Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

carbon dioxide makes plants grow. hmmm. alright, if you're breathing, send me $1 because you're making my yard grow too fast

Love is like oxygen...too much and your gonna get high. Not enough and you're gonna die.

...it's really not that difficult of a concept to understand, is it?

It is when you're from Kansas. Trust me. Charles doesn't actually *know* any liberals.

ahem, we do have a liberal, kansas. does that count?

Is that before or after "The Fairytale: Evolution" ?

look for it on a map. it does really exist. sw part of the state btw.

link

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think of Gary everytime I watch this video. Sorry, Gary.

[GaryC 7]

This has nothing to do with GW. Your lumping pollution in with the fantasy of CO2 causing GW. One has nothing to do with the other. If you ask me should we avoid pollution then the answer is yes.

Ok, phew...we're getting somewhere. So when should the government step in and set limits or regulations on the market, in terms of pollution?

I am old enough to remember rivers catching fire in Ohio. I know that the government needs to make rules to govern pollution. I have no problem with that. My rub is the idea that CO2 is pollution, it isn't. So therefore it needs no regulation.

Yeah, but can't there be an agreement here that can be a multitude of reasons of why we should be cutting back on CO2 emissions and Gary, please, you're pulling back into this definitive stance that CO2 emissions have absolutely no impact on the earth's climate, which you know is NOT true. You're real argument is how much of an impact. You either think that impact is negated or that whatever proposals of reducing those emissions are draconian. Can you give a specific example of what you consider draconian regulations?

Mandatory cut backs in CO2 emmissions are draconian. There is no need for it. It would mean changing everything we do.

Without the use of flexible mechanisms, compliance with Kyoto would lower GDP by 3.6 to 5.1 percent by 2010, or between $330 billion to $467 billion. With flexible mechanisms those costs are only reduced slightly, from 3 to 4.3 percent of GDP. Brown concludes, "if reducing CO2 emissions is similar to purchasing insurance against the possible consequences of global warming, these figures suggest that U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord represents a costly and excessive insurance."

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=547

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

Maybe not in the US, but they have overseas. Accidents do happen and the consequences with nuclear energy can last decades.

[GaryC 7]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

I am all for alternative energy. Build 20 or 30 new nuke power plants. That would help a lot. Then pour money into rechargable electric cars recharged by those nuclear plants. We should also dam up some more rivers and go hydopower. That would take a big chuck out of our fossil fuel use and help satisfy the man-made GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

So the question to you Steven, how far are you prepaired to go? Would you agree with nuclear and hydro power to spare us from the dreaded CO2 monster?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

Maybe not in the US, but they have overseas. Accidents do happen and the consequences with nuclear energy can last decades.

But we're in the US. I work in the nuclear industry. Safety is very important.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But we're in the US. I work in the nuclear industry. Safety is very important.

You're just gonna have to wait for people to forget about Chernobyl. This is another example of emotions driving peoples decisions.

[GaryC 7]

Fusion!!! Make a government effort on the scale of the moon landings with unlimited cash and we will be energy independent in 20 years. All it takes is the will to do it.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

But we're in the US. I work in the nuclear industry. Safety is very important.

You're just gonna have to wait for people to forget about Chernobyl. This is another example of emotions driving peoples decisions.

Crappy design the Russians used. They don't give a ###### about safety. Our reactors are intrinsically safe.

[Dan J 277]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

I am all for alternative energy. Build 20 or 30 new nuke power plants. That would help a lot. Then pour money into rechargable electric cars recharged by those nuclear plants. We should also dam up some more rivers and go hydopower. That would take a big chuck out of our fossil fuel use and help satisfy the man-made GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

So the question to you Steven, how far are you prepaired to go? Would you agree with nuclear and hydro power to spare us from the dreaded CO2 monster?

While hydro power is clean (no emissions), it can destroy river ecosystems. But then we have pretty much done that with locks/damns and industrial dumping.

Solar and wind power are the best options, since they take advantage energy closest to the sun. But they do have issues with reliability and would need another source of power to make up the difference when there is no sun or wind.

But what would make a big difference is when builders learn to design homes and buildings in an environmentally friendly fashion, taking advantages of solar heating and lighting, and geothermal heating and cooling.

[GaryC 7]

Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier?

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

I am all for alternative energy. Build 20 or 30 new nuke power plants. That would help a lot. Then pour money into rechargeable electric cars recharged by those nuclear plants. We should also dam up some more rivers and go hydropower. That would take a big chuck out of our fossil fuel use and help satisfy the man-made GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

So the question to you Steven, how far are you prepared to go? Would you agree with nuclear and hydro power to spare us from the dreaded CO2 monster?

While hydro power is clean (no emissions), it can destroy river ecosystems. But then we have pretty much done that with locks/damns and industrial dumping.

Solar and wind power are the best options, since they take advantage energy closest to the sun. But they do have issues with reliability and would need another source of power to make up the difference when there is no sun or wind.

But what would make a big difference is when builders learn to design homes and buildings in an environmentally friendly fashion, taking advantages of solar heating and lighting, and geothermal heating and cooling.

You see, that's just it. We can't conserve our way out of the energy problem. We have to find new energy. Solar and wind will never replace oil. It just takes up to much real estate to make it work. Nuclear is something we already know how to do. We know it works and we can make it safe. Fusion is the promise of tomorrow. If we could master that then our energy needs will always be met. Solar and wind are at best a stop-gap measure and IMO only wastes time and money better spent on a permanent solution.