I am Bob Inglis, former South Carolina Congressman and founder of republicEn.org. I'm a conservative for action on climate change. Ask me anything!

Bob,

Will you accept my apology?

I lived in your district for a long time in your first time in Congress...moved to Anderson Co in 2004.

I got caught up in the fervor of the Tea Party madness of 09-10. Said a lot of things I wish I could take back, and actively worked to un-seat as many "RINOs" as I could.

Now I look back and I am bitterly embarrassed for how I acted, and deeply regret the type of people I helped to elect.

You told people to turn off Fox News. Turn off Glenn Beck. You were right. I was wrong.

I am sorry that happened to you. You are a good man and a good congressman. Thank you for your service to my district and my state.

Your words here mean a great deal to me as do these: yes, I forgive you. I'd love to talk with you about where we can go from here; how our country can heal, how we can bring folks together to solve really big challenges. Will you send me an email via the "Contact Us" tab on the republicEn.org website? It would be awesome if this Reddit AMA could lead to something as powerful as two people being reconciled, peace being restored and way forward being found that could bring others along. Many, many thanks, Bob

Hi Bob, I'm a volunteer for the Citizens' Climate Lobby in Boise, Idaho, where we have some very conservative members of Congress. No matter how many times we reference George Shultz or how revenue-neutral carbon pricing is a small government alternative to "regulatory overreach," it seems that our meetings inevitably end with hearing "well, sounds nice but we will never do anything to raise taxes." Any ideas for how to better convey to conservatives that this fits well with their core values despite being a "tax" on carbon?

Great response below from oh_synap. I'd add this: at republicEn.org we're not for raising taxes either. We're for changing what we tax. Reduce taxes on income (something we want more of) and put a tax on emissions (something we want less of). Check out what Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan's economics advisor, says here: https://vimeo.com/44472885

Do you ever just want to walk out of the office and go home and play with Lego?

I'm kinda in that place right now.

Sometimes clouds overshadow. But I try to remember that climate change can be solved and that Americans (and especially conservative Americans) are indispensable.

What makes conservative Americans especially indispensable over those of us who are critical of capitalism as a whole?

Great question. To quote a line from the musical Oklahoma, "They've gone about as 'fer as they can go". . . the Left that is. If we're going to get action, we need conservatives to engage. And the good news is that conservatives have the answer: fix the economics; make people accountable; good things come from accountability. Cone of silence now descends and I'm speaking only to you WilhelminaSugarmaple, many progressives would agree that this internalization of negative externalities is the key to fixing the problem. We can bring America together!

• Climate change is noticeably missing from the official GOP platform. Can you talk about a time you were able to move someone in the GOP establishment towards acknowledging the science?
• What's your very best life advice?

Life advice: Be about something that's big enough to be about.

so, you haven't been able to move anyone towards acknowledging the science?

Oh, no, we've had many moving toward acceptance. I just don't want to out anyone before they're ready to out themselves. They're out there. They're trying to figure a way forward. We need to show them support so that they can feel comfortable leading.

Why do so many Republicans like to deny science?

How are you treated for accepting it?

Mostly the denial is because the assumed solution is anathema. We need to show a solution that fits with what conservatives believe.

Acceptance is getting better and better. More and more conservatives are realizing that climate change is a problem and that we need a solution that actually works.

"We need to show a solution that fits with what conservatives believe." That line just strikes me as "wow". I mean, if I don't like the solutions, then I get to deny the problem? That is insane logic. "I don't want to quit drinking Soda, therefor I am not overweight?"

For better or worse, there's a lot of evidence in modern psychology that this is exactly how humans think. The economic idea of a "rational actor" is a myth in the real world. So maybe consider it a form of shared insanity?

Yes, it's how we think. Here's an example. "Arentak, here's the plan of surgery for that back problem you're having. First we remove your head, after we've got your head off, we work on your spine. Then we put your head back on." "Thanks, Doc, I'm feeling a lot better. I don't really have a back problem," Arentak would be heard to say. On climate change the conversation started with the UN. Bad place to start for us conservatives. We're not big blue helmet fans. Then you tell us about an enormously complicated, massive tax increase called cap-and-trade. Anathema! No wonder we doubt the existence of the problem. Show us a reasonable plan of surgery, and we'll be heard to say, "Thanks, Doc, I want to get this fixed."

Hey Bob, thanks for doing this and the great work at republicEn. Do you see a path to getting free enterprise-based climate legislation back on the national table in the next couple of years? As a proponent for a national carbon tax akin to I-732 being discussed in WA, what do you see as the best opportunity to focus time/energy to increase the likelihood of this getting onto the table? Thanks! -Josh from the Pricing Carbon Initiative

Yes, I see a path in a tax reform package.

You say that there is a misconception that conservatives don't care about the environment, yet you yourself took 6 years after "An Inconvenient Truth" before you started caring. Based on this, how much of this misconception is reality? And why is it that so many conservatives are climate science deniers?

To all the conservatives you recruit: "Welcome to the green side. We've been waiting for you."

Please try to welcome conservatives warmly. We have no time for gloating. Let's get right on to solutions.

Both you and Sen. Lindsey Graham accept modern climate science. What do you see as South Carolina's role in the southeast regarding policies that address local climate mitigation and adaptation?

We're going to need to do some adaptation at the SC coast where I grew up, that's for sure. Charleston is having trouble at high tide.

At republicEn.org we're working more on heading it off--the mitigation end. With folks like Lindsey Graham working to find free enterprise solutions, I think we can pull it off. Consider the pace of technological innovation when there's a proper profit motive. When I first ran for Congress in 1992 there was no Reddit. There was no public Internet. There were cell phones but they cost $1 per minute to use them. Wow, exciting things happen when free enterprise gets the proper incentives.

Hi Bob! Thanks for doing this and for working so closely with us at Citizens' Climate Lobby! Given the very divisive and polarizing tone of the 2016 election, do you think it's possible to work towards a bipartisan solution this year? What path would you recommend taking? CCL loves you!

And I love CCL! What wonderful folks! I'm very glad to be on the CCL Advisory Board. Action is more likely a few years away, but I love your impatience! I'm impatient too! What an incredible opportunity we have to show how free enterprise can light up the world with more energy, more mobility, more freedom. What an incredible opportunity to be for something that will become obvious while it's still appearing as novel!

Climate hoaxers have manufactured a misconception that conservatives don't care about climate.

If you agree that humans are causing climate change, who or what are you describing as a "climate hoaxer"?

I don't think I have to tell you which party is full of climate deniers. No one has manufactured any belief that conservatives don't acknowledge climate change (or other science for that matter) except conservatives themselves.

As to who's in the business of manufacturing doubt, let me suggest the film Merchants of Doubt. It's available on-demand.

Hey Bob! Long time listener, first time caller. You've said your son was a big reason you changed your mind about climate change. What did he say to you to make you change your mind? And do you think that could work on other Republicans?

As you'll hear in this TedX Jacksonville talk ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUmcnxIQU24 ) my son said to me in 2004, "Dad, I'll vote for you but you're going to clean up your act on the environment." Some people have taken that as a threat. But it wasn't a threat. (It wouldn't have been in my son's economic interest to vote against me!) Rather, my son was saying, "Dad, I love you. You can be better than this. Come on, you can do it. Be who you can be." So it was love that changed me in that first step and in the other steps you'll hear about in the TedX Jacksonville talk. It's also true that I'm trying to grow up to be like my son. He's good looking, smart, fun and funny--all the things that I'd like to be!

Hi Bob, thanks for taking the time to do this! I follow you on facebook and it's really good to see a conservative who takes such a proactive stance on climate change.

How do you engage with individuals who deny climate change? I find it very frustrating to talk to these individuals as they seem to ignore all science.

Help them to see that there's a solution that fits with their values. Conservatives want a solution that doesn't grow the government. We think we've got that solution in a revenue-neutral (cut taxes somewhere else dollar-for-dollar), border-adjustable (apply it to imports) carbon tax.

Hi Thanks for creating RebuclicEn. I was begining to think I was alone in my views and have been so frustrated that Republicans don't seem to care about the environment. I am still registered (just voted early in NC) but have been close to going unaffiliated. What is the key to getting Republicans to start talking about the environment?

You are most assuredly not alone! Yes, many were cowed into silence during the Great Recession when the loud merchants of doubt told us the problem wasn't real. But those paid prophets are being found out. BTW, you might want to check out the film Merchants of Doubt. It's available on-demand. Key to getting conservatives involved: show them a solution that fits with their values.

Based on your discussions with conservatives, what do you see as the most appealing approach for the funds from pricing carbon emissions? Tax swap for income and/or business, dividend return, some combinations or something else?

Tax swap.

Do you see a mixture of a reduction of personal and business taxes like British Columbia's the best route vs. only personal taxes? Tim from CCL in CA. Thanks for your work on this!

I'd be open to any of these.

What made you change your mind about climate change?

Love. My son. His four sisters. His mother. A trip with the Science Committee to Antarctica to see the science there. Inspiration from an Christian Aussie climate scientist on another Science Committee trip.

You can hear the whole story here at TedX Jacksonville: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUmcnxIQU24

So... not virtually the entire scientific community? Not the mountains of data, charts and graphs? Not the public outcry? Not the melting ice sheets? Not the insane weather?

While I'm glad you changed your mind, the facts should have told you a while ago.

While I'm glad you changed your mind, the facts should have told you a while ago.

Though you're right, sometimes people need a personal experience to give up a stubborn opinion.

Yes, we need to hear from people who care about an issue and care about us. We're humans, not computers. Isn't that great!

Bob, what would it take to get Congress to work together again across the long term?

I could joke and say, "A miracle," but it's really not so miraculous. What we need is for citizens to rise to full citizenship. We need to say that we are ready to hear the straight-out facts. Members of Congress listen very carefully to us. So far they've heard us saying things like, "Go up there and balance the budget. . . but don't you dare touch Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or defense." "Right," they say back to us. "You want us to go up there and talk and do nothing. Yes! We can do that!" We must give our leaders permission to treat us as adults, permission to give us the facts, and permission to find solutions. If we do that, they will stop feeding our fears and start leading to solutions--on the budget and climate change and a host of other issues.

This...makes little sense. You're saying WE, the citizens, need to be ready and willing to hear the hard truth from POLITICIANS? You really are recovering, because that is absurd. Congress is and has a complete joke for...well a really long time. Get the hell out of here with that crap.

He is right, coming from someone who works currently where he used to work.

If you want to get reelected, you need to balance a lot of hard choices. One major problem with this is you have the American populace in most districts incredibly polarized. In D districts if you touch entitlements you get crucified. In R districts, if you raise taxes or touch defense spending, you get crucified.

The American people need to learn that they can't get what they want 100% of the time. If you're a democrat, well it's time to learn that roughly half the country disagrees with you. If you're a republican, well then half the country disagrees with you too. You can't have what you want 100% of the time. There is going to be at least some form of compromise in a functioning government. Unfortunately, between big money in politics (the ability for big money to come in and spend heavily from outside the district on your race and tilt the results against you), gerrymandering (creating overly conservative or overly progressive districts where votes against the party will automatically get you primaried), etc., compromise is a lost art.

Tell 'em, prdors! You are so right! And thank you for coming to my defense. NenoRevada was ready to throw me outta here. But I've already been thrown out!

American voters have consistently signalled that they want lower taxes, and more government services, and a balanced budget. Those three things are anathema to one another, and force Congress into the retard dance that it has spent the last 40 years doing. That is not the fault of political representatives -- it's the fault of voters.

Bullshit.

Perhaps you'd care to sift through some data and analysis?

Edit: Oh, and if you want a less dense breakdown of more parts of the survey, here's an article (Breitbart, but the data backs up everything written in the article)

The American people aren't idiots. They're busy. And they've been beaten down by fear mongering media and politicians. We need to take stock of how blessed we are and rise up to higher things. We can be full citizens. If you want some inspiration, watch JFK's speech at Rice University September 1962: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/MkATdOcdU06X5uNHbmqm1Q.aspx

Pure inspiration from a man who was under great pressure: the Soviets were ahead in the space race, communism threatened freedom, governors were poised to refuse orders to desegregate. In the midst of that, he inspired us. Think of it: "Let's to to the moon before the decade is out. Oh, but some of the materials needed for the spacecraft haven't been invented yet. No matter. We're going." He lead; the American people gave him support; we did it! Now, let's do the same on climate change.

We must give our leaders permission to treat us as adults, permission to give us the facts, and permission to find solutions. If we do that, they will stop feeding our fears and start leading to solutions--on the budget and climate change and a host of other issues.

This is where I have a problem. We do not need Congress to give us the facts or treat us like adults. The voting population are adults and they are throwing facts out of the window for the sake of themselves. 97% of those who study climate change say it's real and humans are speeding it up. Those are facts. No matter how many scientists, experts, graphs, charts or data is thrown at the GOP, they deny its reality. We do not need permission from Congress to treat us like adults. We elected them. They have that job because the majority of people said so. We gave Congress permission to speak and make laws on our behalf, and it seems Congress has sincerely forgotten those facts. You see the Democratic party splitting. You see the GOP splitting. All because there is a huge disconnect between reality and Congress.

You say that our representatives listen to us. A Princeton study that looked over 20 years of public policy and public opinion says that less than 10% of laws passed are in align with public opinion. Congress does not listen, and to say so is just sweeping the fire under the rug and peddling to what people want to hear. It's a lie to say that, and a dangerous lie at that.

Our leaders need to start thinking with the votes that got them elected, not with their pocket books and vaulted ceilings.

Ah, but your and my challenge is this: climate change is near the bottom of most Americans' list of priorities. I think it's down there because it seems insolvable. But it's not! It's quite solvable. If we can approach it with enthusiasm more than alarm, people will be able to process the information that's available to them. And, yes, you're right: there's plenty of information available.

Hi Bob! Fellow South Carolinian here. Thanks for attacking a problem like this with logic and rational thought, as opposed to trying to sweep it under the rug until it's my generation's turn to clean up the mess.

What're you guys doing to try to get younger people involved in the political process, or at the very least, interested in the climate change issue? It doesn't seem like very many people in the younger 'bracket', so to speak, are interested in anything related to politics when it's not a hot-button topic, an election year, or something that immediately affects them. I have a hard time finding people in my peer group that I can have a decent conversation with regarding these topics.

We're finding young conservatives at places like CPAC. Wow, did we have a great weekend of sign ups at CPAC this past weekend.

You can stand with us here: http://republicen.org/join_en

What were the biggest obstacles to overcome in getting republicen.org off the ground?

The storm clouds of the Great Recession were the biggest obstacles! We're gaining some clarity now as the evidence of climate disruption mounts up. More importantly, we're getting on toward critical mass as conservatives are discovering that there are solutions that don't grow the government. Evidence of that critical mass came this weekend as we got over 150 sign-ups at CPAC! Very exciting grow for us!

We're gaining some clarity now as the evidence of climate disruption mounts up.

That evidence has been clarified for years.

Yes, but experience of often the most effective teacher. Sometimes a very harsh teacher.

How many grassroots members does RepublicEn currently have? revenue neutral carbon taxes arent very sexy.

I just checked our website for the answer: we've got 586 republicEns standing with us, and growing by the day (especially when the days are the CPAC weekend as you will see in my previous answer). More CPACs, more Reddit AMAs, more dysfunction and disbelief over the state of the presidential race, more jettisoning of the climate atheism of the Great Recession, more of a search for solutions that will actually work, and we're going to be growing, big time. Stand with us today at republicEn.org. It only takes a minute or two. We need you. A challenge to Reddit participants: CPAC gave us over 150 this weekend. Could this AMA chat match that? Join right now and put CPAC to shame!

What motivated you to become a politician?

My mother used to say to me, "Bob, we don't need to try to change everything in the world today, do we?" My response: "Why not, Mom?!"

So, I entered politics to be a change agent. Some say that doesn't sound conservative--to change things. But I say changing things to the better definitely fits with conservatism. See one of my heroes Jack Kemp.

Congressman Inglis, thanks for hosting this AMA. What are some bipartisan actions that you think Members of Congress can take right now to reduce carbon pollution and encourage economic growth?

Our organization is a 501(c)(3) educational effort, so we don't engage in political campaigns, and we don't lobby. So, if I may, I will answer more generally: take steps toward eliminating all subsidies for all fuels and attaching all costs to all fuels. If we had a level playing field where all costs are in on all the fuels and all subsidies removed, we'd see the free enterprise system delivering innovation--faster than government mandates or fickle tax incentives could ever imagine.

Who is the best Republican presidential nominee choice for the environment?

Ah, I want to answer that question because there is a very clear answer. But every time I start to type his name, our lawyer hits my hand with a ruler, saying, "You can't do politics on this reddit AMA organized by a tax-exempt entity." Ugh.

Thank you anyway. I'm watching your Tedtalk now. I'm from Greenville! Wasn't there when this was going on (lived out west and in Europe and now settled in NC) but I visit my parents there often. Keep up the good work! I am excited and inspired!

Thanks so much being for watching my TedX Jacksonville talk! If others want to see it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUmcnxIQU24

Most of all, thank you for being inspired. We can bring America together, and we can get this done!

Hi Bob, thanks for doing this. Two quick questions: How viable do you think solar is as a domestic energy solution, especially with the new battery technology being developed now by companies such as Tesla? And: I was at a British Chamber of Commerce day recently and many of the presenters were saying there is a growing buzz in the business community for investing in green energy solutions. What's your feeling on this?

Solar is fabulous. What a gift of God! Pray the better battery comes to be. If it does, we'll be powering our lives by fuels like solar and wind that have no input costs, just set up costs. In the meantime, natural gas is a good bridge fuel. (It sorta acts as a battery for backup to intermittent fuels.) Nuclear is great and clean (and expensive!).

And, yes, there is a buzz in the business community about future fuels. That buzz would become the sound of rushing herd if we fixed the economics by putting all costs in on all the fuels, even while eliminating all subsidies. An honest, level-playing field comparison that isn't dependent on any legislative renewals would give the predictability that business craves. Then we'd be off to the races and we'd be lighting up the world with more energy--cleaner, better, cheaper.

Hey Bob, thank you for doing this. If the new President could pass just one new climate-focused law in the next term and you could write it, what would its key aspect be?

A revenue-neutral price on carbon dioxide that's border adjustable, thereby making it worldwide.

What do you make of Jay Faison's push to recruit federal GOP lawmakers willing to back market-based, clean energy solutions?

Very, very glad for what Jay Faison is doing at ClearPath. He's the cavalry coming over the hill!

What is your opinion on renewable energy?

I'm excited about renewables, and I believe that accountable free enterprise can deliver those fuels of the future faster than government mandates or regulations or fickle tax incentives.

So the subsidies given to solar at the federal, state, and local levels have nothing to do with its increasingly rapid adoption almost everywhere in most parts of the country?

Absolutely those subsidies have driven things along. But how much faster new technologies would be driven by honest consumer demand driven by honest accounting of all costs. When all costs are in and all subsidies are removed, hundreds of millions of Americans and billions around the world will be seeking innovation in the liberty of enlightened self-interest. No government regulation telling them what to do. No fickle tax incentive leading them around by the nose. Just solid, accountable economics.

Did or did you not fight for the stars and bars on our capitol?

From my first days in public life I sought to have the confederate flag removed from statehouse grounds.

What do you plan to do about the trillions of cubic meters of pollution put out by Russia, China and India every year?

Answer: make it in their interest to put all the costs "in" on all their fuels just like we're doing. Or, to use economist-speak (I'm not one; I just read their work!): get them to "internalize the negative externalities."

Here's the problem. If I'm Inglis Industries and I'm making coal-fired electricity, I'm getting away with socializing my soot. I just pump my ash up into the sky, and it falls where it may. Those emissions are also causing climate disruption. I'm accountable for neither. The soot stinks for my neighbors who have lung problems. But it stinks for the rest of us, too. When those neighbors go to the hospital to get treated for those lung problems, we end up paying through Medicare, Medicaid or through premium increases if our insurance company covers some of those people. And we will all pay for the climate disruption that Inglis Industries is causing.

Those costs (negative externalities) are not factored into the price my customers are paying for electricity. If they were, my customers would be seeking other power sources. My customers would be innovating--not because the government told them to do so, but because it would be in their interest to do so.

Similarly, we've got to make it in our trading partners' interest to put all the costs in on all the fuels. We can do this by collecting a carbon tax on imports that equals our own carbon tax. If it's upheld by the WTO (it would likely be challenged), other counties would follow our lead. If they didn't, we'd be pricing in those negative externalities for them and our government would be getting the tax revenue that they could have collected for themselves in their own countries!

Bob, I'm a member of CCL's Conservative Caucus in Oregon. Please know that the work you are doing is crucial to us all -- we could not appreciate it more. One quick question for you -- could you elaborate on a prior comment you made about Conservative solutions to Climate Change? You made reference to "making people accountable" -- exactly what did you mean by that? And, thanks again for your work.

Making people accountable means putting all costs in on all the fuels and eliminating all subsidies. Then we'd have a well-functioning market that would deliver innovation.

Mr. Inglis, You don't know me and I don't know you other than what I've read in this post, but thank you. The world needs more people willing to think for themselves rather than toe the party line. My father (who recently passed, no further comment needed on that) always told me, "think for yourself". And I asked, "What if an adult tells me to do something I don't think is right?" My gentle, pacifist father said,"You send them to me. I'm your backup." He trusted me as we should be able to trust our representatives and senators and President. Where did we stray from this simple ideal?

I honestly don't expect an answer this far into an AMA, but I would appreciate it if you thought on this. Peace be upon you.

Your father had good advice and his love for you for all those years is evident in the way you speak of him now.

Why does no one talk about how the cap and trade system for things like sulfur created under the first president bush was one of the most successful environmental programs ever from both a cost and results perspective? When is the last time you even heard the phrase "acid rain"?

Yes, that worked, well, didn't it? Of course, there were very few producers of the products that were causing the problem so a cap and trade system worked well. CO2 is different. There are literally billions of point sources of greenhouse gases. Better to go with a Milton Friedman price signal for those.

Do you think obama will get another scotus appointment through the senate?

if the senate blocks the appointment -- how do you think it will factor into the national election?

Dunno. Don't have any special insights there.

What area of the country have you seen the most progress when it comes to republicEn's message resonating and growing?

Florida. It's sinking. People are very concerned, especially in Miami.

Greetings, Mr. Inglis, from a fellow sandlapper. Thank you for your service to the Palmetto State and what you are doing now. How is your relationship with Trey Gowdy these days, and what do you think of Gowdy's questioning of Hillary Clinton during the e-mail testimony?

Sadly, no relationship there. I've reached repeatedly and hope that the future holds reconciliation.

Hi Bob,

Since you are pushing for political action on climate change, you must think the science is mature and developed to the point its predictions are reliable. Since all of the theories overpredicted warming as measured by satellite data by quite a bit, why do you place value in their predictions? My understanding is that the basic doubling of CO2 and warming effect is insufficient to explain the warming attributed by man by warmists in the 1990s, and would in and of itself be insufficient to cause any real alarm.

What warmists did was predict a thermal runaway effect, where increasing CO2 concentration would increase water vapor uptake, and they used a factor of 3 for amplification. Models which assume that CO2 concentration acts to dampen water vapor uptake (factor 0.5) much more closely model the data from the last 15yrs, which tells us that our robust climate system has built in factors to prevent runaway.

Since you are so convinced we need political action here, you must have a very good explanation as to why we see dampening, and our temperatures did not rise as expected. Some 1/3rd of all man made CO2 went into the atmosphere in the last 20yrs, and temperature did not rise in that period. Why is that?

You see I had a physics professor once teaching us Keplerian motion, where Kepler after years of study had come up with an equal areas, equal time method of predicting orbits (which ultimately tracks to conservation of angular momentum). While we were on this subject, my professor asked us why Kepler's theory was better than, say, a theory where angels pushed planets around the sun. A brave but unfortunate student replied to the effect that Kepler's theory explained the past. My professor pointed out that angels pushing planets also explains the past. He then told us the answer: because science predicts the future, and this predictive value is its primary utility. So when I think back to that very old lesson, in the absence of predictive utility, I seriously question the scientific value of AGW theory as it presently stands.

Furthermore from what I can tell this warming effect is way down in the chain. You have solar flux(which varies, and some say explains most of our temperature) reaching the surface (through clouds and other things), some of which is absorbed and goes into heat in the form of black body radiation which red shifts to the IR and gets absorbed as it goes back towards space by the trace gas CO2, and then by this mysterious forcing factor, increases water vapor uptake. Clearly you know that each and every upstream term in this process has much more impact than the downstream ones, yet we ignore basics like the links between cloud cover and cosmic rays in the model. If you try to measure the net radiative loss of incoming energy flux v. outgoing energy flux in space, the differences are so small as to be down in the noise of measurement, and we can only estimate these by these highly complex computer models of multiple coupled nonlinear processes, all of which are extremely sensitive to initial conditions.

So given that this is a very high order process involving coupled nonlinear processes, and if the initial conditions are not know precisely, the models turn out crap, what gives you confidence in these models and this basic approach to understanding?

Now I do not question your faith in anthropological global warming, but do you not think you must go beyond faith and defamation of skeptics to answer these basic scientific objections to the theory?

So glad to use this question to answer several others about the science.

Lepew1, rejection of the science isn't what's motivating you, is it? It's rejection of the philosophy that you think is behind the effort to address climate change. But check us out, you'll find that we're really quite conservative at republicEn.org. We're most certainly not watermelons--green on the outside, communist red on the inside! We are red on the inside, but it's passion for accountability and markets and limited government and prudence.