Replies

Care to give us scientific evidence to support your belief?

Um, hello. The entire scientific community has reached consensus on this point. I don't think I'd even bother debating with a patzer that doesn't get that point. These threads pooh-poohing global warming are just ignorant. Smart conservatives are already moving on to market-based solutions to the rather obvious science. So, nah, I'm not feeding the trolls. I just thought I'd buzz your thread once and remind you of a little thing called "reality" and also make sure such threads contain at least one dissenting voice so that no one can say *all* conservatives are scientifically illerate.

"The 1997 Kyoto Protocols - a first step at trying to reduce emissions and so moderate the change - permits countries to use the carbon-absorbing capacity of their forests and farmlands as credits against their emissions targets...."

Not only is global warming not a fact; it is the wildest sort of extrapolation based on highly complex computer models which use many assumptions that cannot be empirically verified. There is stronger evidence from temperature measuring sattellites and other temperature measuring stations not effected by urban heat island effects that the earth may be entering a secular trend toward cooling, not warming. The only real scientific fact that global warmings theorists have presented is the rise in CO2 levels; every other part of the global warming theory is pure conjecture.

One of the reasons that the Kyoto treaty was rejected so decisively by the US Senate was that Al Gore caved to the Europeans who refused to allow North America to count its status as a greenhouse gas sink againt North American greenhouse emmissions. This refusal was a blatantly political move on the part of Europeans who were pandering to their green parties. The Green Parties in Europe hate the US consumer culture and would like to see US consulmers "punished" for the sin of using "too much" gas.

The political solution for this situation is NOT TO ACCEPT the junk science upon which global warming is based. Whenever Conservatives accept politicized junk science it inevitably results in political fiascoes for the Conservative movement. President Bush has shown the way forward by supporting a revival of the US nuclear power industry which could in turn form the basis of a economically viable "hydrogen" economy.

If limited Government conservatives do not challenge the scientific basis of "global warming" theories they will eventually lose this politcal battle.