How can conservatives jump on the AGW bandwagon?

Question

Let's stop fighting. Let's use AGW as the liberals have: I propose abstinence, reducing taxes, cutting public funding, a large military, and the death penalty all reduce global warming. Can anyone disprove my assertions?

Answer 1

Reducing the size of gvmt would be helpful in the fight of global warming.

Also reduce the number of "scientist" doing the research on "global warming", get them into the private sector where they can develop solutions that reduce co2 emissions rather than make up problems about their effect.

Answer 2

If you REALLY want to be just like them, then if your prediction about "X causes Y" doesn't pan out, you have to be ready to change it to "X causes the opposite of Y."

Answer 3

I used to be in denial like you.  Let's get serious though - you know the scientific evidence is on the side of AGW.  Just compare your question to Benjamin's answer.  It's no contest.  You're just making stuff up and pretending the other side is doing the same.

Sooner or later we all need to realize that humans are causing global warming.   That's just the reality of the situation.  I realized that denying it isn't doing anybody any good.  You should do the same.  You'll feel better.

Answer 4

No, but I will NEVER jump the bandwagon, unless there is giant new scientific proof and the debate ends, until then, I am completely against the theory of AGW.

Answer 5

Liberals use fear to control people, If you use  fear, It might just work

Answer 6

You assertions prove, that for you, global warming is not about science, but connected to your neocon dogma and party discipline.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

EDIT

Evans… Your Edit is as ridicules as you original question. If global warming is part of a “natural” cycle, then please tell me just what this cycle is. Try to source your response to a scientific article, preferably one published in peer-reviewed literature.

Do you really believe that mankind could go on and release limitless greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without consequence?

What was the world like the last time atmospheric CO2 concentrations where as high as they are today? (Hint the current concentration is about 385ppm.)

Because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the average global temperature is expected to rise by another 1.1 to 6.4°C by 2100. The most likely increase will be between 1.7 and 4.4°C. Should we not be concerned at all? Why or why not? What is your evidence? Did the person(s) who provided you evidence published anything on the subject of climate in peer-reviewed literature?

Answer 7

The proof of the pudding would be in the eating if you set yourself mandatory targets for reducing CO2 emissions.  Dr Jello has a good idea for less pure science and more applied science for actually reducing CO2.