We're wet in about 13 years

[owl]

My bad. I erroneously assumed that because you put the link in the sentence, "It certainly doesn't help that the climate change skeptics are the same people who manipulate scientific reports," that you were saying that climate change skeptics are the same people who manipulate scientific reports. I didn't realize that it was just general Republican bashing.

 

Again, it doesn't help that these guys- the biggest opponents to climate change- are the ones systematically doctoring scientific reports.

Not my fault if you're too faux-dense to figure that out.

[ikol]

My point is that they aren't the opponents of climate change. There are plenty of scientists not affiliated with Bush (even some - gasp - leftwing ones) that don't think humans are the main cause of climate change. And I'm willing to bet some of them even don't manipulate data (though we'd all probably be shocked if we knew how many scientists in general actually do this kind of thing).

[owl]

I don't deny that. I'm saying that it doesn't help the skeptic's credibility when the world's anti-climate change figurehead is appointing non-scientists to essentially manipulate scientific data (of all kinds).

[Moe_Syzlak]

My point is that they aren't the opponents of climate change. There are plenty of scientists not affiliated with Bush (even some - gasp - leftwing ones) that don't think humans are the main cause of climate change. And I'm willing to bet some of them even don't manipulate data (though we'd all probably be shocked if we knew how many scientists in general actually do this kind of thing).

Yes but they are the vast minority and it doesn't serve the public when the majority of the scientific community is roundly ignored by an entire branch of government. Debate/peer review is an essential part of science and will always exist. You can't wait for 100% consensus. (sorry for popping in and out of this so I hope I'm not repeating too much) Besides, where to place the blame is infinitely less important IMO than what to do about it since there is near consensus that climate change is occurring and will represent a problem for our planet/species.

[JUDE]

 

Pollution hurts all of us, get involved now.

[remphish1]

My point is that they aren't the opponents of climate change. There are plenty of scientists not affiliated with Bush (even some - gasp - leftwing ones) that don't think humans are the main cause of climate change. And I'm willing to bet some of them even don't manipulate data (though we'd all probably be shocked if we knew how many scientists in general actually do this kind of thing).

 

ikol...it is alright to disagree on the future climate but I put this thought on the line. How about having better air to breath for our current generation. The number of people with lung cancer from poisionus sut is rising at a fast pace (Due mostly to coal fired plants and gasoline emissions). The air is so much cleaner in other parts of the world that it is crazy we can't do somethig to fix this. I have been to places where I felt like I was choking from the air quality (Chile, Argentina) to places that it was so refreshing just to breathe (Finland Sweeden etc)

On another note I don't know why in America we don't utilize wind farms, solar and hydropower more! It seems so logical!

[ikol]

ikol...it is alright to disagree on the future climate but I put this thought on the line. How about having better air to breath for our current generation. The number of people with lung cancer from poisionus sut is rising at a fast pace (Due mostly to coal fired plants and gasoline emissions). The air is so much cleaner in other parts of the world that it is crazy we can't do somethig to fix this. I have been to places where I felt like I was choking from the air quality (Chile, Argentina) to places that it was so refreshing just to breathe (Finland Sweeden etc)

On another note I don't know why in America we don't utilize wind farms, solar and hydropower more! It seems so logical!

 

I agree that having clean air is good. The question is whether CO2 is a pollutant. If CO2 emissions are not a significant contribution to global warming, then it would be better to focus on reducing other pollutants that actually do harm the environment and people. I'm not sure whether it's true that more people are getting lung cancer from soot. I somehow doubt it since the air is actually cleaner now than it was in the past. Wind, solar, and hydropower are all good ideas and could at least reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, though they would only be useful in some areas. I don't understand why no one here has brought up nuclear power as a possible solution. At least nuclear waste is containable.

[Edie]

At least nuclear waste is containable.

 

In theory. I remember when the debates were raging about nuclear energy around whether or not it can be safely contained (cost/benefit analysis of doing the right things the right way always came out negative for the energy companies). People were even talking about sending spent fuel rods into space. Its all about NIMBY. I wouldn't want one built in my neighborhood -- would you?

 

I think that what frustrates people is that there could be a full court press being initiated by the US govenment. If some of the money currently being spent on the war were spent on finding ways to reduce our dependence on the more pollution inducing energy sources and seeking new, healthier sources, it would actually spur on the economy with needs for symbiotic products.

 

India and China are the next main consumers of energy -- why not try to get them using new technology now before they become too terribly invested in the old? Also -- someone(s) are going to do this. We can either be at the forefront or play catch-up.

[ikol]

I wouldn't want one built in my neighborhood -- would you?

 

Well, I'm about an hour away from a nuclear plant, and it doesn't bother me. I just don't understand why people that want alternative energy sources never even mention nuclear as a possibility. Wind power only works in windy places, and it shreds birds. Solar is very expensive, and it's going to take some major technological advances before it's practical. The technology for nuclear already exists and it's relatively safe. If people are really worried about CO2 emissions, they're going to have to weigh the cost of using fossil fuels against the risk of nuclear.

[Atticus]

just throwing in a stray ball--any supporters in here of corn-based ethanol?

[cryptique]

just throwing in a stray ball--any supporters in here of corn-based ethanol?

There are certain grasses that are better for that.

[owl]

Well, I'm about an hour away from a nuclear plant, and it doesn't bother me. I just don't understand why people that want alternative energy sources never even mention nuclear as a possibility. Wind power only works in windy places, and it shreds birds. Solar is very expensive, and it's going to take some major technological advances before it's practical. The technology for nuclear already exists and it's relatively safe. If people are really worried about CO2 emissions, they're going to have to weigh the cost of using fossil fuels against the risk of nuclear.

 

Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit commonly pegged as a liberal group, supports cutting greenhouse gases to prevent climate change, as well as nuclear power.

[explodo]

just throwing in a stray ball--any supporters in here of corn-based ethanol?

No from me. As mentioned, there are better methods and while it "helps" corn producers, it also kills the rest of us with increased costs of everything. And the demand is going to end up being too high for our current production methods. Not that we can't do it, but we're pretty much raping ye olde corn belt in the process.

[owl]

It seems silly to me to continue to look for combustible fuels, when we could be doing a lot more to improve mileage or even produce electric/hybrid cars.

 

Corn-based ethanol is pretty useful in some applications, but probably not as a fuel for vehicles. Supply and demand is definitely an issue- our recent ethanol consumption has driven the price of tortilla flour through the roof in Mexico and elsewhere.

 

Also, I've noticed that some legislation is in the works to decrease pollution controls on ethanol plants because we need so much of it. Doesn't seem like a great trade-off in my book. More pollution also gives NIMBY people more ammo.

[ikol]

just throwing in a stray ball--any supporters in here of corn-based ethanol?

 

I'm more of a supporter of barley-based ethanol.

 

Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit commonly pegged as a liberal group, supports cutting greenhouse gases to prevent climate change, as well as nuclear power.

 

Good.

 

It seems silly to me to continue to look for combustible fuels, when we could be doing a lot more to improve mileage or even produce electric/hybrid cars.

 

Why not do a little of both?

[owl]

I'm not opposed to that, either. To me, though, it makes sense to make a goal of phasing out combustible fuel as much as possible, especially for vehicle use. It's already possible to get pretty decent mileage from battery-powered vehicle that rely on, say, nuclear plants.

[explodo]

Why not do a little of both?

For now, that is an obvious solution. But what comes of that in the long term? Alternate combustible fuels are just delaying the inevitable, but they will cause enough of a shift in the mentality of the average citizen (people will be saying, oh, global warming, we got rid of that with E85). And then we get to deal with a bunch of complacent yahoos again in 15 or 20 years when we need to save the earth again.

[bjorn_skurj]

Stop fighting. Problem solved.

 

Recruiting Plankton to Fight Global Warming

By MATT RICHTEL

 

SAN FRANCISCO, April 30

[ikol]

Great! Now we just have to kill off all those damn whales that eat plankton!

[bjorn_skurj]

That would revitalize the New England economy AND spark a revival of scrimshaw!! Win-win!!

[Sir Stewart]

Call me Ishmael!

[anodyne]

i used to live about half a mile from a nuclear plant (in a trailer park). we were okay with that, but not with nuclear waste.

 

we also used to have power plant reps in our schools giving us pep talks about the plusses of nuclear power. i used to have an I (heart) NUCLEAR POWER pin from third grade that the plant rep passed out to us.

[remphish1]

From CNN.com this morning.

 

Deal reached on climate change

Story Highlights

 

[owl]

i used to live about half a mile from a nuclear plant (in a trailer park). we were okay with that, but not with nuclear waste.

 

we also used to have power plant reps in our schools giving us pep talks about the plusses of nuclear power. i used to have an I (heart) NUCLEAR POWER pin from third grade that the plant rep passed out to us.

 

I only live about 1/2 hour from Three Mile Island. :woot

 

I'm glad to have power, and I'm even more glad that it's not coal.

[Moe_Syzlak]

It's sooo simple!