GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real; man contributes
I guess it’s true; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie really isn’t running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state,” he said in a press conference yesterday (video below). “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. Decade average temperatures have been rising and temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.”
OK, so climate change is occurring. But is mankind to blame? To get an answer to that crucial question, Christie says, he has been meeting with experts and scientists for the last few months to discuss the issue in depth, and has also done considerable reading and study on his own.
His conclusion:
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
In his statement Thursday, Christie also announced that New Jersey would not participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a joint effort by 10 Northeastern states to address the issue of greenhouse gases at the regional level through a cap-and-trade program. His decision to withdraw from RGGI makes a lot of sense for purely practical reasons, and was clearly reached through the same analytical process that brought him to the conclusion that climate change is real and mankind is contributing.
As Christie notes, the rights to emit a ton of greenhouse gases through RGGI were projected to cost as much as $20 to $30 a ton, a level that would create a significant economic incentive to reduce those emissions. Under RGGI, however, those rights are selling at less than $2 a ton.
“RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions,” Christie said. “We’re looking for broader results that benefit all ratepayers and all citizens.”
Christie went on to pledge that in light of the seriousness of the problem, “there will no new coal permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward, any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal-based generation of energy is over…. We need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past.”
Instead, the state will begin to shutdown older coal plants and move toward offshore wind generation, using old landfill sites as solar energy fields and concentrating on conservation and efficiency because “the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t use.”
As promised, here’s Christie’s statement in full (and I do confess to thinking while watching it that no major political figure in Georgia would be capable of such a performance.):
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
377 comments Add your comment
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:33 am
“Please, please, please, will some of you AT LEAST get to within five years of current information???”
TaxPayer’s article used both so I was just wondering, AmVet. I thought it had been changed to man-made climate change to sound more sane.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:34 am
“Excellent advice for yourself jm.
Open your mind man.”
Seabuiscut has arrived, everyone!
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:34 am
“Open your mind man.”
Spoken like a true dopehead.
I do have my blinders off. I used to be a Democrat. Now I’m a Republican (I’m really just and independent moderate).
How about you Mr. Straight Party Line voter?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:35 am
he will come out in a few days and apologize and say that what he was saying should not be quoted as that would be a lie
I sure hope not. I am hoping for more of a press release where he goes “some people are trying to get me to run away from my position and I won’t”
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:36 am
Adam – if there’s one thing to learn about Christie, the guy does not back down. Period. He won’t backtrack.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:37 am
jm,
Calm down jm.
No need for name calling.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
10:38 am
From a report at Environmental Defense:
CO2 is not coming from human activities
CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale?
The Facts
Natural processes emit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates. This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique “fingerprint” that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels.
…
Thermodynamics tells us that the warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere must arise from one or more processes that supply excess heat to the lower atmosphere. Besides the greenhouse effect, the viable processes are (1) increased output from the sun; (2) increased absorption of heat from the sun due to a change in the Earth’s planetary reflectivity or “albedo”; and (3) an internal variation in the climate system that transfers heat from one part of the Earth to the atmosphere. Direct observations confirm that none of these explains the observed warming over the latter half of the 20th century. For example there has been no appreciable change in solar output over the past two decades (see Figure 1).
Satellite data reveal that the Earth’s reflectivity increased (causing cooling instead of warming) in
the ’60’s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s and has decreased modestly since.
The overall warming from the recent decrease in reflectivity is also small compared to the greenhouse warming. In the case of internal variations, the ocean is the only viable reservoir of internal heat that could have caused the atmosphere to warm on decadal time-scales. However, observations show that the heat content of the ocean has increased instead of decreased over the past few decades (See Figure 2). This indicates that the atmosphere has been a source of heat to the ocean rather than vice versa. Moreover, the amount of heat increase in the ocean is consistent with what is needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget given the excess heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the amount of excess heat observed to be stored in the atmosphere (Hansen et al. Science, 308, 2005, pg. 1431). In other words, the amount of heat stored in the ocean over recent years matches the amount of heat that models predict should be trapped on Earth due to the increase in greenhouse gases.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:39 am
Peadawg: If Washington wasn’t so busy fighting 3 wars and trying to hand out food to every country in the world, we would probably have enough money to do serious research on clean energy. Seems to me that the politicians in Washington have their priorities messed up.
Amen to that
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
10:39 am
It’s like I’ve said before — all you deniers can deny all you want. You are but a tiny fraction of people — the rest of the educated world has judged you and found you wanting and have passed you by. Believe it or not, no matter what politicians say, the rest of the world is actually working to try and reverse the effects of our human activity on this planet. Thank God people don’t listen to whackos.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:42 am
getalife 10:37 – you sound like the guy on the Xerox ad trying to get the Fighting Irish to do the printing
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:42 am
md: What percentage of climate change is due to natural change?
Need more context. Over what time frame? Compared to what time frame? Do we have all the variables of human contribution?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:42 am
“Peadawg, does that “sure” extend to “we should take action to reduce that contribution?””
Depends on what you mean by “we should take action to reduce that contribution”, Jay. Cap-and-tax? No.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:43 am
“Would you mind awfully if we used metrics such as ocean heat content or carbon content in the atmosphere or sea level rise or artic ice loss, etc. You know, things that are actually measurable, md. Would that be okay with you.”
Measurable since when??
That is the other part of the faulty data………the “measurements” are from a given time frame…..which happens to be a very very very tiny tiny tiny segment of the overall time…….and you want to run with that data?????
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:43 am
Does the earth have any natural healing alternatives to counter CO2?
Why yes, yes it does. Would you like to read more on that aspect. I can give you links. Basically, the earth’s natural healing methods take very long periods of time as opposed to man’s ability to initiate changes on a much shorter timescale and that differential is part of our problem. It’s analogous to the Titanic spotting an iceberg directly in front of it and trying to stop or turn before hitting it.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
10:43 am
The link to the report I cited from above from the Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
Joe
May 27th, 2011
10:44 am
He just lost my vote if he did run!!!!
md
May 27th, 2011
10:44 am
“Need more context. Over what time frame? Compared to what time frame? Do we have all the variables of human contribution?”
You don’t need any more context Adam……….if one “knows” one side of the numbers, that number should be readily available……….
Maybe Bosch has the answer………or he can get it from his educated friends………….
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:45 am
As far as Christie goes, given this revelation, now I want to know where he stands on social issues and budgetary issues. Once we have those answers I think we have a real chance of evaluating whether he is the kind of person we want in office on a national level.
For one thing, it’s obvious he doesn’t bow to party overlords, which is definitely a plus. It means he won’t just change his position whenever the party wind blows, or forget why he was voted for when suddenly his party wants to just push abortion or war legislation.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
10:45 am
“(I’m really just and independent moderate).”
Your about as “Independent” as Rush, jm.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:46 am
The link to the report I cited from above from the Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
4 years ago, really?
@@
May 27th, 2011
10:47 am
Taxpayer:
Landfills? Subdivisions? Fueling cars?
You’re thinking petroleum, I’m thinking methane to fuel manufacturing plants.
And for the record, I’m not convinced MAN is the cause of climate change, global warming or whatever the hell they’re calling it these days. My only interest is to put the middle east in a stranglehold for a change….to limit the U.S. as one of THEIR natural resources.
We will never be 100% free from the need for oil.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
10:48 am
AmVet:
LOL!
Like the black Atl. police sgt. I heard on the radio once. Said he stopped EVERY WHITE PERSON in his zone after dark as either:
They were lost and needed help out of the area pronto
They were there to buy drugs
In either case, he said it saved lives and he would continue to PROFILE !
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
10:48 am
Granny:
I thougth you were headed for the moon ?
Libertarian
May 27th, 2011
10:48 am
I think a lot of “evil Republicans” would agree that climate change is real and man is contributing. However, most feel that a) we have bigger issues to worry about right now and b) what is the point of America having all these regulations when other countries (India, China) are continuing to pollute at a crazy high rate? Putting regulations on companies here will only serve to encourage them to move more operations overseas where they do not have environmental regulations.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:49 am
That is the other part of the faulty data………the “measurements” are from a given time frame…..which happens to be a very very very tiny tiny tiny segment of the overall time…….and you want to run with that data?????
Would you like to read about things like ice core samples and fourier analysis, md. We have data that span much more than a few hundred years. And, how about measurements of temperature and even the type of carbon in the atmosphere or the change in oxygen content or the mass loss of ice in the arctic. Science is a very very big field. Truly it is. Please try that link that I provided earlier and let’s resort to the use of facts.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
10:49 am
What is the temperature of the planet supposed to be? We don’t want to cool it too much do we?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:49 am
jm: Huntsman. Romney. And others. Take your blinders off.
I did say fresh…. Romney ran last election, for one thing. For another, he is trying to maintain favor with the wingnuts. Christie doesn’t care about that or he wouldn’t say stuff like he just did.
Beavis
May 27th, 2011
10:50 am
Maybe I don’t get it, but how does giving money to the government and rich people stop CO2 emissions? The ruse is to get the government to TAKE your money and give it to the rich, but wait aren’t the liberals for the little guy, I guess I got that wrong too….
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:50 am
Joe 10:44 – don’t be a single issue voter dude.
Bosch 10:45 – coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Thanks.
Granny Godzilla
May 27th, 2011
10:50 am
Scout
I thought you’d been raptured.
GT
May 27th, 2011
10:51 am
The Republican Party was a viable operation until we graced it with our southern contribution of mental illness. You had people who actually worked off the facts at hand on occasion and were not offended by compromise.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:51 am
jm: Adam – if there’s one thing to learn about Christie, the guy does not back down. Period. He won’t backtrack.
Thank goodness. Put him on the ballot and I will seriously look at him versus the other candidate, rather than dismiss him for wingnuttery. That’s the kind of election I want to see.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:51 am
Adam 10:49 – tell me why Romney is just sooooo bad. please.
Oh, and to be balanced, why don’t you also list his good qualities, then compare those to Obama’s good and bad qualities.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:52 am
“Basically, the earth’s natural healing methods take very long periods of time as opposed to man’s ability to initiate changes on a much shorter timescale and that differential is part of our problem.”
And you know that how??
So if the earth up and corrects the situation in the next ten years, that would be wrong….correct?
And we have no way of knowing if that may or may not occur…………..
Beliefs folks……….it is all about beliefs……..mine included……..but there is just no way to verify any data presented…………ever in our lifetimes………
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:53 am
Libertarian 10:48 – fair points.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
Libertarian, I wish that were true. It isn’t.
Until we can get conservatives to acknowledge that we at least have a problem, it’s impossible to have the next discussion, which is what to do about it.
@@
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
I find it amusing that up until Christie’s latest revelation, he was, to liberals, the closest thing to Satan.
You guys sure are an easy bunch. Doesn’t take much to convince/alter your opinion. I guess it’s why you vote Democrat….you’re easily swayed.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
Yes taxpayer, we do……..and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles for eons……….and there is no way we can say with any certainty how and when that occurs……………
Let’s go back to the original questions………
What percentage is natural change and how did you get your number?
Hint……it can’t be answered…………..
Logic dictates that we are assuming……………….
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
md 10:52 – so you disagree with Christie?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
Taxpayer:
Landfills? Subdivisions? Fueling cars?
You’re thinking petroleum, I’m thinking methane to fuel manufacturing plants.
Actually your earlier comment just happened to remind me of a particular subdivision down in Clayton County, or was it in Henry, that was built on a landfill. It’s been a few years so the details are a little rusty for me. I’d have to do some digging. By the way, I was raised in Clayton County and didn’t leave the area until I got married (and moved to Gwinnett and then moved from there) so I know some of the places down there pretty well.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:55 am
“which is what to do about it.”
Tell the military to take over China and shut down the 10 new coal plants they build EVERY MONTH?
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:57 am
Error Alert (on my part) China is building 25 coal plants per month….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm
Jay, what we gonna due, go bomb China’s coal plants?
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:57 am
Where’s My Party?, I think the vast majority of conservatives do acknowledge that we, humans, play a part in the health and well being of our planet.
Not much of a stretch there.
Change ” health and well being of our planet” to ” dramatically escalating worldwide temperatures” and the argument gets much dicier.
Just look at the posts here.
Most of the cons are not even willing to acknowledge that temperatures are rising rapidly
The more enlightened are finally and begrudgingly beginning to acknowledge this obvious fact, but spin and twist like ballerinas in an effort to come up with endless cockamamie “reasons”.
None founded in science. And none acknowledge by the world’s experts as a superior explanation.
Here are the two points that break the deniers backs
1) As noted earlier, “ALL of the scientific organizations in the world, considered experts on these matters, agree – AGW is real.
2) After years and years of opportunities, the deniers have not only come up with a countermanding explanation, their piece-meal, cherry picked “answers” have generally been deemed ludicrous.
Loathing liberals, being willfully ignorant about the facts/ science and deriding academia are not part of the solution.
Time to give up the pretense, cons.
You’re only making yourselves look sillier than ever…
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
10:58 am
Jay,
“Until we can get conservatives to acknowledge that we at least have a problem, it’s impossible to have the next discussion, which is what to do about it.”
I wonder how much of that is true in regards to them actually acknowledging it PUBLICALLY. I wonder how much of their (Republicans) attitude is that they probably acknowledge it privately, but won’t dare admit it out loud — and are, instead, letting the private industries take care of it themselves. You certainly do see alot of “green” talk from businesses these days. But again, I wonder how much is talk and how much is actual action.
LV
May 27th, 2011
10:59 am
Chris “Crisco” Christie is all Koched up.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:00 am
And you know that how??
So if the earth up and corrects the situation in the next ten years, that would be wrong….correct?
And we have no way of knowing if that may or may not occur…………..
Beliefs folks……….it is all about beliefs……..mine included……..but there is just no way to verify any data presented…………ever in our lifetimes………
If you really truly wanted to learn how we know some of the things we do know with such a high confidence level, then all you need do is take that first step and click on that link I gave you, md. Unfortunately, I do not get the impression that you wish to learn the background or even a piece of it. You have your mindset and you do not want it to be altered. Now, would you like to know more about how we know, for example, that fossil fuel burning is contributing so much CO2 to the atmosphere. I’ll be glad to discuss many different aspects of global warming so long as we limit it to a discussion of the scientific evidence and there is plenty of it to choose from.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:00 am
jm: It’s not that Romney is SOOO bad, it’s just he has really bad timing. So far there’s only one thing he is nationally known for, and it’s the one thing that most of the GOP cannot stand for reasons that don’t make sense.
So ok, I can only do a good idea, bad idea on this guy for right now due to limited time:
Good idea: His health care plan and implementation
Bad idea: “No Apology” book all about how Obama is apologizing for the country (he wasn’t, isn’t, and never did). In other words, more lies and talking points. In a book. Neo-Con-Capitalism at work: Lie to get more money.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
11:00 am
jm, I think that falls into the “what to do about it” category.
I don’t at all deny that’s a problem. But I think the essential step now is building agreement that a problem exists in the first place. We have to take this as Christie has done, one practical step at a time.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:02 am
“md 10:52 – so you disagree with Christie?”
Not necessarily……i stated earlier that I believe (key word) it also plays some “part” (another key word)…..go back and read my stance if you choose……..
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:02 am
“…have not only come up with a countermanding explanation…”
Redact to read “have not only NOT come up with a countermanding explanation…
Thank you and carry on.
Scout, love that story @10:48…
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:03 am
@@:
1) I do not equate candidates to fictional characters such as Satan and the Messiah.
2) I never thought of the guy as evil, and the only misguided thing I thought he did so far had to do with his state budget. Everything else policy wise seems fairly above board, and as long as he doesn’t push social legislation on people, I think he may be of the libertarian conservative type that the GOP badly needs to get off the crazy train.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:04 am
md: “Let’s go back to the original questions………/ What percentage is natural change and how did you get your number?”
Your question seems to be premised on the assumption that it must be possible to nail down a precise number, otherwise the model must be faulty, which is a misunderstanding of how science works.
Basically — though I’m no scientist — I would guess the correct answer to your question is that scientific models prove that the human role in global warming (greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels) is NOT zero with a degree of certainty that approaches 100%. In other words, the ONE claim that can be all but ruled out in scientific terms is the claim that humans play NO role in climate change. This is the way that statements and claims are constructed, not, as you’re suggesting, in the manner of: well since you can’t say with 100% certainty that humans ARE responsible, therefore we can go on assuming our role is nil.
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:05 am
Jay 11:00 – I think there’s a typo in the first sentence…. “I don’t think” is I think what you meant to say
Yes, I agree, an incremental approach is best. Efficiency should be at the top of the list, and the least expensive alternatives (natural gas, wind) should be next.
But we play in an international marketplace, and if we go all clean and China’s 1.x billion people are pumping out all their electricity via coal, we’re screwed. And China is a mercantilist dictatorship…. so changing their minds will be absurdly difficult. All they care about is short term economic growth to create jobs so they can stay in office (sound familiar?).
So unless you want to sink our economy, we need to find the energy sources (incl efficiency) that are cheaper than coal.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:05 am
Preach it Am…preach it………..minister of the religion of GW………..
And that is all it is in reality……..folks preaching a belief because it is unprovable………
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:05 am
jm: Adam 10:27 “It really might make a difference in the world to have a fresh GOP candidate who thinks for himself.”
Huntsman. Romney. And others. Take your blinders off.
Huh? Romney!?! You mean the “Romeny-who-did-not-like-romneycare-cause-Obama-based-his-model-off-of-it-and-the GOP-hates-it”? THAT Romney? Dude, you started drinking already? Isn’t it a little early?
Libertarian
May 27th, 2011
11:07 am
Jay..
Fair enough….a lot of conservatives that I know believe in climate change (but I am relatively young). Unfortunately for the Republican party, there are too many vocal members who are on the extreme right. But I think the Republican party as we know it is on its way out. There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative. The “old white guy” Republican party is being phased out.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
11:08 am
Bosch — “I’M a new conservative? OMG!! Who knew??”
Somewhere, Doom just got a little tickle along his spine.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:08 am
“If you really truly wanted to learn how we know some of the things we do know with such a high confidence level, then all you need do is take that first step and click on that link I gave you, md”
I’ve been around long enough to understand that “confidence level”………….once upon a time, aids could only be contracted though sexual contact…………..
Science is what we “think” we know at any given time……………..
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:08 am
md: There’s plenty of evidence for man’s contribution, and that adding it to already existing CO2 emissions leads to a warming period more rapidly than it would otherwise. Sure, you can argue over the numbers, but why? If you have this evidence, and you can apply it to a potential range of numbers, that is all you need to say “ok, this is real, and we ARE causing a problem here.” Then you can finally approach a solution instead of just throwing up your hands and saying “oh well! Since it causes us minor economic problems to adjust or dependance on these machines, I won’t even TRY”
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative.
I’M a new conservative? OMG!! Who knew??
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
Libertarian: There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative. The “old white guy” Republican party is being phased out.
Where or where are these mythical creatures? I don’t see any of them in your Republican Purity Pledge mantras.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
Baby steps to progress in a constantly changing world is as good as it gets from our corrupt government.
We are heading in the right direction but falling behind .
When will you get sick of losing to China?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
Yes taxpayer, we do……..and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles for eons……….and there is no way we can say with any certainty how and when that occurs……………
Actually there is a lot we know with a very high level of confidence. We could start with the Milankovitch cycle if you like. Also, like I said ice core sample and fourier analysis have allowed us to learn more about the earth spanning thousands of years, md. It is just science.
Let’s go back to the original questions………
What percentage is natural change and how did you get your number?
Hint……it can’t be answered…………..
As I said before, if you wish to truly discuss climate change, then surely you realize that we must use definable metrics. But if you insist on using “natural change” as a metric, fine. What are its units and what does it consist of and what type of instrument do you measure it with and with what accuracy and precision. Then again, things like sea level rise and temperature are a little easier to deal with.
Logic dictates that we are assuming……………….
Logic dictates that we might assume something and then look for means to evaluate that assumption in an effort to achieve further enlightenment or understanding.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
11:11 am
Normal! They killed grandma???
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:12 am
Bosch 1:09 welcome to the party!
as getalife says, “open your mind”
md
May 27th, 2011
11:12 am
“I would guess the correct answer to your question is that scientific models prove that the human role in global warming (greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels) is NOT zero with a degree of certainty that approaches 100%.”
And if you ask any scientist about models, they will grudgingly admit that some of the data is assumed………as it must be when it is not “known”……………….
Normal
May 27th, 2011
11:13 am
I see they got the notorious “Grandma Bandit”…shot her dead.
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:13 am
I hate Comcast.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55810.html
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:13 am
But I think the Republican party as we know it is on its way out. There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative. The “old white guy” Republican party is being phased out.
If true, you may find me voting Republican again. When this becomes reality, of course.
Michaels
May 27th, 2011
11:14 am
The Path To Prosperity With The GOP:
http://www.mattbors.com/archives/750.html
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
11:14 am
“And there in lies the difference in the national argument……..”part of the problem” does not equate to “cause” of the problem…….which is how the argument has been framed to date……..”
I have never seen any argument by a scientist type that said “cause”, they all say “contribute”. It is the politicians and the bloggers who use the words “cause” and “not happening”.
———————
Jay, you really need to stop using the words conservative and liberal when you mean republican and democrat. I am a Conservative. I am not a Republican. I have been politically active since the 1960 presidential election, met hundreds of elected Republicans and have not found a single conservative in the bunch. After getting into the details of policy they always turn out to be Big Government Liberals, not Conservatives. But hope springs eternal………………….
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
11:15 am
Wow! Big time warp jump there!!!
@@
May 27th, 2011
11:15 am
Adam:
I like Christie. I especially like how he deals with public unions.
============================
One of those DID YOU KNOW? questions.
Research scientists in the Antarctic are able to detect from whence pollutants originate. Contaminants from Russia, China and India are consistent.
Asian funeral pyres emit mercury into the atmosphere. It’s the fillings in their teeth.
Lotsa little tidbits make for an accumulation of pollutants.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:16 am
md, the existing theories compete against each other. (Remember the Scientific method?)
To date, one theory scientifically blows away all of the others. In every measurable way. And why it is accepted as the most plausible. Until AGW, which has withstood long and rigorous testing, can be proven false, it will countermand all of the other MUCH weaker theories.
Objective knowledge is everyone’s friend…
md
May 27th, 2011
11:17 am
“md: There’s plenty of evidence for man’s contribution, and that adding it to already existing CO2 emissions leads to a warming period more rapidly than it would otherwise. ”
Look at your statement………….”more rapidly than it would otherwise”………says who? How?
To state your own “fact”, you have to make an assumption………………….
The fact is, that we don’t “know” 99% of the data used to arrive at our “facts”……………we have to assume it……….
If you can’t give that simple number Adam……….then what do you really “know”?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:17 am
Scientific Method: Have a Hypothesis and then attempt to DISPROVE it.
Climate Change has not been disproven. Much like Evolution. This is why they remain as legit scientific topics. Both have similar percentages of scientists that agree that Evolution is real and Climate Change is real.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:18 am
jm,
Your mind is closed.
I see a huge opportunity to create jobs and investments in America.
You see nothing.
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:18 am
Normal: RE – Grandma Bandit; I found this on the AJC site
At that point, the police officers who had been pursuing her heard a single gunshot, and they returned fire, hitting her multiple times, Parish said. Neither of the officers was injured.
Forgive me for being a cynic, but they must’ve had remarkable hearing to hear that “one” gunshot while their sirens were blaring and other cars were rolling by. What are the odds they won’t find a weapon on her? I’ll take 5 to 1.
Normal
May 27th, 2011
11:19 am
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
11:14 am
“I have been politically active since the 1960 presidential election”
I became politically aware back then myself.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:19 am
md: There are plenty of simple numbers used as data points to reach this conclusion. It’s also simple logic that if you know (FACT) that the earth warms more rapidly when there is more CO2, that ADDING CO2 is going to increase that effect, thereby increasing the rapidity of warming.
Is this really that hard to understand or are you just being deliberately dense to make a point that doesn’t matter in the real discussion?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:20 am
I’ve been around long enough to understand that “confidence level”………….once upon a time, aids could only be contracted though sexual contact…………..
Science is what we “think” we know at any given time……………..
I’ve been around a while too, md, and I see no positive correlation between your beliefs regarding opinions of how aids was contracted and a discussion of climate change. Further, “science” has a definition and it like everything generated by our human brains is part of a thought process. It differentiates us from other lifeforms or at least I like to think so.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:21 am
no different than trying to prove there is or isn’t a god
Very different. Your argument is essentially that because there are a few missing pieces that the whole thing is suspect, which is ridiculous. That argument has been used against evolution and could be used on ANYTHING scientific, even the “assumption” that 1+1=2. It is a ridiculous argument though. Evidence exists for evolution and climate change, evidence does not exist for the existence of a god.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:21 am
“Until AGW, which has withstood long and rigorous testing, can be proven false, it will countermand all of the other MUCH weaker theories.”
Last one before I go……………..”long and rigorous testing”…………..”long” is a relative term when dealing with a subject billions of years old………………..
You, and others, are more than welcome to believe as you choose……..for without the missing data, it is a belief…………..no different than trying to prove there is or isn’t a god…………
Normal
May 27th, 2011
11:21 am
DDR,
I won’t take that bet. Nobody could offer a “give it up, Grandma”?
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:22 am
Is this really that hard to understand or are you just being deliberately dense to make a point that doesn’t matter in the real discussion?
BINGO!
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:22 am
The fact is, that we don’t “know” 99% of the data used to arrive at our “facts”……………we have to assume it……….
That’s a fact?
Please cit your sources…
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:23 am
Last one before I go……………..”long and rigorous testing”…………..”long” is a relative term when dealing with a subject billions of years old………………..
Completely immaterial comparison.
Do you think that cosmology is invalid because we haven’t studied the cosmos for billions of years?
You, and others, are more than welcome to believe as you choose……..for without the missing data, it is a belief…………..no different than trying to prove there is or isn’t a god…………
Incorrect.
It is a scientific theory, not a belief…
dudder
May 27th, 2011
11:24 am
I am a conservative and believe that man does play a role in climate change. I am also an engineer. Several hundred years ago, most industries did not change the molecular structure of the environment. What I mean by that is that cotton stayed, cotton, wood pulp stayed wood pulp, etc. As we have advanced, we have learned how to manipulate and change the resources around us to extract items of benefit. We have also increased the use of resource changing technologies and decreased the use of non changing technologies. For example, we have increased our use of combustion. We take a natural resource, chemically alter the components in it, and put it back into the environment. Plastics, metals, you name it. It is a scientific absurdety to believe that chemically altering and then replacing compounds has NO affect on the environment. Me walking into a room changes it (my body heat affects the room in some way).
Most conservatives would understand this point. What the issue is that environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data and doomsday scenarios to prove their point. First of all, we need to get back to square one and explain how mankind changes the environment around them. Second, we need an independent review of data showing climate change, as that is one of the biggest sources of contention. Finally, we need to quit chastizing those that are not of the same mindset. do you think that by berating and belittling someone you are going to ge them to open their ears, minds and hearts? yell at a child for any length of time and she shuts you out.
Just my thoughts.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:24 am
What the issue is that environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data and doomsday scenarios to prove their point.
The GOP is missing a huge opportunity here by not taking this and going “yes we agree that climate change is happening and we are contributing, but here is our REASONABLE plan to deal with it, minus the doomsday scenarios.”
GOP could be the party of REASON.
But instead, any left wing hysteria is dismissed and right wing hysteria is trumped up to the point of stating belief as fact (just like they are accusing the left wing of on the Climate Change issue). The BIG problem is not dealing with issues seriously, and making everything a fight and black vs. white, red vs. blue, spy vs. spy kind of thing.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:25 am
“I’ve been around a while too, md, and I see no positive correlation between your beliefs regarding opinions of how aids was contracted and a discussion of climate change.”
Well TP, that opinion on aids was the “science” of the time…………………..
Jay
May 27th, 2011
11:26 am
md, you claim to accept that mankind contributes to climate change and that action should be taken. However, you then argue repeatedly and strongly against both conclusions.
Am I missing something? Is it merely that you have a knee-jerk reaction to agreeing with liberals, even when your rational mind tells you that they’re right on this one?
Common Sense
May 27th, 2011
11:27 am
Repeat a lie often enough and even some conservative governors will start to believe it.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:27 am
Adam………one last time…..why can’t you tell us with certainty what percentage is natural?
And if you don’t know that side of the equation, how can you possibly know the other side of the equation……………..
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:28 am
BTW, kudos, Jay.
It’s been much too long since we discussed this topic…
dudder
May 27th, 2011
11:29 am
Gas/coal —> nuclear —> green
We need to rid ourselves of gas/coal technologies at some point in our future (several hundred years out) and move to replenishable, environmental technology. The only problem with a direct move is that all green technology is highly inefficient and expensive when compared to gas/coal. A good intermediary, one that can get us from point at to point b is nuclear power. It is not as cheap as gas/coal but is cheaper and more efficient over the lifespan of the reactor than green energy technologies. Enact a law (yeah, we know laws can be changed) to allow more nuclear energy development but cut it off after a certain period of time. Like in 200 years nuclear power will be outlawyed here. As part of the deal, the nuclear industry would be required to help develop green technologies. Dont know how it will work, but just a thought.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:31 am
…environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data…to prove their point.
dudder, and what *exactly* is this faulty data?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:32 am
md: Because I’m not a climate scientist? How about you ask someone who HAS studied the data in numbers form. I’m with Christie, “When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
Your argument seems to be aimed at the fallacy that a small degree of missing data or uncertainty means we should do nothing or pretend there is a *possibility* that we aren’t REALLY contributing to the problem (there is no such possibility, based on ACTUAL scientific evidence, btw).
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:34 am
We know the oil will run out.
We know we need alternative energy.
We know we need to take care of the planet.
We know we need to create jobs.
There are your facts that matter.
@@
May 27th, 2011
11:34 am
Given the developing and undeveloped countries throughout the world, I don’t think reducing CO2 is realistic. Figuring out how to capture and reuse is what we should be focused on.
I’m an advocate of conserving and recycling.
I’m outta here since there’s no scientist(s) on board….just a bunch of wannabes.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:35 am
The fact is, that we don’t “know” 99% of the data used to arrive at our “facts”……………we have to assume it……….
Yes, md, we do have to assume that we exist and are not fabrications of an over-active non-being’s non-existent thought process but only if we choose to do so.