CDZ Conservatives and Climate Change

[320 Years of History]

The poll question is very straightforward. For the sake of the poll, "familiar with" means "you've read what they've written" or comprehensively listened to and understand the majority of their remarks" about climate change.

All the folks listed are "dyed in the wool" conservatives. Most of them are youngish. All of them write for or work(ed) for/with one or more organizations among the following:

• National Review
• Manhattan Institute
• Bloomberg View
• New York Times
• Hudson Institute
• Harvard University
• President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
  
• The Washington Post
• R Street Institute
• The Rush Limbaugh Show
• American Enterprise Institute

I'm familiar with all of them (duh...how could I list them if I weren't LOL), to greater and lesser extents, but a few of them are among the conservative thinkers whose writings I routinely read/follow. Generally I read their remarks and then follow up with Google Scholar searches for academically rigorous material that supports and/or refutes what they say. (I do the same with the writings of the non-conservative writers' content that I read.)

On the matter of climate change, I find Manzi, Lane, Lehrer, and Mankiw most engaging and highly credible. Do you also find merit in the ideas expressed by any of the listed commentators? If so, or not, what and how so?

 

[jwoodie]

The poll question is very straightforward. For the sake of the poll, "familiar with" means "you've read what they've written" or comprehensively listened to and understand the majority of their remarks" about climate change.

All the folks listed are "dyed in the wool" conservatives. Most of them are youngish. All of them write for or work(ed) for/with one or more organizations among the following:

• National Review
• Manhattan Institute
• Bloomberg View
• New York Times
• Hudson Institute
• Harvard University
• President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
  
• The Washington Post
• R Street Institute
• The Rush Limbaugh Show
• American Enterprise Institute

I'm familiar with all of them (duh...how could I list them if I weren't LOL), to greater and lesser extents, but a few of them are among the conservative thinkers whose writings I routinely read/follow. Generally I read their remarks and then follow up with Google Scholar searches for academically rigorous material that supports and/or refutes what they say. (I do the same with the writings of the non-conservative writers' content that I read.)

On the matter of climate change, I find Manzi, Lane, Lehrer, and Mankiw most engaging and highly credible. Do you also find merit in the ideas expressed by any of the listed commentators? If so, or not, what and how so?

How about stating your opinion in more succinct terms?

 

[the_human_being]

What I do know and appreciate is that the debate over whether global warming is man-made or not has finally been settled for once and for all with no room for further debate and discussion. It is good to have definite proof.

 

[320 Years of History]

The poll question is very straightforward. For the sake of the poll, "familiar with" means "you've read what they've written" or comprehensively listened to and understand the majority of their remarks" about climate change.

All the folks listed are "dyed in the wool" conservatives. Most of them are youngish. All of them write for or work(ed) for/with one or more organizations among the following:

• National Review
• Manhattan Institute
• Bloomberg View
• New York Times
• Hudson Institute
• Harvard University
• President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
  
• The Washington Post
• R Street Institute
• The Rush Limbaugh Show
• American Enterprise Institute

I'm familiar with all of them (duh...how could I list them if I weren't LOL), to greater and lesser extents, but a few of them are among the conservative thinkers whose writings I routinely read/follow. Generally I read their remarks and then follow up with Google Scholar searches for academically rigorous material that supports and/or refutes what they say. (I do the same with the writings of the non-conservative writers' content that I read.)

On the matter of climate change, I find Manzi, Lane, Lehrer, and Mankiw most engaging and highly credible. Do you also find merit in the ideas expressed by any of the listed commentators? If so, or not, what and how so?

How about stating your opinion in more succinct terms?

??? Did you find it difficult to identify and/or understand the two opinions I provided in my OP? They are highlighted in red the quote above this sentence, just in case....

Out of curiosity, did you find it hard to answer the poll question? Or is your non-response an accurate reflection of how you must answer insofar as I didn't include a "none of the above" option?

 

[william the wie]

With oxymoronic terms like "settled science" being used on one side and the other side ignoring air pollution this is just a lurk post.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm familiar with Limbaugh's belief that a woman needs to take a birth control pill every time she has sex. If his "knowledge" of climate science is as extensive we might as well consider the air in his studio a localized "hot spot."

 

[Missourian]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

 

[320 Years of History]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

 

[PredFan]

None of the above. I have an extensive background in history and science. I also have the ability to think and reason. I don't need to appeal to authority, no one can refute my personal points on the matter.

 

[Missourian]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Well that got off to a contentious start. Why don't we try again. From the OP -- this thread is NOT ABOUT ClimateChange/GW -- it's about the OPINIONS on the issue from a VERY limited list of Conservative commentators. Please restrict your replies to the discussion of THEIR work. If you're not familiar with their work -- please don't even try..

Thanks..

 

[william the wie]

Thank you kindly mod.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm truly baffled here why you think that a subset of conservative commentators have any convincing arguments for or against the complex science of climate. Especially folks like Ponnunu or Limbaugh or even David Brooks dagnabit.

For the record -- I'm not a Conservative.. I have at different times subscribed to both National Review and The Nation and Mother Jones and Reason magazine. I read it ALL..

What's more important is that I am a scientist/engineer with about 15 years of seriously following and studying the evolution of the GWarming circus. And my opinion is that ALL the folks on your list and their wonky leftist counterparts ought to confine their comments on the topic to the socio-political motives behind the circus and keep their "scientific analysis" to themselves.

Because I'm certain that Climate Science (a relatively new and over-exposed science) has not provided the guidance required for policy-makers and politicians to be so cocksure of their "positions" on the magnitude or veracity of the problem...

So the question is -- how do you suppose I should vote in your poll?

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm truly baffled here why you think that a subset of conservative commentators have any convincing arguments for or against the complex science of climate. Especially folks like Ponnunu or Limbaugh or even David Brooks dagnabit.

For the record -- I'm not a Conservative.. I have at different times subscribed to both National Review and The Nation and Mother Jones and Reason magazine. I read it ALL..

What's more important is that I am a scientist/engineer with about 15 years of seriously following and studying the evolution of the GWarming circus. And my opinion is that ALL the folks on your list and their wonky leftist counterparts ought to confine their comments on the topic to the socio-political motives behind the circus and keep their "scientific analysis" to themselves.

Because I'm certain that Climate Science (a relatively new and over-exposed science) has not provided the guidance required for policy-makers and politicians to be so cocksure of their "positions" on the magnitude or veracity of the problem...

So the question is -- how do you suppose I should vote in your poll?

Well, to directly answer your question, honestly with regard to whether you are or are not familiar with those writer's remarks on climate change. If you are familiar with what one or more of them have to say on the matter, tick the box next to their name. If you aren't leave the box blank.

Red:
I'm not certain if you made that statement desirous of my responding to it as though it were a question. If you were, let me know. I will answer. If you don't care for me to treat the statement as a question, I'm okay with that; I am willing to accept as fact that you are baffled over "why [ I ] think that a subset of conservative commentators have any convincing arguments for or against the science of climate." You say you're baffled; I believe you.

 

[320 Years of History]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Quite simply: wrong. The truth is none of their views closely match mine.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well you SHOULD believe me. I'm always pretty straight forward with folks. I AM baffled why Ponnunu has more scientific cred than say Nancy Pelosi. Or what I could learn about Climate Change from EITHER of them.

Now -- I find it entertaining to listen to Limbaugh -- because his job is to entertain folks. And I do think that in general, his POLITICAL observations on the topic are quite correct. But I'm certain, that if I hadn't invested 15 years of independent study on the topic -- that he's NOT where I would turn to BECOME informed about the actual IMPORTANT scientific issues that are up for debate... And by that -- I don't mean the trivial partisan baiting about "whether the Earth has warmed" or "is CO2 actually a pollutant" kinda tripe..

 

[william the wie]

Anyone with even casual knowledge of Chaos and/or Fractals knows the following:

1) Continuous functions do not exist in reality but they are easy to solve and they are often good enough approximations of reality to be useful.

2) There has been no verification of the relevance, margin of error or in many cases even the existence of the Data used in AGW arguments.

3) The emission of cooling pollution such as some gases and most particulates that characterized the Earth's atmosphere during the time frame 1776-1973 have been accounted for anyway.

Does AGW stand for Astrology Gone Wild or Asinine Guesstimated Weather?

 

[320 Years of History]

Anyone with even casual knowledge of Chaos and/or Fractals knows the following:

1) Continuous functions do not exist in reality but they are easy to solve and they are often good enough approximations of reality to be useful.

2) There has been no verification of the relevance, margin of error or in many cases even the existence of the Data used in AGW arguments.

3) The emission of cooling pollution such as some gases and most particulates that characterized the Earth's atmosphere during the time frame 1776-1973 have been accounted for anyway.

Does AGW stand for Astrology Gone Wild or Asinine Guesstimated Weather?

I wish I could assign two ratings to your post. Why "funny" is mutually exclusive from the others is beyond me. I had a good laugh upon reading your final sentence. FWIW, I've also seen the AGW acronym and wondered WTF it means.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well you SHOULD believe me. I'm always pretty straight forward with folks. I AM baffled why Ponnunu has more scientific cred than say Nancy Pelosi. Or what I could learn about Climate Change from EITHER of them.

Now -- I find it entertaining to listen to Limbaugh -- because his job is to entertain folks. And I do think that in general, his POLITICAL observations on the topic are quite correct. But I'm certain, that if I hadn't invested 15 years of independent study on the topic -- that he's NOT where I would turn to BECOME informed about the actual IMPORTANT scientific issues that are up for debate... And by that -- I don't mean the trivial partisan baiting about "whether the Earth has warmed" or "is CO2 actually a pollutant" kinda tripe..

FWIW, absent plausible evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe whatever folks say about themselves.

Red:
Reviewing my OP, you'll find that I wrote, " Generally I read their remarks and then follow up with Google Scholar searches for academically rigorous material that supports and/or refutes what they say." I don't look to them for science; to the best of my knowledge I don't recall saying I did. The value I find in reading folks like Ponnurur and the others is in gaining an understanding of where influential folks are trying to direct policy and opinion, not just on climate change, but on other topics too.

 

[westwall]

The poll question is very straightforward. For the sake of the poll, "familiar with" means "you've read what they've written" or comprehensively listened to and understand the majority of their remarks" about climate change.

All the folks listed are "dyed in the wool" conservatives. Most of them are youngish. All of them write for or work(ed) for/with one or more organizations among the following:

• National Review
• Manhattan Institute
• Bloomberg View
• New York Times
• Hudson Institute
• Harvard University
• President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
  
• The Washington Post
• R Street Institute
• The Rush Limbaugh Show
• American Enterprise Institute

I'm familiar with all of them (duh...how could I list them if I weren't LOL), to greater and lesser extents, but a few of them are among the conservative thinkers whose writings I routinely read/follow. Generally I read their remarks and then follow up with Google Scholar searches for academically rigorous material that supports and/or refutes what they say. (I do the same with the writings of the non-conservative writers' content that I read.)

On the matter of climate change, I find Manzi, Lane, Lehrer, and Mankiw most engaging and highly credible. Do you also find merit in the ideas expressed by any of the listed commentators? If so, or not, what and how so?

I am not familiar with a single one of them. Why are you incapable of studying the subject and coming to your own conclusions?