"You are confusing conservative with conservationist. " LOL, I understand the difference between those two. I do have a public education you know. And I understand the basic mistrust of government, by the way the conservatives are a large part of my distrust of government. But still are not conservatives, conservative by definition and by history? We all want government regulation and laws none of us here want unbridled capitalism. Without these regulations and laws we go back to monopolies, child labor, 80 hour work weeks, dangerous chemicals being poured in our rivers and oceans, etc. Now the degree of government we want or need is up for discussion. But to the issue of global warming it ties into our energy problem. The solution to both starts with being conservative with our resources. I still don't know why both sides aren't in agreement on this one. But I do know why, both sides are entrenched in politics and wanting to be right instead of using any common sense to actually work on the problem. Both sides are guilty of this mindset. Liberals don't know if man is causing global warming and conservatives don't know that man isn't causing global warming. We do know the glaciers are melting and the Antarctic ice cap is shrinking. This is not a liberal/conservative question or problem, it is a science question and a society problem, if indeed it is a problem.
This is a straw man argument. Are you really this stupid or are you just a troll? I did not advocate "unbridled capitalism". Either learn to read or learn to be honest. Because it is wrong - Duh! There is more than enough energy in the world. Conservation is a political argument not a pragmatic argument. Conservation is the heavy hand of top down government regulation that unjustly penalizes consumers and producers. This is pure bullshit. If global warming was driven purely by science it would be led by scientists. It is not - it is driven by the most top down, political institution in the world - the UN. Algore is not a scientist - he was proven in the 2,000 election to be the most deceitful liar ever to run for president. The only thing science can conclusively tell us about climate change is that it happens - and that we have VERY little understanding of how it works. Anyone who claims that they understand climate change is a liar and being political, not scientific. Not only are you naive about what conservatives believe, you are a kool aid drinker of left wing propaganda.
Your a load mouth fool Gord. For your sake I hope your young, that gives you time to learn a thing or two. But you know where old fools come from, that's right junior...from young fools like you.
Troll surrender response checklist: Ignore counterarguments as if they don't exist ... check Straw man arguments ... check Name calling ... check Invective ... check Laughs ... waiting... Stupid pics ... waiting... Conclusion = capitulation
OK, let's look at the issue of conserving resources. I agree that weaning ourselves off oil would be a financial and security benefit. We have humongous coal reserves. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We could begin an aggressive program of using plug-in electric vehicles and dramatically reduce our use of gasoline, but we will need an enormous increase in our electric generation capacity. It's as hard now to get a coal-fired power plant approved as a nuclear plant. Why? Because of environmentalists' fanatical opposition on grounds of global warming. Of course, they are fanatically opposed to nuclear as well. Indeed, they seem fanatically opposed to every viable option for power generation or running our economy. We need to use resources efficiently, but mindless opposition to any use of carbon or nuclear power does not strike most people as reasonable. Using obviously flawed climate change models to justify such opposition only makes conservatives more skeptical.
there is more oil in the US than we could use in the next 200 yrs... everything they tell you is bullshit. wake up people.. they always benefit from your actions of fear.
I pretty much agree with everything you said, except I'm inclined to believe that global warming is happening. It's a fact the icecaps and glaciers are melting but what that means to us long term I don't think we know yet. I'm for common sense conservation and energy policy something neither side is for.
walter williams: Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Children walk around a makeshift globe in a fountain on Earth Day in Zagreb April 22, 2008. REUTERS/Nikola Solic (CROATIA) Related Media: VIDEO: Earth Day Tips VIDEO: Earth Day: Tips on making your house earth friendly In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply. Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming? Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
man made global warming is a crock of shit that is backed only by government appointed scientists... the IPCC is the biggest joke in the world