‘Climate Change’ (scam) Skeptics Are Innovation Pessimists Or Something

Big Government Republicans and former elected Rep Bob Inglis is super excited to browbeat people into supporting a government tax in a unique and exciting way

Climate change disputers are actually innovation pessimists

Climate action is being blocked more by pessimism about innovation than skepticism about causation. Scratch a climate skeptic, and you’ll find an innovation pessimist. They don’t believe it can be done. Overwhelmed by the scale of the problem, they assume that we can’t change our trajectory. Secretly, they’re depressed about it. They need hope.

Had these pessimists been in the stadium at Rice University in September of 1963, they might have chanted “No way” when President Kennedy said of the Mariner spacecraft then on its way to Venus, “The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines.”

Innovation pessimists are right to point out that the drive for innovation was more immediate and more visible in 1963. The Soviet’s launch of Sputnik had raised the specter of a goose-stepping, hostile power in control of space. We were unified, and our response was completely within our control.

Climate change crawls and creeps; it doesn’t goose step. Addressing it requires a coordinated global response, and innovation pessimists are right to doubt the ability of the United Nations and the ability of the regulatory state to solve the problem.

This is so beyond stupid, that it almost doesn’t even deserve rebuttal. Especially since Bob hasn’t proven that the climate has changed mostly/solely due to mankind’s output of greenhouse gases. It’s cute how he throws in the Nazi reference to “good step.”

When he gives up his own use of fossil fuels and makes his life carbon neutral I might consider listening.

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

7 Responses to “‘Climate Change’ (scam) Skeptics Are Innovation Pessimists Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Bob hasn’t proven that the climate has changed mostly/solely due to mankind’s output of greenhouse gases

    Scientific theories, including the theory that greenhouse gases are responsible for the current warming of the Earth, are never proven.

    It is true that the theory of evolution (or AGW) has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence.

    This is why no scientific theory, including evolution (or AGW), is ever considered to be proven. The more evidence that accumulates to support a theory, the more our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the quantity of evidence supporting the theory is so vast, so overwhelming, that further attempts to deny or question it would be futile and unfounded. This is the case with the theory of evolution, as it is the case with the other theories, such as the atomic theory of matter or the theory of plate tectonics, that form the pillars of modern science. But this is not absolute proof. Not even the best-supported, most thoroughly verified theories of science are put on a pedestal and considered infallible, since at any time, some shocking new piece of evidence might turn up that completely contradicts accepted knowledge. We have no way of knowing that this will not happen in the future.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/has-evolution-been-proven/

    We can agree on some facts concerning global warming:
    -The Earth has been warming in fits and starts for a century or so.
    -Atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have been increasing steadily during that time (CO2 currently over 400 ppm, the highest in nearly 1 million years).
    -The increased atmospheric CO2 is derived from burning fossil fuels.
    -Unlike the two main atmospheric gases oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation (IR), and emits it in all directions, including back toward Earth.
    -IR leaving the Earth has been reduced over the past several decades, particularly at wavelengths of IR absorbed by CO2 (and by methane, CH4).
    -Increased IR at wavelengths absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases are measured at the Earth’s surface.

    It is scientifically reasonable to expect (hypothesize, theorize) that increasing greenhouse gases would result in warming. It is further reasonable to expect that other physical processes play a role in Earth’s climate, such processes as ocean currents, albedo, volcanoes, atmospheric aerosols, changes in the Sun, changes in Earth’s orbits, El Nino, La Nina etc etc.

    The Earth is warming. The most reasonable explanation is that it results from increased greenhouse gases.

    Some may not like the political implications of greenhouse gas emissions causing the Earth to warm, but that’s a different argument.

    • formwiz says:

      What’s this “we”?

      You’re the only one buying it because it fits the Commies’ confiscatory agenda.

      Scientific theories, including the theory that greenhouse gases are responsible for the current warming of the Earth, are never proven.

      “Never”? What you know about science could fit on the head of a pin.

      • Jeffery says:

        “Never”? What you know about science could fit on the head of a pin.

        Which of the facts I listed will you refute?

        We know for sure that CO2 is causing more IR to be directed back to Earth. It would be surprising, scientifically, if the Earth WAS NOT warming.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Scientific theories, including the theory that greenhouse gases are responsible for the current warming of the Earth, are never proven.

      Uh, not quite. Theories have to be testable, repeatable and predictive.
      So far GHG theory has not conformed to the scientific method.
      But no one expects the little guy to understand that since he’s been told so often.

      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  2. Stosh says:

    I’m all for scientific innovation, what’s called for is a simple automatic switch to cut off all electricity to gore-bull warming moonbats whenever the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Let them huddle in the dark in mud huts and caves. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

  3. Jeffery says:

    I was ready to agree with you until I read what Rep. Inglis wrote. I don’t believe skeptics are innovation pessimists, I do believe they oppose global warming remediation out of ideology – they oppose any addition to government. No reasonable person can deny that the Earth is warming or deny that greenhouses gases are the primary cause. They are skeptical because they strongly disagree with the potential “fixes” – primarily a tariff on fossil fuels to align pricing with the true societal costs. Why accept tariffs on motorcycles, soybeans, steel and aluminum but reject tariffs for fossil fuels? Read on:

    Internalizing negative externalities involves adding the health and climate damages to the price of fossil fuels. This accountability would shatter the illusion that energy from fossil fuels is cheap. In a transparent, accountable energy market, consumers — not regulators, not mandates, not fickle tax incentives — would drive demand for clean energy. Entrepreneurs would race to supply that demand, and we’d power our lives with the fuels of the future.

    Most simply, this could be accomplished through a carbon tax applied at the mine and at the pipeline. The revenue raised from the carbon tax should then be returned to taxpayers in cuts to existing taxes or in the form of dividend checks to ensure no growth of government.

    The strength of the American market would become evident when we applied our carbon tax to imports from countries lacking the same price on carbon dioxide. This border adjustment would entice our trading partners to enact their own carbon taxes. Why pay a tax on entry into the U.S. when you could have paid that same tax to your home country, enabling your goods to enter the U.S. without a carbon tax adjustment?

  4. Jeffery says:

    When he gives up his own use of fossil fuels and makes his life carbon neutral I might consider listening.

    We hear that argument quite often. Why would what someone else does dictate your understanding of a scientific argument? It sounds as if your argument is political, not scientific.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10017 access attempts in the last 7 days.