A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)

It's always mildly terrifying reading climate change related stories on Hacker News as all the hyper-logical libertarians do their best to portray accepted science as a global conspiracy of hippies and communists. If that kind of thing describes you, then I encourage you to check out this YouTube channel, which debunks all the nonsense with a focus on the kind of person who frequents Hacker News, i.e. likely nerdy and libertarian and more likely to be convinced by a link to a research paper or Margaret Thatcher's opinion than a picture of a cute animal in distress: A Conservative solution to climate change (part 1): [VIDEO] Are electric cars really green: [LINK] He hopefully talks your language and can open yours eyes to the sheer quantity of disingenuous BS that well paid lobbyists have been throwing around. He touches on some of the stuff mentioned in this article including Heartland.

This YouTube channel from a former oil and gas surveying geologist and technology columnist does a good job of conveying the science while taking care not to spook people who are on the right of the political spectrum (like he is) and have absorbed too much misinformation: [VIDEO]

By the way, Bjørn Lomborg is an unreliable and often misleading source. Why? See for yourself multiple examples of quality analysis with actual scientific sources. Highly recommended: [1] [LINK] [2] [LINK] And that's analysis of Bjørn Lomborg's work by those who actively support pragmatic, cost-effective, and often 'conservative' solutions to environmental problems and climate change. Examples: [3] [VIDEO] [4] [LINK]

If you're genuinely interested in escaping your info bubble then I've been recommending this video as a quick intro for people who don't feel at home with left wing solutions to climate change. Part of its about climate change denial, but it covers the attacks made (often by the same people) on the viability of renewables too and your pont about the solution not existing yet: [VIDEO] And yes, climate change deniers are the real problem, not people who are irrationally scared of nuclear. Nuclear is just one solution, and as of today it's not a cost effective one. We could have been building nukes for a while but what was the point in investing so much money in what was just a big hoax anyway? We could have had a carbon tax that made Nuclear competitive but again, what's the point when it's just a hoax?

At this point the greatest hurdle to action on climate change is Republican obstruction backed by the apathy of the conservative base. I regularly see conservatives on /r/conservative use the lack of burn control and a rise in arson cases as talking points to dismiss these wildfires entirely. If an article like this is going to present a strong argument for climate action that can win over conservatives it will need to be scientifically precise and grapple specifically with conservative talking points. This NYT article did not even come close to meeting that bar, it confidently attributed complex multi factor phenomenon entirely to climate change without creating the groundwork of data & evidence needed to authoritatively establish those claims. When actors, politicians, and NYT journalists make dramatic claims and fail to meet that bar, then the intent backfires and only serves to entrench the common conservative belief that climate change is a product of liberal fear mongering. For an absolute masterclass on how to properly communicate about the science of climate change, and how to slowly win over moderate conservatives, I know of no better source than Potholer54. We can only hope that one day New York Times journalists will regularly exercise the scientific and journalistic diligence of this retired youtuber. [LINK] - The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the science says [VIDEO] - A conservative solution to global warming (Part 1)

At this point the greatest hurdle to action on climate change is Republican obstruction backed by the apathy of the conservative base. I regularly see conservatives on /r/conservative use the lack of burn control and a rise in arson cases as talking points to dismiss these wildfires entirely. If an article like this is going to present a strong argument for climate action that can win over conservatives it will need to be scientifically precise and grapple specifically with conservative talking points. This NYT article did not even come close to meeting that bar, it confidently attributed complex multi factor phenomenon entirely to climate change without creating the groundwork of data & evidence needed to authoritatively establish those claims. When actors, politicians, and NYT journalists make dramatic claims and fail to meet that bar, then the intent backfires and only serves to entrench the common conservative belief that climate change is a product of liberal fear mongering. For an absolute masterclass on how to properly communicate about the science of climate change, and how to slowly win over moderate conservatives, I know of no better source than Potholer54. We can only hope that one day New York Times journalists will regularly exercise the scientific and journalistic diligence of this retired youtuber. [LINK] - The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the science says [VIDEO] - A conservative solution to global warming (Part 1)

Have you considered the flipside, which has much more evidence for it, that denialism is being promoted by institutions and speakers who are by proxy funded by the fossil fuel industry, which is one of the largest industries on earth? I really reccomend, if you want a level headed, conservative, independent look at the issue that you check out some of these videos by Potholer54, a retired geologist and science reporter. [LINK] [LINK] [VIDEO]

Maybe the Conservatives shouldn't have fought against wind power and decent house insulation for so long and we'd already have enough cheap power to do the job without China or France having to hold the UK's hand to do so. Imagine how much further along we'd be if we listened to Margaret Thatcher and actually planned a conservative, business and market-oriented approach to climate change rather than just tried to make our friends rich and be willing to blatantly deny reality to do so "A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)" [VIDEO] (And of course Brexit, means we need to bid market rates for electricity that we previously got assigned as part of the EU market, which is awkward when you're in a price crunch).

In particular the two part video here is good as a summary: A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1) [VIDEO] Many of the other older ones are referring to old controversies, though I see the 14 year old one still has new comments from this year claiming it's all lies.