Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a crass simplification.

Using personal insults is an admission that one is losing the argument.

At present most developing countries are emulating the industrial revolution, so of course their production of CO2 etc is rising as their economies grow. That takes nothing away from the fact that its in their best long term interest to learn from some of our mistakes, and it certainly does not help the growth of their economies paying out so much on imported oil. Its not about holding their development back - its about enabling everyone to have sustainable development.

What does all that mean?

Those Third World countries whose economies are improving are producing more pollutants and “greenhouse gasses.” And all the rhetoric about "enabling everyone to have sustainable development’ doesn’t change that.

That’s irrelevant - at least there is an attempt which is heading in the right direction.

It’s highly relevant – it shows that the most committed countries understand how unwise this panic is.

So you threw in a red herring again. If you look at the recent press releases, my comments make complete sense. For example;

"Pope Benedict XVI urged respect for the environment, and noted that the primary victims of environmental degradation would be the world’s poor, in a message to a Vatican conference on climate change.

The Pope’s message was delivered to a meeting of 80 experts, drawn from 20 different countries, who were gathered for a 2-day discussion on global warming, sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The Pope’s message expressed the hope that the meeting could “promote lifestyles, models of production and consumption based on respect for creation and the real needs of sustainable progress.”

From here → cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50789

Your comments make sense?

What expertise does Benedict XVI have in climatology or other sciences? Our respect for him is based on his position as the successor of Peter, where his infallibility is limited to faith and morals.

 

[simonadams]

Using personal insults is an admission that one is losing the argument.

It was not a personal insult. It was an accurate response to your comment

What does all that mean?

Those Third World countries whose economies are improving are producing more pollutants and “greenhouse gasses.” And all the rhetoric about "enabling everyone to have sustainable development’ doesn’t change that.

I didn’t deny that. China’s economy has expanded massively in the last couple of decades. However, because it has been done in an unsustainable manner it is causing dreadful problems and suffering due to pollution of the land and rivers (see here for example → usatoday.com/money/world/2005-07-04-pollution-china-cover_x.htm ). You seem to be suggesting that as long as the economy is growing it doesn’t matter what damage and suffering is being created for future generations ?

It’s highly relevant – it shows that the most committed countries understand how unwise this panic is.

Firstly, since when does concern for the future=panic ? The planetary greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. The increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been noticed for decades. Its only now that we can see how the process can runaway due to feedback processes such as the release of methane from ocean beds that people are starting to realise how serious and soon the effects are likely to be, that its become clear we must start taking action soon.

And secondly, these ‘committed’ countries set fairly tough targets - the fact some of them are not quite on target to meet them doesn’t mean they don’t take these things seriously. Considering that one country with less than a quarter of the world’s population - and yet produces three quarters of the world’s total CO2 emissions - is making no federal attempt to reduce them at all, the fact that some countries aren’t reducing them by quite as much as they are trying to shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. It shows they are still trying despite the fact the difference they will make is negligible whilst the biggest emitter refuses to do anything.

Your comments make sense?

What expertise does Benedict XVI have in climatology or other sciences? Our respect for him is based on his position as the successor of Peter, where his infallibility is limited to faith and morals.

Of course my comments make sense. My original comment was;

simonadams:

Most of this nonsense about using energy more efficiently as being “panic reactions” etc comes directly from US NGO’s funded by companies like Exon. Why not get behind the Pope and the Vatican instead ?

The pope and the Vatican in general have to deal with real world scenarios affecting Catholics around the world. They have clearly come out suggesting we be more responsible in the way we treat Gods creation, for our future and especially for the poor who will be the most vulnerable to climate change, and have mentioned ‘energy use’ and the likes in this respect. So when I said “Why not get behind the Pope and the Vatican”, I was not claiming he was right because he is the Pope, as you inferred. I was saying exactly what I said.

The fact is that the Vatican’s views on these things are based on the advice of the likes of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and of the general consensus of the vast majority of scientists that specialise in climate modelling. Of course science can be wrong about this, but the chance is very small. To gamble away the future of mankind - of our children and grandchildren - on such bad odds, when we can make a serious difference by making relatively painless changes, is simply not Christian.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It was not a personal insult. It was an accurate response to your comment

That’s two personal insults.

I didn’t deny that. China’s economy has expanded massively in the last couple of decades. However, because it has been done in an unsustainable manner it is causing dreadful problems and suffering due to pollution of the land and rivers (see here for example → usatoday.com/money/world/2005-07-04-pollution-china-cover_x.htm ). You seem to be suggesting that as long as the economy is growing it doesn’t matter what damage and suffering is being created for future generations ?

A person who uses terms like “crass” to another, and then claims to be right is hardly qualified to restate that other person’s argument.

Those nations in the Third World which are growing are producing more pollution and “greenhouse gasses.” No Third World nation has managed to improve its economy without such effects.

Firstly, since when does concern for the future=panic ?

When one starts slinging insults and demanding others take precipitate actions with no proper scientific background, of course.

The planetary greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. The increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been noticed for decades. Its only now that we can see how the process can runaway due to feedback processes such as the release of methane from ocean beds that people are starting to realise how serious and soon the effects are likely to be, that its become clear we must start taking action soon.

And we should all set our hair on fire and jump off the cliff, eh?

And secondly, these ‘committed’ countries set fairly tough targets - the fact some of them are not quite on target to meet them doesn’t mean they don’t take these things seriously.

Not seriously enough to meet their targets.

Could it be that the effort is proving counter-productive?

Considering that one country with less than a quarter of the world’s population - and yet produces three quarters of the world’s total CO2 emissions - is making no federal attempt to reduce them at all, the fact that some countries aren’t reducing them by quite as much as they are trying to shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

No, it shows we aren’t panicing, and that the nations that did panic are rethinking their actions.

It shows they are still trying despite the fact the difference they will make is negligible whilst the biggest emitter refuses to do anything.

Riiiight – we all hate the USA.

Of course my comments make sense. My original comment was;

The pope and the Vatican in general have to deal with real world scenarios affecting Catholics around the world. They have clearly come out suggesting we be more responsible in the way we treat Gods creation, for our future and especially for the poor who will be the most vulnerable to climate change, and have mentioned ‘energy use’ and the likes in this respect. So when I said “Why not get behind the Pope and the Vatican”, I was not claiming he was right because he is the Pope, as you inferred. I was saying exactly what I said.

If you weren’t claiming he was right because he is the Pope, why would you even mention him?

The fact is that the Vatican’s views on these things are based on the advice of the likes of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and of the general consensus of the vast majority of scientists that specialise in climate modelling. Of course science can be wrong about this, but the chance is very small. To gamble away the future of mankind - of our children and grandchildren - on such bad odds, when we can make a serious difference by making relatively painless changes, is simply not Christian.

To gamble away the future of mankind by embarking on vast changes based on poorly-understood science is irresponsible.

 

[Jeffrey]

That’s a crass simplification. At present most developing countries are emulating the industrial revolution, so of course their production of CO2 etc is rising as their economies grow. That takes nothing away from the fact that its in their best long term interest to learn from some of our mistakes, and it certainly does not help the growth of their economies paying out so much on imported oil. Its not about holding their development back - its about enabling everyone to have sustainable development.

That’s irrelevant - at least there is an attempt which is heading in the right direction.

So all you have to do is make an attempt? Cool!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by simonadams
That’s a crass simplification. At present most developing countries are emulating the industrial revolution, so of course their production of CO2 etc is rising as their economies grow. That takes nothing away from the fact that its in their best long term interest to learn from some of our mistakes, and it certainly does not help the growth of their economies paying out so much on imported oil. Its not about holding their development back - its about enabling everyone to have sustainable development.

That’s irrelevant - at least there is an attempt which is heading in the right direction.

So all you have to do is make an attempt? Cool!

And if we do, we won’t be “crass” any more?

 

[simonadams]

Vern

You took insult to something I in no way intended to be (or expressed as) personal. You then suggest I hate the US when I spend most of the time defending it. Apart from the disastrous decision the Pentagon made in dissolving the Iraqi army (which led directly to the mess we’re all in now), and the way you treat your own poorest, in general I’m a big fan of the US.

Even in terms of the discussion itself, you keep suggesting things like that the idea that controlling carbon emissions is somehow to “gamble away the future of mankind”. This makes no sense, and seems far more like a panic response. No one is trying to take your car away from you! But either way I can see that your mind is made up, and so there’s not much point me inadvertently upsetting you any more.

Regards

Simon

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern

You took insult to something I in no way intended to be (or expressed as) personal. You then suggest I hate the US when I spend most of the time defending it. Apart from the disastrous decision the Pentagon made in dissolving the Iraqi army (which led directly to the mess we’re all in now), and the way you treat your own poorest, in general I’m a big fan of the US.

The Pentagon “dissolved the Iraqi Army?”

How we treat our “poorest?”

Even in terms of the discussion itself, you keep suggesting things like that the idea that controlling carbon emissions is somehow to “gamble away the future of mankind”. This makes no sense, and seems far more like a panic response. No one is trying to take your car away from you! But either way I can see that your mind is made up, and so there’s not much point me inadvertently upsetting you any more.

Regards

Simon

C’mon – I’ve read the Kyoto Protocol, you know. And I’ve read the pronouncements of many other radicals on this issue. When people produce movies like “An Inconvenient Truth,” call for the defrocking of those scientists who disagree with them, and so on – that is clearly a panic reaction. Or maybe an attempt to create panic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Smooched from another thread:
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=78251

1-May-2007 – ZENIT.org News Agency

Official Warns Against Idolizing Nature
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 30, 2007 (Zenit.org).- A Vatican official warned against idolizing the environment and losing sight of the dignity of the human person, in the wake of a conference on climate change and development.

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said this Friday, at the end of the dicastery’s two-day conference.

It brought together some 80 experts and focused on various aspects of climate change and the development of peoples.

“Nature is for the human person and the human person is for God,” Cardinal Martino said. “In considering the problems associated with climate change, one must look to the social doctrine of the Church,” which “neither supports the absolutization of nature, nor the reduction of nature to a mere instrument.”

“Nature is not an absolute, but a wealth that is placed in the person’s responsible and prudent hands,” he added.

Indisputable superiority

The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace explained that the human person cannot be placed on an equal plane with other creatures.

“The person has an indisputable superiority over creation and, in virtue of his personhood and being gifted with an immortal soul, cannot be placed on an equal plane with other living beings, nor can he be considered a disturbing element in the natural ecological equilibrium,” the 74-year-old cardinal said.

He continued: “The person does not have an absolute right over nature but rather a mandate to conserve and develop it in light of the universal destination of the earth’s goods which is one of the fundamental principles of the social doctrine of the Church.”

Losing sight

The president of the Vatican dicastery noted the problems associated with climate change, and said that “the social doctrine of the Church must deal with the many modern forms of idolatry of nature that lose sight of the person.”

“Similar views of ecology emerge in the debate on demographic problems and on the relationship between peoples, environment and development,” he added.

Cardinal Martino recalled the 1994 international conference in Cairo on population and development.

There, “the Holy See had to oppose, together with many Third World countries, the idea that the increase in population in the coming decades would cause the collapse of the earth’s natural balances and would impede development,” he said.

Refuted

“These theses have been refuted and, thank goodness, are in regression,” said the cardinal. He explained that the proposed solutions for these erroneous ideas were abortion and mass sterilization of the poor.

“The Church proposes a realistic view of things. She has faith in the person and in his ability to look for new solutions to the problems that history places before him – an ability that enables him to refute recurring and improbable catastrophic forecasts,” he added.

The cardinal recalled that “according to the concept of human ecology developed by Pope John Paul II, ecology is not only a natural emergency, but an anthropological emergency, in which what is valued is man’s relationship with himself and above all his relationship with God.”

“An anthropological error is therefore a theological error,” underlined Cardinal Martino. “When the person wants to take God’s place, he loses sight of himself and his responsibility to govern nature.”

 

[simonadams]

The Pentagon “dissolved the Iraqi Army?”

Sure they did. Making 350 000 trained and armed men unemployed overnight was obviously a huge disaster waiting to happen. It goes against basic military strategy going back to Alexander ‘the great’ and beyond. I thought that was now well established as the biggest reason for our current problems, but there are details all over the web - this is the first one that came up in google → iht.com/articles/2004/10/21/news/war.php

How we treat our “poorest?”

I’m certainly not left wing (in european terms), but I find it strange that the richest country on earth should have such high levels of poverty and homelessness, with poor access to healthcare. Perhaps you will reply that that’s the reason the US is the richest country in the world - but I still reckon its something the US scores badly on.

C’mon – I’ve read the Kyoto Protocol, you know. And I’ve read the pronouncements of many other radicals on this issue. When people produce movies like “An Inconvenient Truth,” call for the defrocking of those scientists who disagree with them, and so on – that is clearly a panic reaction. Or maybe an attempt to create panic.

I’d hardly say I’ve been arguing a radical agenda. And I certainly don’t agree with ‘defrocking’ scientists who have other opinions on the cause of global warming. What I do ask for is that they state as much when they are directly or indirectly funded by some company involved in the oil or car industries. And that leaves very few actual specialists in the science of climate change.
vern humphrey:

Smooched from another thread:
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=78251

I don’t disagree with anything the cardinal says.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sure they did. Making 350 000 trained and armed men unemployed overnight was obviously a huge disaster waiting to happen. It goes against basic military strategy going back to Alexander ‘the great’ and beyond. I thought that was now well established as the biggest reason for our current problems, but there are details all over the web - this is the first one that came up in google → iht.com/articles/2004/10/21/news/war.php

Any cockamamie theory will do, eh – as long as it casts the US in a bad light?

I’m certainly not left wing (in european terms), but I find it strange that the richest country on earth should have such high levels of poverty and homelessness, with poor access to healthcare. Perhaps you will reply that that’s the reason the US is the richest country in the world - but I still reckon its something the US scores badly on.

And when did you see all this poverty and homelessness?

In fact, as Ronald Regan used to point out, if we assumed all the people living below the poverty level had no money at all, and simply gave them enough to bring them over the poverty level, we’d spend only a fraction of what we actually spend.

By implementing socialist utopian ideas, we stopped the decline of poverty in this country and created the mess we now have – and it cost us trillions of dollars to do it, too.

Nevertheless, our poor live better than most of the poor in the rest of the world.

I’d hardly say I’ve been arguing a radical agenda. And I certainly don’t agree with ‘defrocking’ scientists who have other opinions on the cause of global warming. What I do ask for is that they state as much when they are directly or indirectly funded by some company involved in the oil or car industries. And that leaves very few actual specialists in the science of climate change.

And does that requirement apply to both sides in the debate? Should Al Gore come clean?

I don’t disagree with anything the cardinal says.

Then why the demand that the Pope go beyond that?

 

[simonadams]

Any cockamamie theory will do, eh – as long as it casts the US in a bad light?

Its not a theory - its fact. 350 000 armed and trained soldiers suddenly had their pay checks cancelled and were out of a job. Defeated soldiers are always better being given something to do that’s useful for the stability of the country. Trained soldiers are not like terrorists.

I’m not being partisan - I’m just pointing out an obvious mistake.

And when did you see all this poverty and homelessness?

When I’ve been to the States - and the statistics agree with what I’ve seen.

In fact, as Ronald Regan used to point out, if we assumed all the people living below the poverty level had no money at all, and simply gave them enough to bring them over the poverty level, we’d spend only a fraction of what we actually spend.

By implementing socialist utopian ideas, we stopped the decline of poverty in this country and created the mess we now have – and it cost us trillions of dollars to do it, too.

Its not just about poverty. Its about people feeling secure enough, but no so secure they don’t bother to try to achieve. In europe we tend to get the balance wrong one way - in the US you tend to get the balance wrong the other way. But hey - that’s just my opinion.

Nevertheless, our poor live better than most of the poor in the rest of the world.

Yes they do - but not better than the poor in most other developed countries.

And does that requirement apply to both sides in the debate? Should Al Gore come clean?

About what ? I haven’t seen the Al Gore film but it can hardly be worse than the stuff that the Exxon funded NGO’s come out with. They are specifically funded purely in order to protect the business interests of the oil industry. In other words they are designed to manipulate democracy itself. Whatever you think of Al Gore, I assume you would still say that he has done this because he thinks its important ?

Then why the demand that the Pope go beyond that?

Hey ? When did I go anywhere near demanding anything from the Pope ? Its impossible to follow how you get to these conclusions, and it makes it difficult to discuss things honestly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Its not a theory - its fact. 350 000 armed and trained soldiers suddenly had their pay checks cancelled and were out of a job. Defeated soldiers are always better being given something to do that’s useful for the stability of the country. Trained soldiers are not like terrorists.

I’m not being partisan - I’m just pointing out an obvious mistake.

It’s a theory, me lad. The theory says we should have left 350,000 enemy soldiers organized and under arms and somehow that would have made things better. And if you can’t see the foolishness there, well – you have a problem.

When I’ve been to the States - and the statistics agree with what I’ve seen.

Fifty states, 300,000,000 million people – and you’ve seen enough to be statistically significant on a visit?

Its not just about poverty. Its about people feeling secure enough, but no so secure they don’t bother to try to achieve. In europe we tend to get the balance wrong one way - in the US you tend to get the balance wrong the other way. But hey - that’s just my opinion.

You’re right – we get people so secure they don’t bother to try to achieve. And that’s a crime against the poor.

Yes they do - but not better than the poor in most other developed countries.

Didn’t we just have this discussion about getting people so secure they don’t bother to try to achieve. And that’s a crime against the poor?

About what ? I haven’t seen the Al Gore film but it can hardly be worse than the stuff that the Exxon funded NGO’s come out with. They are specifically funded purely in order to protect the business interests of the oil industry. In other words they are designed to manipulate democracy itself. Whatever you think of Al Gore, I assume you would still say that he has done this because he thinks its important ?

I think he’s done it to attract attention to himself, and further his political intersts – just like his claim to have “taken the initiative to create the internet” or his claim to have been taught “to plow a steep hillside with a mule” or “clear land with a double-bitted axe.”

Hey ? When did I go anywhere near demanding anything from the Pope ? Its impossible to follow how you get to these conclusions, and it makes it difficult to discuss things honestly.

That could be a sign you have Attention Deficit Disorder.

You said, “Why not get behind the Pope and the Vatican?”

 

[Ella]

The facts remain that human activity HAS changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly, and that CO2 can be easily shown to act like glass does in a greenhouse. You have to prove (or at least explain) where that extra EM radiation is going if you want to claim the increased CO2 is not affecting the global climate.

The pro life attitude should be one of being responsible and making sensible efforts to limit the harm predicted for the poor of the world. Surely ?

I agree, limiting the harm predicted for the poor of the world IS pro-life.
Thanks for your posts simonadams; they’ve made me want to learn more about global climate concerns and look for possible ways to reduce my energy consumption.

 

[simonadams]

It’s a theory, me lad. The theory says we should have left 350,000 enemy soldiers organized and under arms and somehow that would have made things better. And if you can’t see the foolishness there, well – you have a problem.

Once an army has been defeated they are no longer “enemy soldiers”. Throughout history good leaders have taken defeated armies and used them as their own army. It was done very successfully by Britain in the far east after WW2 when the British troops were too thin on the ground to sort out the mess the war had left behind. It was done very successfully by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans etc etc etc. Once soldiers have been beaten they are generally happier to be given orders than to have their pay check cancelled and turned out onto the streets of a country that is too damaged to have any kind of decent employment. It also helps the defeated people seeing their own soldiers on the street keeping law and order rather than the occupying army - or even worse no one doing that job. Its just plain common sense.

Fifty states, 300,000,000 million people – and you’ve seen enough to be statistically significant on a visit?

No - that’s not what I said.

I think he’s done it to attract attention to himself, and further his political intersts – just like his claim to have “taken the initiative to create the internet” or his claim to have been taught “to plow a steep hillside with a mule” or “clear land with a double-bitted axe.”

I don’t know enough about Gore and his intentions to know for sure. All I would say is that it hardly seems like a purely political move when the US is so heavily polarised on the issue.

That could be a sign you have Attention Deficit Disorder.

You said, “Why not get behind the Pope and the Vatican?”

Exactly - I was making a suggestion to you, not demanding anything from the Pope.

 

[simonadams]

I agree, limiting the harm predicted for the poor of the world IS pro-life.
Thanks for your posts simonadams; they’ve made me want to learn more about global climate concerns and look for possible ways to reduce my energy consumption.

Thanks Ella

I think we can all make little changes that don’t reduce our quality of life, and often save money, and when those little changes are added together they make a big difference.

 

[Ella]

Thanks Ella

I think we can all make little changes that don’t reduce our quality of life, and often save money, and when those little changes are added together they make a big difference.

I was thinking about this. Let’s say that the US does make changes that reduce our C02 emissions - by putting more research into alternative fuels for cars, for instance. That would mean less use of oil - which is the one thing that the Middle East and Venezuela use to lord it over us. Imagine Saudi Arabia with oil being a useless commodity. Those oil barons wouldn’t have the deep pocket books to fund terrorists.

I think that instead of viewing the idea of changing things to reduce emissions as threatening, we could view it as an opportunity and a challenge. Kind of like putting a man on the moon.
Most of the great inventions we use every day were invented by - Americans! Why not use our ability to innovate to find ways to be more energy smart and ecologically smart, too?

 

[simonadams]

I was thinking about this. Let’s say that the US does make changes that reduce our C02 emissions - by putting more research into alternative fuels for cars, for instance. That would mean less use of oil - which is the one thing that the Middle East and Venezuela use to lord it over us. Imagine Saudi Arabia with oil being a useless commodity. Those oil barons wouldn’t have the deep pocket books to fund terrorists.

I think that instead of viewing the idea of changing things to reduce emissions as threatening, we could view it as an opportunity and a challenge. Kind of like putting a man on the moon.
Most of the great inventions we use every day were invented by - Americans! Why not use our ability to innovate to find ways to be more energy smart and ecologically smart, too?

Well apart from those invented by the British hehe

But you’re 100% right. Not only does such reliance on oil cause political problems by financing the spread of extreme Wahabism, eventually the oil is going going to run out. Depending on who does the maths that will be somewhere between 2020 and 2040. We need to develop replacement technologies now even if you ignore the whole issue of global warming.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Once an army has been defeated they are no longer “enemy soldiers”.

You learned that at the Command and General Staff College, did you?

Throughout history good leaders have taken defeated armies and used them as their own army. It was done very successfully by Britain in the far east after WW2 when the British troops were too thin on the ground to sort out the mess the war had left behind.

Right – Imperial Regosenti and SS Divisions remained under arms after WWII. You betcha.

It was done very successfully by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans etc etc etc. Once soldiers have been beaten they are generally happier to be given orders than to have their pay check cancelled and turned out onto the streets of a country that is too damaged to have any kind of decent employment. ]

That’s your personal experience, is it?

Ah, but recall how Grant left the Confederate Army under arms – I believe they still garrison Richmond.

It also helps the defeated people seeing their own soldiers on the street keeping law and order rather than the occupying army - or even worse no one doing that job. Its just plain common sense.

If that’s what you call common sense, I’d hate to see lunacy!

I don’t know enough about Gore and his intentions to know for sure. All I would say is that it hardly seems like a purely political move when the US is so heavily polarised on the issue.

So how come so many falsehoods are being trumpeted? How come there are demands to defrock scientists who don’t agree with him?

Exactly - I was making a suggestion to you, not demanding anything from the Pope.

Don’t blow smoke up me kilts like that – it tickles.

When you cited the Pope, you were enlisting him – without his knowledge or permission – in your argument.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Well apart from those invented by the British hehe

But you’re 100% right. Not only does such reliance on oil cause political problems by financing the spread of extreme Wahabism, eventually the oil is going going to run out. Depending on who does the maths that will be somewhere between 2020 and 2040. We need to develop replacement technologies now even if you ignore the whole issue of global warming.

By going all electric, with the use of nuclear generated electricity, [add two or three additional reactors to every existing electric generating plant], we could drop the price of oil back down to $10 per barrel down from the present price of $70.

We also could develop much more natural gas from domestic sources. AND we could manufacture gas from coal. Easy to do.

Of course, the liberals have created numerous political obstructions to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Thanks Ella

I think we can all make little changes that don’t reduce our quality of life, and often save money, and when those little changes are added together they make a big difference.

Little changes would have no impact at all, even when added together.

The kinds of changes that have been proposed under IPCC/Kyoto would require shutting down almost all U.S. industry and grounding vast numbers of car, trucks and planes.

You have to actually look at the numbers. Not rely on feelings.