A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)



Horse hockey! Just more, warmed-over, BS. When the greenies saw that their “Global Warming” meme wash’t being adopted, they changed the meme to “Climate Change”…as if the climate wasn’t ALWAYS in the process of changing. Now we’re learning that CO2 has little or NOTHING to do with global temperatures, which are entirely a function of solar radiation and its cyclical fluctuations. The entire PURPOSE of the meme is to FORCE us to do away with the internal combustion engine and stop using fossil fuels–by FAR the most abundant energy source other than the sun in our system. CO2 is ESSENTIAL to life on this planet. It’s NOT nor NEVER has been a “scourge” as the greenies claim.


So many fallicies in one response. It’s really hard to pick what to reply to.

BTW, did you even watch the video?


Global warming is anything but settled science.


I know you didn’t watch the vid because you’ve said in the past you don’t have a good connection. That’s not really the thrust of the video…


I watched that idiotic “video” to its bitter end. It’s as I said, merely warmed-over Gore BS, artfully edited to make it SEEM like Maggie Thatcher, for example, was a “kindred soul” in the issue of AGW. She wasn’t.


I wonder why she said that?


It was the politic thing to do in the '80’s as the AGW campaign was getting into full swing. As she learned more, she abandoned those opinions, particularly after she learned of the East Anglia data manipulations.


That Global warming is happening is settled, you can see that around Alaska with the Northwest passage opening up, and container ships sailing through it without an escort. We looked for this route for over 300 years, and only now does it present itself.

What’s unsettled is if this warming is, on balance, a bad thing, and how much of it is anthropogenic.

And equally, what we should do about it, if anything.


No one that I know of denies that we are seeing a very small amount of “global warming.” About 1.8 degrees centigrade over the last 100+ years or so. No one has been able to show that it has the LEAST thing to do with human activity…certainly not to an equally-small increase in CO2 levels, which can be explained by the more than doubling of humans–and their food animals–compared to the turn of the 20th Century as much as by burning fossil fuels. Remember that ALL mammals–humans included-- and even insects exhale MASSIVE amounts of CO2 just by breathing.


No one has forgotten that. When we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. In other words there is a balance between plants and humans/ animals/ insects.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon sequestered millions of years ago, thus a large net gain in CO2.


Nonsense. You don’t breath IN anything like the amount of CO2 that you exhale OUT. Then where does it come from? Do you even know WHAT CO2 IS??? It’s a carbon atom bound to two oxygen atoms. How do you think those two GET bound in human, animal or insect respiratory organs and where does that carbon atom even COME from? It was “sequestered”, as you put it, in our BODIES and it mostly REMAINS there–even after we’re dead, except for that which we BREATH OUT while we’re alive. ALL life on the planet exists BECAUSE there’s free CO2 in the atmosphere, in our bodies, in all plants and in the Earth itself. This moronic effort to rid the atmosphere of CO2 is as stupid as it is impossible. We know from glacial air bubbles that we’ve experienced considerably more atmospheric CO2 than exists ANYWHERE on the planet today…including in the most polluted cities, and SOME of that during eras of high glaciation, indicating that high CO2 has virtually NOTHING to do with rising atmospheric temperatures.


Yes we can – the Isotopes of Carbon.

There’s a particular Carbon Isotope (14) that’s found naturally in the atmosphere, and there’s other isotopes (12/13) that’s found at a higher % in the ground. The ratio in the atmosphere of Carbon 14 to the other two has decreased, because we’re burning those other isotopes.

Fossil fuels don’t have 14, because they’re millions of years old, and 14 has a half life of only 50,000 years.


BS. More of Gore’s warmed-over nonsense.


There are isotopes of carbon:

You can detect the ratio of isotopes of Carbon overtime in the atmosphere.

This is all factual. Sorry Dave; just go read Bjørn Lomborg if you’re feeling conflicted about it.

He knows this just as well, it doesn’t change his priorities, and I’m not asking you to change yours.


I went on the basis of the thread title. You can’t have a solution to something that isn’t proven to be a problem.


Dave, this is basic science.

I didn’t say you breathe it in-and-out equal amounts out, though I admit I could have been clearer, I didn’t realize that the following wasn’t obvious.

Plants take in CO2 sequestering it (at least temporarily). You and I and the animals and insects eat the plants and release the CO2 via certain bodily functions of which breathing is just one.

The amount of CO2 we release is about equal to the CO2 the plants you ate sequestered. In other words, plants “eat” CO2, you eat plants and the CO2 you exhale comes from the plant’s you’ve eaten in about equal amounts. Thus, everything else being equal, there is no net CO2 created by living organisms.

When we burn anything with sequestered CO2 we are releasing CO2 that otherwise would have remained bound for the foreseeable future.


This is probably the single most overlooked statement in the entire debate. The atmosphere is changing because we’ve released massive amounts of carbon. But few people have stopped and looked around to measure the risk vs the benefits. Alex Epstein is one, and while I agree with him on some accounts, I take issue with some of his statements, but he is right about some things…

I don’t know about you, but I think eliminating what we can, the “low hanging fruit” is probably a good idea, but I think we should also measure any change vs the impact on people that the hardships that making changes can have.

It’s the extremes that run to the ends that are, IMO the problem. One side wants to pretend that nothing is wrong and the other side wants to use the issue as proof of the failure of capitalism. Both positions are reckless if you ask me…




When you can show me what IS “wrong”, I’ll listen. Until then, I just wish all of you “green warriors” would just do your research and shut the hell up until you can PROVE what you claim.