Fellow conservatives, would you say this frames you general position on Global Warming?

Question

I acknowledge that Global Warming is a reality. The ambient temperature is rising here on Earth.

I also acknowledge that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles throughout it’s past.

I recognize that other planets’ surface temperature have increased as well which can be attributed to increased sun heat/radiation.

I am still not convinced that human activity is to blame for the majority of Global Warming but, I do believe we should do what is within reason to reduce our pollution regardless. However, we should not do so at the cost of our safety (i.e. lighter more dangerous vehicles) nor should we compromise our nation’s ability to produce energy.

I firmly believe that we should aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources and I accept the factual statistical data which establishes the fact that nuclear power is clean and safe.

Dark S - Great point, I read this a while back...

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways bene-ficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could har-vest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.

Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little face-tious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely be-cause of projected increases in agricultural production.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

Answer 1

Exactly. One more point - I think it is unethical for politicians to use global warming as a scare tactic or political tool to pander for votes.

Answer 2

I am a liberal who disagrees with the "oh my God dangerous global warming" scare

I acknowledge there are climate changes taking place on Earth including warming of some areas, and I would point to the warming/cooling cycles in the past as proof of this being something relatively natural and not a cause for alarm bells

Other planets have different atmospheres and their warming is unrelated to ours, I must disagree

I don't think people directly are causing a global warming crisis as portrayed by Al Gore. Al Gore is a loser, he lost. The fact is that farming causes more greenhouse gases than industry and many of the stories about Northwest Passage or Kilimanjaro snow have been completely debunked.

Just because we are not at the brink of destruction doesn't mean we shouldn't help the environment. We should recycle, limit waste, develop alternative fuels, and protect habitats and environments. Don't just tell me "do this or the world will burn up in 100 years" because there's no evidence of that extreme to the warming trend.

Answer 3

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Except the sun part, I don't believe it's the primary factor in any rising temperatures, or if it is, the data does not convince me. The way NASA collected the data to show the sun was increasing temperatures in the solar system is suspect; they use different methods for each planet to show how much sunlight is collected, and how much temperature has risen. This makes it impossible to compare the planets on equal ground to determine a trend.

I am a conservative too, good job on this question, I think it demonstrates that we are reasonable when we don't have to submit to extremist dogma on global warming. We should carefully pursue solutions to climate and energy problems while simultaneously protecting our economies and way of life.

Answer 4

Works for me.

Personally I would very much like to see all commericial and government own heavy vehicle fleets including all heavy and light rail be mandated to Bio Diesel.
I don't much care if the economies of Canada and Mexico go in the toilet or the Saudi's have to go back to herding goats at the oasis.

It's good for the environment, good for national security and good for OUR economy.

The Central Ohio Transit Authority has gone to 95% Bio Diesel in all it's vehicles and have had no problem. It is so successful that they are building their own cooperative Bio Diesel reactor and will sell the surplus fuel.
Minnesota requires that all Diesel sold in the state be 20% bio.

The world's first Diesel Engine was designed to run on BioFuel made from Hemp.

It can be made from waste and by products that are already in the supply chain. No need to use more farmland to make it like ethanol.
No alterations to engine systems are needed to use it but, in an engine that is specifically disigned for its use, the green house gases that are produced by burning it only exist in theory and can not be measured by conventional equipment in the field.
In the reactor process to make it, NOTHING is wasted.
IT WORKS.

Answer 5

Nuclear power is most certainly NOT "clean" and it certainly is NOT "safe."

There is no reasonable answer thus far as to what we are supposed to do with the nuclear waste, and when (notice I say WHEN, and not IF) a nuclear accident occurs, the damage is forever and far-reaching.

Yes, the temperature is rising, icecaps are melting, fresh water is being added at an alarming rate into sea ecosystems, exterminating species and altering habitat.

Human beings are pouring tons (do you know how much a TON is?) and tons and tons and tons of pollutants, particulates, CO2 into the air.

The answer is to use these massive brains which come standard in the homo sapiens model, and come up with alternative fuel. GET OUT OF THE OIL MENTALITY.

And as for "lighter cars" being more dangerous...I say, "Pshaw."

SUVs will go the way of the dinosaur. I like what the troublemaker said about it was a bad idea for us to try to take "our living rooms" with us on the road.

Excellent.

Answer 6

That's just sensible considering the developing nature of research in the field. Most people aren't aware that one volcanic eruption can release more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the human factors combined for a year. Conservation and alternative energy are smart for a multitude of reasons having nothing to do with global warming. Much of the global warming movement just wants to scare us for political reasons. Watch this film when you have an hour or two.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/100307Swindle.htm

Answer 7

Well, I'm a liberal, and this would be a great argument for me to see coming from conservatives, but I don't. Most of the people who I see arguing against global warming being caused by human beings say almost nothing should be done about it. We can all question the source, for sure, but finding a solution is better than simply standing around arguing about it. That's why this argument makes sense.

Answer 8

You got most of it right....i do know the earth is heating, do i think its soley b/c of human activity...no....i do think we should look into alternative energy source, but not b/c of global warming, b/c of our health...but i also feel we need to stop pumping pills(steriods) down slaughter animals throats to help our health as well...i also agree w/ you on the lighter vehicles thing as well....I am sick of people saying i need to drive a damed light weight car that gets 80 mpg, I want something I dont have to cram into and something I can trust in a crash ( I live in a rural area, so i dont just drive a block and i am at the store, the store about 14 miles from my house w/ me driving 65 mph, i want something big and safe) hell maybe thats why they didnt need seatbelts in the old days b/c the cars were heavy and very sturdy....anyway so sum it up you have most of it right.....i dont really think though that nuclear power should be our future.....

Answer 9

Your grasp of science is amazing .
Drop a bowling ball on your foot and then drop an orange . Which one does more damage .

So to be safe you want an suv for your family and then when it hits a mini cooper you destroy it and its occupant . We need to reduce vehicle weight and improve safety features .

Why is it a 200 mph crash every weekend at the track has drivers walking away with cuts and bruises most of the time .

Lighter faster and safer .

The Idea that we could move our living room onto the road was just a bad idea .

Just like in an amusement park all passengers need to be strapped in with padded restraints and hands need to remain inside the vehicle at all times .

I love people who only think about themselves .

Answer 10

I am for it. I love clean air and water. We can also build a strong economy on our technology. Individuals in society who take risks and develop this will be the kings of the New Age economy.