Pirate's Cove

Here’s one of my favorite Warmists, David Roberts

Can climate science be rendered conservative-friendly?

One common criticism of the way climate science has been communicated over the last decade or so is that scientists and advocates have led with a liberal perspective: Here’s a big problem that we need to solve with government regulations and mandates. It didn’t help that climate change came to prominence via Al Gore, a partisan liberal long loathed on the right. (snip)

But it is worth asking: Could climate hawks have made a pitch that appealed to conservatives? Is there such a pitch available today?

Yes, except it would have required action, not “spreading awareness”. As I’ve note time and time and time again, Warmists could have practiced what they preach. They mostly don’t. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter what they say, because we can see that a) their so-called science is deeply flawed, to the point where their models consistently fail and they have to change data as well as simply make it up, and b) we understand that the end game is simply bigger and bigger government with more and more power taking more and more freedom and money away from citizens and private entities.

Roberts finds that there is no way for Conservatives to accept what he calls “climate science”, but, mostly because we are supposedly big meanies and flat earthers and stuff, which is funny, because Warmists mostly ignore 4.5 billion years of history, along with the way the climate has acted during the Holocene, and they mostly/solely ignore the effects the natural world has on climate. There are things we could work together on, such as real environmental issues, using alternative energy in a wise, worthwhile, economically sound manner, fixing the energy infrastructure, but, really, these same warmists who yammer on about these often refuse to allow implementation.

As a sidebar in the article, let’s look at

Consider the following propositions:

1. The climate is warming due to the rapid addition of greenhouse gases, primarily as a result of burning fossil fuels, and most of the effects of unrestrained climate change will be extremely deleterious to human welfare, first and especially the poorest and most vulnerable.

2. Global temperature rise of 2 degree Celsius or more is likely to trigger severe, irreversible effects; rise of 4 or 6 degrees could, in the view of some scientists, threaten human civilization itself.

3. Preventing 2 degrees (or even 3, or 4) would involve a massive and rapid reduction in fossil fuel consumption and deforestation; developed world emissions would have to peak in 2015 or so and fall by almost 10 percent a year every year thereafter, a rate well over double what has ever been witnessed in human history.

These are factual statements; there’s nothing in them about values or solutions. They constitute a description of the situation, and a description of the situation cannot, in itself, tell us what to do.

The first is a guess. Well, more of a wish, and if that is the case, why do so few Warmists actually give up their fossil fueled travel? The second is prognostication, ie, reading tea leaves, not science. The third is simply a way for Progressives to drive people into mega-cities (Agenda 21)…well, they want everyone else to do this, but not themselves.