A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)


There are two topics about which opinions largely divide along party lines and about which the left loudly declares science is on their side. The very fact that a topic supposedly driven by science can divide along party lines immediately makes me wary.

In both cases, the left uses a slight of hand technique where they say ‘little A’ is true therefore ‘big A’ is true. (This technique is so common there must be a name for it. They probably teach it in law school.)

In one topic, climate change, they point out the facts that the globe is warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and man burns fossil fuels which produces CO2. All that is ‘little A’. They then draw the ‘big A’ conclusion–therefore man is causing global warming and that’s a problem.

On the topic of climate change, I haven’t wrestled with the science enough to know what’s really true, but the very fact that opinions of intelligent people divide along party lines helps shape my opinion. Also, the left says people who don’t believe man is the problem are stupid and anti-science. But I know that’s not true, so that’s another point against the left’s position.

I also draw on the other topic that’s in a similar situation, evolution from microbe to man. On this topic, I’ve investigated molecular biology enough to see that the claims are specious. (Fifty years ago, we didn’t have enough information to know. Now we do.) In that case, the ‘little A’ is that there are observable small changes due to mutations. True. The ‘big A’ is the conclusion that therefore evolution from microbe to man is true.

I feel that I have enough understanding on the second topic to draw an informed decision (evolution can’t explain our existence). And I see the same pattern in the first topic.

BTW, I’m totally in favor of renewable energy (though I’d prefer the government not subsidize anything). I believe the earth’s supply of fossil fuels is limited, so we should be using this time to find and perfect sources that aren’t limited. Also, even “clean coal” pollutes, so the gradual transition to plausible renewables is welcome.


Look, for what its worth I agree. I’m not advocating a policy response, I’m simply saying that it is happening. The position that most people should be taking, IMO, is to acknowledge the truth of what’s happening and begin to have the debate on what, if anything, can be done about it.

That question can only be answered once there is a reasonable consensus that there is, in fact, something changing and come to terms with why it’s changing.

It looks from where I sit, that certain people have decided to dig their heels in at a different point in the argument.

The “disbelievers” can argue with the “activists” about what to do about the scientific reality or the “disbelievers” can just take a polar opposite opinion and just deny it’s happening.

I think denial in the face of so much evidence hurts the reputation of the disbeliever, not just on this subjects, but other subjects as well.

The shaping of opinion along party lines is a reflection of who will be affected if the “activists” get their way. It’s no coincidence that “political deniers” (those that hold office) generally come from places where their constituents would suffer if coal, oil and gas were utilized less.

Again, I’ve always supported an approach that says, let’s not make the cure worse than the problem being treated for the people that would be affected by a change in policy.

If changing energy policy is about preventing human suffering, be honest about the suffering that will result from changing energy policy.

Mutation is just one way that these changes happen…But I don’t want to open that can of worms here…

All the government would have to do is remove current subsidies in coal, gas and oil to make renewables more competitive. Something I would think you’d be in favor of. However, as I said, this will result in changes in the lives of some people.


I think AS has shown you several times what the proof is…You know the old saying about leading horses.

As far as something being “wrong”… That all depends on how define the context. That is, what is it that is people wish to accomplish?

If the goal is to maintain jobs in the kinds of industries that create carbon based fuels, there is nothing wrong. If the goal is to prevent the change of climate due to increased warming, everything is wrong.

I don’t box myself into those sorts of contexts. I see this problem from the context of how it affects human beings. It’s undeniable that carbon based fuels have made a better life possible for billions of people and will continue to do so for at least the near future.

I’m also one that accepts that adapting to changes that seem inevitable, might cause less suffering than will trying to prevent the problem. Of course, since we don’t know the extent of the change or the consequences, that’s hard to say.

Now I don’t claim to know any of this, I do however support an intelligent approach to evaluating the issue.


Actually, burning fossil fuels produces CO–carbon monoxide–and VERY little CO2. It’s catalytic converters that changed automobile exhaust from CO to CO2, and it was one of the demands first made by the so-called “green movement.” Coal-burning furnaces or generators do not produce much CO2. MOST of their emissions are also CO and particulate matter rather than CO2. The same can be said of burning natural gas.


The REAL test of the theory is to reverse the premise. “What can man do to change the climate, make it warmer and increase available food?” The answer, of course, is that WE CAN’T. The climate is ENTIRELY the result of natural processes–solar radiation, cloud cover, ocean currents, etc.–which with current knowledge mankind CANNOT affect.


You are entitled to you opinions, but not your own facts…

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:
Coal (anthracite) - 228.6
Coal (bituminous) - 205.7
Coal (lignite) - 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) - 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil - 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol) - 157.2
Propane - 139.0
Natural gas - 117.0

There is only one of those fuels that automotive catalyst sits in front of.

As far as “very little” CO2…Relative to what?


BS. WHO compiled your supposed “data?” Wanna bet it wasn’t some Soros-sponsored, green-movement bunch?


Are you denying that these figures are accurate?


Tell you what, you provide a source that refutes those numbers and I’ll check it out?


I’m merely asking you WHO compiled this so-called “data.” Only by considering the source can you evaluate the accuracy or efficacy of the information. My guess is that someone changed “pounds of CARBON” to “pounds of CO2”. THEY AREN’T THE SAME THING.


I don’t know, Pappadave. I think I remember learning that CO is a result of incomplete combustion and that mostly CO2 (and H2O) is produced by burning any hydrocarbon.


Well that certainly plays a role. But think for a minute about President Trump. He’s firmly dead set against the belief that we need to reduce CO2 emissions to prevent global warming. And he has a lot to lose by rising oceans. Think about his property in New York City.

So why isn’t the president on the side of the greenies?

I think that’s only a small part of it. The left wants to use this as a wedge issue to take away freedom. Owning a car with the freedom to come and go as we please is a luxury that the most Americans have enjoyed for the better part of a century. I don’t know why the left opposes personal freedom, but they do. And this is a wedge issue that offers the hope of curtailing that freedom.


Trump will be dead and gone long before the effects of global warning threatens any of his property.

Having said that…As if Trump acting against his own best interest isn’t something he does on an almost daily basis.


I don’t buy ANY of it. Cat converters change engine exhaust from primarily CO to CO2, water vapor and a small amount of H2SO4 vapor. This was DEMANDED by the greenies because of the CO pollution in places like LA. NOW they bitch about the amount of CO2 being spewed by vehicles equipped with cat converters when it was their OWN insistence that they be installed on all cars–raising the price of cars, coincidentally by about $1,500 each since the guts of cat converters contain PLATINUM.


But the mutations accrue, and by the 10th order change, you have a dramatically different creature than what you started with.

This is the issue you don’t answer; nothing we know of blocks this from happening, and The Cambrian explosion seemingly verifies it happened.

Claiming “I’m not seeing a clear explanation of the mechanism” =/ “This doesn’t happen”. Plenty of things go on with quantum particles that we can’t explain, that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.


We feel the same way, seeing as how a bunch of that “evidence” has proven to be corrupt (cooked numbers).



I brought in that topic to illustrate the original topic, not to derail it. And you and I have already gone round and round a bit on this.

However, evolutionists (those who have faith in evolution) love to make general statements like that because it sounds very reasonable when you don’t look at specifics.

But consider for example the supposed evolution from externally fertilized eggs, as in amphibians, to internally fertilized eggs, as in reptiles. I wonder how that change would accrue gradually. Drastically different male and female reproductive organs were needed. A new egg shell was needed. A new amniotic membrane was needed. And behavioral changes were needed.

I can’t see how it would be possible for all that to happen gradually without a lot of non-functional organisms along the way. But only one generation of non-function is needed to kill off the change.

This seems to be an obvious challenge. And there are many more like it. It get’s even better at the molecular level. And the origin of proteins is the best argument of all.

The left seems to prefer, if not require, atheism. A lot of the US was built by people desiring the freedom to worship God as Christians. Freedom and Christianity go well together. But Communism, Socialism and modern Progressivism seem to go together better with atheism, which absolutely requires evolution to work and not be questioned.

And back to the original topic, Christians are all too likely to question global warming on the grounds that God gave us fossil fuels (a blessing wrapped in the curse of the flood) so would he have constructed the earth to be so easily damaged by their use, especially given his promise to never flood the earth again? That’s a very inconvenient question for the left to have to endure. So they push evolution to encourage atheism.


I have another question about global warming, based solely on science (this being the science forum after all).

We know that the oceans sequester (have dissolved within them) vast quantities of CO2. And we know that cooler water dissolves more gas than warmer water. And we know that the average temperature on earth has gone up and down over the eons.

As the average temperature rose across a number of years, the average ocean temperature would have also risen and the solubility of CO2 would fall, releasing huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Conversely, as the average temperature fell across a number of years, the average ocean temperature would have also fallen and the solubility of CO2 would rise, causing lots more CO2 to be absorbed and thus sequestered.

This is positive feedback, which is unstable. If CO2 is a major contributor to climate change, as we are told today, wouldn’t this feedback loop already have caused the earth to experience run-away global warming at some point? And as the temperature rose, the oceans would be boiled off, releasing even more CO2 and killing all life.


Your premise is wrong, Ken. It’s WARM sea water that allows the sequestration of more CO2 than does cold water. As sea water cools, it RELEASES more CO2, which allows more phytoplankton to grow, which, in turn, WARMS the sea water, allowing to to achieve “balance.”


I’m glad you challenged me, Dave, because when I went looking for a reference I found a fascinating article. First look at the graph. Cold water dissolves more CO2.

Graph of CO2 Soluability in Water

This 2013 article says it’s the sea surface temperature (SST) that drives CO2 concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere, not the other way around. That is, as sea temperature rises, it releases more CO2.

So the greenies have it backwards, whether on purpose or by accident I can’t say for sure.