Aren't conservatives more accurate in predicting economic and energy trends?

Question

Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to accept the possibility that anthropogenic global warming is suspect?

Answer 1

Yes. Conservatives tend to be a bit more skeptical. A lot of these libs fall hook, line, and sinker for Gores propaganda. They still believe, no questions asked, after British court cited 10 major exagerations and lies.

Answer 2

Economist are more accurate at predicting economic trends and the affect on the well-being of people. Climatologist are best at predicting the influence of changes in atmospheric chemistry on climate. Oceanographers are better at predicting the effect of factors that impact the ocean on changes that may occur in the ocean, and Biologist are best at predicting the effect of factors that influence the biosphere on the organisms that live in the biosphere. You have to assemble all of these types of scientist to investigate a problem of global proportion and ask them to determine is the theory that CO2 can change climate has any merit, if there are likely to be any significant changes in the systems listed, if there are areas that need more research, and determine what options are available to mitigate the problem. This group is called the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and is headed by the UN because of the scope of the problem. It includes many of the top scientist in their fields from all over the world (US provides at lot).

The findings of the IPCC are reviewed by different groups. The group determine if the science is sound and the conclusions drawn are reasonable for the methods used and the results found. The Most prestigious group for this in the US is the National Academy of Sciences. This group is way smart! You don't just pay your membership and become a part of it. The President of the US is able to ask them to research different questions, and they will find a reasonable answer. They looked at the IPCC report issued in the early 90s, found it lacking. Then president Bush (former presidents father) adopted a to no economic harm but work to reduce CO2 policy. This seemed to be appropriate give the deficiencies the group found (it seems like the same "deficiencies being discussed now). The IPCC has continued working to fill the gaps as much as possible identified by the NAS and other countries. This year, the National Academy now agreed that a significant portion of the warming is coming from human activity (look at their website). Now you have massive campaigns to confuse the issue by people who have no clue. They are easy to recognize because they typically use red herrings to try to push you off on another topic, do not use peer-review information from creditable sources, and typically attempt to look "scientific" while providing only conjuncture as evidence. The feeling is anything with a .gov or .edu has a "liberal biased." "Liberal biased" to these people should indicate a reasonable answer to a question ask that they are unwilling to accept under any circumstances. They make it a point of never being convinced and cite websites that either don't exist anymore (click on a few), are run by people who don't really do any science, or appear to be a "journal" but don't mention any review process or editorial board and state in their mission "we are an alternative to the mainstream" (i.e. this journal exist only to confuse people). Stick with IPCC, NAS and EPA. They actually have people qualified to review this complex issue.

Conservative and liberal labels. The don't really mean anything. The scientist doing the work to answer the questions concerning global warming can be either one. My personal feeling is the economist will be more conservative than the biologist types, but both that have researched this issue think AGW is a serious threat to our well being. Conservative when referring to an economist means "cheap," not anti-gay,/ anti-evolution, anti-AGW, anti-whatever at the time.

What to do about it is the real problem - scientist cannot impose a solution. I think a German Economist, Karl Maler, pretty much got it right. He basically showed that this is an impossible political situation because the politicians have to decide on actions now that will hurt people to reduce a globally devastating problem that might hurt people latter, or do nothing and hope for the best. "Pay me now or pay me latter." It could be a no win situation if the voters don't give them the support they need.

Answer 3

Not at all. There is no evidence that conservatives are more accurate and it is illogical to base your second hypothesis on your first. In any event anthropogenic global warming is a scientific matter of fact , it is happening now and all the pseudo scientists and public relations spin doctors employed by the oil, gas and coal companies will be consigned to the garbage can of history. You'll see, time will tell.

Answer 4

Certainly it would be prudent but noone is very good at predicting the economic and energy trends. The rule of thumb is to oppose the majority and you are more than likely to be correct in predicting the trends it seems. Conservatives are skeptical on man caused global warming. Liberals usually like to leave out the word "anthopogenic" so that any warming will be implied to be caused by man. They show glaciers melting and suggest this is castastrophic and imply that man must be the cause.

Answer 5

Um, how do you figure that?

First off, I don't know why you think conservatives are more accurate in predicting economic and energy trends. Do they give you an economics handbook when you register Republican? LOL!

Secondly, global warming is neither an economic nor an energy trend. It's a scientific issue, so it would obviously be prudent to listen to climate scientists.

Are you really a doctor? Because all your questions seem to have major logic problems.

Answer 6

Possibly, yes, but the economy is often a bit of a black art and is often achieved at the expence of social issues, which is why the other side always gets back in.

And definitely not, a reputation for fiscal prudence does not, in any way, invalidate a concensus among the scientific community.

Answer 7

I understand your logic, but unfortunately the republican party has lost site of the conservative principles that once governed it. Poltical leadership runs in cycles just as climate does, so now we must set back for a while and let the liberals take their best shot at wrecking the world. This coming political cycle should allow for a readjustment of priorities, but with a significant cost.

Answer 8

If conservatives were more accurate in predicting economic trends, then Republican presidents would be good for the economy. In actual fact, the economy does better under Democratic presidents, using almost any economic measure you care to name.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/05/comparing-presidents-comparing-parties.html

Answer 9

People would would definately consider that possibility if they were in the habit of thinking for themselves.

My impressions of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' is it is a excellent movie, but it's only half the story and probably directed at people who only want to see the 'case for the prosecution' and no more.

A lot of people seem to think, I want to see Al Gore on an industrial mobile lift standing next to a big CO2 graph to emphasise how high the CO2 concentration is, but I don't want to see a graph of what portion of the atmosphere is CO2. I want to see quick flashes of carefully chosen graphs in front of me, but I don't want to read the labels on the axes and interpret the results. Al Gore can do that better than I could anyway.

Answer 10

The Earth has had ice ages, they were cooling periods, between them were warming periods. This has been going on for all of Earth’s 4 + - billion years. This all happened before any of the modern day technology came into being and will continue after we are gone.

The Earth is going through a pole shift right now. A pole shift is when the magnetic poles swap polarities. During pole shifts the magnetosphere is weaker and more of the Sun’s rays strike the Earth, this causes extra heating of the Earths surface, and makes global warming more pronounced.

These are natural cycles of the Earth. We puny stupid humans can no more stop or even reduce a natural cycle of the Earth, than the man in the moon. This is 9th grade science, and one would think that scientists and politicians would be better educated, but it seems that this not so, and they could remember 9th grade science class too.

This may just may be another smoke and mirrors propaganda campaign to cover our governments lies and con games. There are so many conspiracies running rampant it’s hard to tell which are real and which are just simple stupidity. The idea we can stop global warming IS stupidity at it’s highest form.


As to the energy side of your question! Consevatives are dumb a's!

Go to www.uspto.gov and enter patent number 5,430,333.

There you will see pollution free electric power able to be built to be more than 1000 times that of our largest Nuclear Reactor!

Plant Vogtle, our last Nuclear Reactor makes only a fraction of the power of my patented power plant!

The first generation “baby” power plants from this new technology makes 1000 megawatts.

Vogtle cost $10 billion, 30 years ago.

These new power plants cost $2.5 billion in today’s money.

Vogtle is about to be retired, as are all our other Nuclear plants.

All the fueled power plants only have about a 30 life span.

The power plant design you will see at patent office site live well over 100 years.

They burn NO fuel what so ever!

It costs more to demolish a Nuclear plant than to build one new!

The spent Nuclear fuel has a 25,000 year storage problem with no solution yet, and a tremendous cost that defies accurate estimation due to the very long time frame.

Nuclear power has been estimated to cost more $50.00 per kilowatt hour when the demolition and storage costs are applied.

Guess who gets to foot that bill, the tax payer!

Being fuel-less the design you see at the patent office has a cost of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour.

Coal fired power plants make 8 lbs of air pollution to run 100 watt light bulb for an hour.

There are NO cost estimations for the clean up of all that pollution.

We keep seeing in the news about coal miners dieing in cave-ins.

With the high cost of electric power being hidden for so long by our politicians using their abysmally poor judgment to allow this to happen in the first place. Then compounding the problem with their constant lying about it to all of us, and the problem now coming to light despite their best efforts to lie and hide it. We are now stuck with the costs of their abysmally poor judgment after their being “paid” by big power to lie to us about the scope of this problem for decades.

Call all your elected official state, local, and federal. Tell them you want the pollution free electric power you saw at the patent office web site! Tell them to get off their assets and get moving on making pollution free and cheaper electric power happen ASAP!

Or swallow their lies so more until our nation is so polluted our children die younger than ever before. Cancer is running rampant everywhere, it comes from all the pollution our elected officials are allowing to be spewed into “our” environment every day. It time to put pollution into it’s proper place, “THE PAST”!

We now have the technology, we can build it, it’s 100% clean, and the electric power is cheaper than ANY fueled power plant.

I’m working on taking my utility company public now!

I hope to building these power plants very soon!