes. Climate deniers spent the last 10 years denying climate change is occurring. Now they say no one denied it's occurring, there's just disputes over what causes it and what to do about it (if anything-- because who wouldn't want to live in a world undergoing rapid climate change, with more severe weather).

[Anonymous]

I'm a conservative, and I don't believe that climate change is as dramatically caused by human activity as most greens say. That is not the same as thinking that there is no global warming. I believe there is global warming, but that it is primarily a natural cycle. And I don't think most "environmentalists" act like they think their individual actions make much of a difference either. (see Al Gore).

That article quotes one blogger saying he would support this study. Hardly the same as all conservatives agreeing to something.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people deny climate change, they argue over what to do about it.

Sen. Inhofe called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" in 2003, and he has consistently built on that assertion since then.

[Anonymous]

regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a conservative, and I don't believe that climate change is as dramatically caused by human activity as most greens say. That is not the same as thinking that there is no global warming. I believe there is global warming, but that it is primarily a natural cycle. And I don't think most "environmentalists" act like they think their individual actions make much of a difference either. (see Al Gore).

That article quotes one blogger saying he would support this study. Hardly the same as all conservatives agreeing to something.

Well what percentage of the change do you attribute to humans, and why?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

I someone arguing that we shouldn't?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 since we have an engineering problem anyway?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

I someone arguing that we shouldn't?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 since we have an engineering problem anyway?

I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

What provides a greater threat to our future: 1) the national debt, or; 2) global warming?

[Anonymous]

Debt, the environment can suck my balls