Global Warming/Climate Change

[Quoner]

Whoever gave that status a minus hates everything great about this website.

[Censored by Laurie]

Whoever gave that status a minus hates everything great about this website.

Fixed...+1 to bob...just in case, you know, he's right.

[oldguystudent]

Wow. I suddenly have the urge to go dancing with a nine iron on a golf course in a thunder storm. That was just plain epic.

[UNT Five&Dime]

My sincerest apologies to any of you I have ever wronged.

[Quoner]

"Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour." - Matthew 25:13

"Maybe we are in the early stages of the Tribulation? One thing I know for sure, its not going to get any better. Best to prepare. Sorry. Wish I could spin the Truth." MGB, post 477, lines 5-6

[oldguystudent]

"Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour." - Matthew 25:13

"Maybe we are in the early stages of the Tribulation? One thing I know for sure, its not going to get any better. Best to prepare. Sorry. Wish I could spin the Truth." MGB, post 477, lines 5-6

I believe it was May 21, 2011, guaranteed.

[Grant.UNT]

That's the saddest thing I've seen in a while. Poor kid even tried to stop himself from going down the hill. I feel bad laughing at it, but I am.

[HoustonEagle]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/ouch-july-in-us-was-hottest-ever-in-history-books/

[yyz28]

http://www.washingto...-history-books/

and 09, 10 & 11 were some of the coldest winters on records. Localized weather patterns do not a climate argument make.

Remember in the 70's we were headed for global winters... ...and now we're warming uncontrollably. If there is anything impacting our climate it is solar patterns, and global cycles and whims of mother nature and not human activity. We see measured temp swings on Mars as we monitor it, and I'm fairly certain they aren't man made.

I absolutely think we can both positively and negatively impact our local environment and as a result impact the health and wellbeing of our citizens, but I don't think we have the power to impact the global climate or temperature.

[forevereagle]

We see measured temp swings on Mars as we monitor it, and I'm fairly certain they aren't man made.

How do you know? We do keep sending garbage there.

[yyz28]

LOL! Well played...

[HoustonEagle]

and 09, 10 & 11 were some of the coldest winters on records. Localized weather patterns do not a climate argument make.

Remember in the 70's we were headed for global winters... ...and now we're warming uncontrollably. If there is anything impacting our climate it is solar patterns, and global cycles and whims of mother nature and not human activity. We see measured temp swings on Mars as we monitor it, and I'm fairly certain they aren't man made.

I absolutely think we can both positively and negatively impact our local environment and as a result impact the health and wellbeing of our citizens, but I don't think we have the power to impact the global climate or temperature.

You sound very sure of yourself you must study this extensively. Is that your line of work? As to the article, I am not basing any climate argument on it. Just there for the reading.

Edited August 8, 2012 by HoustonEagle

[yyz28]

I've read on this subject extensively, but I'm no scientist.

...what I'm saying is that I've read so much contradictory information, I'm convinced we don't really know much about how climate and weather works. ...but even our limited science at present tells me that we're nowhere near the warmest we've ever been nor the coldest. Solar activity swings in 12 year cycles, our magnetosphere experiences changes (and did before we ever showed up on this planet) and we have measured natural events that in one day does the environmental damage we've done since industrialization.

I just don't see our impact, and short of literally turning off industrialization and the world economy, I don't see how we can impact it, if or at all.

This is just my conclusion based on what I've studied. The doomsday-ers are virtually always wrong. My study of the subject combined with my gut and watching the political opportunism in an effort to control behavior tells me they are this time too.

[UNTstormchaser]

I've read on this subject extensively, but I'm no scientist.

...what I'm saying is that I've read so much contradictory information, I'm convinced we don't really know much about how climate and weather works. ...but even our limited science at present tells me that we're nowhere near the warmest we've ever been nor the coldest. Solar activity swings in 12 year cycles, our magnetosphere experiences changes (and did before we ever showed up on this planet) and we have measured natural events that in one day does the environmental damage we've done since industrialization.

I just don't see our impact, and short of literally turning off industrialization and the world economy, I don't see how we can impact it, if or at all.

This is just my conclusion based on what I've studied. The doomsday-ers are virtually always wrong. My study of the subject combined with my gut and watching the political opportunism in an effort to control behavior tells me they are this time too.

Just a couple of quick points (edited note: a quick couple of points was my original plan...major fail). First, we do have the power to impact the environment as a whole. Now, one person doing something doesn't make a damn difference obviously. But due to the vast amount of people in the world, and the growing amount of people that are now living in industrialized areas, there is an impact.

I'm going to paint an imaginary scenario here. Let's say that up until 10 years ago, humans did not impact the environment in any way, shape, or form. The world was literally as it would be had we not been rapidly advancing in our technology. Obviously, this is unrealistic since we had had a solid 50+ years of cars being incredibly common, but bear with me here. So, it's 2002, and the environment is perfectly clean, no oil spills, no carbon monoxide from cars, no coal plants, etc...100% perfect. Let's look at just the United States for this exercise as well. And, we're going to steady the population at 300,000,000 people in the US, over the last 10 years. Now, the 2011 number for number of registered cars in the US is over 250,000,000, but for this exercise we'll go conservative, and take into account that not every car is driven daily, and say there are 200,000,000 cars driven daily. The average car emits 6 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. That's 60 tons over 10 years. Multiply by 200,000,000, and you get 12 billion, or 12,000,000,000 tons of CO2 over 10 years, which equates to 24,000,000,000,000 (24 trillion!) pounds of CO2 being put into the atmosphere over the last 10 years by cars in the United States. 24 trillion pounds.

Now going back to reality, humanity has obviously effected the environment before 2002, the United States isn't the only country in the world with cars, and cars aren't the only thing that makes an impact. You have to look at coal plants, oil spills, cars, planes, trains, boats, chemical factories, et cetera et cetera et cetera, in every country in the world, from the beginning of the industrial revolution.

No big deal, one might say, we have trees that love CO2, and they'll balance it out by taking it in and spitting out more oxygen, thus balancing out the atmosphere. But, not only does it not exactly work that way, we're also cutting down 3-6 billion trees, or deforesting an area the size of Ireland, annually.

Now the question is, how much does this effect the climate? That's what scientists are trying to figure out. Global warming is such a terrible term and most scientists hate the fact that it's referred to as this, but the correct term is Global Climate Change. The average air temperature is getting warmer, yes, but that doesn't mean hot winters and hot summers. The increase is so small that it doesn't necessarily effect the way the air would feel if we were to raise the temperature on any given day by that amount. But that isn't the issue. The ocean is getting warmer, resulting in a shift in currents, which is what drives climate patterns. Ever wonder why Finland is a lot warmer than northern Canada, despite their being the same distance from the equator? The gulf current is why, it brings warm air to Europe, which is why Europe is so much warmer that other areas around the world that are at the same distance from the equator. Currents are incredibly important to climate around the world, and when they shift even slightly it can result in drastic change. One of the biggest catalysts of a current shift can be rising sea levels, which are resulting due to melting ice caps. Basic science tells us that water expands as it freezes, and a large amount of the Earth's water is stored at both poles. When this ice melts, it goes back into the ocean, resulting in a rising sea level.

So again, the question remains, how much is our behavior effecting the climate? I don't personally know that, no one knows definitively one way or the other. There is no question that we are effecting the atmosphere in some way, but the level of impact that will have is yet to be seen. The Earth goes through many climate shifts, we all know this and both sides use this as rhetoric. That isn't the issue. As a species we will adapt and survive, as long as something ridiculous doesn't happen, or we don't kill ourselves through stupidity. Obviously, we're in a period of global warming currently. Again, this doesn't mean hot winters and hot summers, this means a change in climate patterns. This could result in hotter then hell summers (like the one we're experiencing nationally right now, July 2012 was officially declared the hottest month on record in US history, going back to the late 1800's, the average temperature was 3.7 degrees higher than the average of July throughout the 20th century), freezing winters, desertification in new areas, different areas becoming frequent wetlands, or anything else you can think of.

Now, again, I don't know, nor does anyone else, how much of an effect our pollution will have. I only focused on CO2, and that's not even the only problem. But, it will take years of scientific analysis to fully understand what impact humanity has. My personal opinion? I think that we are indeed in a natural warming pattern, but we are exacerbating it to at least some extent. How much, I do not know, but I think it's foolish to think that we aren't making an impact at all. The amount of extreme things that are happening in relation to weather and climate is just too much to ignore. We've experienced two ridiculously hot summers in a row now. The 2011 tornado season was the worst in history, and it wasn't even close, and 2012 has been both bad and unpredictable (near record highs in tornadoes some months, record lows in others). Hurricane season started unseasonably early this year. It snowed significantly in October in the northeast last year, which is incredibly rare. Even internationally there have been some crazy cataclysms over the past few years that have made people scratch their heads. We're in a period of change folks, like it or not.

Real quick, I don't know how much of an effect we can have short term in trying to change our ways. As yyz28 said, nothing short of a complete overhaul in the way we live is going to be drastic enough to try to fix the way we are living, but I think that at least slow progress is a start. Hybrid cars eventually leading to electric cars, moving onto clean energy like nuclear and solar power, etc., can be great things. Sorry for the novel folks, there's a lot to say on this topic.

Edited August 9, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[forevereagle]

Just a couple of quick points (edited note: a quick couple of points was my original plan...major fail).

[UNTLifer]

Just a couple of quick points (edited note: a quick couple of points was my original plan...major fail). First, we do have the power to impact the environment as a whole. Now, one person doing something doesn't make a damn difference obviously. But due to the vast amount of people in the world, and the growing amount of people that are now living in industrialized areas, there is an impact.

I'm going to paint an imaginary scenario here. Let's say that up until 10 years ago, humans did not impact the environment in any way, shape, or form. The world was literally as it would be had we not been rapidly advancing in our technology. Obviously, this is unrealistic since we had had a solid 50+ years of cars being incredibly common, but bear with me here. So, it's 2002, and the environment is perfectly clean, no oil spills, no carbon monoxide from cars, no coal plants, etc...100% perfect. Let's look at just the United States for this exercise as well. And, we're going to steady the population at 300,000,000 people in the US, over the last 10 years. Now, the 2011 number for number of registered cars in the US is over 250,000,000, but for this exercise we'll go conservative, and take into account that not every car is driven daily, and say there are 200,000,000 cars driven daily. The average car emits 6 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. That's 60 tons over 10 years. Multiply by 200,000,000, and you get 12 billion, or 12,000,000,000 tons of CO2 over 10 years, which equates to 24,000,000,000,000 (24 trillion!) pounds of CO2 being put into the atmosphere over the last 10 years by cars in the United States. 24 trillion pounds.

Now going back to reality, humanity has obviously effected the environment before 2002, the United States isn't the only country in the world with cars, and cars aren't the only thing that makes an impact. You have to look at coal plants, oil spills, cars, planes, trains, boats, chemical factories, et cetera et cetera et cetera, in every country in the world, from the beginning of the industrial revolution.

No big deal, one might say, we have trees that love CO2, and they'll balance it out by taking it in and spitting out more oxygen, thus balancing out the atmosphere. But, not only does it not exactly work that way, we're also cutting down 3-6 billion trees, or deforesting an area the size of Ireland, annually.

Now the question is, how much does this effect the climate? That's what scientists are trying to figure out. Global warming is such a terrible term and most scientists hate the fact that it's referred to as this, but the correct term is Global Climate Change. The average air temperature is getting warmer, yes, but that doesn't mean hot winters and hot summers. The increase is so small that it doesn't necessarily effect the way the air would feel if we were to raise the temperature on any given day by that amount. But that isn't the issue. The ocean is getting warmer, resulting in a shift in currents, which is what drives climate patterns. Ever wonder why Finland is a lot warmer than northern Canada, despite their being the same distance from the equator? The gulf current is why, it brings warm air to Europe, which is why Europe is so much warmer that other areas around the world that are at the same distance from the equator. Currents are incredibly important to climate around the world, and when they shift even slightly it can result in drastic change. One of the biggest catalysts of a current shift can be rising sea levels, which are resulting due to melting ice caps. Basic science tells us that water expands as it freezes, and a large amount of the Earth's water is stored at both poles. When this ice melts, it goes back into the ocean, resulting in a rising sea level.

So again, the question remains, how much is our behavior effecting the climate? I don't personally know that, no one knows definitively one way or the other. There is no question that we are effecting the atmosphere in some way, but the level of impact that will have is yet to be seen. The Earth goes through many climate shifts, we all know this and both sides use this as rhetoric. That isn't the issue. As a species we will adapt and survive, as long as something ridiculous doesn't happen, or we don't kill ourselves through stupidity. Obviously, we're in a period of global warming currently. Again, this doesn't mean hot winters and hot summers, this means a change in climate patterns. This could result in hotter then hell summers (like the one we're experiencing nationally right now, July 2012 was officially declared the hottest month on record in US history, going back to the late 1800's, the average temperature was 3.7 degrees higher than the average of July throughout the 20th century), freezing winters, desertification in new areas, different areas becoming frequent wetlands, or anything else you can think of.

Now, again, I don't know, nor does anyone else, how much of an effect our pollution will have. I only focused on CO2, and that's not even the only problem. But, it will take years of scientific analysis to fully understand what impact humanity has. My personal opinion? I think that we are indeed in a natural warming pattern, but we are exacerbating it to at least some extent. How much, I do not know, but I think it's foolish to think that we aren't making an impact at all. The amount of extreme things that are happening in relation to weather and climate is just too much to ignore. We've experienced two ridiculously hot summers in a row now. The 2011 tornado season was the worst in history, and it wasn't even close, and 2012 has been both bad and unpredictable (near record highs in tornadoes some months, record lows in others). Hurricane season started unseasonably early this year. It snowed significantly in October in the northeast last year, which is incredibly rare. Even internationally there have been some crazy cataclysms over the past few years that have made people scratch their heads. We're in a period of change folks, like it or not.

Real quick, I don't know how much of an effect we can have short term in trying to change our ways. As yyz28 said, nothing short of a complete overhaul in the way we live is going to be drastic enough to try to fix the way we are living, but I think that at least slow progress is a start. Hybrid cars eventually leading to electric cars, moving onto clean energy like nuclear and solar power, etc., can be great things. Sorry for the novel folks, there's a lot to say on this topic.

You are Plumm's love child, period, end of story.

[mattmartin817]

Just a couple of quick points (edited note: a quick couple of points was my original plan...major fail). First, we do have the power to impact the environment as a whole. Now, one person doing something doesn't make a damn difference obviously. But due to the vast amount of people in the world, and the growing amount of people that are now living in industrialized areas, there is an impact.

I'm going to paint an imaginary scenario here. Let's say that up until 10 years ago, humans did not impact the environment in any way, shape, or form. The world was literally as it would be had we not been rapidly advancing in our technology. Obviously, this is unrealistic since we had had a solid 50+ years of cars being incredibly common, but bear with me here. So, it's 2002, and the environment is perfectly clean, no oil spills, no carbon monoxide from cars, no coal plants, etc...100% perfect. Let's look at just the United States for this exercise as well. And, we're going to steady the population at 300,000,000 people in the US, over the last 10 years. Now, the 2011 number for number of registered cars in the US is over 250,000,000, but for this exercise we'll go conservative, and take into account that not every car is driven daily, and say there are 200,000,000 cars driven daily. The average car emits 6 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. That's 60 tons over 10 years. Multiply by 200,000,000, and you get 12 billion, or 12,000,000,000 tons of CO2 over 10 years, which equates to 24,000,000,000,000 (24 trillion!) pounds of CO2 being put into the atmosphere over the last 10 years by cars in the United States. 24 trillion pounds.

Now going back to reality, humanity has obviously effected the environment before 2002, the United States isn't the only country in the world with cars, and cars aren't the only thing that makes an impact. You have to look at coal plants, oil spills, cars, planes, trains, boats, chemical factories, et cetera et cetera et cetera, in every country in the world, from the beginning of the industrial revolution.

No big deal, one might say, we have trees that love CO2, and they'll balance it out by taking it in and spitting out more oxygen, thus balancing out the atmosphere. But, not only does it not exactly work that way, we're also cutting down 3-6 billion trees, or deforesting an area the size of Ireland, annually.

Now the question is, how much does this effect the climate? That's what scientists are trying to figure out. Global warming is such a terrible term and most scientists hate the fact that it's referred to as this, but the correct term is Global Climate Change. The average air temperature is getting warmer, yes, but that doesn't mean hot winters and hot summers. The increase is so small that it doesn't necessarily effect the way the air would feel if we were to raise the temperature on any given day by that amount. But that isn't the issue. The ocean is getting warmer, resulting in a shift in currents, which is what drives climate patterns. Ever wonder why Finland is a lot warmer than northern Canada, despite their being the same distance from the equator? The gulf current is why, it brings warm air to Europe, which is why Europe is so much warmer that other areas around the world that are at the same distance from the equator. Currents are incredibly important to climate around the world, and when they shift even slightly it can result in drastic change. One of the biggest catalysts of a current shift can be rising sea levels, which are resulting due to melting ice caps. Basic science tells us that water expands as it freezes, and a large amount of the Earth's water is stored at both poles. When this ice melts, it goes back into the ocean, resulting in a rising sea level.

So again, the question remains, how much is our behavior effecting the climate? I don't personally know that, no one knows definitively one way or the other. There is no question that we are effecting the atmosphere in some way, but the level of impact that will have is yet to be seen. The Earth goes through many climate shifts, we all know this and both sides use this as rhetoric. That isn't the issue. As a species we will adapt and survive, as long as something ridiculous doesn't happen, or we don't kill ourselves through stupidity. Obviously, we're in a period of global warming currently. Again, this doesn't mean hot winters and hot summers, this means a change in climate patterns. This could result in hotter then hell summers (like the one we're experiencing nationally right now, July 2012 was officially declared the hottest month on record in US history, going back to the late 1800's, the average temperature was 3.7 degrees higher than the average of July throughout the 20th century), freezing winters, desertification in new areas, different areas becoming frequent wetlands, or anything else you can think of.

Now, again, I don't know, nor does anyone else, how much of an effect our pollution will have. I only focused on CO2, and that's not even the only problem. But, it will take years of scientific analysis to fully understand what impact humanity has. My personal opinion? I think that we are indeed in a natural warming pattern, but we are exacerbating it to at least some extent. How much, I do not know, but I think it's foolish to think that we aren't making an impact at all. The amount of extreme things that are happening in relation to weather and climate is just too much to ignore. We've experienced two ridiculously hot summers in a row now. The 2011 tornado season was the worst in history, and it wasn't even close, and 2012 has been both bad and unpredictable (near record highs in tornadoes some months, record lows in others). Hurricane season started unseasonably early this year. It snowed significantly in October in the northeast last year, which is incredibly rare. Even internationally there have been some crazy cataclysms over the past few years that have made people scratch their heads. We're in a period of change folks, like it or not.

Real quick, I don't know how much of an effect we can have short term in trying to change our ways. As yyz28 said, nothing short of a complete overhaul in the way we live is going to be drastic enough to try to fix the way we are living, but I think that at least slow progress is a start. Hybrid cars eventually leading to electric cars, moving onto clean energy like nuclear and solar power, etc., can be great things. Sorry for the novel folks, there's a lot to say on this topic.

I hope you never have a professor that takes off points for going over a word limit.

[UNTstormchaser]

hahahahhaha. Wednesday night, after moving furniture all day...I type short stories about global warming of course.

You are Plumm's love child, period, end of story.

I am not aware of who Plumm is, explain sir?

I hope you never have a professor that takes off points for going over a word limit.

I'd be screwed haha.

[Censored by Laurie]

[yyz28]

Just a couple of quick points (edited note: a quick couple of points was my original plan...major fail). First, we do have the power to impact the environment as a whole. Now, one person doing something doesn't make a damn difference obviously. But due to the vast amount of people in the world, and the growing amount of people that are now living in industrialized areas, there is an impact.....

....Real quick, I don't know how much of an effect we can have short term in trying to change our ways. As yyz28 said, nothing short of a complete overhaul in the way we live is going to be drastic enough to try to fix the way we are living, but I think that at least slow progress is a start. Hybrid cars eventually leading to electric cars, moving onto clean energy like nuclear and solar power, etc., can be great things. Sorry for the novel folks, there's a lot to say on this topic.

I only have time to address these two points...

I agree we have control over our local environment, but I doubt we have the ability to impact the climate on a global level.

...and Hybrid cars are more environmentally damaging to make as a result of the battery manufacturing process, and the chemicals involved (as are electric cars) than the emissions they save. Hybrid cars are about making individuals feel like they are doing something positive and about saving gasoline. Electric cars have to get their power from somewhere - power is never free and will require us to consume resources.

Like I say, the current science is so flawed and contradictory, I don't feel that we should be making public policy and attempting to modify behavior via fiat or dictate based on such flawed data. ...and when things like the manipulation of this data to make things look worse than they really are which has been uncovered now on a couple of occasions bolster this point.

We don't have enough history on actual temperature measurements to know if what we're seeing now is normal or unprecedented. Since we've started keeping track, we've seen global temps both drop and go up. ...and there are both internal and external forces far more powerful than CO2 emissions from industrialization that can impact our climate.

[adman]

You are Plumm's love child, period, end of story.

He does need a little help on his font sizes and colors though.

[UNTstormchaser]

I only have time to address these two points...

I agree we have control over our local environment, but I doubt we have the ability to impact the climate on a global level.

...and Hybrid cars are more environmentally damaging to make as a result of the battery manufacturing process, and the chemicals involved (as are electric cars) than the emissions they save. Hybrid cars are about making individuals feel like they are doing something positive and about saving gasoline. Electric cars have to get their power from somewhere - power is never free and will require us to consume resources.

Like I say, the current science is so flawed and contradictory, I don't feel that we should be making public policy and attempting to modify behavior via fiat or dictate based on such flawed data. ...and when things like the manipulation of this data to make things look worse than they really are which has been uncovered now on a couple of occasions bolster this point.

We don't have enough history on actual temperature measurements to know if what we're seeing now is normal or unprecedented. Since we've started keeping track, we've seen global temps both drop and go up. ...and there are both internal and external forces far more powerful than CO2 emissions from industrialization that can impact our climate.

Point 1: refer to my reasoning as for why I believe we do. I don't know if you actually read it or not, but since you aren't responding to my example I have to assume you didn't.

Point 2: I understand that about Hybrids. But it's a step in the right direction, and there are better ways to get that energy than by burning fuel**. With technological advancements, we will be able to make cleaner batteries. (**nuclear power.......literally the safest power source other than solar/wind. we switch from burning coal and oil to make electricity to nuclear, and bam, no worries about how we get that energy anymore.)

Point 3: I agree to an extent. It's never a bad idea to try to clean up our environment, but I agree that we can't just go overboard with it. But, put slow changing policies in place, kind of like goals. Random example: By the year 2055, 30% of the nation's energy should come from nuclear power. By 2100, it should be at 65%. Or something along those lines. Dramatic change is going to do more harm than good, but slow change and funding of the research of this matter (because it is incredibly important) should be priorities. The science isn't necessarily flawed, but the amount of data we currently have is inconclusive. Signs are pointing towards a change though, regardless of our impact, and we should prepare for that. And we should also stop playing with fire and try to slowly change the way we live.

[forevereagle]

[yyz28]

Point 1: refer to my reasoning as for why I believe we do. I don't know if you actually read it or not, but since you aren't responding to my example I have to assume you didn't.

I read it, and I reject it. No real reason to respond. Sorry, I've been reading on this subject for 20 years now, and I don't buy it.

Point 2: I understand that about Hybrids. But it's a step in the right direction, and there are better ways to get that energy than by burning fuel**. With technological advancements, we will be able to make cleaner batteries. (**nuclear power.......literally the safest power source other than solar/wind. we switch from burning coal and oil to make electricity to nuclear, and bam, no worries about how we get that energy anymore.)

If the market was driving these technologies, I'd agree with you. ...but the ones with real potential, nuclear energy, hydrogen, clean coal, etc, are being stamped out and pushed aside while technologies that are far more expensive and less efficient, such as solar, bio-fuels and wind power, are being pushed because of politics, not because anyone is really trying to drive us to a new future.

In fact, the environmentalist who believes Global Warming is happening and his representatives in Government (the Democrats) will fight you all the way on Nuclear energy. ...and why do you think that is? Do you think its because they believe its unsafe? ...if they are so fatally flawed on their ideas about nuclear energy, why listen to them about the climate? ...or do you think there is another deeper motivation to the Environmentalist crowd that isn't REALLY about the environment at all? I'm not stating, I'm simply asking you to think about it...

Point 3: I agree to an extent. It's never a bad idea to try to clean up our environment, but I agree that we can't just go overboard with it. But, put slow changing policies in place, kind of like goals. Random example: By the year 2055, 30% of the nation's energy should come from nuclear power. By 2100, it should be at 65%. Or something along those lines. Dramatic change is going to do more harm than good, but slow change and funding of the research of this matter (because it is incredibly important) should be priorities. The science isn't necessarily flawed, but the amount of data we currently have is inconclusive. Signs are pointing towards a change though, regardless of our impact, and we should prepare for that. And we should also stop playing with fire and try to slowly change the way we live.

There is little in here I disagree with. ...but here you are in this thread being rather rational, and in the thread next door you support a President and a party who wouldn't allow us to build a nuclear power plant if our very existence depends on it. ...however, where I'm going to guess we differ is how much involvement the government should have on the subject anyways. Funding for scientific research and decisions about where we get our energy should be coming from the free market - not government.

[yyz28]

You got the jist of what I was sayin'! Love that episode... THAAAAAAAANKS!!!!!!!