On one hand we have the claims from the left, who I KNOW to be unreliable sources of info, and who definitely have their underlying motives that could be driving their arguments --- No progress, business is bad, protect every single inconsequential species etc.
But on the other hand, there seems to be a growing list of evidence. It does not seem to be conclusive, at least not yet. But Average temps are rising, winters are warmer, and so are summers, glaciers are retreating, and warm-weather plants are showing up in cold weather places like the Boundary Waters of Minnesota.
There are two reasons for conservatives not to get ahead of either argument here:
[1] Being proved wrong, would destroy credibiblity,just as being proved wrong destroyed the credibility of the left.
[2] If Global Warming IS Real, doing the Right things about it, whatever they are, is the smart thing to do.
Conservatives need to be smart about this.
We are. Are you?
When you say If Global Warming IS Real, doing the Right things about it, whatever they are, is the smart thing to do., just what do you think that "smart thing" is?
When you KNOW, please let us know. Right now, I don't think nayone can say just what the "smart thing" really is, even if we were sure that "global warming" were truly real.
There is at least a 50% chance that what most folks might conclude is the "smart thing" would turn out in hindsight to have been the most stupid thing possible. So, what will it be?
"If Global Warming IS Real, doing the Right things about it, whatever they are, is the smart thing to do."
Did you read the article? My impression is that there is really nothing to do. We have warming, but it is ocean warming caused by volcanic activity. The high levels of CO2 being released are the precursor of a new ice age which have occurred cyclically for millions of years.
----- If Global Warming IS Real, doing the Right things about it, whatever they are, is the smart thing to do. -----
Very few people deny that there is such a thing as "Global Warming".
Where the conflict arises is typically on two points.
1) What is the cause? Human or Natural?
2) What is the solution? Human or Natural?
Since there is overwhelming evidence that earth has gone through multiple heating/cooling cycles well before human civilization or population could be considered a factor, the answer to #1 is inevitably "Natural".
Now, with regard to #2, one has to ask if there is anything we CAN do to prevent this cycling, and even if we could, whether we SHOULD???
I think it would be hugely ironic if we discovered that the changing temperatures are natural, and that manmade "Greenhouse gases" were actually a factor that *slowed* and *stabilized* natural cycling of temperatures. The irony would be most evident if we actually stopped producing them only to see nature whack us extra hard.
We should recognize that GOD has His finger on the dial and we really are small, negligible factors on what is happening in the universe and that we should pay homage to Him and pray for His grace.
Think about it, the Tsunami was just God *barely* touching the dial. Lots worse could happen and there is NOTHING we humans can do to stop it.
If you wish to amuse God tell him of your plans.
He has some great analogies, the principle one being that global warming is an article of faith, not fact.
Not so fast. Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States.
" To put this in perspective, you must realize that the Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheets are almost twice as big as the contiguous United States. They're almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's glaciers put together. In other words, more than 99 percent of the world's glaciers are growing ... and all we hear about are the few that are melting."
Former Minnesota resident here.
There isn't a growing list of evidence. Its the same arguments, but made more numerous and louder.
Your perception of an increase in average temperature is only a snapshot of the global temperature that is limited by your lifespan. For a discussion of long term trends, I suggest the following link:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Second, most credible environmentalists will admit that the Kyoto protocols will not accomplish what they seek. The exclusion of over half the world's population (China and India, for example) should cause you some concern. Also, natural CO2 removal (ie trees) would make the United States a net consumer of CO2, but this is not allowed in the protocols. Kyoto is simply advancement of socialism.
Our world is a constantly changing system, it is not static and will continue to change. Our challenge as human beings is to learn how to adapt and survive.