What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

Liberal greenies hate nuclear. They hate coal too, and oil and gas.
They hate all energy use by others, especially those with whom they
disagree. They think that driving a hybrid makes up for their air travel.

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

Less "petrol" than what? Walking? Riding a bike?

Most people own neither a car nor a bike.

They like the comforts and conveniences provided by fossil fuel use, but
don't see themselves in any way responsible for the downsides.

Again rubbish. But they know that all that would be accomplished by
returning to the Stone Age would allow people who think like you to use
fossil fuels even faster.

No one has suggested a return to the stone age. A greenie giving up his car (hybrid or not) has no bearing on whether anyone else is going to "use fossil fuels even faster."

Only concerted action can avert the crisis.

Is this the "concerted action" about which you speak?

http://www.bloomberg.com/ss/10/05/05...riences/14.htm

http://yeinjee.com/bangladesh-bishwa...crowded-train/

They blame the oil companies, the Kochs and the Republicans instead. They
buy carbon indulgences, hypocrites all.

Carbon offsets are capitalist crap designed to allow US industry to pollute
more.

And the greenies fall for it.

They rightly blame the oil industry in the USA and their shills in the
Republican Party and the media.

Democrats take in quite a bit in donations from oil companies.

Have you checked your stock portfolio for oil companies? Do you ever make any unnecessary trips, such as to see solar eclipses?

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:41:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:33:59 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

It's also true that early adopters of this technology are helping to
build both the technology and the market for cars which are not fueled
by fossil fuels. There's value in that.

Not really.

100 year old electric car:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a1609/4215940/

Move along folks...

wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

Liberal greenies hate nuclear. They hate coal too, and oil and gas.
They hate all energy use by others, especially those with whom they
disagree. They think that driving a hybrid makes up for their air travel.

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

Less "petrol" than what? Walking? Riding a bike?

Most people own neither a car nor a bike.

They like the comforts and conveniences provided by fossil fuel use, but
don't see themselves in any way responsible for the downsides.

Again rubbish. But they know that all that would be accomplished by
returning to the Stone Age would allow people who think like you to use
fossil fuels even faster.

No one has suggested a return to the stone age. A greenie giving up his
car (hybrid or not) has no bearing on whether anyone else is going to
"use fossil fuels even faster."

Only concerted action can avert the crisis.

Is this the "concerted action" about which you speak?

http://www.bloomberg.com/ss/10/05/05...riences/14.htm

http://yeinjee.com/bangladesh-bishwa...crowded-train/

What would you write if somebody posted something so irrelevant to to the
discussion.
Would it be "Strawman"?


They blame the oil companies, the Kochs and the Republicans instead. They
buy carbon indulgences, hypocrites all.

Carbon offsets are capitalist crap designed to allow US industry to pollute
more.

And the greenies fall for it.

Only the stupid or capitalist ones.


They rightly blame the oil industry in the USA and their shills in the
Republican Party and the media.

Democrats take in quite a bit in donations from oil companies.

Have you checked your stock portfolio for oil companies? Do you ever
make any unnecessary trips, such as to see solar eclipses?

What stock portfolio is that?

I worked for the NHS for over 40 years. I have a government pension. My
savings are not in stocks and shares. If they were I would be using ethical
investments which generally perform better than general.

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 4:28:40 PM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:37:12 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 02:15:32 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

That's mostly bull****. I agree that gas plants are now easier and
cheaper to produce. But the cost will change. Government regulations
make nuclear power plants more expensive. And in the US there is now
a war on coal so no coal plants can ever get licensed.

So far we lack the technology to make safe and economical use of coal,
natural gas, and nuclear. How the economics of these three unsafe
technologies play out against each other is complex and it's very
difficult to predict how they will change in the future.

I've always thought you were crazy, but now I'm sure of it.

Colorado gets almost two-thirds of its electricity from coal, and much of the rest from nat gas. Maybe it will have enough windmills Real Soon Now.

peterson owns a car. He faces a long drive to his astro club meetings.

Maybe there's a charging station at the club's meeting site, not that there's any point in it having one.

wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:41:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:33:59 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

It's also true that early adopters of this technology are helping to
build both the technology and the market for cars which are not fueled
by fossil fuels. There's value in that.

Not really.

100 year old electric car:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a1609/4215940/

Move along folks...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 6:09:49 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Only concerted action can avert the crisis.

Is this the "concerted action" about which you speak?

http://www.bloomberg.com/ss/10/05/05...riences/14.htm

http://yeinjee.com/bangladesh-bishwa...crowded-train/

What would you write if somebody posted something so irrelevant to to the
discussion.
Would it be "Strawman"?

The people on those trains probably have carbon footprints a very small fraction of yours.

Carbon offsets are capitalist crap designed to allow US industry to pollute
more.

And the greenies fall for it.

Only the stupid or capitalist ones.

Sure most of them are stupid, but how many are capitalists?

They rightly blame the oil industry in the USA and their shills in the
Republican Party and the media.

Democrats take in quite a bit in donations from oil companies.

Have you checked your stock portfolio for oil companies? Do you ever
make any unnecessary trips, such as to see solar eclipses?

What stock portfolio is that?

I worked for the NHS for over 40 years. I have a government pension. My
savings are not in stocks and shares. If they were I would be using ethical
investments which generally perform better than general.

So you wouldn't invest in oil companies because oil harms the environment, but you still use oil even though it harms the environment?

wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 6:09:49 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Only concerted action can avert the crisis.

Is this the "concerted action" about which you speak?

http://www.bloomberg.com/ss/10/05/05...riences/14.htm

http://yeinjee.com/bangladesh-bishwa...crowded-train/

What would you write if somebody posted something so irrelevant to to the
discussion.
Would it be "Strawman"?

The people on those trains probably have carbon footprints a very small fraction of yours.

Carbon offsets are capitalist crap designed to allow US industry to pollute
more.

And the greenies fall for it.

Only the stupid or capitalist ones.

Sure most of them are stupid, but how many are capitalists?

They rightly blame the oil industry in the USA and their shills in the
Republican Party and the media.

Democrats take in quite a bit in donations from oil companies.

Have you checked your stock portfolio for oil companies? Do you ever
make any unnecessary trips, such as to see solar eclipses?

What stock portfolio is that?

I worked for the NHS for over 40 years. I have a government pension. My
savings are not in stocks and shares. If they were I would be using ethical
investments which generally perform better than general.

So you wouldn't invest in oil companies because oil harms the
environment, but you still use oil even though it harms the environment?

I wouldn't invest in US oil or mining companies. Other oil companies are
more enlightened.

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 6:21:40 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:41:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:33:59 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

It's also true that early adopters of this technology are helping to
build both the technology and the market for cars which are not fueled
by fossil fuels. There's value in that.

Not really.

100 year old electric car:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a1609/4215940/

Move along folks...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float

That won't make it out to peterson's place without a recharge, but maybe he doesn't drink milk anyway.

I used to walk to the grocery store. But after figuring out that greenies rarely did that, I drove instead.

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 6:29:33 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

So you wouldn't invest in oil companies because oil harms the
environment, but you still use oil even though it harms the environment?

I wouldn't invest in US oil or mining companies. Other oil companies are
more enlightened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwat...izon_oil_spill

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...climate-change

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

They like the comforts and conveniences provided by fossil fuel use, but
don't see themselves in any way responsible for the downsides.

Again rubbish. But they know that all that would be accomplished by
returning to the Stone Age would allow people who think like you to use
fossil fuels even faster.
Only concerted action can avert the crisis.

SO, if everyone in the world owned and drove a car just like yours and drove it as much, would that be an example of the "concerted action" to "avert the crisis" to which you allude?