Why we should listen to the 97%

[Saigon]

BriPat -

What you or I think a word means is of no value or interest. We could both be wrong, mis-informed or simply too biased to have useful opinions. Dictionaries are the only source of any value here.

So let me help you out with that:

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic A preservative agent or principle.

conservative - definition of conservative by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Foxfyre]

BriPat -

What you or I think a word means is of no value or interest. We could both be wrong, mis-informed or simply too biased to have useful opinions. Dictionaries are the only source of any value here.

So let me help you out with that:

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic A preservative agent or principle.

conservative - definition of conservative by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Or, it doesn't matter so much how you or I or the dictionary defines a word as much as it matters how a very large group of people define themselves and what they intend when they define themselves with a particular label. Those who define themselves as 'conservative' in the USA do not fit the dictionary definition that you provided nor is 'conservative' here defined as it would be in most European countries. Ditto for the term 'liberal' as it is understood and used as a sociopolitical label in the American culture.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I agree that it doesn't matter how you or I define the term, which is why I insisted on using dictionaries.

Those who define themselves as 'conservative' in the USA do not fit the dictionary definition that you provided nor is 'conservative' here defined as it would be in most European countries. Ditto for the term 'liberal' as it is understood and used as a sociopolitical label in the American culture.

You may also have noticed that I used an AMERICAN dictionary.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre -

If the only real conservatives in existance are the Tea Party, then you are right that there is little evidence of Tea Party thinking in international politics or science.

However, there are genuine conservatives in every country on earth, and they are as involved in science and politics as anyone might expect. I don't actually see massive differences between the centre of the GOP and the conservatives in those countries listed. There are areas like abortion where they are very different, but attitudes towards most things are the same.

It makes no sense at all to claim that the German CDU or Uk Conservative party are not conservatives because they are not some cardboard cut-out of the right wing of the GOP. Talk to any member of those parties and you will find that you have more in common than you do points of real difference.

In reality, what we are then discussing here is not conservatism, but Christian fundamentalism or right-wing extremism. For myself, I am not much interested in what either left or right wing extremists have to say about science. Dismiss the extremists, and what we are left with is a genuine, board consensus. Perhaps not 97% of scientists, but very likely 90% or so - and from right across the political spectrum.

Millions of Americans who have little or nothing to do with the Tea Party movement and/or don't even understand what that is still define themselves as 'conservative' in the USA.

Again those who call themselves 'conservative' in the USA are far more likely to fit the definition of 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian'; i.e. favoring small, constitutionally limited federal government that recognizes and secures the unalienable rights of the people, restrained federal spending, lower taxes, states rights, individual liberties. None of that fits in with your dictionary definition.

"Conservative' is the favored term as the polar opposite of what the sociopolitical definition of 'liberal' has become in this country; i.e. favoring a large federal government that dictates what society shall be, what language and attitudes are acceptable, and sees to it that all have basic comforts.

The small minority who define themselves 'conservative' but who want the federal government to order the society they want are not 'conservative' at all but are extremists who behave more like liberals than consevatives here.

The consensus defintiions apply in our national conversations just as the AGW proponents want there to be a 97% consensus of scientists. The only problem with that 97% consensus of scientists is that it doesn't exist. If it did, then I think a whole lot more of us would take the warnings more seriously. The fact that the 97% is being pushed dishonestly, however, greatly diminishes the confidence people have in the sociopolitical efforts of the warmers. American Conservatives are simply not willing to give up their choices, options, opportunities, and indiidual liberties for something that increasingly appears to be bogus science.

If anthropogenic global warming is real, I suggest that your side start being scrupulously honest with your 'evidence' and how it is presented. Your scientists are not doing you any favors with that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder what weighting is assigned to the Conservativeness of a government in determining their contribution to Consensus of AGWCult Theory, is there some mathematical formula you can share with us?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder what weighting is assigned to the Conservativeness of a government in determining their contribution to Consensus of AGWCult Theory, is there some mathematical formula you can share with us?

Again it is relative based on how the terms are defined. Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism. At least most of the Americans who don't utilize idiotic hateful and perjorative language on message boards.

Conservatives who want to keep their unalienable rights to choices, options, opportunities are far more likely to be skeptics re AGW than are liberals in America. That includes those in government at all levels. Liberals are more likely to be AGW proponents and that includes those in government. And in neither group is the consensus of opinion anywhere close to 100%.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.

Again - it's an AMERICAN source.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder what weighting is assigned to the Conservativeness of a government in determining their contribution to Consensus of AGWCult Theory, is there some mathematical formula you can share with us?

Again it is relative based on how the terms are defined. Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism. At least most of the Americans who don't utilize idiotic hateful and perjorative language on message boards.

Conservatives who want to keep their unalienable rights to choices, options, opportunities are far more likely to be skeptics re AGW than are liberals in America. That includes those in government at all levels. Liberals are more likely to be AGW proponents and that includes those in government. And in neither group is the consensus of opinion anywhere close to 100%.

Apparently, anyone Right of Pol Pot is defined as "Conservative"

 

[Dot Com]

lets stay on topic, why we shouldn't give much weight to the fringers & their water-carriers like Frank57 & FoxFyre.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus = f((CO2 added to atmosphere last week * 3.76 10^6,795)+ Liberal Government supporting AGW + 4* Conservative governments funding anything to do with the climate + attendance at Santa Anita race track last week + Krugmans estimate of the Additional Stimulus Needed to get the Government Spending like it's fighting an Alien Invasion)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

lets stay on topic, why we shouldn't give much weight to the fringers & their water-carriers like Frank57 & FoxFyre.

Q. When are you going to show us that Lab work on the 200PPM addition of CO2?

A. Never

 

[Foxfyre]

Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.

Again - it's an AMERICAN source.

And again, if you truly are in Finland, I don't expect you to understand American culture or cultural vernacular as well as you understand Finnish culture and vernacular. I am pretty sure I, an American and long time student of American history, language, culture, and socioeconomic politics, probably have a better grasp of who we are and what we mean with words than does the typical European.

And again, trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are. We do not have a conservative government however much you want to think we do.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.

I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation. An impressive lot.

"If there is a shred of evidence" That guy was funny.

The 97% who believe we are the primary cause should stop releasing more CO2.
They're killing the planet!!

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

My own interpretation of these terms is not important here, not so in Finnish, and even less so in an American context. That's why we have dictionaries.

At the time any of us start to disagree with dictionaries from our own country - it might be worth asking quite how well we REALLy understand the term.

If you feel the dictionary definition posted is wrong....I suspect it's worth asking why that might be.

trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are.

I'm not the one claiming the dictionary is wrong.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.

I agree to some extent - but this is not the case of other conservative countries, where the conservative politicians have been more objective and open minded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to. Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.

The crux of Dessler's message was:

If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing, it is PROBABLY correct. It is not proven correct. We cannot say it is KNOWN to be correct. But it PROBABLY is correct.

The harm that will be done should those 97% be correct and yet ignored is immense. For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. The lifetime of CO2 and methane in an overheated world is many hundreds of years at the very least. If we do not stop it now, we will not be able to stop it in the future.

The harm that will be done should those 97% be incorrect and yet measures are taken is small. It is small for several reasons:

1) There are numerous co-benefits to moving away from fossil fuels
a) Reduce air pollution
b) Get an early start on the new energy and transport infrastructure that WILL be required at some point
c) It is REVERSIBLE. If we eventually discover that we can safely burn coal and oil, they will still be here. We can quite easily return to a fossil fuel economy and burn the shit out of that stuff.


Any thoughts on any of THAT?

For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now.

We won't be able to stabilize CO2 levels within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. So we should destroy our economy now, because ..........

Al Gore needs a massage? Another jet?

 

[Dot Com]

Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.

Again - it's an AMERICAN source.

And again, if you truly are in Finland, I don't expect you to understand American culture or cultural vernacular as well as you understand Finnish culture and vernacular. I am pretty sure I, an American and long time student of American history, language, culture, and socioeconomic politics, probably have a better grasp of who we are and what we mean with words than does the typical European.

And again, trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are. We do not have a conservative government however much you want to think we do.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.

ummm..... then why didn't you supply a link?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again - it's an AMERICAN source.

And again, if you truly are in Finland, I don't expect you to understand American culture or cultural vernacular as well as you understand Finnish culture and vernacular. I am pretty sure I, an American and long time student of American history, language, culture, and socioeconomic politics, probably have a better grasp of who we are and what we mean with words than does the typical European.

And again, trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are. We do not have a conservative government however much you want to think we do.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.

ummm..... then why didn't you supply a link?

Why? You and Bfgn never read them anyway. But here's you a link. You don't need to go much further than the first page at the website, if even that: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

 

[westwall]

Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.

Again - it's an AMERICAN source.

And again, if you truly are in Finland, I don't expect you to understand American culture or cultural vernacular as well as you understand Finnish culture and vernacular. I am pretty sure I, an American and long time student of American history, language, culture, and socioeconomic politics, probably have a better grasp of who we are and what we mean with words than does the typical European.

And again, trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are. We do not have a conservative government however much you want to think we do.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.

saggy is an AMERICAN living in Finland.

 

[flacaltenn]

The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to. Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.

The crux of Dessler's message was:

If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing, it is PROBABLY correct. It is not proven correct. We cannot say it is KNOWN to be correct. But it PROBABLY is correct.

The harm that will be done should those 97% be correct and yet ignored is immense. For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. The lifetime of CO2 and methane in an overheated world is many hundreds of years at the very least. If we do not stop it now, we will not be able to stop it in the future.

The harm that will be done should those 97% be incorrect and yet measures are taken is small. It is small for several reasons:

1) There are numerous co-benefits to moving away from fossil fuels
a) Reduce air pollution
b) Get an early start on the new energy and transport infrastructure that WILL be required at some point
c) It is REVERSIBLE. If we eventually discover that we can safely burn coal and oil, they will still be here. We can quite easily return to a fossil fuel economy and burn the shit out of that stuff.


Any thoughts on any of THAT?

Yeah..

"..... to moving away from fossil fuels" --- to WHAT? The only plausible solution for Electrical generation is widespread implementation of Nuclear Power. Is this OK with Dressler? There are no TRUE alternatives on the 'renewable' list.

In terms of transportation energy -- the best ENGINEERED solution is to shift to Hydrogen manufactured with renewables OFF-LINE..

His statement is a phoney choice --- WITHOUT a choice. And the concept that we have a decade or two to waste with $Trill in infrastructure we don't need, does not make me feel better about "it being reversible".. Evidentally -- Dressler feels no sense of urgency or CERTAINTY... He'd make a GREAT ADVISOR to the Great Waffler POTUS we currently have.

You lost me at the "If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing," --- which is why I haven't participated here. It's not in evidence by any means that there are concise QUESTIONS that 97% of some techy group would agree to.. Especially post - ClimateGate.. And more importantly -- since the lying and spinning has reached EPIC proportions..

 

[flacaltenn]

Again - it's an AMERICAN source.

And again, if you truly are in Finland, I don't expect you to understand American culture or cultural vernacular as well as you understand Finnish culture and vernacular. I am pretty sure I, an American and long time student of American history, language, culture, and socioeconomic politics, probably have a better grasp of who we are and what we mean with words than does the typical European.

And again, trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are. We do not have a conservative government however much you want to think we do.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.

ummm..... then why didn't you supply a link?

Why do you need a link when the truth smacks u up the side of your head?

Why is the Mission of the UN IPCC to research only the science "that is relevent to MAN-CAUSED warming of the planet" ?? Is that anyway to charter the World's premiere science statement on Climate Change? They are free to ignore ANY inconvienient science that doesn't serve the POLITICAL MISSION that they were given...