Climate Change? (Bonus: George Carlin Comments) lol


For exmaple increasing sea level or more natural disasters.

I first have to to read up about the topic. I will answer more detailed - upcoming…


My question was actually hypothetical. I should have said:
If there were a 10 percent chance that CountryXY would attack the United States 2018,
would you say it would be justified to try to do something against it?

Is there a inevitable causality between solutions against global warming and granting more power to politicians and bureaucrats? And who says that the current proposed solutions are the one and only?

Conservative book author Bradley Birzer says:
“Conservatism is a policy or an ideal of conserving the best what has come before us… conservatism is an understanding of finding what is true and good and beautiful not only within the human person but also in human culture.” (video see below)
I would add: Conservatism is an ideal of conserving what is true and good and beautiful within the human person and his environment – in terms of both: the natural and cultural.

If you understand conservatism just as conserving ones own liberty to make risky decisions in the face of uncertain danger, I think you have a very one-sided understanding of it.
I think conservatism should rather be comprehended as the ideal of conserving a world we want to live in and a responsible consideration of ALL potential threats.

The core idea of conservatism is to conserve, not risk seeking.


Yes he did. Eratosthenese’s experiment does not work without the Earth being a sphere.

You can’t have a 7.2 degree shadows in one town, and no shadow in another town, both at high noon, both sitting on flat terrain, without there being a difference in their angle, relative to the light source (the sun). This all = spherical surface.

The explanation fits the evidence.

Just to further hammer in the point, Aristotle and Pythagoras both knew the Earth was a sphere well over 200 years before Eratosthenese, and made their own observations to support this conclusion:

Pythagoras’ pupils, if not the great man himself, knew that the Earth is round. Traveller’s tales of ships disappearing over the horizon and the Pole Star shifting to a higher position in the sky as one journeyed north suggested a curved Earth.

Aristotle (about 340 BC), two centuries later, supported the idea of a spherical Earth, Moon and planets because:

  • the sphere is a perfect solid and the heavens are a region of perfection
  • the Earth’s component pieces, falling naturally towards the centre, would press into a round form
  • in an eclipse of the Moon, the Earth’s shadow is always circular: a flat disc would cast an oval shadow
  • even in short travels northwards the Pole Star is higher in the sky.

Debunked: The Greeks were astronomers and were aware of the existence of other planets.

Debunked: go read above, the idea of a spherical Earth had been around for centuries by the time of Eratosthenese. They had practical evidence that showed the Earth was a sphere, evidence a flat disk would not match.

All of which goes to show not only that the Earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent,

– Aristotle, On the Heavens


Among the points I made that you quoted, the public policy “solution” is just as risky or more risky in their view. I submit that conservatives do view it that way since they don’t tend to view climate change as a threat or risk.

I submit that conservatives, just like those who’ve been posting in this thread and this forum, don’t take seriously threats from global warming, global cooling or climate change – whatever the term of the day is. That is why their conservatism does not drive them to fret about climate change.

I don’t intend to speak for conservatives. I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t find their viewpoint difficult to understand at all. I tend to agree with them.


Please quit posting nonsense, AS. You CANNOT responsibly attach what WE know about the universe to what the ancient Greeks knew. They did NOT “know” the Earth was spherical, no matter HOW many “shadows” they might have measured or where in the THEN-KNOWN civilized world their measurements may have been taken. Hell, the ancient INDIANS thought the world was like the back of a TURTLE…in fact, that it WAS the back of a giant turtle…and this was also during the time of Aristotle, etc.


I just quoted Aristotle stating that the Earth is spherical.

You know how he knew?

You can spot the curvature of the earth from high places, you can see objects disappear over the horizon, You can watch constellations move around or disappear as you navigate the ocean.

Aristotle did all three, along with observing that celestial bodies were also spherical, and that their interactions with the Earth only made sense, if the Earth was equally a sphere.

The Greeks put this all together, and stated that the Earth was spherical, because it matched the evidence.

We live on an intelligible world, where it’s spherical properties are self-evident. It is not a surprise that a rational civilization, like the Greeks, would stumble upon it.

Least of all Aristotle whose viewpoint is the very origin of the intelligible analysis of nature.


Get with the program AS and PD; and AS, clearly observation proves the earth is flat…


I know that conservatives (in this forum and outside) do not fear climate change. My point was not to assess: How conservatives are today. My point is to suggest, that conservatives could and should show more responsibility regarding environmental issues.

If a person has no ecological sensibility at all (I do not say that this is the case for every conservative - it isn’t true for me as an example), I see it as a character flaw. It is a kind of irresponsibility and ignorance. And what I am aiming at is not to describe HOW CONS ART TODAY but to think about HOW A SOPHISTICATED CONSERVATIVE SHOULD BE.

There is no contradiction between being conservative and being ecosensitive - both has to do with conserving what’s good and true and beautiful. And if one wants to be a overall responsible citizen, I think there is no way around keeping a wary eye on every threat to the western civilization (including environmental issues). But we have a great deficiency concerning this matter within the conservative field.


BS. WHAT “celestial bodies” did Aristotle “observe” to be spherical? The only two that he could SEE were the moon and the sun (imperfectly) and NEITHER would be an apparent sphere when observed from the Earth’s surface. Remember, there were NO TELESCOPES in those days. Let’s SEE Aristotle’s “writings”. (BTW, the only copies known to exist were destroyed when the library of Alexandria burned to the ground.) Just WHEN did Aristotle go to a high enough place to observe the Earth’s curvature and what “high place” was it? There are no mountains in the area of the Aegean high enough to see this, and Aristotle never “sailed” anywhere but in the Aegean Sea and ships disappearing over the horizon can easily be accounted for if you believe the Earth’s a domed disk…which ALL Greek scientists of that time did.


Please explain how being skeptical of the catastrophic claims of the “climate change” crowd and their obvious pseudoscience is being ecologically “insensitive.”


Disagreeing about whether climate change is occurring, whether it is man-made, whether we can do anything about it, etc. doesn’t show that conservatives are not “ecosensitive.” It shows that they disagree, that they don’t believe what the global warming alarmists are selling. It does not show a lack of sophistication. Who can blame them for viewing this information with suspicion when their political enemies want to implement sweeping policy changes that will make their lives much more difficult and expensive.

It is your opinion how “conservatives should be,” but clearly they tend to disagree with you – and not just the ones around this site. You probably have to convince them that an actual threat exists if they’re to go your way on this. Good luck with it since everything about it is politicized.

Additionally, agreeing with the leftists doesn’t make you a sophisticated conservative :stuck_out_tongue:


Go read his work On the Heavens. It’s largest surviving repository of Greek Astronomy in existence.

? yes there is, there’s mountains all over Greece. This is why Greece has suffered developmental handicaps in the modern era; it’s too mountainous for roads to effectively connect the country.

If any mountains approach 10,000 feet, it’s possible to see the Earth curve.


This is what they knew Dave. Aristotle posited these things as proof in On the Heavens. Whether he did it personally, or collected the accounts of others, it doesn’t matter. The Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere.

There is no mention of them anywhere thinking it was a disk.


MORE nonsense, AS. The ONLY thing the Earth’s shadow would show the Greeks is that it’s ROUND…not “spherical.”



This was among Aristotle’s claims in On the Heavens for evidence of a spherical Earth.

I’ll take his word over yours, thank you.


When did I say that “being sceptical of catastrophic climate-change-claims is being ecologically insensitive”?


In principle I agree with your text above, maybe my expression was mistakable. The whole thing is complicated. Regarding global warming we could say there are (at least) three groups of people:

(1) those, who are concerned
(2) those, who are not concerned - but practiced a serious information search before
(and came to the conclusion that there is no risk)
(3) those, who are not concerned - but consumed only one-sided information
(and only insist that there is no risk, without considering arguments of the other side)

The fist two groups would be o.k. (the fist group has to practic serious analysis too).
Problematic is just the third group. I am in group (1), which group do you belong to?

Nobody could blame them. As long as they disagree because they seriously thought about the issue - but in a non one-sided manner - nobody could blame them!

But I think there are many people who deliberately watch ONLY “climate change is a lie movies”. And they are intentionally searching ONLY for information that tends to “refute” climate change. No wonder that they are coming to the conclusion that there is no threat. Think about this: The “ONLY” is the problem here.

I do not say that you are (or someone else is) acting like this. But I say: If one would belong to group (3) and not to group (2) it would be a problem. And then the answer to the question “Who can blame them?” would be different.

Which documentarys do you watch?

It is not my opinion that conservatives should be worried about climate change!
It is my opinion that: If conservatives (or everyone else) reject global warming, they should have practiced a serious and not one-sided information search before.

If you consume information only from left-wing-greenpeace -> This would be a problem!
If you consume information only sponsored by exxon-mobil (or so) -> This would be a problem!

Maybe it is the case that most conservatives fall into group (2), and did their honest and not one-sided research. This would be great! But I think there are still al lot of group-(3)-people in the world, that consume only “there-is-no-threat-movies”, (cons and non-cons) - and these are not so sophisticated. How would you assess yourself? Type-(2)-person?


I agree with your post whole-heartedly. Among conservatives, I have no doubt that many fall into your third category. I also know that among the hysterical doom and gloom left, many also fall into that third category. That’s part of politics. The amount of complete civic and historical ignorance among folks is staggering. Look no further than the YoutTube channel myworldisgettingdumber, Jay Leno or Mark Dice to see just how ignorant so many folks are. Yet they draw conclusions about a wide array of matters and vote. Add to that the mind-boggling ignorance of economics, and we have recipes for disasters, people who believe we can regulate and legislate our way to prosperity.

I’d like to think that everyone practices serious information searches before coming to conclusions on anything they want to do that affects me. Alas, they don’t on this topic and many others.

I don’t watch documentaries on climate change. I read quite a bit from all over the place.


Can you name for us a “there-is-no-threat-movie” for us? Nobody’s MAKING any such thing. I (and, I suspect, MOST conservatives who are “global warming” skeptics) have come to my own opinions about the issue based on the FACT that we KNOW the climate goes through periodic “changes” and has for the entire known history of the planet. Even long BEFORE humans ever appeared here. They’ve found tropical plants buried deep in the ice of Antarctica, for Pete’s sake! Secondarily, I’ve watched over the past 50+ years, virtually EVERY “scare” put out by these people prove to be as bogus as “I did NOT have sex…” etc. Just as an example, CFC’s do NOT “destroy the ozone layer” and never did. To do that, we’d have to put the SUN out, because it’s solar radiation that GENERATES the ozone layer.


Thank’s for your openness. Many people are unable to agree with others if they once disagreed in a given issue. I really appreciate your ability to think in this differentiated and mature way.

And yes, I also see that many liberals fall into group (3). Actually there is a fourth group:
(4) those, who are concerned about warming - but consume only panic generating information.

Mental Stance I
I did not say anything about concrete climate contracts (Paris, Kyoto,…). I really do not know if global warming is human caused and - if it were human caused - which way to handle it would be the best. This is an issue in its own right.
What I am driving at is rather: How should we THINK about the issue itself. And which MENTAL STANCE we should take regarding global warming. I have my special fears regarding it from a very conservative perspective. These are for example:

  • Raising sea-levels could cause cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, to sink. Great and unique American architecture like the Empire State or the Fuller Building would be lost forever.
  • Drought could disturb food production in southern regions like Africa and therefore cause a flood a climate-refugees and mass immigration into western countries – inclusive an easy legitimization for left-liberals to approve mass immigration because blameworthiness of western counties.
  • Changes in ecosystems are unpredictable and could create more natural disasters and in the worst case disturbance in food production even within US/western countries.

As I said before, this is what worries me. I do not say that these things will happen with certainty. But currently I fear we cannot rule them out. I hope my fear is wrongful.

Mental stance II
Instead of claiming: FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!
Why couldn’t Trump (or other Republicans) just say: We do not know for sure what the reasons are and what the consequences would be. We decided not to spend billions, but at least we will keep a wary eye on it.
This would cost not a single Cent, but would make a big difference regarding the image of conservativism.

Mental stance III
As I remember, Trump once said something like: Climate Change is Fake News contrived by the Chinese.
I perceived this statement as really irresponsible. Younger generations could be more ecosensitive and therefore unwilling to identify with this kind of conservatives. I think statemants like this could cause massive damage to the image of conservatives and Republicans. “Climate Change is Fake News contrived by the Chinese” is the ideal statement to wreck the reputation of the Republican Party and to drive people into the arms of left-liberals. Such statements are the best way to support institutions like the Green Party or Democrats!
Do you know what I mean?


Again, NOBODY denies that the climate changes…at least nobody that I’ve ever heard of or read or spoken or listened to. There is almost PRECISELY the same amount of water on the planet that there was 200 million years ago. If all the water locked up as ice were to suddenly melt, yes, some coastal areas would be flooded…but that’s NOT GOING TO HAPPEN because the ONLY controlling factor in the issue is SOLAR RADIATION. CO2 comprises about 3% of all “greenhouse gasses” in our atmosphere. 95% is WATER VAPOR (the remaining 2% is methane, argon and other such gasses.) To raise the level of CO2 to 4%, you’d have to REDUCE the amount of water vapor or those other small contributors by a like amount. There’s NO WAY for humans to DO that. No matter WHAT we might do, water vapor will CONTINUE to be present in the atmosphere at that 95% rate because the Earth’s surface is 7/10ths WATER. Nobody has been able to explain why Ozone (O3) is mankind’s savior in the stratosphere but a deadly pollutant killing us off at the surface. Use your head for something besides a hat rack!