When Climate Change Skeptics Take Action on Climate Change

Touching on the fracas over Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent climate change comments, James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute asks: will “the consensus GOP stance on climate change hurt its 2016 standard bearer? Maybe in that it reinforces the party’s unhelpful image as old-fashioned and out-of-touch, particularly among younger voters.”

“But as I’ve written before, there’s nothing ‘conservative’ about making an all-or-nothing bet that the vast majority of climate scientists have the story completely wrong.”

“Balancing risks and accounting for trade-offs also seem like a political and policy smart way to being thinking about climate change and what to do about it.”

” … a green light given for a robust public research agenda to make advanced nuclear power more cost competitive and carbon capture feasible … and a growing number of environmentalists seem to be embracing that technology … And don’t forget about geoengineering in case those worst-case scenarios begin to play out.”


  • DarkSecretPlace

    The climate is ALWAYS changing. The skepticism is about mankind’s responsibility for ALL of it. Why is receding ice revealing 11th century farmsteads in Greenland?

    • Unsphexish

      You asked that yesterday, and you were answered. Yet you keep trotting it out. Random Internet Skeptic, why should we listen to your sound-bite argument, rather than the 97% of scientists would have credible data, arguments and research to back up their claim? As John Oliver correctly pointed out the other day, just because you have equal ability to post your nonsensical diatribe on the Internet, doesn’t mean your “argument” has equal weight at all.

      Now go crawl back into your DarkSecretPlace and stay there. I hope it isn’t somewhere close to sea level in Miami.

    • moderatesunite

      Humanity getting blame is due to the fact we have increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 280 to 400 ppm in the atmosphere.

      Once again

      we’re already well above the warming of the so called “medieval warm period”


      by at least 0.5 degrees C and that rise has been quick and dramatic compared to the minor changes that appear to have occurred since the end of the last ice age.

    • Jesse4

      Human’s CO2 contribution is enough to account for all of the warming, and there’s nothing else being observed that can account for it.
      Why should anyone have any doubt that the obvious cause is the correct cause?

      • DarkSecretPlace

        Because it’s been WARMER in the PAST well before internal combustion.

        • moderatesunite

          on a global level it has not been warmer than it is now in at least 100,000 years (the last interglacial) a time when sea levels were 3-5 meters higher than they are today.

          If we cause even that modest amount of warming and sea level rise it will create substantial problems for human infrastructure, humans living along the coast, farmers dealing with shifting rainfall patterns and growing areas.

          If we keep on the present course without changing we’ll create even more dramatic problems for our grandchildren.

        • Jesse4

          That only means it was warmer in the past.
          It says nothing about the present.

  • moderatesunite

    I have nothing particularly against devoting research to Nuclear energy or CCS. If one of them turns out to be a viable part of the solution so be it.
    I don’t think they are the most economical, sustainable or necessary parts of the solution though.
    Nuclear has very expensive to start up, and until we have a viable solution to waste storage we should think twice about a significant US expansion.
    Carbon sequestration could be helpful in certain locations, but the risk of slow and fast leaks is great. A better solution would be to capture that carbon and use it to create something such as baking soda, which could either be sold, or buried and sequestered with a much lower risk of leaks.

    Of course the ultimate solution is to build as much truly renewable power as possible as quickly as we can

    • Suralin

      One factor that I think should see more use is “waste usage”. Nuclear reactor byproducts are, after all, still giving off heat and radiation; no point in wasting that IMO. The French, for instance, reprocess a lot of their waste to prevent it from going to… um… waste.

      • moderatesunite

        From what I understand (which isn’t that much when it comes to technical details of nuclear) most new nuclear plants reprocess their waste, which can reduce the volume by a large percentage(around 80-90%) but what is left is even more toxic and has a longer half-life.
        using the heat from decaying radioactive waste to keep producing power is not an idea I had heard before but if the heat is concentrated enough it could work. There may be a good reason why it isn’t done, but again not one that I’m aware of.