How Conservatives Need to Respond to Climate Change

Three Simple Points to combat Enviro-Statists:

FIRST - the science is NOT settled and there are hundreds of not thousands of scientists who are skeptical at anthropogenic climate change.

SECOND - we are not arguing that climate change does not occur. During the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, "essentially all of Canada and extended roughly to the Missouri River and Ohio Rivers [sic], and eastward to New York City" was covered by ice. It's not now. Why? Climate change, stupid! We are only contending that the human race and human activity does not have a significant impact on global climate. This is a good point to get in a jab that Halliburton must be really destructive if they managed to change the climate 20,000 years ago.

THIRD - it is absurd and illogical to think that human activity is a large contributor to climate change because of the relative amounts of human energy expenditure into the environment and the amount of energy that we're bombarded with by the SUN. In one year, the Sun delivers 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) that is absorbed by the Earth. If you're not familiar with the SI prefix "exa", the entire joule count written out is 3,850,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. For debate purposes, that's 385 with 22 zeros after it. In 2005, "Primary Energy Use" by the human race was a mere 487 EJ. What does this mean?

It takes the Sun a mere 66 MINUTES to deliver the same amount of energy to the Earth that the entire human race expended in ONE YEAR (2005).

In ONE YEAR, the Sun delivers more energy to the Earth than the human race will EVER EXTRACT from all non-renewable resources: coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium (i.e. nuclear power).

Those facts, naturally, will cause an Enviro-Statist to start screaming, "Solar power! Solar power!". It is then time to mention Solyndra.

(Edit: 1:44 PM - cleaned up the lead in to point 3. Apologies for the poor sentence I originally wrote)