Global Warming Part 2

I am finally becoming convinced that this is a real, man made + natural phenomenon. I have become convinced through making an in depth analysis, and seeing how science rather then politics or politicians are providing the tools to conclude that a potentially serious global warming series of events and trends is occurring.

The first bit of evidence you need to know when researching this, is understanding the "actual greenhouse greenhouse effect" and the "greenhouse effect of the Earth".

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Heat which is energy is transferred in 3 ways, conduction convection and radiation.

In a greenhouse the greenhouse gets heated from the sunlight. This light pours inside and warms the ground inside the greenhouse, which in turn warms the air just above it, this air through a process called diffusion which is when molecules move from an area of greater density to an area of lower density, fuels convection. Warmer air is less dense and cooler air is denser, cooler air being denser falls, while warmer air rises. Because the greenhouse is enclosed, it is a closed system, just like the Earth, however inside the Earth's closed system much more convection is occurring and the majority of heat that makes it into the Earth's system is re-radiated back at the planet.

The energy that travels through the vacuum of space is all radiation. On the Earth most of this energy is transferred via radiation and convection. Inside a greenhouse, sunlight penetrates the glass or plastic covering, via radiation. The glass or plastic is impermeable meaning that the molecules in a gas form cannot penetrate it and are trapped. Since they are trapped, the energy remains largely trapped, this is what increases the temperature inside the greenhouse.

On the Earth it works largely the same way, sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and is trapped. Some of it is re-radiated but a significant majority of that energy that gets into the system on Earth is drives out weather and climate.

The Earth's average surface temperature is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Effect.png

When you increase the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is occurring yearly, and has been since the industrial revolution, but not at the same magnitude as presently, the ability of the atmosphere to act as a stronger radiator of energy back into the Earth's system of energy containment is increased.

In the last 50 years the amount of greenhouse gases has steadily increased, measured in parts per million, is not at the highest level in recorded history.

We know that the rate is high because we can measure, and independently verify preserved samples, of ice, taken in the antarctic, which match up very consistently across the continent, as far back as about 800,000 years. The ice itself cannot be measured by temperature, as it doesn't remain the same temperature as it did since then, however it has remained a solid since the time, as evidence by the layers or freezing visually identifiable.

These layers, when measured for "greenhouse gases" show very consistent patterns, which correlate directly with temperature. As the presence of greenhouse gases increases the temperature of the climate increases, in direct proportion. This is important because it gives scientists the ability to accurately predict the trend that is is increased greenhouse gases present in the system, means increased average temperature.

Why is increased average temperature a concern? It has to do with raising sea levels, because of the polar ice melting, although very slowly, it is occurring. What happens when land masses are no longer covered by snow and ice, is very similar to what happens in a greenhouse, that landmass, is heated by radiation from the sun, and the air is warmed, and spreads out, further increasing the rates of convection and re-radiation of the energy from sunlight already trapped in the atmosphere.

Science as of yet, has no way of controlling either the amount of sunlight entering the Earth's atmosphere, or speeding up the process of removing the excess energy in the atmosphere, or reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are being produced and leading to the increased rate of energy accumulation inside the Earth's system.
35,167 views 67 replies
Reply #1 Top
First I would like to say that you did good research and you tried to be logical in your presentation.

Here is where your mind became polluted with the religion of global warming which distorted your presentation. The religion is yours if you wish I am not going to deny you your beliefs if you wish to believe in money or global warming or horse crap as your god that is your business and I will not ridicule your religion.

I will however point out some facts that the religion of global warming tries to hide or obscure using fear and panic.

Let’s start with the Sun. The Sun is one of only two sources of heat for planet Earth. Without the Sun you have a ball of ice like the planets out past Pluto. Since we have put probes on Venus and Mars we have been able to document what was a theory back in the 1960’s which is that the Sun is getting hotter. It will continue to get hotter until it burns it’s self out. Once that happens all life will end in the solar system. One other thing that has been documented is that the planets are all getting warmer at the same rate. Venus and Mars with the Earth in the middle are all getting hotter by about one degree per century. This is not as linier as it sounds, when we have volcanic eruptions on the earth they lower the average temperature of the Earth by several degrees but on average we are still going up one degree, which means that the sun is warming more than one degree but it averages out over a century.

The other source of warmth for the planet is the planet Earth. The core of the Earth is hot, and responsible for breaking the Earth out of a 2 million year ice age by volcanic activity. The Earth has been warming up from that ice age for the last 10 thousand years. Man has only been dominant on the planet for the last 6 thousand years.
Ask yourself this question.
If the Earth goes through these cycles of hot and cold for the last three billion years what is it that man can do to harm the planet? We are currently in a break between ice ages. The last scientific prediction is that there is about 15 thousand years before we are in the next ice age. If man made global warming is a fact then the best we can hope for is to use it to slow down the next ice age. The Earths core is cooling and will become solid in about 2 billion years and when this happens all life on Earth will mimic the planet Mars as it is today. The core of Mars became solid some millions of years in the past so the clock is ticking people we get off the planet or mankind will be erased from the books as if we have never been here, except for the space probes that are moving away from us at 40 thousand miles an hour and our radio signals that degrade as they move farther away from us each second. Man made global warming is a hoax that has little meaning to mankind as we are all doomed one way or the other. There is more but I will let you chew on this for a while and then you can try to rebut it.

Reply #2 Top
Humanities' contribution of greenhouse gasses, is probably adjusting the equilibrium of the Earth and causing global warming. With the event in motion, and with little to stop its acceleration, nobody knows for certain where that leads the planet on the global scale.

Do you stop suddenly any and all contributing factors to the problem, without understanding it fully? No. Do you take measured and approaches that make sense at the time? Yes. The root cause of a lot of the CO2 emissions is carbon based fuel combustion and power generation from cheap fossil fuels. Exactly what effect, that has is not fully understood even 100 years after the invention of the automobile, however it is generally accepted that air pollution and smog occurs when you have dense traffic, and that you have higher ambient temperatures in cities as opposed to surrounding areas, due to localized greenhouse effect, and wasted heat energy from buildings. The best alternative to the automobile is an automobile that doesn't run on internal combustion but either capacitors or batteries. Most people, as you say, commute 10-20-30 miles a day, a battery powered vehicle can accomplish that twice a day no problem. For longer trips, people could rent an gas vehicle.

The problem with battery powered vehicles isn't people not wanting to drive them, or being conscience tenders of the environment. The problem is the monopoly of the automakers in this country. Brazil has 95-100 percent vehicles running on E100 ethanol, which they grow and harvest locally. Why can't that work for the USA? We grow crops better than anyplace on earth, yet, if the automakers didn't hold a monopoly on the market, deciding what the consumer wants, a vehicle like this could actually succeed. The Tucker, a vehicle which was the first to introduce seatbelts, was driven out of the market by the other automakers, which didn't feature seatbelts. It is a similar situation.

For generation of electricity, you need to find an equally cheap and plentiful resource to convert to energy as efficiently as coal and oil are. Unfortunately solar, and wind, are the only truely clean sources I know of and both are expensive capital wise. However if we spend the kind of money we are spending on Iraq, on a series of alternative energy projects, we'd have an electic car to rival the internal combustion one, and probably a huge solar manufacturing industry too.

The answer isn't ridding peoples lives of power or energy, you cannot stop or slow the need for power, beyond the reduce, reuse, recycle movement which is very valid. You can only become more efficient and intelligent in which industries and sources you acquire the power from. Nuclear energy is an interesting solution, as is solar, and fuel cells, if we were spending tens or hundreds of billions on fuel cells you could bet we'd have fuel cell power plants all over the place, and ridding out need to defend oil resources world wide.
Reply #3 Top
"If the Earth goes through these cycles of hot and cold for the last three billion
years what is it that man can do to harm the planet?"

Man is pumping in lots of CO2, and it is trapping more and more of the suns energy inside the Earth, and at a higher rate, than ever in history.

Perhaps the sun is getting hotter, or more solar energy is getting to us than in the past, so what Paladin? If we are in agreement that it is getting hotter than that's ok. If you wanna believe the sun is getting hotter fine, since neither of us have any way of knowing if the other is correct I suggest we wait for more data.

Either way, we have to do something about the problem in the next 50-100 years. I suggest since it makes economical sense to stop investing in fossil fuels and in renewable energies, solar, wind, and garbage convert, that we stop being dependent on oil and coal for power and for transport.
Reply #4 Top
I'm convinced that global warming is happening, though the exact reason why still eludes me. I'm thinking there is more than one factor. People could very well be the issue, as well as a natural global shift. CO2 is not helping matters at all, and shifting to alternative fuel sources would help a good bit as well as ween us off that whole foreign oil dependency thing.

...being a scientist in training, I have to pay attention to this...though I really hate the political aspect. Politics and science don't mix well.

~Zoo



Reply #5 Top
...being a scientist in training, I have to pay attention to this...though I really hate the political aspect. Politics and science don't mix well.


nor religion.

Personnally, Paladin, I find your denial as much dogmatic as you find belief in Global Warming, so stop using those terms to slander our point of view.

Let me tell you something: what is the economical advantage of global-warming-theory supporters for their points?

I can't find any that will give them any dollars by actually winning their point. Whatever money they make now in their fight (Like Al Gore), they will stop gaining it when governement will actually do something about it. They have nothing to gain by winning, only by fighting.

On the other side, what is the economical advantages of denials? I think it's pretty evident.

So, if we questionned the motives of both sides, I would follow the GW-theory supporters, simply because their goal is actually selfless, where the deniers are working in their own interest (thinking short-term, wanting to keep the stockholders happy)
Reply #6 Top
If humans are truly the cause of global warming, and IF the theory of evolution as we know it holds true, then we can predict a few scenarios based on what we know:

1. certain members of the species will adapt to the new climate. Others will die off.

2. With a catastrophic decline in the population, CO2 emissions will be reduced because there are fewer people alive to pollute. The problem will self correct.

3. The planet will still be here, albeit in an altered state. This is only the natural course of things.

Personally, I'm negotiating for a cabin in Fairbanks. I figure I'll be able to leave my kids some beachfront property in a temperate zone.
Reply #7 Top
certain members of the species will adapt to the new climate. Others will die off.


Unfortunately, if it happens too fast then a lot more species will die off. Evolution takes place over millenia.

The first things to die off will be tropical species, they have a shorter range of temperature tolerance. Artic animals would probably fair better...as long as they can find food.

~Zoo
Reply #8 Top
Evolution takes place over millenia.


this is correct. this is also incorrect.
Reply #9 Top
Artic animals would probably fair better


except the polar bear. they are to closely climit matched.
Reply #10 Top
this is correct. this is also incorrect.


Well, you don't bother explaining yourself, do you? I believe you're refering to microevolution and macroevolution. Mircoevolution only affects genetic diversity in a populations...so it's still the same organism, just with a certain set of genes. Macroevolution would be the only saving grace of some animals...but you would end up with completely new species when all is said and done.

except the polar bear. they are to closely climit matched.


It's not really the climate match, it's their food availability that's killing them. No ice packs to hunt on, so they're not doing so well. Some are finding ways to survive, but as a whole they're on the decline. Most artic animals do well in freezing to moderate temperatures because they experience such a huge range during the year. (The aquatic ones are a bit more limited.) I'd say anything above 15 degrees C would start being uncomfortable.

I'll be attending a lecture later this week that concerns polar bears and climate change, so I'll find out a bit more then.

~Zoo
Reply #11 Top
on one of the Galapagos islands. there were three species of sparrows(don't remember if they were really sparrows). one had a small beak, one had a medium beak, and one had a large beak. the one with the medium beak died out. scientists figured it would take the other two species 100 years to replace this dead species. it took 7.
Reply #12 Top
I am curious about 1 thing when it comes to talking about doing something about global warming. Dan Greene, is it your purpose of explaining ho we are the cause of global warming to stop global warming or to just postpone it?

The reason I ask this is because the way you,Al Gore, Sodiaho and others here sound is as if you wanna stop global warming but the solution you give, based on the theory of what is causing global warming, only slows down the effects postponing the problem as oppose to solving it.

The industrial revolution is being blamed for global warming so the solution would be to revert to pre-industrial times. But are we able to go back to riding horse, taking days instead of hours and moths instead of days to get from point A to point be? Are we all willing to give up A/C, satellite TV, computers, cellphones, refrigerators and American Airlines to save the planet? I mean lets be serious here, I don't see the point in us creating a little bit less CO2 and everything else that causes global warming of we still gonna destroy ourselves just not as fast. And I seriously doubt we can go from an oil driver world to alternative energy sources that "could" save the planet without going broke, crippling the economy, going to war and loosing millions of live in the process.

I'm sorry, but I just seem to have a problem with people who just don't look at the larger picture, who don't try to see future consequences of their choices and opinions when trying to find solutions to problems. There's a salsa song I like a lot from a Puerto Rican singer that says "the cure turns out to be worse than the sickness".
Reply #13 Top
But are we able to go back to riding horse,


sorry you can't have horses. its the methane. it is also all of the extra farm land that we would need to grow the food for the horses.


what i mean is if you give everyone 1 horse. which is what we have the usa in cars is at least one car for every person. not saying every person has a car.

that means that you now have 300,000,000 horses to feed and that give off gas. i wont mention the other waste product
Reply #14 Top

sorry you can't have horses. its the methane. it is also all of the extra farm land that we would need to grow the food for the horses.


what i mean is if you give everyone 1 horse. which is what we have the usa in cars is at least one car for every person. not saying every person has a car.

that means that you now have 300,000,000 horses to feed and that give off gas. i wont mention the other waste product


Well I'm not too sure horses would make up in gas what cars pollute but that does sound like a worse idea, not to mention all the crap on the floor 24/7. But can you imagine how these kinds of changes would affect the economy, and out lifestyle for that matter? I mean, imagine everyone having to change their cars just to avoid this theory of global warming? What about those who can't afford hybrids or electric cars? Don't expect me to sell my truck that is already paid for to get into a new expensive car just to save the planet. besides, who will buy my car? This just gets more and more rediculous the more you think about.

First it's an unproven theory, those who believe it wanna stop it but their solutions will only delay it, if we do try to stop global warming it would mean for everyone to stop using gas powered cars, factories would have to change their gas powered machines for eletric or other alternative fuel machines, power plants would have to be changed, airplanes, boats, generators. Am I making my point here? Do we really believe that driving our cars half as much or changing it for a less polluting car will make a difference? Are we trying to stop global warming or just trying to delay it?
Reply #15 Top
on one of the Galapagos islands. there were three species of sparrows(don't remember if they were really sparrows). one had a small beak, one had a medium beak, and one had a large beak. the one with the medium beak died out. scientists figured it would take the other two species 100 years to replace this dead species. it took 7.


Finches, actually. That's not exactly evolution, it's a competition factor. I'm not sure what specific study this is from, but I'll tell you about how they would fill the niche one species leaves behind. Large and small beaked finches cannot compete with each other(their feeding styles are dramatically different from eachother because of beak size), but the middle bird has to compete with both large and small species because it can handle foods from both ends of the spectrum, and that's probably the reason it died-too much competition. With it gone, the other two finches could flourish and take over the abandoned habitat and food sources. You said those two took over, which is exactly what they did...they didn't evolve, their behavior merely changed.

~Zoo
Reply #16 Top
no what i said is that they had replaced the middle bird. ie in 7 years there were medium beaked finches again.


and your also wrong. all three types use a different part of the feed chain.
Reply #17 Top
and your also wrong. all three types use a different part of the feed chain


Like I said, I'd love to see the study...as I can only speculate without actually reading it.

Were they different species or the same species with different traits? If the latter then microevolution would have occured. If the former...then I have no clue what the hell would happen and I'd really like to read that study.

~Zoo
Reply #18 Top
I wrote this out, a few weeks ago and then didn't touch it. Renently I've gone through the process of building a new computer, trying to get microsoft to play nice and let me run XP for a reasonable cost, and then realizing what I thought I really want to do is run VISA Ultimate. Unfortunately, I don't think I like Vista, anyway on this piece of writing I appreciate the commentary.

It is my belief that global warming is inclined to be true and scientifically so. Of course there are people, corporations, governments each with their own agenda's and with thier own belife.

A lot of that truth gets lots in the bs that is the marketing and consumer world of American media, in election mode. It seems just like the commercialization of Christmas, the media is dragging out the election way before the holiday, i.e. election.

Anyway, on the subject of the global warming thing, one must answer 5 questions.

1. Is it really occuring?

I believe, the scientific data we have on hand is not really sufficient to close the book on this question and definetively answer it. However, I also believe that we have a very significant and potentially alarming correlation between our massive CO2 output, and the rise in average measured temperatures. Backed by historical correlation between temperatures in ice core samples, taken anywhere in the world where they have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years.

2. What is causing it to occur?

There is a lack of evidence to definetly close the book on this too. It could be the sun just normally heating the planet more then in recent, recorded history, or the geological norms of the last few million years. Answer : Unknown. We only have maybe 300 to 500 years of accurately measures and recorded temperatures, and before that in written history perhaps 5000 years of recorded history, but few if any documents will provide the same level of measurable fidelity that would exist with a simple mercury therometer of today. Never mind computer models and scientific tools to measure temperatures to significant figures that were unheard of before the space age. What is lining up, and rather congruently is, the level of CO2, when the average temperature increases, in the atmosphere, that is the CO2 level goes up as the temperature goes up. They correlate. Mankind, through the industrial revolution, electrical power generation techniques, the internal combustion engine, and the global oil economy, contribute far greator CO2 emissions than in any event or point in history.

3. What are the effects if we do nothing?

This is no option and here is why. The human race is growing unchecked at a rapid pace, though not exponential, it certainly isn't linear. The planet was able to support millions, and may be able to sustain billions of people. It is hard to say, but there is obviously a number which cannot be sustainable supported with the technology we have and share today. Consider in 1950 there were 2.5 billion, only 50 years later, there were 5.9 billion, today, 6.7 billion. Perhaps in 2050 there will be 9 billion people on Earth. Drawing from the same pool of resources, causing the same level of pollution/emissions but at a greater rate because of the increased number of people. Even if we stopped contributing as a race, through industry and through individual consumption, if the human economy stopped suddendly, (which is impossible) the Earth's ecosystem is a titanic sized mass, and large masses don't change direction or speed, without great forces applied onto them.

4. What are they ways we can painlessly divert our lives to change the situation for the better?

People can continue to reduce, reuse, and recyle. Why is it that packaging materials are not reused? Why do we accept grocery stores, packing our goods for a single trip, in a brand new bag? There are lots of ways that we can intelligently conserve and develop new methods of power generation. The world is stuck on the oil economy, and though the oil companies would have you believe their objective is to move from that, their objective is to make money no matter what the costs to the environment.

5. What sacrifices are going to be necessary to both secure the future of the planet and stabilize and sustain the environment we have?

A. Get off the majority of the United States and the world off the oil economy, and into renewable and sustainable energy sources.

B. Re-invent packaging, to be recyable.

C. Change the debate from a political one to a scientic one.

Now for some responses to your interesting commentary...



"3. The planet will still be here, albeit in an altered state. This is only the natural course of things."

Unfortunately I believe that to be an unprobably event. If you plow over a plot of land, eventually you will see a forest or surrounding plant life return to the area plowed over, however if you put in a parking lot, and have traffic moving in and out daily, nothing grows there. I don't think a system as large as the Earth's will be as capable of supporting the variety of life that we have present today, in as stable a condition as we have today. However, nobody really knows.

"But can you imagine how these kinds of changes would affect the economy, and out lifestyle for that matter? I mean, imagine everyone having to change their cars just to avoid this theory of global warming? What about those who can't afford hybrids or electric cars? Don't expect me to sell my truck that is already paid for to get into a new expensive car just to save the planet. besides, who will buy my car? This just gets more and more rediculous the more you think about."

I suggest that we would make slow but determined changes. For example, on the transportation front, it is true that most people commute less than 60 mins one way to their work destination. So a trip, a charge, and another trip, and an overnight charge would work very well for an electrically owned vehicle.

If instead of shingles on your roof replaced every 20 years, you had solar powered cells, replaced every 30 years, you could not only charge your electrically powered car that way, but also pay for the bulk of your home heating and cooling bill, and if you had left over get a check or credit from the electric company.

Most Americans own two cars already, so if the second car you owned was a gas guzzler, you could drive it for long trips i.e. more than 200 miles. Or if you didn't want to own a second one, rent one when you needed to travel. Most Americans who have to travel a great distance use air travel and that is expected to increase in the future.

Do solar cells work? Yes, Do batteries work? Yes, Does the electric power grid already exist? Yes, Does the adaptor technology to charge a car from a 110 volt power outlet exist? Yes.

Instead of spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq to secure another stable oil reserve. Lets leave, and spend the next half a trillion we would have spend there, on developing the tools and technology to power our vehicles from the power outlet. Your next objection would be, that most of our power comes from coal and oil, and that is true, however with very little investment say $100 billion total, we could cheaply and easily produce solar cells, which provide power throughout the day, and build wind farms out in the country to provide power throughout the day and night. We could also build new nuclear fission power plants, because we already have a storage solution for the nuclear waste for both nuclear carriers, nuclear submarines, and the various nuclear power plants already in existence and operation in the country.

"so the solution would be to revert to pre-industrial times."

Only if you want to adopt an Amish way of life and want to live without electricity and automobile transportation. I favor a life with electricity generated cleanly or at least more efficiently, as well as better efficiency in our fuel economy by our internal combustion when necessary.

My commute to work is 20 miles there and 20 miles back. Assuming I had an electic car, instead of my 89 Buick, and I plugged in my car when I got there, it would be fully charged, after 8 hours, and ready for up to a 120 mile commute. In fact most of the trips I have taken this year have been well within an electric car's range. If I needed to go farther, or haul a load, which I do not do daily, then an internal combustion vehicle would be a good tool to use.

If I could accomplish the same trip for free and without polluting the air why would I choose to spend the money on the gas and pollute the air at the same time if I had an alternative available? Answer me that.
Reply #19 Top
Does the adaptor technology to charge a car from a 110 volt power outlet exist? Yes.


all this does is remove the tail pipe from your car to the power factory. at least at the moment.
Reply #20 Top
Your next objection would be, that most of our power comes from coal and oil, and that is true, however with very little investment say $100 billion total, we could cheaply and easily produce solar cells, which provide power throughout the day, and build wind farms out in the country to provide power throughout the day and night.




at the moment these techs. would not replace the coal.
Reply #21 Top
Nuclear power could replace coal over 25 years, as easily as we replaced horses with automobiles.

Moving the bulk of electrical power generation from coal to nuclear and then from nuclear to solar wouldn't be all that difficult. There is also a possibility of fuel cell technology.

I seriously don't see why nobody else seems to see, that we all have roof's with shingles instead of solar panels, and we all commute the distance electricity can take us, and we have a government that wastes money hand over foot on solutions to problems that aren't really solutions.

The amount of power generated by the size of a canopy at the gas pumps of my local gas station, here in Wisconsin, is sufficient to power the homes up and down the block adjacent to that service station. In Arizona the amount of sunlight that gets to the same sized solar panel is double that. The argument that we cannot provide the bulk of our power through solar is without fact. It may be a political problem, a startup capital problem, or it may be people wanting risk averse, but it definetly not a problem of not having the science and know how.

You dismiss the entire point and argument that alternative fuel and power generation is impossible or impractical, when you say...

"at the moment these techs. would not replace the coal."

Prove it! Please

In my defense I can tell you that the French get 75-85% of their electrical power from nuclear energy and Brazi gets almost 100% of their internal combustion economy from ethanol, so why here in the USA, the most technologically advanced country ever, are we not doing the same for the benefit of the world and for our own economy? I believe it is not a question of can we do it but do we have the will to do it?

Do this, type "nuclear power in france" into google and read a French perspective on the world. I'm not saying the French have it right I'm saying, why can't we do better and be at 90% nuclear providing power?

The reason France doesn't get involved in these wars in the mid-east for oil is very simple... They don't have to when their survival doesn't depend on it. Neither should ours, since we have a choice between being dependent on oil or not. Duh. I don't understand the argument that we can't afford it when Brazil and France can. Please do explain that shit to me lol.

I didn't go to college but I know bullshit when I see/hear/read it and the argument that we can't do it because of the money is just rich, pun intended.

Now If you wanna talk about how nuclear power is dangerous and lethal and how coal isn't, how you don't have to repaint your house every few years when you live next to a coal fired plant, or how asthma isn't increased by particulates in the air from coal fired plants. Sure we can talk all about that. Personally I think nuclear energy is a great direction for the USA to go in buy you all might have other feelings.
Reply #22 Top
Do this, type "nuclear power in france" into google and read a French perspective on the world. I'm not saying the French have it right I'm saying, why can't we do better and be at 90% nuclear providing power?


environmentalist


and that is also the answer to all of your other questions.


as for green power. we don't have enough farm land to grow corn for ethanol and food. also green power pollutes almost as bad as gas does. after all they are the same thing.

as for solar power there is another little problem and that is cash. the only ones who can afford it are the ones saying we need to use it as they burn more oil and gas and coal than the rest of us do.


i agree with nuclear power but everyones scared that their going to go boom like in the Ukraine.
Reply #23 Top
so have you replaced your tiles with solar panels.
Reply #24 Top
I am not an environmentalist. Does an environmentalist, drive a 1989 Buick? Does an environmentalist own a Quad Core CPU? Does an environmentalist, mow lawn with a motor lawnmower?

Give me a break, sure I use compact flouresent bulbs but not because they are more environmentally friendly but because they last longer. Which of my statements automatically makes me an environmentalist?

The one where I say, we can basically get free trips under 200 miles if we drive electric instead of internal combustion? If we have solar panels instead of shingles? Explain to me the benefit of having shingles on the roof over solar panels? Cosmetic appearance?

The problem with the cash for solar power, is we are taxed on gas, yet that money goes back into providing more roads for more cars to drive on and fuel the cars with more gas and oil. Hello, that is not breaking an oil/gasoline dependent cycle, Agree?

I further agree with you that Ethanol is not a further solution either. However, a car driving 85% ethanol yearly consumes 85% less gasoline. Once that gasoline is consumed it is lost forever and the energy consumed to make it is irreplenishable. The energy consumed to create ethanol is harvested continually in this country and abroad. We are the most advanced agriculturally on the planet, and your argument against ethanol is that we don't have enough farmland?

I think your understanding of agriculture is skewed, especially when I'll cite the laws of supply and demand which we can clearly both agree on, which further support a law which allows for a farmer to be paid for a crop even if it is not brought to market because of systemic oversupply.

Nuclear power is a great way to go and an intrepid president would be wise to put us into the path of nuclear and solar power generation.

If the government started offering the kind of grants and subsidization for solar panels they do for other useless bs to the rest of the country we would be weaing ourselves off oil at a rate or 1 or 2% a year, which would be a very great accomplishment in 50 years.

"the only ones who can afford it are the ones saying we need to use it as they burn more oil and gas and coal than the rest of us do."

Can we afford to continue to fight $500 billion wars for oil? Seriously would not that money have been better spent to rid our dependency for oil the same way the French have done. Do not deny that they sit in a much safer position when it comes to energy policy. World events and instability are not dictated to them. Why should they be to us?
Reply #25 Top
I am not an environmentalist. Does an environmentalist, drive a 1989 Buick? Does an environmentalist own a Quad Core CPU? Does an environmentalist, mow lawn with a motor lawnmower?


sorry that was the answer to your question i was not calling you an environmentalist. i usually use the fewest words possibly to answer a question