Conservatives should be big fans of Tesla

[335eye]

Big fan of Tesla's here. Don't trust EM's opinion on climate because he's not credible given his business interests. But wanting a clean environment is not a liberal or conservative thing. As a conservative I'd love to see market forces drive us to almost 100% renewable energy. Gov regulation forces should keep their grubby paws off my money. Oh, and once we arrive you can fully expect the next hoax to require a tax increase for the sake of survival.

 

[nwdiver]

Don't trust EM's opinion on climate because he's not credible given his business interests.

Agreed; Trust the published and peer reviewed science...

It's worth noting that none of the 24 articles 'rejecting' AGW proposes an alternative hypothesis that agrees with the observations....

 

[Skotty]

Well... we had the Montreal Protocol that mostly solved the CFC problem. So we'll never really know if that would have been as bad as some people were claiming. Calling them alarmist is a bit like saying that if you don't get a measles vaccine you'll get measles; Getting the vaccine; Then calling all the calls to vaccinate 'alarmist' because you never got measles.... yeah... maybe the fact you never got measles has something to do with the vaccine. Maybe the fact that the ozone issues never happened has something to do with the Montreal Protocol....

I've seen this mistake in judgement before. There was the whole Y2K scare, that critical computer systems would all come crashing down in the year 2000. That didn't happen, so some wrote it off as alarmist BS. But I work in the industry, and I worked on projects to fix the computer systems that were vulnerable to this problem (it was a common problem in finance, insurance, and other businesses that were largely relying on old mainframe systems). Had we not fixed it, there would have been some serious issues. Those serious issues didn't happen precisely because we fixed it before the year 2000.

 

[Vitold]

I am conservative and I am a fan of Tesla, as well as rooftop solar and not wasting resources.

I am skeptical of just how much effect fossil fuels emissions have on global warming, however.

I just got back from Glacier Bay where glaciers have been receding rapidly since 1630, a time when fossil fuels were little used. Something caused those glaciers to recede for 250 years before the industrial revolution got going. Add to that the fact that statistics experts have found that the "hockey stick" curve is overstated by at least 50% and the fact that Phil Jones to this day refuses to share his raw data with others to verify his conclusions, I remain skeptical about the assertion that anthropogenic warming is the main cause. Surely some global warming is from fossil fuels, but I just can't work out how much is natural and how much anthropogenic.

Hopefully this helps to change your (or anyone else who values science) mind:

 

[flashflood]

I've seen this mistake in judgement before. There was the whole Y2K scare, that critical computer systems would all come crashing down in the year 2000. That didn't happen, so some wrote it off as alarmist BS. But I work in the industry, and I worked on projects to fix the computer systems that were vulnerable to this problem (it was a common problem in finance, insurance, and other businesses that were largely relying on old mainframe systems). Had we not fixed it, there would have been some serious issues. Those serious issues didn't happen precisely because we fixed it before the year 2000.

All valid examples of the road-not-taken logical fallacy.

It's also true that "settled science" often turns out to be wrong, even corrupted. For just the most recent example, read below how the sugar industry paid off a new nutrition scientists half a century ago, which eventually led to virtually *all* nutrition scientists and federal agencies agreeing that fat, not sugar, was the problem -- even though we had known previously, but somehow collectively forgot, that the reverse was true. The data was right in front of them, but they saw what they expected to see. This should not be surprising: science is a social endeavor, subject to fads and politics. We do eventually find the truth, but rarely without major detours along the way.

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

 

[Electroman]

Arnold Schwarzenegger said it best. Trying to live in a closed garage with your gas car running, is that same experiment we are trying to do now with the atmosphere. This is a closed ecosystem

Digging out those toxic elements from the earths crust and spewing it in the atmosphere is never going to be good Global warming or not.

 

[335eye]

All those money whores bleeding tax payers and you guys are fighting for them. Sad. I'll come around when they rely on private funding and fire 90% of the unnecessary scientists and staff (marketers really).

 

[nwdiver]

All those money whores bleeding tax payers and you guys are fighting for them. Sad. I'll come around when they rely on private funding and fire 90% of the unnecessary scientists and staff (marketers really).

The quickest way to fame and fortune for a scientist is to force a paradigm shift with new evidence. Ever heard of Albert Einstein?

If someone published a paper that overturned Anthropogenic Global Warming they would be on a quick path to a noble prize... of course reality would have to support that theory... the fact that it's been ~120 years and this has not happened is a pretty good indication that it never will... 'cause CO2 actually does alter the radiative balance of the Atmosphere and we really do need to kick our fools fuel habit or there will be consequences...

 

[plankeye]

Of all people, conservative (and liberal) Christians should be working to combat climate change, which has a disproportionate effect on the poor and marginalized of the world. We are all called to be good stewards of everything that God has given us, including the earth. Part of the problem is that so many Christians already feel at odds with science, so when they perceive that their personal comfort may be threatened by efforts to address global warming, they have no trouble listening to anti-science politicians and others who are influenced by the fossil fuel industry. (FWIW, I personally believe that science and Christian faith are complementary, that the Big Bang was a creation event, that the universe is astoundingly fine tuned, and that God has used evolution.)

Christians also should not be supporting the animal agriculture business, but they do, by misusing the Bible reference that we were given dominion over the animals. But the problem is that God never meant for that to mean to abuse billions of animals a year for our selfish purposes. And BTW, Jesus filled-in for the animals that were given as sacrifices before His arrival, so that doesn't hold water either.

Elon shouldn't be consuming any animal products either, if he cares so much about the environment. Global warming is caused more by animal agriculture than by transportation. www.cowspiracy.com

 

[nwdiver]

Elon shouldn't be consuming any animal products either, if he cares so much about the environment. Global warming is caused more by animal agriculture than by transportation. www.cowspiracy.com

Um... no... I'm on the path to being Vegan for environmental reasons but our addiction to red meat is not worse than our addiction to petroleum. ALL agriculture barely edges out transportation... growing greens emits a lot of GHGs too... we gotta eat something.

 

[335eye]

The quickest way to fame and fortune for a scientist is to force a paradigm shift with new evidence. Ever heard of Albert Einstein?

If someone published a paper that overturned Anthropogenic Global Warming they would be on a quick path to a noble prize... of course reality would have to support that theory... the fact that it's been ~120 years and this has not happened is a pretty good indication that it never will... 'cause CO2 actually does alter the radiative balance of the Atmosphere and we really do need to kick our fools fuel habit or there will be consequences...

You'd have to run away or else you'll end up dead, too much at stake. Einstein too had to flee a state of centralized control. We ain't there yet but just you wait, with so many acolytes it's bound to happen. The cries of save us from the climate (stupidly laughable) will become save us we're starving. 'click click'

 

[nwdiver]

You'd have to run away or else you'll end up dead, too much at stake.

Take your tin hat off and read what you posted...

... yeah... insane right?

Shouldn't the AGW Scientists be more at risk? Who's leveraging against the multi-trillion dollar fools fuel industry? Big Solar? Really? Exxon makes more in a day than First Solar makes... EVER.

...okay... you can put your tin hat back on... I'm sure the NSA has all that they need

 

[abasile]

Christians also should not be supporting the animal agriculture business, but they do, by misusing the Bible reference that we were given dominion over the animals. But the problem is that God never meant for that to mean to abuse billions of animals a year for our selfish purposes. And BTW, Jesus filled-in for the animals that were given as sacrifices before His arrival, so that doesn't hold water either.

There are some Christian groups, notably Seventh-Day Adventists, whose theology holds vegetarianism in high regard. Certainly, being a vegan or vegetarian can be a very good thing. However, I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of thoughtful Christians believe that we are at liberty to use animals for our purposes provided we do so in a humane, respectful manner. I would not call it "abuse" to ride a horse, use an ox to plow a field, slaughter a chicken for food, etc. Indeed, I personally appreciate the nutritional value of the chicken and turkey that I eat regularly, as I've found it far more difficult to derive the same nourishment from plant sources alone (I've tried). All of that said, I agree that humanity consumes far too much red meat which hurts both our health and the environment.

 

[Eclectic]

I'm a conservative and I support Tesla. What I don't support is the attempt by the political left to use climate change as a means to establish a vast regulatory system that will control far too many aspects of every day life. This is why I like Tesla. They are trying to create a compelling reason for people to evolve. That is always a better way than having government force things upon us, especially since government is notoriously inefficient and corrupt. Plus, I love the fact that my car was made by non-union labor and I also like that I am not supporting an energy system that has such deep ties to Islamic terror.

 

[335eye]

Take your tin hat off and read what you posted...

... yeah... insane right?

Shouldn't the AGW Scientists be more at risk? Who's leveraging against the multi-trillion dollar fools fuel industry? Big Solar? Really? Exxon makes more in a day than First Solar makes... EVER.

...okay... you can put your tin hat back on... I'm sure the NSA has all that they need

If that were true Elon would have gone the way of DeLorean. Exxon will crony'up a little more and be ok when the time comes. Not happy about that either. I want renewable energy cars (and more) when technology can create market demand so it happens organically, so-to-speak. Forcibly thrusted upon us doesn't work economically and just leads to more problems.

 

[Electroman]

On the 5th day God made Oil and declared, "man, leverage power and be happy". Electricity was not made by God.

Therein lies the conservatives dilemma.

 

[McRat]

On the 5th day God made Oil and declared, "man, leverage power and be happy". Electricity was not made by God.

Therein lies the conservatives dilemma.

I don't care who the manufacturer is, I still hate going outside in a thunderstorm. My boy Bennie Franklin has some huevos grande, that's for sure...

 

[Drivin]

Maybe many conservatives don't believe that rich people should get subsidized for conspicuous consumption of a car that goes 0-60 in under 3 seconds

Despite the characterizations in the press, the average conservative family makes less than a liberal family - so it isn't about supporting the 1 percenters

Maybe conservatives feel that the money could be much better used to help the less fortunate. After all the average conservative family gives 30 percent more to charity despite earning less.

 

[nwdiver]

If that were true Elon would have gone the way of DeLorean. Exxon will crony'up a little more and be ok when the time comes. Not happy about that either. I want renewable energy cars (and more) when technology can create market demand so it happens organically, so-to-speak. Forcibly thrusted upon us doesn't work economically and just leads to more problems.

???? What does any of that have to do with your insane idea that research in opposition to AGW is being suppressed? Why not simply keep milking fools fuel for every drop its worth?

 

[Vitold]

You'd have to run away or else you'll end up dead, too much at stake. Einstein too had to flee a state of centralized control. We ain't there yet but just you wait, with so many acolytes it's bound to happen. The cries of save us from the climate (stupidly laughable) will become save us we're starving. 'click click'

Which of the following do you miss and would love to bring it back:

• xray shoe fitting ?
• Leaded gasoline?
• White phosphor matches?
• Lead paint?
• Arsenic in playgrounds?
• Lead in water?
• Lead in electronics?
• Mercury in thermometers and batteries?
• Swill milk?

Government's accountability, transparency and media cozy relationship are big issues but solution is not to make the government less potent.