For the man made Global Warming People is it more important to decrease the amount of CO2 man put into the atmosphere or bash conservatives?

Conserve as much as possible ( that has squat to do with politics). And reduce the CO2 Emissions. Conservatives seem to have forgotten their roots, which is keep things the same.

Bashing conservatives, implementing a religious environmentalist agenda, is more important. If the solution proposed were nuclear power, these global warming people would become skeptics faster than the US Communists switched to supporting war with Germany when Hitler invaded Russia.

That the proposed solutions will not work to reduce global warming is irrelevant to them. It is more important that they be able to pass restrictions on US and Europe, while pretending to believe China's lies about reducing emissions. The science shows these reductions will not reduce global warming in any substantial way, but on this point the science is not important to them.

If solar and wind power actually became cheaper than fossil fuels, they will object to this as well, saying that it is blocking Mother Nature from getting all the energy she needs, just as they complain about hydropower now.

They have to bash , There is no evidence

I have no idea if there is any truth to AGW. What I'm certain is until the economics work and most whiners will not work on making Green truly less expensive, not transfer cost to the taxpayer, but subsidize by items the masses are willing to pay a premium for. Whiners appears to be just LAZY and self-righteous.

What is of primary importance to them is pushing the Cause which is a socialism. If this week they can use warming, that is what they will do but when it stopped warming and had a "pause", they need to shifted to climate change or weird or extreme weather. GW is all about exaggerating a threat to push a leftwing agenda. It is what Maurice Strong did when he helped create the IPCC. It is no coincidence that all the alarmists that post here are left wing wackos. Not all skeptics are conservatives but nearly all alarmists are leftists.

Some think they are being nuanced or reasonable or they think they propose "conservative" free market solutions. Sadly it reveals what they consider is free market. They want the centralized government in charge of what cars get built, what energy is used, how much to take from others to subsidize alternative expensive energy, etc. I don't need their nuanced idiotic solutions but then again I actually support freedom.

Reducing CO2 and methane might help the problem but bashing conservatives is far more fun. If it reduces the hot air they spew, so much the better.

Humans have no control over the Planet's climate and CO2 is being used as a "scapegoat" to blame fossil fuels that is supposed to bring "doom and gloom".... Question: Where is the doom and gloom? Spoiler Alert: NO where to be found!

The recent court case decision should be a "clue" to what is transpiring and that is, the HOAX being exposed as Global Cooling takes hold.....

Bashing conservatives is always good sport. Those knuckle dragging wife beating neanderthals shouldn't even have the right to vote. Us tolerant and inclusive people should run the country.

The best way to decrease CCO2 emissions is to ruin the economy. Imagine what would happen if a million people lost their jobs. There would be less traffic and no fancy vacations or air travel. It's a eco-warrior's dream come true.

No one has even begun to prove decreasing CO2 would solve anything. You have just got to get off of that trash idea until something of substance can be proven on that subject. And it is an interesting way that you posed the question. By answering it the way it is written a person answering the question would be superficially accepting the premise that CO2 is harming the Earth. There is no proof as to that, only the opposite has been proven to be true.

However let me play your game for a little time here. First of all, lumping all conservatives together is bad logic. There are many 'conservatives' that agree with Democrats. Just look at the last budget that was passed. So your question, in essence, is asking is the solution to GW political or scientific?

To answer that, let us go to the experts. Let us look at the answer that Agenda 21 gives us.

Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993).

Doesn't this sound like Daniel Sitarz when he wrote the authoritative version of Agenda 21, "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

So the Warmists' views are clearly spelled out. When they get control of every individual on the face of the Earth then it will not be a problem any more. All of a sudden CO2 will not matter and 'conservatives will be exterminated.

Decrease the amount of carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere and let the alt-right be the ones who bash people, particularly honest scientists who REFUSE to lie for the government.