• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are There Any Conservatives Here Who Accept the Science of Climate Change?

I remember when we had to worry about creating a hole in the ozone layer.


Anyone else remember that?
 
Jack Hays said:
We have as much fossil fuel as we need for as long as we want.
Click to expand...

No we don't ..unless the "we" you define is the baby boom generation..

The rest of us.. not so much.
 
jaeger19 said:
No we don't ..unless the "we" you define is the baby boom generation..

The rest of us.. not so much.
Click to expand...

There is more oil than we could use in the next 200 years already found. That only 50 years or so is economic at present prices is a different question.

There is 200++++ years worth of coal under Ladrador for the world. It is not special in having this much coal. There is even more under England.
 
Tim the plumber said:
There is more oil than we could use in the next 200 years already found. That only 50 years or so is economic at present prices is a different question.

There is 200++++ years worth of coal under Ladrador for the world. It is not special in having this much coal. There is even more under England.
Click to expand...

nope.

Estimates of what is potentially available and the increase in demand.. do not project 200 years of supply.
 
flogger said:
Yup . And then in the 70s the experts told us our actions would cause a new ice age and it was backed up by a ton of scientific literature too

‘83% Consensus’?! 285 Papers From 1960s-?80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ?Consensus? | Climate Depot
Click to expand...

To be fair...there was a lot of literature on that. But it was not nearly as wide spread as global warming. I found out recently that there is a north west passage that is being debated. Given that your nation searched for that for years and it is now becoming an issue in Canada...I think that may be important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jack Hays said:
Reserves now are greater than 50 years ago, and they continue to grow, not decline.
Click to expand...

So we have infinite resources because we have more than we did 50 years ago?

^^ there's a flaw there, hopefully you can find it.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well .. personally I think that whether global warming is caused by us or not.. is really a moot point. In fact.. I think it has become a bit of a distraction from the real issue.

The real issue is fossil fuel. Causing global warming.. not causing global warming.. who cares? Honestly. who cares?

The facts are this.. THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH FOSSIL FUEL LEFT AND THE US DOESN"T HAVE IT ALL.

The fact is.. the fossil fuels are a finite resource.. and whats really facing us is not global extinction in 1000 years from global warming...

Its the war and strife that's about to be caused when the world begins fighting over control of fossil fuels.

I love hearing "well we have enough oil for 50 years"... well great.. I plan on living for more than another 50 years.. and definitely my children. and then what?

We need to find alternatives to fossil fuels and fast... because the country that gets there first with that technology.. will be the economic powerhouse of the future.

Save the polar bears? BS... how about not having my friends and sons being deployed to the middle east because there is oil there. Imagine how we could handle terrorism and the middle east if we could give a crap whether they had oil or not?

We need to be finding alternative fuels, renewable alternative fuels to fossil fuels for our immediate economic and political future. And in the end.. if we do that.. we might just save the planet as well.

Being the first to alternative fuels and renewable energy is all upside. No downside. If everyone is wrong about global warming? so what..

We end up with a stronger economy and a more stable world with less chance of another world war over dwindling resources.
Click to expand...

Actually with coal shale, we have enough oil reserves to last over 500 years. As a matter of fact, that's why our gasoline prices are as low as they are now and we are not as dependent on middle east oil. And if we fight wars in the middle east over oil, it is not over oil for the USA, it is for world wide stability. For instance, in the lead up to the 1991 gulf war, Saddam Hussein has overran Kuwait and lined his forces up at the Saudi border. He was poised to gain control of roughly 50% of the world's known oil reserves at the time. Had he gained that much control over oil, he could have wrecked the economies of most free nations on a whim. While the term "war for oil" sounds like a waste of money and blood, whether we like it or not, oil at this time is the life blood of world economy. Having said that, I am all for slaying the oil pig with newer and cleaner technologies. I do not believe in the nonsense crap suggesting that man is causing climate change, however I am all for clean energy. However we are not in a dire situation on oil supplies. And we have already developed at least one clean burning fuel(hydrogen). We just deed to get it to the stage where the technology can be massed produced to the point where as a fuel, it's at least as affordable as gasoline powered automobiles. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
ObamacareFail scientific knowledge > Virtually the entire scientific community worldwide. A lot of arrogance you got going on there. You might want to inform physicists worldwide that co2 is not a greenhouse gas, and everything they thought they knew about thermal physics is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Also, no one is claiming we never had hurricanes prior to industrialization. Moreover, NOAA and other climate agencies have said that it too early to know if our current warming is resulting in more or stronger Atlantic hurricanes.
Click to expand...

The claim of virtual consensus of the entire worldwide scientific community is a bald faced lie based on politicized grant funded. And do not bother posting wikipedia as a source. It's editable by the reader. I do not bother clicking wikipedia links.
 
jaeger19 said:
No we don't ..unless the "we" you define is the baby boom generation..

The rest of us.. not so much.
Click to expand...

I suggest you google "coal shale technology". U.S. oil-shale resources hold three times as much crude oil as the whole of Saudi Arabia.
 
Absentglare said:
So we have infinite resources because we have more than we did 50 years ago?

^^ there's a flaw there, hopefully you can find it.
Click to expand...
\

Well...if you are really that concerned about it, stop driving automobiles, flying in airplanes, and get yourself a push mower for cutting your lawn.
 
ObamacareFail said:
\

Well...if you are really that concerned about it, stop driving automobiles, flying in airplanes, and get yourself a push mower for cutting your lawn.
Click to expand...

This agenda has always been about controlling people not climate and environmental guilt is the lever. Control is power and money
 
How can all of you stand all this noise in this echo chamber? The empirical evidence is powerful. Sea levels have risen. Glaciers are melting. Coral rifes are dying. Sea temperatures are increasing. Winter's are a joke. I'm 67 years old and I know what winters were. Now you get a little snow and Shawn Hannity talks about it for a month.
All the same denials was in place when the surgeon General declared that cigarettes cause cancer.
You guys are playing for a team that has no intention of cutting you in on the profits. The tobacco industry loved folks like you.
You talk about profit motive. I agree when studies are funded by the petroleum industries as the 2 percent of the climate change doubters are. Then sure ,the motives are clear. I've witnessed climate change, and I don't need a PhD to speak the truth.
 
Crovax said:
Accept the science? Yes

Accept the scaremongering predictions that time and time again have been inaccurate? No
Click to expand...

That is a good answer. Scaremongering is putting it mildly.
We are responsible for our planet and should do everything possible to preserve what we have. That doesn't mean we must go hysteric.
 
When you talk about redistribution of the wealth, now the real motive comes into play for denying the observable. I agree the burden shouldn't be shouldered by only a few. But isn't it IRONIC that it's only three countries who have Chosen not to participate in finding any solutions. So it's not the few who shoulder the burden for the many, it's the many who shoulder the burden for the few. And aren't we in such good company?
I'm case you didn't catch it, that was rhetorical.
 
Rich123 said:
How can all of you stand all this noise in this echo chamber? The empirical evidence is powerful. Sea levels have risen. Glaciers are melting. Coral rifes are dying. Sea temperatures are increasing. Winter's are a joke. I'm 67 years old and I know what winters were. Now you get a little snow and Shawn Hannity talks about it for a month.
All the same denials was in place when the surgeon General declared that cigarettes cause cancer.
You guys are playing for a team that has no intention of cutting you in on the profits. The tobacco industry loved folks like you.
You talk about profit motive. I agree when studies are funded by the petroleum industries as the 2 percent of the climate change doubters are. Then sure ,the motives are clear. I've witnessed climate change, and I don't need a PhD to speak the truth.
Click to expand...

We are skeptical because we have actually checked out if what we are being told is true. The earth has been through many dozens of warming phases since the last glaciation 10,000 years ago and todays is very modest by comparison. Demonizing the 0.01% of the atmosphere that we are allegedly responsible for creating will achieve absolutely NOTHING except to increase poverty on a massive scale
 
Rich123 said:
How can all of you stand all this noise in this echo chamber? The empirical evidence is powerful. Sea levels have risen. Glaciers are melting. Coral rifes are dying. Sea temperatures are increasing. Winter's are a joke. I'm 67 years old and I know what winters were. Now you get a little snow and Shawn Hannity talks about it for a month.
All the same denials was in place when the surgeon General declared that cigarettes cause cancer.
You guys are playing for a team that has no intention of cutting you in on the profits. The tobacco industry loved folks like you.
You talk about profit motive. I agree when studies are funded by the petroleum industries as the 2 percent of the climate change doubters are. Then sure ,the motives are clear. I've witnessed climate change, and I don't need a PhD to speak the truth.
Click to expand...

How much sea level rise have you seen?

Do you find slightly warmer winters a bad thing?

Do you think that coral reefs that occaisionally bleach or die in places where the water is less warm than other places where coral does fine are doing so due to the temperature?

Given, as you say, the offical science cannot be 100% trusted when there is money to be got out of it why do you swallow all of the junk science thrown at you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom