The best argument against global warming

[skookerasbil]

Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

The religious greens argue this shit like there is no political connection here. Nobody cares about temperature this year or that year and "evidence" of global warming yada...........yada............yada. People have seen enough of stories of this area of the world where the glaciers are receeding and that area of the world where they are expanding. Its called common sense...........

s0ns.............wake up and smell the maple nut crunch. It is ONLY about public perception and right now, the perception is, NOBODY knows for sure if it is man made or not. The green k00ks might not like that but reality is 95% perception. A small majority thinks this is now a fraud and most of those who even do think the world is warming DOES NOT want to get it up the butt in new taxes to fund a GUESS!!! Thats just the way it is............when the naive learn that the tax on coal is going to double their electric rates, its over for the green k00ks and EVERY SINGLE POLL ON COST TO TAXPAYERS bares this out.


So...........why the OCD stuff on the "science" YOU care to believe????

 

[gslack]

Galsck -

As for your other points, please read the material BEFORE commenting. I think your points will make more sense that way.

Yes, 99% of Alaskan glaciers are in retreat. Yes, 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.

You can see the report here: Anthony Arendt

I've posted overviews so that you could get an idea of the key points without having to read the entire reports, but perhaps it's just better if you read the whole thing and then perhaps we can avoid some of the silliness and bizarre assumptions.

And no - our knowledge of glacial melt did not begin in 1850!!!

Stop posting over and over in response to one post.. Its annoying and makes unnecessary posts..

Dude I have shown you repeatedly not only do I understand this subject far better than you, that I am in fact more informed on this than you, but I can and do understand the math behind it far better than you....

You posted crap you didn't understand, I explained it and showed the errors in your logic in regards to it. So now you resort to BS saying I didn't read it.... Well buddy I responded to each section pretty clearly, kind of hard to make that claim when I do that now isnt it.... Stop lying dude, you been caught doing it too much in this thread already...

 

[Sodafin]

No response to the point huh? LOL dude you are ridiculous.... If you can try and claim that glacier melt raises ocean when you yourself explain it runs off int orivers and is evaporated as well, then the idea of expanding glaciers causing oceans to shrink is just as valid an argument....

You use half logic and twisted reasoning to sell this and then try and claim the same reasoning and logic used by the other side is wrong.... Well it is wrong and wrong on both sides so stop trying to use it like an idiot....

Gslack -

I can't for the life of me imagine why you are finding this so difficult to understand, I really can't. You can check a hundred sources - all of them will confirm my point.

It's simple - glaciers hold ice thousands of years old - when it melts into the ocean, oceans levels rise.

If glaciers expand, they do so from snow and rainfall - nothing to do with ocean levels.

And as we've already seen - 95% of glaciers are retreating, hence oceans are rising.

Forget the name calling and abuse - why is that hard to grasp?

btw. Let me know when you have read Arent's report, and then we can maybe talk on more of a level playing field.

 

[Sodafin]

You posted crap you didn't understand, I explained it and showed the errors in your logic in regards to it. So now you resort to BS saying I didn't read it.... Well buddy I responded to each section pretty clearly, kind of hard to make that claim when I do that now isnt it.... Stop lying dude, you been caught doing it too much in this thread already...

Again - when you have read Arendt's report, let me know, and we can discuss it detail.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Perhaps if you do some research on mean temperatures yourself, you'll find the information easier to understand.

Again, I don't think it is fantastically difficult stuff, and there are a dozen respectable scientific resources which can eplain it for you better than I can, but at the moment you seem to be flailing away at anything and everything without making a bit of sense.

The British Met Office has an excellent site - perhaps try that first.

And perhaps when you get your head out of Al Gore's butt you can see the truth... I itemized and explained the BS to you and it is undeniable to anyone but a zealot like you... So you go right on ahead reciting the mantra and Al can tax you for breathing .....Jesus you people must take mind control meds....

 

[skookerasbil]

Arctic ice expanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CBC News - Technology & Science - Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find


You stupid dolts...............evidence of this is all over the place, and like I said, when 25 million people a day show up to THE DRUDGE REPORT and see it on a headline, its bad noews for the green k00ks. Of course, the green k00ks will simply identify a link friendly to their science which I might add only shows up in the nether regions of the internet where the green k00ks hang out........... but like I stated in an above post, ITS THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION THAT MATTERS!!!!

 

[gslack]

You posted crap you didn't understand, I explained it and showed the errors in your logic in regards to it. So now you resort to BS saying I didn't read it.... Well buddy I responded to each section pretty clearly, kind of hard to make that claim when I do that now isnt it.... Stop lying dude, you been caught doing it too much in this thread already...

Again - when you have read Arendt's report, let me know, and we can discuss it detail.

aaaww going to cry now?

Thats what you're doing now you are caught and you know it. You cannot back any of the claims you made in reality and I have shown this, so now you claim I don't understand despite the fact I showed categorically I do. you also claim I didn't read any of it when in fact I showed you I did read it and did so far better than you did.....

Now if you want to cry go ahead, you want to play pretend and ignore the truth again be my guest, but don't try and claim some kind of BS superiority or knowledge on this mr. google scholar, cause that is BULL.... You are another zealot trying to play scientist using BS and half baked bits of half truths and innuendo...

 

[skookerasbil]

OH.........and I had to get a kick out of the news last Friday when this enormous volcano is erupting on top of a "shrinking" glacier!!!

Gee...........wonder if that wasnt a gigantic kick in the balls for the green k00ks????

 

[gslack]

No response to the point huh? LOL dude you are ridiculous.... If you can try and claim that glacier melt raises ocean when you yourself explain it runs off int orivers and is evaporated as well, then the idea of expanding glaciers causing oceans to shrink is just as valid an argument....

You use half logic and twisted reasoning to sell this and then try and claim the same reasoning and logic used by the other side is wrong.... Well it is wrong and wrong on both sides so stop trying to use it like an idiot....

Gslack -

I can't for the life of me imagine why you are finding this so difficult to understand, I really can't. You can check a hundred sources - all of them will confirm my point.

It's simple - glaciers hold ice thousands of years old - when it melts into the ocean, oceans levels rise.

If glaciers expand, they do so from snow and rainfall - nothing to do with ocean levels.

And as we've already seen - 95% of glaciers are retreating, hence oceans are rising.

Forget the name calling and abuse - why is that hard to grasp?

btw. Let me know when you have read Arent's report, and then we can maybe talk on more of a level playing field.

you keep pretending its a lack of understanding and maybe another juvenile will buy it pal...

They expand from rainfall and snowfall... Yeah its called precipitation, and that is the case. So if this is so, than evaporation, works in much the same manner only reversed. So if the temps or ocean levels do not reflect ocean levels, than they do not no matter which way they go...... Now stop showing your ignorance on this its embarrassing now...

 

[Old Rocks]

I have posted this before and not received any intelligent response before but I will try again,

The major problem I have with climate change is the way supporters push the theory with a few facts and absolutely no real evidence. Mostly I hear "your an idiot if you deny global warming" - "global warming is a fact" - "everyone agrees that global warming is happening" - "all scientists (or intelligent people) agree that global warming is occurring and is a major problem" or some other iteration of the preceding. The fact is that none of that is true in the slightest and here we are on this thread arguing about a few emails that do not matter in the least when applied to the grater question. The fact that some scientists were cooking data really does not matter (or surprise me). It just reminds us that skepticism is GOOD. What matters is whether or not global warming is actually occurring and how we fit in to that equation.

No, as pointed out by the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, the data was not cooked, in fact, the worst you could state about Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia was that they acted as humans when unjustly attacked by the political hacks.

Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The GW scare tactics remind me of the ozone scare tactics that were used some 15 years ago. The above statements were used in the exact same way and 'everyone' agreed that the damage to the ozone layer was a product of humans. I remember being told we were all going to die of skin cancer by the age of 30 if steps were not taken immediately because there would be NO ozone layer and it would take hundreds of years for the damage to be repaired by nature. As it turns out, 'everyone' was wrong and we are still here.

No, that is not what was stated. It involved a lot more than just skin cancer. And we did remove the primary agent that was causing the problem.

You are most definately the one that is wrong here. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the whole of science.

Crutzen, Paul J. -

(born 1933): Dutch meteorologist and a world expert on the chemical interactions of trace gases and trace components in the atmosphere. He is originator of a viable theory for the causes of rapid ozone loss in the Antarctic winter and was involved in international negotiations regarding the restriction of the use of CFC’s (Chloroflourocarbons) that destroy ozone. In 1980, he became director of the Department of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz. In 1995 Crutzen, M.J. Molina and F.S. Rowland together won the Nobel Prize with for their work on the depletion of the ozone layer
Calspace - Glossary of Terms -

Not only was the theory concerning CFC's correct, but there are international treaties concerning it's use in place. And the researchers won a Nobel with their work.

GW stinks of the same bullshit and corruption. Don't get me wrong, I am open to the idea but have yet to hear anything that pushes me into the 'we made this mess' boat. I just watched a national geographic that was claiming that 'the world plus 3' was essentially a barren wasteland of death. That is just insane and not helping the GW community on getting those of us that remain skeptical. This crap is always the same. Fear sells and pushes policy whilst reason and debate mean nothing. Points have been raised in this very thread and supporters are not addressing them.

Have you even bothered to read any real science on this issue? Because all you are doing is repeating shit talking points.


You want to debate the issue, post some science from a real scientist that gives evidence that AGW is not real.

Point I would like some answers to:

The temperature has been cooling for a decade. That point was ridiculed without the slightest attempt to address it. I am genuinely interested in this point as carbon emissions around the world have been increasing at an unprecedented rate. Given the feedback loop that GW theorists claim why is the earth cooling? the opposite should be true if the model is to be believed, temperatures should not only increase but be increasing faster.

Complete bullshit. 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.


Climate has changes before and will change again. Why are we stuck on the manmade carbon thing. Where is the evidence. I continually hear the faster than ever approach but we have no real data in this aria. In geological terms, we cannot see major temperature changes in the timescales that humans have even been able to measuring temperatures. How do we reconcile that with the dead set notion that it must be human CO2 emissions.

Geological terms? Do you know what the P-T extinction was? Do you know what the PETM was? Do a little Goddamned research before you start throwing around terms.

There have been a number of times in geological past that there were natural very quick spikes in GHGs. And in each of those times, there was an extinction event. Just look up the two mentioned.

Just because we are the cause of the very rapid increase in GHGs this time will not exempt us from the laws of physics.


Warmer temperatures are good for life in general. We know this is true. We are talking decimals of degrees here, not massive changes. Why would a few degrees higher destroy the planet? CO2 even directly helps plants and more plants help control CO2. Now, if this were put back as a deforestation issue as was brought up many years ago then I may be a little more inclined to agree but it is not.

More stupid talking points. It is not going to "destroy the planet". What will happen is a climatic change that will adversly affect agriculture in a world rapidly approaching 8 billion people. And when that occurs, the population will decline. Unpleasantly.


There have been several geological time periods where CO2 was HIGHER than it is now, by very large margins as a matter of fact (also brought up earlier but blown off). Why was the world okay at that point but is going to end now? It seems to me there was no problem then and there may not be much of a problem now.

As has been pointed out, the problem is the rate of change in a very crowded world.


Where is the science that quantifies the total impact. There have been several models put up and most of them were constructed to induce fear but none really show a story that is believable. This is the most important. If we establish the temperature IS rising AND it IS manmade AND it IS due to CO2 emissions (and that is a hefty charge) then we need to know what the impact is before doing anything. I have yet to see any impact that is not mere fear mongering and end of the world type rhetoric. Do you have real impact with facts to back them up?

Yes, from the geological record, here are impact facts from prior period of rapid GHG increases;
Methane catastrophe



As I understand it, nature releases far more carbon than man does. Magnitudes more in fact. Why is mans impact so radical then? If nature has been releasing and absorbing such large amounts of CO2 in the past what is it that makes the extra that man is releasing such a burden on the system that it cannot handle it?

You don't understand it at all. Nature cycles CO2. What we have been releasing is on top of that. We have gone from a normal of 280 ppm, to over 385 ppm. And, for CH4, we have gone from about 700 ppt to over 1800 ppt. And then we have the industrial GHGs, many of which are 20,000 times as effect of a GHG as CO2.

It is often stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is the tipping point. However, let us hope that is wrong, because when you add CH4 and the industrial GHGs in the equation, we are past that right now.

Yes, the CO2 that we are releasing is more than nature can handle without major changes taking place. You talk of the absorbtion of CO2. And the oceans are absorbing it. And turning acidic in doing so, enough to already negatively affect much of the single celled animals at the base of the food chain.

 

[Sodafin]

And perhaps when you get your head out of Al Gore's butt you can see the truth... I itemized and explained the BS to you and it is undeniable to anyone but a zealot like you... So you go right on ahead reciting the mantra and Al can tax you for breathing .....Jesus you people must take mind control meds....

Gslack -

Ok, but if you change your mind and want to actually get up to speed on this, but the uk Met office and BBC have some excellent online resources which I think will help you understand it.

Or you can keep bluffing that understand it already, although you obviously don't.

 

[gslack]

I have posted this before and not received any intelligent response before but I will try again,

The major problem I have with climate change is the way supporters push the theory with a few facts and absolutely no real evidence. Mostly I hear "your an idiot if you deny global warming" - "global warming is a fact" - "everyone agrees that global warming is happening" - "all scientists (or intelligent people) agree that global warming is occurring and is a major problem" or some other iteration of the preceding. The fact is that none of that is true in the slightest and here we are on this thread arguing about a few emails that do not matter in the least when applied to the grater question. The fact that some scientists were cooking data really does not matter (or surprise me). It just reminds us that skepticism is GOOD. What matters is whether or not global warming is actually occurring and how we fit in to that equation.

No, as pointed out by the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, the data was not cooked, in fact, the worst you could state about Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia was that they acted as humans when unjustly attacked by the political hacks.

Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The GW scare tactics remind me of the ozone scare tactics that were used some 15 years ago. The above statements were used in the exact same way and 'everyone' agreed that the damage to the ozone layer was a product of humans. I remember being told we were all going to die of skin cancer by the age of 30 if steps were not taken immediately because there would be NO ozone layer and it would take hundreds of years for the damage to be repaired by nature. As it turns out, 'everyone' was wrong and we are still here.

No, that is not what was stated. It involved a lot more than just skin cancer. And we did remove the primary agent that was causing the problem.

You are most definately the one that is wrong here. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the whole of science.

Crutzen, Paul J. -

(born 1933): Dutch meteorologist and a world expert on the chemical interactions of trace gases and trace components in the atmosphere. He is originator of a viable theory for the causes of rapid ozone loss in the Antarctic winter and was involved in international negotiations regarding the restriction of the use of CFC’s (Chloroflourocarbons) that destroy ozone. In 1980, he became director of the Department of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz. In 1995 Crutzen, M.J. Molina and F.S. Rowland together won the Nobel Prize with for their work on the depletion of the ozone layer
Calspace - Glossary of Terms -

Not only was the theory concerning CFC's correct, but there are international treaties concerning it's use in place. And the researchers won a Nobel with their work.

GW stinks of the same bullshit and corruption. Don't get me wrong, I am open to the idea but have yet to hear anything that pushes me into the 'we made this mess' boat. I just watched a national geographic that was claiming that 'the world plus 3' was essentially a barren wasteland of death. That is just insane and not helping the GW community on getting those of us that remain skeptical. This crap is always the same. Fear sells and pushes policy whilst reason and debate mean nothing. Points have been raised in this very thread and supporters are not addressing them.

Have you even bothered to read any real science on this issue? Because all you are doing is repeating shit talking points.


You want to debate the issue, post some science from a real scientist that gives evidence that AGW is not real.

Point I would like some answers to:

The temperature has been cooling for a decade. That point was ridiculed without the slightest attempt to address it. I am genuinely interested in this point as carbon emissions around the world have been increasing at an unprecedented rate. Given the feedback loop that GW theorists claim why is the earth cooling? the opposite should be true if the model is to be believed, temperatures should not only increase but be increasing faster.

Complete bullshit. 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.


Climate has changes before and will change again. Why are we stuck on the manmade carbon thing. Where is the evidence. I continually hear the faster than ever approach but we have no real data in this aria. In geological terms, we cannot see major temperature changes in the timescales that humans have even been able to measuring temperatures. How do we reconcile that with the dead set notion that it must be human CO2 emissions.

Geological terms? Do you know what the P-T extinction was? Do you know what the PETM was? Do a little Goddamned research before you start throwing around terms.

There have been a number of times in geological past that there were natural very quick spikes in GHGs. And in each of those times, there was an extinction event. Just look up the two mentioned.

Just because we are the cause of the very rapid increase in GHGs this time will not exempt us from the laws of physics.


Warmer temperatures are good for life in general. We know this is true. We are talking decimals of degrees here, not massive changes. Why would a few degrees higher destroy the planet? CO2 even directly helps plants and more plants help control CO2. Now, if this were put back as a deforestation issue as was brought up many years ago then I may be a little more inclined to agree but it is not.

More stupid talking points. It is not going to "destroy the planet". What will happen is a climatic change that will adversly affect agriculture in a world rapidly approaching 8 billion people. And when that occurs, the population will decline. Unpleasantly.


There have been several geological time periods where CO2 was HIGHER than it is now, by very large margins as a matter of fact (also brought up earlier but blown off). Why was the world okay at that point but is going to end now? It seems to me there was no problem then and there may not be much of a problem now.

As has been pointed out, the problem is the rate of change in a very crowded world.


Where is the science that quantifies the total impact. There have been several models put up and most of them were constructed to induce fear but none really show a story that is believable. This is the most important. If we establish the temperature IS rising AND it IS manmade AND it IS due to CO2 emissions (and that is a hefty charge) then we need to know what the impact is before doing anything. I have yet to see any impact that is not mere fear mongering and end of the world type rhetoric. Do you have real impact with facts to back them up?

Yes, from the geological record, here are impact facts from prior period of rapid GHG increases;
Methane catastrophe



As I understand it, nature releases far more carbon than man does. Magnitudes more in fact. Why is mans impact so radical then? If nature has been releasing and absorbing such large amounts of CO2 in the past what is it that makes the extra that man is releasing such a burden on the system that it cannot handle it?

You don't understand it at all. Nature cycles CO2. What we have been releasing is on top of that. We have gone from a normal of 280 ppm, to over 385 ppm. And, for CH4, we have gone from about 700 ppt to over 1800 ppt. And then we have the industrial GHGs, many of which are 20,000 times as effect of a GHG as CO2.

It is often stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is the tipping point. However, let us hope that is wrong, because when you add CH4 and the industrial GHGs in the equation, we are past that right now.

Yes, the CO2 that we are releasing is more than nature can handle without major changes taking place. You talk of the absorbtion of CO2. And the oceans are absorbing it. And turning acidic in doing so, enough to already negatively affect much of the single celled animals at the base of the food chain.

Hush old socks you have been embarrassed enough lately defending this crap....

 

[Old Rocks]

Galsck -

As for your other points, please read the material BEFORE commenting. I think your points will make more sense that way.

Yes, 99% of Alaskan glaciers are in retreat. Yes, 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.

You can see the report here: Anthony Arendt

I've posted overviews so that you could get an idea of the key points without having to read the entire reports, but perhaps it's just better if you read the whole thing and then perhaps we can avoid some of the silliness and bizarre assumptions.

And no - our knowledge of glacial melt did not begin in 1850!!!

Stop posting over and over in response to one post.. Its annoying and makes unnecessary posts..

Dude I have shown you repeatedly not only do I understand this subject far better than you, that I am in fact more informed on this than you, but I can and do understand the math behind it far better than you....

You posted crap you didn't understand, I explained it and showed the errors in your logic in regards to it. So now you resort to BS saying I didn't read it.... Well buddy I responded to each section pretty clearly, kind of hard to make that claim when I do that now isnt it.... Stop lying dude, you been caught doing it too much in this thread already...

Lordy, lordy. Gslack, the only thing that you repeat is pointless Conservative talking points. Talking points dedicated to denying reality.

You are incapable of looking at the issue without repeating political points, and have yet to post any science in support of your looney position. You are just another fruitcake.

 

[Sodafin]

They expand from rainfall and snowfall... Yeah its called precipitation, and that is the case. So if this is so, than evaporation, works in much the same manner only reversed. So if the temps or ocean levels do not reflect ocean levels, than they do not no matter which way they go...... Now stop showing your ignorance on this its embarrassing now...

No, it doesn't work the same way in reverse, because:

a) Glacial ice can sit solid in a glacier for a thousand years before melting into the ocean and rising ocean levels, i.e. imagine a thousand years of local rainfall melting into the sea over a ten year period - that is what is happening in Alaska

b) Glaciers are not fed entirely by evaporation from the ocean, but also from mountain lakes, moisture released from local vegetation etc

c) Expanding glaciers do not draw water directly from the ocean at all, but from the point of the glaciers origin - in the same way rivers flow to the sea, so do glaciers.

I hope this helps, but in all honesty, do let me know if not. I don't mind explaining this stuff as best I can.

 

[Sodafin]

Now if you want to cry go ahead, you want to play pretend and ignore the truth again be my guest, but don't try and claim some kind of BS superiority or knowledge on this mr. google scholar, cause that is BULL.... You are another zealot trying to play scientist using BS and half baked bits of half truths and innuendo...

Or you can read Arendt's report on Alaskan glaciers, and then we can discuss it in detail.

You don't even need to read the whole thing - there is an excellent summary on page 1 which covers the key facts. There are 2 reports to look at, which are:

# Arendt, A., J. Walsh, W. Harrison (2009). Changes of Glaciers and Climate in Northwestern North America during the Late 20th Century. Journal of Climate. 22, 4117-4134.
# Arendt, A., S. Luthcke, R. Hock (2009). Glacier Changes in Alaska: Can Mass Balance Models Explain GRACE mascon trends? Annals of Glaciology. 50, 1-7.

The links are above.

 

[Cuyo]

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

The science of this was established in the 1860s, as you may be aware. It's not a particularly difficult thing to understand that if you place 1billion cars and 1 thousand coal fired power plants on earth, they will release staggering quantities of carbon.

And more carbon dioxide means more plant life which converts that carbon into oxygen so we can breath. It's an amazing thing called the circle of life.

You do realize we breath out carbon don't you? The logical conclusion of the global warming wackos is mass murder.

There would be carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without us. We need plants far more than they need us. (Carl Sagan)

The carbon dioxide we breath out is irrelevant. Compared to the same that results from burning carbon based fuels, it's not even a teardrop in Lake Michigan.

 

[Vanquish]

What kills me in this debate is how the right has such a knee-jerk reaction to people who are trying to do what's best for the planet.

Yes, I get that you think it's a radical plot to take over the government. Yes, there are wacky, flaky, hippie people who are fit to be tied.

But the visceral reaction to people just trying to do the right thing...it's progressed to the point to where most of what I hear on local radio (in multiple states) is basically "we can trash the planet and the planet will absorb it all"

Really? Seriously? You're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face? It's deplorable.

 

[Sodafin]

What kills me in this debate is how the right has such a knee-jerk reaction to people who are trying to do what's best for the planet.

Yes, I get that you think it's a radical plot to take over the government. Yes, there are wacky, flaky, hippie people who are fit to be tied.

The thing that baffles me most is right wing Americans (because this seems to happen only in the US) who think climate change science is a 'liberal' issue.

Folks, climate change is not political - it is scientific.

Which is why Most CONSERVATIVE parties around the world are very engaged in trying to save the planet - check out what the UK conservative party have to say on climate change - are they pinkos?

The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy

 

[Vast LWC]

the scientists in the world?

90% of them, according to polls of the scientific community.

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

 

[Vast LWC]

And more carbon dioxide means more plant life which converts that carbon into oxygen so we can breath. It's an amazing thing called the circle of life.

You do realize we breath out carbon don't you? The logical conclusion of the global warming wackos is mass murder.

More Carbon Dioxide certainly does NOT automatically equal more plant life.

Especially since we keep killing off the plant life.

If you salt the earth, plants aren't going to grow in your field no matter how much carbon dioxide there is.