Conservatives Coming to a Climate Concensus?

I know many environmentalists that have been saying this for years. If we could past our partisanship, than maybe we could get something done.

Yes, it is unfortunate that there's a trend in American society towards thinking that opinion outweighs fact, even when it comes to the laws of nature. Few among the pundits, press or politicians have much clue how the vast amounts of electric energy we consume each month are really produced, and what the viable options are for future production. To help with the public energy discussion, I've called on my twenty years in the US nuclear industry to write a novel on the topic - its people, its politics, its technology. Rad Decision is available at no cost online at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com - and readers seem to like it judging from their comments on the homepage. It is also now in paperback at online retailers (and I get no royalties from it.) Do I think we should embrace nuclear power? Perhaps, but I think the most important thing right now is to really understand what all our options really are. I hope "Rad Decision" can add some real world experience to that discussion. James Aach jimaach@comcast.net "I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand, National book Award winner and founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog" and noted futurist.

He makes global warming fanatics sound so mainstream! Conservatives have been calling for energy independence for a long time, but liberals won’t let America use the resources we have here, they force us to get our energy from other countries, which means they are ultimately responsible for the contortions we must go through to keep our economy afloat. Their initial idea was to starve America into submission, thinking then they would find a compliant population that would eat only berries and bike to work. They talk as if introducing futuristic energy solutions is simply a matter of flipping a switch, ignoring the real consequences of imposing a Kyoto scheme. They treat energy corporations as the enemy (actually they treat all business as the enemy) when the solution to carbon based energy lies in the entrepreneurial drive of private industry. America leads the world in innovation, but the free market disdains inefficiency, and the energy solutions up to this point are inefficient and expensive. But that will change - no thanks to Democrats - because those that introduce the alternative to oil as an energy source will be rewarded in a free market system. Until then, no politician from either party is willing to pull the plug on the economy ‘for our own good,’ not even Hillary. But they will do the next best thing - they’ll lie to us about environmental disaster, telling us the only way to save the planet is to end capitalism, raise taxes and glue condoms on everyone to rid the world of the scourge that devours it. You don’t have to be liberal to be called a flake - look at the hit John McCain has taken over his support for the theory of human induced global warming. People have become even more skeptical of his ability to see through chicanery. And it isn't "concern" that makes one a flake - it's the insistence on the centralization of control of energy by the UN that does. But still, private industry has picked up the hybrid energy ball (unless the Democratic party owns the auto companies), Republicans picked up energy independence (Anwar, nuclear energy, etc.) and Democrats picked up a scheme like GW and demanded we drop our living standards by generations, cripple the economy and stop using firewood in our fireplaces! As a skeptic of man-made global warming, here's what I see. The actions of GWF (Global Warming Fanatics ) in prostituting a natural environmental event to impose draconian, punitive environmental regulations has made them appear no different than the environmental wackos we all derided pre-GW hysteria. The threats of “Nuremberg” style trials for skeptics, the asinine claim that the “debate is over,” and the full court press to demean and ostracize any who dissent from this cult-like infatuation with punishing mankind for its very existence in this pristine eco-system - these approaches have seriously damaged their ability to be trusted - and that is why they have been hemorrhaging credibility. GWF think that the world should drop to its knees in penance for its environmental sins, but it is they that need persuade us about human-induced global warming - they are the ones that insist on profound change in our lifestyles, freedoms and future. They must make the case. Instead they belittle "deniers" and strut around indignant with shiny medals dangling. It is a repulsive display. I believe we need to reduce our dependence on oil abroad and on carbon energy entirely simply because it is the right thing to do. There's many reasons why. Those who take the war in Iraq seriously understand the advantage of independence - no one who sees the barbaric incivility that pervades the Middle East would want anything less than to leave that place forever and never offer another dime for the black crack they sell us. That message is understood loud and clear by nearly all Americans, and may ultimately be the legacy of this war. But what damage GWF have done. Their angst has them gambling the last straws of respectability they have to blackmail everyone with threats of pending catastrophe, but like Gore's mockumentary - their threats are riddled with blatant falsehoods. And that's not all - at a time when trust in our government is at all time lows, they steal the trust we have in science for a political boon. There may soon come a time when citizens see all of their political and scientific leaders as con-men out to order their lives and fleece them of their prosperity and freedom. And it didn’t have to be that way. That may be the legacy of the global warming movement. (It's Cal Thomas…)

What could I possibly add to Evrvigint's great response? He's covered every base. The socialistic left has been using this ploy to bash the democratic, capitalist US for years. They want us to believe they're on the side of the angels. Well, if Stalin's an angel, then I guess they're right.

I also agree that there are very compelling reasons to work on cheaper alt fuels. Using global warming as a reason only leads to policy that will not work because it will be based on irrationality. But the bigger issue is that no other alt fuel trumps oil as far as caloric output and the usages of it. This is a world of growth that cannot continue to do so without a cheap form of energy, especially one that is an ingredient in plastic, road asphalt, fertilizer, etc. Even a slow reduction will be painful. Once oil is gone, the growth we have now will recede. Every other fuel source besides oil is inconsistant in its output or has really serious drawbacks. Another big problem is this world is based on money so anything, a scientific study, fuel, whatever will be exploited by people for profit. AGW is a perfect example of this. It is no longer a theory it is now an industry. And what do people do with industry? Invest in it for profit.

I agree with all of what Evrigint's response also. Never confuse the conservatives disagreement over Human induces Global Warming with us not wanting to make the environment better. I think we should find better and cleaner ways of fueling our homes and our cars, but I am not in favor of handing over control of our country to the Beuroweenies at the UN. And I am not for destroying our economy so some people feel better about themselves. Private enterprise has always and will always find better solutions to problems dealing with innovation better than the government. The Kyoto Treaty is a joke and almost all of the signers have not even gotten close to their quotas, and many of the countries that signed the Treaty have horrible economies and this Kyoto Treaty is only keeping them down.