If, as the warmies claim, carbon dioxide is causing global warming, how much is being deposited in the atmosphere and what are its sources? According to NASA, annual CO2 emissions are 168 billion metric tons. 100 BMT are released by the oceans. 30 BMT, generated by the decay of plant and animal matter. 30 BMT are caused by respiration. Nature generates 160 BMT of 168B (95.23%) without the burning of a pound coal, a gallon of gasoline or a cubic foot of natural gas. Deforestation adds 1 BMT. Other industrial processes - fermentation, steel production, industrial use of yeast (bread), manufacture of cement and others - account for 1 BMT. Only 6 BMT of CO2 result from fossil fuels. We could cut CO2 emissions by 3.57% by prohibiting the use of fossil fuel worldwide.

How large a part does carbon dioxide play in the greenhouse effect? According to Dr Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin, the father of climate science, 80% of the greenhouse warming effect occurs within 30′ of the ground and is caused by water vapor. CO2 absorbs only 0.08% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 1,000 times more important than CO2. Banning fossil fuel would reduce the greenhouse effect by only 0.00286%.

There are other theories about why climate changes occur. Ajacksonian commented on plate tectonics.

A Serbian civil engineer, M. Milankovitch, postulated that ice ages are cyclic, occurring about every 100,000 years, as the result of astrophysics - changes in the earth motion. The eccentricity of our elliptical orbit is affected by the gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn at times taking us farther from the sun (e=0.005 to 0.058). Earth’s axial tilt varies from 21.5° to 24.5° shading or exposing the poles to solar energy. The Earth wobbles - precesses - above and below the plane of the planets. The coincidence of these three cycles seem to align with periods of glaciation.

There is a final question we should ask. Can the human race do anything to alter climate change significantly or are we just passengers on the train?

Arch

Blaming this all on Man is simply a way for certain people to make money and gain stature. Why else, to repeat myself, do the climahysteria leaders not only fail to change their lifestyles to match their rhetoric, but are traveling even more, and asking people to “invest” in carbon offsets?

Go back to the dark ages. It was cold. Go back to the “little ice age” (Google it).
Very cold. There is no doubt times are worse when it is cold. Bring on the warm temps. But we have no control over it. It is going to warm up and it is going to get cold. No matter what socialist like Al Gore or the UN will tell you the earth does it own thing.

Here we are 30 years onward and guess what? The hole in the ozone layer at the south pole is bigger than ever. The response of the atmospheric scientists who have been carefully observing the situation? “Beats the hell out of us.”

When the climate modelers can tell us why banning CFCs didn’t work, I’ll be convinced that they can predict temperatures for the next 100 years

Environmentalists seem to have an instinctive distrust of nuclear power, but by opposing it they are taking off the table what’s maybe the only possible way to make a big dent in greenhouse gas emissions (not to mention industrial toxins, etc). Conservatives just need to be able to make the case for it.

Quite the opposite is true. There is little to no scientific evidence that the world is getting warmer.. unless you want to be alarmed about one degree in a short period of time.

There is a 30 to 60 degree swing in local temperatures at various points on earth - daily, and no one gets excited - because it happens every year. Why get excited about a 1 degree earth mean-temperature change over a period of ten years?

But warming isn’t the real problem here - its the declaration that the warming is caused by human activity - and that has certainly not been established by any form of scientific evidence.

“At least on the other side of the political coin with the most organized efforts to debunk global warming there is the rationality of promoting an anti-warming agenda based largely on economic interests.” - Moran

The leftist agenda isn’t science, it’s an economic wrecking-ball aimed at private industry and the future behavior of individuals and government. There is significant verifiable scientific data that refutes the best data promoted by the IPCC (and originally by Gore, backed by very few ’scientists,’ all of which are financially and politically dedicated to false figures used to promote a false thesis. Hence, indeed it is good that we have economic arguments to counter false science - but, we have far more than that.

Want to leave politics out of it, and focus on none anthropogenic climate change evidence - just repeatable verifiable temperature facts, to first ascertain whether or not there is a rational reason to be alarmed at some significant temperature rise? Then there is a host of evidence to draw from. I heartily recommend the #1 science blog on the net - Climate Audit, as a good starting place.

There you will find more than enough real science to refute Gore’s hockey-stick evidence. Second, if you have not already visited the site, and all the links to others found there - check the science at JunkScience.com

You don’t have to be an expert to commit to honesty. If you spend but a few hours looking at all of the evidence presented by both sides, it isn’t hard to find out which side is most forthcoming, most diverse, most thorough - and most absent an agenda that promotes government dictating future behavior and taxation.

Bottom line though, why ignore the political implications? Why should we, when the left is using falsehoods to push a political agenda? For conservatives to ignore that would be folly of the highest degree.

Global warming is real. But global warming as caused by man is miniscule. The question to ask is “if it is such a danger, then why do none of the leaders, and not many of the Disciples, of the Church of Climate Change ever change their behavior?”

2. Politicised…you dont say! By the right, not by progressives.

3. It’s past time the right started looking at the truth (climate change is serious and real) rather than the truthiness (climate change is a communist plot to increase state power) only this way can you make your argument for desireable right leaning policies.

As it is past time i will admit that it gives my a certain pleasure to believe that since the Bush administration has been SO awful on this issue, no one will ever vote for a Republican president if they are worried about climate change. And, as this issue is only going to grow ( the impacts becoming more evident) the right will pay severly for neglecting this issue and putting the planet in peril.

I will admit however, this is scant consolation for what is to come.