Why are republicans so skeptical of global warming?

[nature-log]

it bugs me to learn that the republicans plan to boycott the next meeting of the US senate committee that's working on the new climate change bill. even if some1 wants to attend the meeting, 'they'll be forced no too'.

they say the new kerry-boxer bill on climate change needs more analysis and that will delay the entire process by a month! and then it'll almost be time for the UN summit on climate change.

why dont they realize this isn't the time for political skirmishes?

[moguitar]

There are a lot of bought off by fossil fuel special interests politicians of both parties. They aren't MY Republicans if they aren't like the first environmental President, Theodore Roosevelt. The Republicans really dropped the ball with environmental subjects after Nixon formed the EPA and clean water act.
The problem with the Democrats is that they will only help so much with reducing carbon emissions, and completely blow it with granting a population boom already amnesty to over-breeding invaders who ruin every bit of progress we make environmentally.
The Republicans are kind of opposite, but they ruined it by running McAmnesty against Barry Soetoro. Both are in the New World Order CFR, just different sides of the same picked coin of corruption. They profess to now be against amnesty, but blow it being against massive CO2 reductions.
Both parties are so stupid and corrupt it hurts. We must have population quality and quantity control, and we must reduce our CO2 emissions 90% in 10 years. Fail with the first and you have more depletion and pollution, more debt, and loss of our sovereignty and intelligent culture. Fail at the second and you have more depletion and pollution and eco-collapse with government collapse, also. Without both being done, the fate of future generations is very grim. The depleted, polluted planet's weather turns malevolent too fast to adapt and most species go extinct. Absorption of all the pollutants and recharging the aquifers, and replenishing the soil and biosphere will take hundreds of thousands of years.
The greedy politicians can't think beyond their next election and the golden parachute retirements and King-like medical benefits. They don't care about the future of the USA or the future of mankind. I remember Earth Day One, and everything has gotten worse. Time we once had has slipped on by, while most of the ignorant world just keeps on over-breeding without a clue as to sustainability, and pollution reduction.
The first effect is economic, then they migrate to better places and ruin them. Then the eco-collapses start, and they migrate again, fighting for dwindling resources on an ever more polluted planet. Misery increases unless leaders come down hard on pollution and overpopulation. What party will do both? None, in my opinion. They are all screwed up.

[nature-log]

i was away. i dont know a lot of detail about the nature of these political parties, so thanks for the insights. i dont blv the main problem lies in over population. i think its more a matter of lifestyle. american consumerism contributes to 8% of global emissions (i think i mentioned this in another thread previously) so i think thats a pretty good example.

as for politicians, i know they all have short-term views. no1 thinks of creating a legacy. they only remember they have 4 years to make an impact. they are still to blame.

i heard about geo-engineering being a potential short-term solution while politicians slowly deliberate upon a treaty. what's your take on that?

[moguitar]

So you don't believe the main problem is rooted in over-population of humans on Earth. God, what a frickin' dummy. You sound like a Republican with his head stuck in the sand, or someone so poorly educated he can't see the forest for the trees.
According to some, like Devvy Kidd and many others, geo-engineering has been actually going on for some time with the "Shield Project" and Arctic Ocean iron oxide dumping for ocean CO2 absorption. The Shield Project is airliner and other jet aircraft spraying out aluminum and barium salts with copolymer micro fibers and anti-mold chemicals for long lasting contrail derived clouds which cause shading. It is from a book written by Edward Teller before he died, and apparently experimented with and finally in place by 1997, with increasing spraying since then over the USA, Canada, and other countries involved in this geo-engineering to cool the Earth, masking the true effects of global warming.
Thus the 2.5 to 3*F temperature spikes in the US during the no-fly days after 9-11-2001. Since then CO2 has been going up 3% per year with even more warming.
All pollution is a function of population, and so is all depletion of soils and groundwater. Sure, a big part of the problem is how people live, but for every 10% reduction of pollution, we get it nixed from a 10% gain in population. Both have to be dealt with, and overpopulation is the much bigger problem. You can not get the needed 90% reduction in CO2 emissions without also reducing the population significantly. Which probably will not happen. This leads to the population crash which is inevitable, and then to self-sustaining oceanic methane release and climate change to near Eocene Max conditions in just a few hundred years. Too short a time frame for most life to adapt. That means also human extinction.
One species which overpopulated so much it ruined the biosphere for a very long time.

[nature-log]

why are u so angry? this is why i know the population control isn't a problem, but population lifestyle control is!..."The United States, Australia, and Canada each emit roughly 5 tons of carbon per person each year. This is five times the figure in China and 17 times that in India."

[moguitar]

I did the advanced biology paper entitled "Mammal Populations in Ecological Niches, Including Humans" in 1967. Since then there have been three MAJOR multi-disciplinary studies of just what the sustainable population of Earth is at a "Euro" standard of living (basically this means 2400 calories per person per day of food, versus 3400 US average and 1400 Chinese average). It was 1.5 to 2 billion in all of them. In the mid-1990s I showed the sustainable level accelerating downward with depletion of soils and aquifers 100 times replenishment rates, fossil fuel being depleted at one million times regeneration rate, and pollution of all kinds thousands of times the Earth's natural absorption rate. Others agreed and have come up with anew sustainable level at Euro living standard of .6 to max of .9 billion right now. The present population is 6.83 billion. China surpassed the USA in pollution in 2006. You go per capita and pretend there isn't a lot more to it. The totals are what counts and there are a lot more areas than CO2 per capita. The oceans are being devastated with mercury, plastic and overharvesting. Most aquifers will be dry by 2040 and that is half our drinking water and more of our crop irrigation water which allows a 6x non-irrigated crop yield. Have you seen the huge brown cloud of over 120 toxics coming from China? How about the Maldive Islanders downwind from India losing 10% of their crops from coal fired soot dimming? Yeah, I'm mad, and I hate over-breeders.
That is what it boils down to, numbers of people. The US is way overpopulated just like Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico, Central and South America, Australia, Islands, China, Japan, Indonesia---the whole planet. Sure, right now over 75% of the world's people are poor, depleting their soils and groundwater and using more and more fossil fuels to try to feed themselves because they overbred themselves into that corner. Asswipe wimps let in way too many immigrants in the USA and Europe, ruining their chances of niching themselves to independence.
If the Earth's humans would have collectively gone to two child families 100 years ago, you wouldn't be looking at the pollution and depletion we have now. The people in Africa, India, and China would still be poor from overpopulation, but we would not be looking at the classic mammalian population crash like on St. Mathews Island with the deer, the kaibib deer, rats in labs, Easter Island people, and on and on. The AGHGs would not be heading the biosphere toward self-sustaining methane releases, leading to Eocene Max conditions faster than life can adapt.
The only way to stop this Armageddon is to kill half the people(the lowest half of IQ would be best) and the rest go to a green lifestyle with one child families until the new sustainable level is reached. Of course, that will not happen and besides the horrors 1200 times worse than the Holocaust of WWII, the geologic extinction level event caused by humans will take them and 87% of other species with them.
Go to the library and read "Elephants in the Volkswagen" by Lindsey Grant for starters.

[nature-log]

i just read your comment in detail. i admit i had to use google a few times because u definitely know more than me. i understand the population-based crisis now. perhaps you could share the model you used to determine the sustainable population level? it seems fascinating.

another question - is the 'euro' standard of living the 'ideal' standard? could mankind find a way to live more efficiently and effectively as well? (this would lessen the need to drastically lower population).

global dimming - they say this effect is being manipulated to hide the impact of global warming. i understand how that happens. but i read elsewhere that dimming could lead to the opposite effect too. how is that possible?

[nature-log]

lastly, have any studies predicted the next eucene max? and another short question - natural conditions caused the first eucene max. can't AGWs use that really well?

[moguitar]

Originally Posted by nature-log

i just read your comment in detail. i admit i had to use google a few times because u definitely know more than me. i understand the population-based crisis now. perhaps you could share the model you used to determine the sustainable population level? it seems fascinating.

another question - is the 'euro' standard of living the 'ideal' standard? could mankind find a way to live more efficiently and effectively as well? (this would lessen the need to drastically lower population).

global dimming - they say this effect is being manipulated to hide the impact of global warming. i understand how that happens. but i read elsewhere that dimming could lead to the opposite effect too. how is that possible?

The major multi-disciplinary studies were done to determine the maximum sustainable human population at Euro standards which were considered what the most people would like, strive for, or tolerate. 1972, 9180, 1992. The last is in the book, "Elephants in the Volkswagen" by Lindsey grant, and is most complete, plus includes the US sustainable level on its own.
The "Shield Project" or "Albedo Project" is possibly spraying to reduce AGW. See the archives of Devvy Kidd at http://www.newswithviews.com
"Killing Us Softly?" and all the links in that article. The dimming of the Maldive Islands from India's dirty coal power plants can be googled. From what I've read, the northern 90% of the republic has had a 10% crop yield decrease from the dimming.
Some of the AGW effect is to increase humidity and night time clouds, which has the effect of trapping heat at night. Cloud increase in the day has a cooling effect.
The worst effect of around mid-century is not warmth itself, but the increased climate fluctuation beyond historic it entails. Early frosts in the fall, floods, droughts, extreme winds, and late frosts in the spring all conspire to have crop failures. In the book "Glaciation and Global Warming" 1992, the consortium of various scientists of a multitude of different disciplines and political bents, came to the conclusion of 1 out of 3 years crop failures around 2050 at near world oil depletion. They also said the ocean level rise would be 23" and the temperature rise would be 6* to 9*F.
They seem to have been the most correct of all the various books and studies even done later. The worse than worst case scenario of the most accepted UN studies have played out. The no fly days over the US show we are at around +3.5*F right now without dimming effects. The Ardtic is recorded at +5* to 10*F warmer right now, and the Antarctic is reported at +2 to 3*F. The equatorial regions are least hit with less than +1*F, but weather patterns have changed significantly already. Double the acres burned each year from forest fires, increased floods and droughts. This is just the beginning, wait until it starts to really go beyond historic. If you are alive in 30 years, you will have seen incredible changes that are disastrous.

[moguitar]

Originally Posted by nature-log

lastly, have any studies predicted the next eucene max? and another short question - natural conditions caused the first eucene max. can't AGWs use that really well?

The Eocene Max type eras were caused by increased vulcanism. In the past, episodes of increased vulcanism were less rare. The Earth's core has cooled down significantly since then. More recently, this cool down has led to the big time differential between magnetic polar reversals. Vocanic activity in general has been less than it was even 25 million years ago.
My own impression is that the giant meteor strike of 65 million years ago and on many of the 26 million year "Nemesis" cycles, caused long term "vibration of the jelly", or the upper mantle, and increased vulcanism lasting very long after the event.
I don't quite understand the question. Can't anthropogenic global warmings (plural?) use that (what? increased vulcanism?) really well? ????
What I can tell you is that in 1500 years Krakatoa will explode again, and in 2000 years Yellowstone will explode again. Normally these events would cause global cooling, and this time, without AGW, would yield the start of the glacial epoch. However, with near Eocene Max conditions, the cooling effect will not be enough to bring on the glacial epoch. Most likely the glacial epoch will be completely skipped at least several times, until the atmospheric GHGs reduce to what they were on average over the past 1.1 million years.
With HGHGs mitigated, the glacial epoch will start with the Yellowstone super volcano event. Technically, it could happen sooner. No one is looking forward to the glacial epoch, with sustainability cut in half. But at least that was a natural thing and endured by our predecessors a number of times. Bottlenecks in human evolution have been numerous from diseases and natural disasters. This could turn out to be another one, hopefully with people learning lasting lessons. Lessons like "replenish the Earth"--oh, that is in Genesis and people didn't heed. Lessons like think about future generations and not just your own. Don't over-breed for the conditions at hand. Use natural resources at their regeneration rate and not more. Pollute at the natural system's absorption level and no more. If we are not to be in the natural system of evolution, we must mimic the selection of nature with only the the most intelligent, best looking, free of genetic defects, and strongest reproducing, just enough to stay under sustainable in case of disaster.