I am not thin skinned, just trying to be fair. Perhaps you should be less sensitive to those who don't agree with you and the scientists that support the "Gore hypotheses" (I know it's not his hypotheses, but perhaps he has claimed it for himself :) )

Again, the scientific community is not in agreement that CO2 is the culprit re climate change.

Science itself has thrived because it is open and grows through constructive destruction.


FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

edit: FWIW, if CO2 is the main concern, then China has the potential to be the mother of all CO2 bombs. Seems like total CO2 output should be the concern in this regard, especially as China builds more coal plants and its 1.2B citizens consume more energy. It appears the "per capita" angle of CO2 emissions has the effect of making the US look bad but conversely illustrates that China should be the bogeyman as it's population becomes more power hungry. 2¢ worth for you.

That's new math. :D

Sorry, should be "four times". At least some one is paying attention.

Best,

Kurt

Well let's rephrase that. I think we could safely say: "A majority of the relevant scientific community agrees than man-made CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to climate change."

Do you agree?

Hey, Dot, whats the biggest greenhouse gas?

I am not informed enough about this subject to answer that question.

But, I do know that there are highly qualified and relevant members of the scientific community who claim that warming events precede build-ups of CO2 in the atmosphere and that solar cycles may be play a significant role in the warming and cooling cycles in Earth's history.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

water vapor, what did I win?

Directly above that island on the upper left coast, its methane that rises off the bull$hit produced there.

Elsewhere its water vapour.

I paid attention when I was watching Al's film.

Oceans are rising dangerously fast. Has Algore sold his house on Figure Eight Island yet?

another REALLY funny thing is that Gore and Edwards and other lefty types tell us all the time about how we need to restrain our own consumption and or use of oil, etc. and yet they have huge levels of consumption. Gore uses a private jet all the time and Edwards has a massive home in NC.

It begs the question, how can you not be a elite when you tell people to do one thing, and then do the other yourself?

With respect to as to if people are bashing the US in this thread and as a part of this debate, yes, they are! to say otherwise is to be dishonest. The reason in my view people bash the US is that it is popular in the general media to do so and people like to be welcomed and that opinions they speak accepted.

the fact remains, this country was built on a free market system. it will be destroyed when we get too far from that system to the point where our people can't compete and business moves away from the US.

and it will be the middle class that will suffer the most as it is today.

but, go ahead, keep the cycle of blame going if you wish.

"A majority of the relevant scientific community agrees than man-made CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to climate change."

That is absolutely fundamentally 100% FALSE on two levels: 1) man-made CO2 have not been proven by anyone to cause any problems; and 2) scientists are FAR from in agreement on this issue. This explains it fairly succinctly:

>>>Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.<<<

And if you're relying on any of the UN and/or IPCC studies - upon which the entire global-warming movement is based - for any information, please read this first to make an objective decision on your own as to whether they are worth the paper they're written on:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html

and this on scientific consensus:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_ the_debate_is_not_over.html


.

Primary sources of power are:
1. Coal
2. fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, diesel, gasoline)
3. Hydro- nearly maxed out now
4. Nuclear

Name one alternate source of power that can provide as much as 1% of our current use, name one that can provide 10% of our current use.

Bet that you can't name a single source of power that tops 1%, in fact any sources added together that can top 1% of our current use.

Current worldwide use is approx 1 cubic mile of oil. Convert that to BTUs and then compare it to whatever you want to call alternate source power.

Gee whiz. The Science & Public Policy Institute. Founded by Republican lobbyists and funded by Exxon.

And I'm supposed to prefer their science to that of the IPCC and a global community of respected scientists? You are kidding right???

Tell me you're kidding.

The water level of the world has risen 500 feet over the past 20,000 years, since the heigth of the last ice age.

The global warming alarmists predict a water level increase of 2-3 feet in the next 100 years. That conviently matches what has been going on naturally for 20,000 years. :eek:

RB, you missed my sarcasm. If the Algore believed his own pablum, he'd have sold his house on Figure Eight Island. For surely, it will be soon be reclaimed by the sea.

Oh, I got it. I was just pointing out that low lying (or is it low lieing) islands have had something to fear for a long time.

Well, here are 2006 numbers from the US Government via a graph:

The Role of Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2006

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1192324041.jpg

source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html

These figures refute most of your claims.

Hydro is not even close to "maxed out". Tidal energy is already providing power to the grid in Norway (since 2003) and a true tidal plant is scheduled to (might already be up) be operating in Northern Ireland by the end of this year. These are small plants (1.2kW) in Ireland, but excellent examples of the energy available from tides. I guess you could argue these are "nuclear" plants. :)

If you do some research, most states and countries of the world have set deadlines by which a certain percentage of power must come from renewable sources. As a result of this, investment in renewable sources of energy has literally exploded.

Of course, all of this energy is nuclear at the source even oil, gas and coal.

Here is some fun sun energy info:

The flows and stores of solar energy are vast in comparison to human energy needs.
The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year.[9]
Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.
Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.[10]
Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.[11][9]
Worldwide energy consumption was 0.471 ZJ in 2004.[12]

See this Wiki link for source material enumerated above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#_note-Energy_at_the_Crossroads


Expect to see an acceleration in wind, tidal and solar energy producing applications and subsequently an increases in the size of the pieces of that pie chart above that say "renewable".

Heck, it's not that hard today to create all of the power one needs for one's house and car from off the shelf solar and wind products, granted it is expensive . . . for now. Of course, it's still not so easy to get from Texas to Taiwan on solar, wind and/or tidal power. :D

Best,

Kurt

The one thing that some of the folks here are failing to see is that there are some new technologies to be developed and some interesting investment opportunities to be had as a result of a concerted effort to reduce carbon emissions. Only the fossil fuel zealots are going to be sad, unless they take a leadership role in developing these new technologies. Invent! Invest! Make some bucks. :)

I don't think anyone fails to see that and I don't think anyone believes we'll be using mostly gas-powered combustion engines forever. This has nothing to do with why Al Gore got the Peace Prize, when his work has nothing whatsoever to do with peace and everything to do with politics.

Rick: Don't be too sure about that! :D

Best,

Kurt

OK, I really don't give a ***** about Al Gore or the prize. It's history now. But there has been so much whining going on in this thread about global warming that I'd like to prod people into thinking more about the opportunities. :)