Warmist: What Will It Take To Convince Righties That Hotcoldwetdry Is Serious?

Well, you know my answer about practicing what you preach, and, oh, yeah, hard evidence rather than computer models. At Eugene Volokh’s spot, Jonathan Adler asks what it will take to convince Republicans and Libertarians (btw, you’ll need hit the story to see all the embedded links. Doing this on Droid)

(Washington Post) When it comes to climate change, there is an amazing confluence of policy preferences and scientific assessments.  Those who generally favor aggressive regulatory interventions to address environmental concerns are convinced global warming is a serious (if not catastrophic) environmental concern, while those who generally oppose governmental interventions in the marketplace are skeptical of mainstream climate science.  Each side of the policy debate has adopted a view of the science that confirms — or at least conforms with — its policy preferences.

Of course, Adler is coming down on the side of the Cult of Climastrology, and has since 2008

As I’ve written elsewhere, it’s long past time that self-professed libertarians and others on the political right consider climate change to be a serious problem. (See also here.) The Niskanen Center’s Jerry Taylor makes a similar point here.  Alas, many libertarians and conservatives reject evidence of humanity’ effect on the global climate system for fear such evidence will be used to justify climate policies libertarians and conservatives rightly dislike.

Well, yeah. Most of us understand that the preferred policies of Warmists are based on junk science, would not solve the issue if it was real, and simply institute bigger and bigger government control with more taxation, higher cost of living, and redistribution.

What Adler is looking at is an article at Reason which asked the same question, which I covered 10 days ago. He ends his missive thusly, with an excerpt from the article

To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

It is a question worth answering.

As to the excerpt from Reason in italic, I already did. To reiterate, none of those occurrences are outside the bounds of natural Holocene variability, and do not prove anthropogenic causation. As for Adler, he kinda forgets to actually answer it, nor does he provide a rational as to why we should implement the hard left policies recommended to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Warmist: What Will It Take To Convince Righties That Hotcoldwetdry Is Serious?”

  1. JGlanton says:

    Get Kate Upton to move in with me and provide me with an unlimited supply of Pappy Van Winkle and Viagra. Then I’ll sell out. I won’t care about anything anymore. In face, throw in a house on the beach and a Ferrari 458 and I will go full SJW and start caring about micro-aggression cue-words about bathroom privileges for LBGTQWERTY private liberal arts college students.

  2. John says:

    Practice what uou preach ? You mean that you think all who were cheerleaders for the Irac fiasco. Should have enlisted ?
    Teach the USA has been able to reduce its carbon footprint without Gore going carbon neutral
    Better for everyone to reduce a lot rather than gor a few to reduce a lot
    Teach in the past temp increases have been explained by science , those factors are not present now. This is not some new science humans have known that CO2 traps infrared radiation for well over 100 years Margaret Thatcher warned about this 30 years ago
    Would she be considered a Warmist. ?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Teach the USA has been able to reduce its carbon footprint without Gore going carbon neutral

    So you admit that Gore is being a hypocrite and in your mind contribute to global warming?

    You are supporting the acts of someone in your mind that contributes to global warming?

    Better for everyone to reduce a lot rather than gor a few to reduce a lot

    Wouldn’t “everyone” include you and Al Gore? Or are you special little snowflakes who don’t have to deal with the pain you seek to inflict on others?

    Teach in the past temp increases have been explained by science , those factors are not present now.

    Science has changed?

    Margaret Thatcher warned about this 30 years ago
    Would she be considered a Warmist. ?

    Nope. Because after viewing the science, she backed away from the AGW hysteria. In other words, she did what you refuse to do – she looked at the facts.

    BTW John, have you located Selma Alabama yet?

  4. Teach in the past temp increases have been explained by science , those factors are not present now

    John has just made my point, namely that the Cult of Climastrology isn’t about science.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5771 access attempts in the last 7 days.