Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Not sure all farmers and ranchers do.

Farms and ranches only make money if the land is productive - which involves lots of chemicals, and using the land in an industrial way.

Keeping the land “productive” is not the same as keeping it in good condition ecologically.

I’ll leave that to Ridgerunner to defend, as he is the one who first proposed it.

 

[weller2]

God…nature.

So, you are saying that God is personally replacing O2 molecules in the air with CO2 molecules and does so precisely at the rate that corresponds to humanity’s production of fossil fuels minus natural CO2 sinks AND, while at it, pays special attention to use carbon with the same isotopic composition as that one found in fossil fuels… Okay.

There’s only one problem though… What happens to the CO2 produced by humans?

Do you think these fluctuations are new to this time in history? Man cannot tell what will happen 10, 20 , 120 years from now.

Actually, yes. Graph of natural fluctuations is below – pay attention to the time scale. We’ve increased CO2 by ca. 120ppm in 200 years – in nature, this change takes at least 10x as long:

http://www.sahfos.ac.uk/climate encyclopaedia/images/img9.jpg

But we can see the devastation being caused on man right now in the name of MMGW.

That devastation being?

The most spectacular devastation I have seen recently was in Alberta, Canada. It is being commited on the assumption that global warming is FALSE.

Even more so, we can see the billions of dollars being made on the GW scare by people like Al Gore.

And we can see billions being made on the claim that AGW does not exist. Humans can, and will, make money on everything.

 

[weller2]

I’m going to leave acidification of the oceans aside, because that’s a MMGW argument, and it has been argued to the point of nausea on here before. No resolution.

Funnily enough, ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming. Except for the fact that both are caused by increased atmospheric CO2.

It’s also much simpler to understand than global warming:

Increased atmospheric CO2 (observed) → increased content of CO2 in the water (observed) → formation of carbonic acid (see chemistry textbook) → decrease in pH (observed) → changes in ecosystem (also observed)

 

[wsm]

One would have to agree that for global warming to be correct we would actually have to see the earth warming. Correct?

Doesn’t cold equal cold? And as our Father created as I stated from a loss of sound, that only particular sound balls formed Suns in their explosion as the origin creation of heat, both as a release and as a movement.

As the other sound balls remained cold, this was the creation of cold.

You monitor as a Scientist values that belong to either state and how could either state alter?

Cold is cold and heat is heat…this could never change can it.

What does change is the space cell itself.

Space is empty but if you send trajectory bodies into it the paths form bodies of heat, what Scientists have studied involving black matter or what they presume was a black hole.

I have discussed on other forums regarding this incident that our Father wanted you to be aware of. This is a sound body that lost its light and is singing itself out of its created state, it is not a part of space, as space is an empty shell or emptied light body.

Therefore Scientists through the UFO sound body releases have placed heated cells as radiated information causing interference to attack the outside atmospheric body of the Earth. This body is already a heated function, and therefore heat cannot alter because it is a state of heat that was already being attacked by the same factor.

What you cannot monitor is the loss of oxygen in the atmosphere and if you look at ancient data the Christ was depicted by the OX as a holy angelic sound acting as our life force or spirit of life in the atmosphere.

The only relevant information that depicts that the atmosphere is heating is the melting of ice. The relevant information in the ice has depicted that in ancient times the oxygen content of the atmosphere was much higher.

Therefore as I have stated from our Father’s messages after I was saved from a self combustion incident that the ancients caused a loss of oxygen in the atmosphere called the HOLY SPIRIT of the Christ, our life support system in the 8000 year old India attack on a civilization nuked by the use of sound technology at Giza.

The Catholic earlier brotherhood who wrote the Biblical quotes were who were murdered by the Egyptian High Priests, as they were trying to gain public attention to their astronomical readings that advised that sound bodies (just as today) as UFO releases were being witnessed and recorded by them.

THE VERY REASON why the Catholic Brothers studied astronomy and were the brotherhood who protected the HOLY CHRIST and our spiritual life. As I stated Father explained to me that during this period (as per study by Barbara Thiering) the sacred religious rites was to use the Holy Namesakes in the religious quotes as your own.

Therefore there was a holy Christ Brotherhood who taught the Gospels of the Christ, they were murdered just as stated in the bibles SECRET historical quotes, along with the DATA they inscribed regarding astronomical and creative incidences.

As this brotherhood were hunted and murdered they hid their holy and sacred documents because they truly believed that using Sound in the Pyramid transmission was going to kill us again.

This is why just as today by breaking the sound bonds, the holy stone bonds by uranium and the other Scientific practices, the UFO balls are being released in our atmosphere burning it. The Sun is releasing UFO bodies as too are other planets.

The Christ history has been misquoted only because it did hold secret information regarding the abuses of Sound transmisSION. The HOLY JESUS CHRIST as many significant references.

1. is that human beings who under divine intervention (receiving angelic visitations from Father) just as proven in the FATIMA incident, began to preach and teach the community of the HOLY SPIRIT that protected us in EARTH HEAVEN (atmosphere).
2. they were all murdered by the unholy acts that the High Priests have always used throughout history as a religious means of self righteousness, such as being killed on the cross, and the many other horrific judgments they gave to real human beings.
3. the other significant realities of the Christ is that Carpenter relates to the SECRET meaning of the stone, why it is from the word tectonicus/tekton as STONE PLATES.
4. they knew that burning the atmosphere by using SUN technology/harmonic sounds, would cause SATAN as a communication to be placed in the ANGELIC HARMONIC sounds in the atmosphere.
5. human beings would then receive the FALL OUT signals and begin to become possessed.
6. they were taught the SIGNS of possession to pray to Father to advise him so that angelic signals could be sent to the human to release them from the possession.
7. this is because not all atmospheric signals could be protected by the CHRIST spirit, as OXYGEN obviously can be LOST when the atmosphere HEATS.

The Biblical information is real and correct, the way in which it was taught was not, but it was taught in this way to try to keep the secrets of the CHRIST safe. Hence the Catholic Brothers would IMPRISON or even MURDER at times the Scientists trying to reinvent the use of the SUN information.

Our current time Earth situation is now facing a dangerous outcome of Scientific pursuits. That they even destroyed the Satanic transmissions created in the atmosphere by the breaking of the atom. Uranium was never converted in ancient times, and this destroyed the created signals that were being sung by our Father in the Light against Satan and anyone who caused the release of this FALLEN ANGELIC SOUND that kept OXYGEN safe in our atmosphere.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ll leave that to Ridgerunner to defend, as he is the one who first proposed it.

I don’t defend every practice there is. But I will also say that practices need to be adapted to different places, climates and soil types. I know cattle a lot better than I do row cropping, and most adverse effects of cattle on the land are negligible and, strange to tell, most grassland actually needs hoofed animals in order to remain productive. A lot of it will turn into desert or thickets of woody plants without them. It’s possible to do it in a way that enhances the land and it’s possible to do it in destructive ways. Most ranchers I know are very good for the land they use. Instead of tearing down the soil as happened a lot in the 19th century, most of them now build it up.

And a man who knows what he’s doing can build up the soil more in three years than “nature” will do in 300 years.

I will say that a lot of row crop farmers are better at preserving the land than I think a lot of people realize. It’s their livelihood and most hope to pass it on to their children. The use of fertilizers is not harmful in itself. Farming is not harmful in itself. It’s a matter of understanding and doing the right things. It is said by one historian that when they took over the Middle East, the Arabs “brought the desert with them” by “mining” the soil. As we all know, the Israelis have reclaimed a great deal of what was theretofore a pretty barren place.

It’s how you do it, not whether you do it.

 

[Ender]

Of course, it’s VOLUME that counts … people were using SURFACE instead, because it’s easy to measure – you just need a satellite photograph.

You’ve asserted something in such a way as to suggest it is a simple, uncontroversial fact when in fact the claim - yet again - is misleading. It is not merely the volume that counts; area is also significant because it affects the Earth’s albedo. More ice reflects more sunlight which decreases warming since CO2 does not absorb reflected light. Yes, volume is significant. So is surface area.

It is interesting that you assert only one scientist realized the ice was thinning until CryoSat-2 in 2010 yet you provide a graph showing ice volume measurements going back to 1979. How is it no one else recognized what the graph makes so obvious?

You also might want to rethink this comment: “But ice is melting from the bottom. (Well, duh. That’s where it touches water.)” I’m pretty sure that also ice melts where it meets the air - after all, isn’t that where you earlier claimed the missing heat has gone? In fact if the air is not melting the ice then you have no explanation for the sudden disappearance of all the extra heat that should have warmed the atmosphere … and didn’t.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Funnily enough, ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming. Except for the fact that both are caused by increased atmospheric CO2.

It’s also much simpler to understand than global warming:

Increased atmospheric CO2 (observed) → increased content of CO2 in the water (observed) → formation of carbonic acid (see chemistry textbook) → decrease in pH (observed) → changes in ecosystem (also observed)

“Funnily enough”??? Being condescending again perhaps?

I am well aware that “ocean acidification” is a different anti-energy argument from MMGW per se, but the same people generally promote both because both are anti-energy arguments based on CO2. I’m sure the 19th Century Luddites had more than one argument, just as the more modern ones do.

I did not get into the ocean acidification thing because it, just like MMGW has been argued ad nauseam here on CAF. It never gets anywhere, because it’s just a debate and there are innumerable articles and studies on both sides of it just as there are for MMGW. Here’s a “con” article. principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/133-the-myth-of-acidification-of-oceans.html

Yes, I know. You can find articles and charts and stuff from wherever you get them, just as others can produce contrary articles and charts, and have in the past. On hopes you will refrain from showering us with them, but one suspects that hope is a vain one.

Like high school debaters with their cards, the MMGW promoters are much inclined to do that. Fortunately for the hearer, high school debates are quite time limited. CAF threads are limited too, but for the “card versus card” debates, not until stupefying boredom has long since set in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You also might want to rethink this comment: “But ice is melting from the bottom. (Well, duh. That’s where it touches water.)” I’m pretty sure that also ice melts where it meets the air - after all, isn’t that where you earlier claimed the missing heat has gone? In fact if the air is not melting the ice then you have no explanation for the sudden disappearance of all the extra heat that should have warmed the atmosphere … and didn’t.

Ender

In case you missed it, I posted a site in which it is said by reputable scientists that the warm Gulf Stream water has, in the last few years, flowed considerably farther north than it did before, probably due to undersea topographic changes. If, indeed, there is a reduction in arctic ice (which I do not concede) that could certainly affect it, and has nothing to do with MMGW.

Since we’re in a high school-type debate here, I declare victory like a high school debater would, because nobody contradicted that “card”.

 

[wsm]

In case you missed it, I posted a site in which it is said by reputable scientists that the warm Gulf Stream water has, in the last few years, flowed considerably farther north than it did before, probably due to undersea topographic changes. If, indeed, there is a reduction in arctic ice (which I do not concede) that could certainly affect it, and has nothing to do with MMGW.

Since we’re in a high school-type debate here, I declare victory like a high school debater would, because nobody contradicted that “card”.

Proof of global warming will be when America gains the huge storm attack.

Think Biblical, how could informed messages be embedded in an ancient document that relate to current time situations?

Proof of our Light Father as Creator.

As Light never left light it has overseen the totality of its lost sound, its physical bodies of manifestation and its own return. That living in the materialization is only a record of the loss, and we are living this record. How else could precise prophetic information be confirmed a long time before it eventuated?

How else could psychics perfectly predict future incidences proven time and again?

This should be enough proof for anyone who has ever tried to contradict biblical information that our Father is real and that this incident in light did happen, but the teaching of the information had been secreted for a purpose waylaying deceitful use of its information against humanity.

If the 8000 year old India incidence is not enough evidence to provide Scientists/archaeologists with the information that we are our own worst enemy only because our consciousness/psyche gains evidence of our own created act via its ability to think and that archaeological proof/evidence of very ancient human artifacts that pre-date evolutionary theories are evident then what has to happen to prove that our Father created us?

Only another biblical incidence would prove to Scientists that they never should have altered natural creation. This will happen in America and you are being forewarned of this evidence so that humanity can live the life that they deserve in the future without fear.

 

[Ender]

In case you missed it, I posted a site in which it is said by reputable scientists that the warm Gulf Stream water has, in the last few years, flowed considerably farther north than it did before, probably due to undersea topographic changes. If, indeed, there is a reduction in arctic ice (which I do not concede) that could certainly affect it, and has nothing to do with MMGW.

I understand that there are several possible explanations for increased melting in the Arctic and a change in the movement of the Gulf Stream might well be the correct one. The problem with that explanation for MMGW is that it doesn’t explain the “missing” heat. If the heat is really missing then it has to have been transferred from the atmosphere to somewhere else and a sudden increase of heat transfer to the oceans has no physical explanation. It is less unreasonable to argue that air temps have increased to the point where there is significantly more ice melting and the missing heat is that which has gone into the heat of transition required to melt ice. If water is melting the ice then that explanation is not available.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Propose a mechanism which counteracts a CO2-driven warming by increasing albedo.

Changes in atmospheric temperatures effect changes is cloud cover. Increased cloud cover reduces the radiation reaching the Earth thus lowering the temperature.

Provide empirical data proving that such mechanism exists.

You’re joking, this mechanism is as well known to climate science as 2+2=4 is known to mathematicians and there is evidence to suggest this is what happened.our best satellite measurements suggest that the climate system is perfectly capable of causing internally-generated radiative forcing larger than the “external” forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. (Dr. Roy Spencer - U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua Satellite)
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/

Explain why this mechanism was not active before 1998.

You have no explanation for why warming stopped after 1998 so why is it incumbent on me to explain the phenomenon? Still, there is this:What we will find is evidence consistent with natural cloud variations being the dominant source of climate variability since 2000. (Ibid)

Since there were no reliable measurements of ice thickness, and the ice cap did not shrink (it was melting from below) the global climate modellers did not put realistic Arctic melting in the models.

If the measurements of ice thickness were unreliable until 2010 why did you present a graph of ice thickness measurements going back to 1979 and imply that we should take it seriously? If the measurements are as unreliable as you say then why did you try to pass them off as valid? On the other hand, if we take them to be as accurate as you implied by presenting the graph then they should surely have been known about and included in the models. Either way, valid or invalid, one of your positions takes a serious hit.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand that there are several possible explanations for increased melting in the Arctic and a change in the movement of the Gulf Stream might well be the correct one. The problem with that explanation for MMGW is that it doesn’t explain the “missing” heat. If the heat is really missing then it has to have been transferred from the atmosphere to somewhere else and a sudden increase of heat transfer to the oceans has no physical explanation. It is less unreasonable to argue that air temps have increased to the point where there is significantly more ice melting and the missing heat is that which has gone into the heat of transition required to melt ice. If water is melting the ice then that explanation is not available.

Ender

But is it really “missing”, or was it simply not there to begin with? If not, then the models were faulty. To me, and undoubtedly to some, it is less difficult to believe it wasn’t there to begin with than to turn to explanations as to why the predicted atmospheric warming failed because of heat losses to arctic ice; a very small portion of the world’s surface.

 

[Lapey]

There are simple ways to clean up our air pollution (whether or not you believe in MMCG)

e.g., replace coal fired electricity plants with natural gas powered plants.

This would have the biggest impact on air quality.

What experience do you have in this industry? Replace the plants, that’s the ticket! Do you have any idea what your electricity rates would be if we arbitrarily replace coal plants with gas plants; then what about 10 years down the road when the EPA want gas fired plants outlawed, those plans are already being talked about.

It is easy for someone outside of the industry to make these types of comments, but it is just as easy for me to see the flaws in your thinking.

Coal fired plants have been proven that they can be run safely and cleanly. Do the research; Michael can share the statistics with you. I’ll give you a simple taste;

CO2 emissions worst polluters list, my company, Entergy Corporation is on that list as the 18th worst polluter. We are one of the nations largest utility companies and a very large producer of power with a very diverse source of fuels. We are the largest operator of nuclear power and have a very large fleet of coal, gas, oil, and combinations of coal and oil, and hydro. Can you guess how much by percentage of total emissions do we contribute to the annual CO2 emissions?

Here is a hint; it is less than one percent! .51% of the CO2 emissions; bet you didn’t think that was the case now did you.

Coal has been bastardised by this administration and by many in environmental groups. It can be used safely, efficiently, and without killing the environment; but our government wants it shut down. Sulfur contents, ash waste, emissions of particulate matter, etc. can all be dealt with in proper ways; companies like Entergy has been proving this for decades.

We are now calling hundreds of thousands of deaths the fault of air pollution. What do you think the future of any fossil fuel will be, this is the enemy, why would natural gas be any different?

 

[Lapey]

So, you are saying that God is personally replacing O2 molecules in the air with CO2 molecules and does so precisely at the rate that corresponds to humanity’s production of fossil fuels minus natural CO2 sinks AND, while at it, pays special attention to use carbon with the same isotopic composition as that one found in fossil fuels… Okay.

No, what I am saying is, who do you think put the fossil fuels in the ground for us to use? Who created everything? Who is in control of everything? God! We are to be good stewards, that doesn’t mean the extremes you support which hurt real people in real way today and tomorrow.

There’s only one problem though… What happens to the CO2 produced by humans?

Humans do not produce any CO2, God is the creator we simply use what He has given us.

Actually, yes. Graph of natural fluctuations is below – pay attention to the time scale. We’ve increased CO2 by ca. 120ppm in 200 years – in nature, this change takes at least 10x as long:

For every chart or study you produce I can find one which “proves” just the opposite to be true. This is the entire issue I have, there is no credibility in the sources, and therefore, the material.

That devastation being?

The coal industry being attacked as though criminal. Real people seeing real hardship because of lost industry without hope to take care of their families. Please do your homework, look up the state of the West Virginia coal mining country; I’ve been there and have seen the plight first hand that this administration has inflicted on these people.

The most spectacular devastation I have seen recently was in Alberta, Canada. It is being commited on the assumption that global warming is FALSE.

MMGW is false, I agree with them!

And we can see billions being made on the claim that AGW does not exist. Humans can, and will, make money on everything.

Industry is normally demonized because some think that it abuses nature and/or people; the GW crowd does just that to make money and you support them. Very telling…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Humans do not produce any CO2, God is the creator we simply use what He has given us.

God also created bedbugs, but that does not mean we should freely distribute them in our hotels.

For every chart or study you produce I can find one which “proves” just the opposite to be true. This is the entire issue I have, there is no credibility in the sources, and therefore, the material.

At least weller2 has presented charts and studies that you can examine and refute. Your just claiming that the opposite charts and studies exist without presenting them looks like you are not sure enough of your position to expose the opposite claims to scrutiny.

The coal industry being attacked as though criminal. Real people seeing real hardship because of lost industry without hope to take care of their families. Please do your homework, look up the state of the West Virginia coal mining country; I’ve been there and have seen the plight first hand that this administration has inflicted on these people.

If you can establish that this plight was unnecessary, then you might have a case. But a case has been made here against the excessive use of fossil fuels. If that case is valid, then you would have to weigh the loss to coal mining regions against the losses that will be suffered around the world due to the changes in the environment, especially to coastal low-lying areas. If you really care about the people in coal mining areas you would support programs that help those areas transition to a new industry. At least that way we would spare these regions from being specially selected to bear the brunt of the cost of changing priorities.

Industry is normally demonized because some think that it abuses nature and/or people. the GW crowd does just that to make money and you support them.

This is not an attack on the science of the global warming, only on the character of some people promoting it. The scientific claims stand or fall on their own merits. They can be examined and challenged directly. Why would you prefer the indirect approach of judging the validity of the claims based on the perceived character of those making the claim, especially since these claims, by their very nature, are not expected to be taken on faith.

 

[Lapey]

God also created bedbugs, but that does not mean we should freely distribute them in our hotels.

Now this is funny!!! Thanks!:thumbsup:

I’ll leave these discussions on this one. Peace.

 

[Ender]

But is it really “missing”, or was it simply not there to begin with?

I put missing in quotation marks because I don’t believe it was ever there.

If not, then the models were faulty.

We know the models were faulty; even MMGW supporters acknowledge that much. Making this mistake would make them faultier.

Ender

 

[Ender]

At least weller2 has presented charts and studies that you can examine and refute.

Weller2 has gone the extra mile and refuted the charts himself (viz. his chart of Arctic ice volume going back to 1979 followed by his assertion that no accurate measurements of volume existed until the launching of CryoSat-2 in 2010).

If you can establish that this plight was unnecessary, then you might have a case. But a case has been made here against the excessive use of fossil fuels. If that case is valid, then you would have to weigh the loss to coal mining regions against the losses that will be suffered around the world due to the changes in the environment, especially to coastal low-lying areas.

By “a case has been made” I assume you mean “an assertion has been made”. Given that a large part of that assertion was based on the accuracy of the climate models, which all turned out to be wrong, the basis for that assertion is considerably weakened. What even the theory acknowledges is this: if we shut down all the coal plants in the US it won’t avert the crisis it predicts. So where is the argument to devastate large sections of the US economy for no appreciable gain based on a theory that was questionable to being with and has become more so over time?

If you really care about the people in coal mining areas you would support programs that help those areas transition to a new industry.

Like … what? Travel through West Virginia and propose some “new industries” to take the place of coal mining. If new industries were so easy to create why would it not already be done? If you really cared about the people in coal mining areas you might not be so cavalier with their livelihoods.

The scientific claims stand or fall on their own merits. They can be examined and challenged directly.

This is true, which doesn’t change the fact that the interpretation of the facts behind the claims can lead to very different conclusions. As of now, the jury is out; neither side can claim to know how this will play out in the future.

Why would you prefer the indirect approach of judging the validity of the claims based on the perceived character of those making the claim, especially since these claims, by their very nature, are not expected to be taken on faith.

It is quite clear that the issue is not merely scientific, like the debate about the Big Bang Theory, but is deeply political as well. Huge sums of money are involved as well as the lives of millions of people and one is surely justified in pointing out dishonesty and deceit when it arises. One question that for me has never been answered is this: if MMGW is as clearly true as its proponents claim then why is it defended - by scientists - with deception? Why would that be necessary?

Ender

 

[weller2]

If the measurements of ice thickness were unreliable until 2010 why did you present a graph of ice thickness measurements going back to 1979 and imply that we should take it seriously? If the measurements are as unreliable as you say then why did you try to pass them off as valid? On the other hand, if we take them to be as accurate as you implied by presenting the graph then they should surely have been known about and included in the models. Either way, valid or invalid, one of your positions takes a serious hit.

The graph was produced by a model of ice volume named PIOMAS, which attempts to reconstruct a 3D model of Arctic ice from whatever data was available before 2010. (It even says “PIOMAS” on the graph.) This is the same model which was used to make the “ice-free by 2016+/-3” prediction back in 2007. PIOMAS, however, was not included in global climate models used by IPCC. You can ask IPCC why.

A major problem (and the reason why the 2016 prediction was not mainstream) was that there was no way to objectively validate PIOMAS prediction. At least until 2010, when CryoSat-2 was launched. CryoSat-2 data from 2010 onwards have shown that PIOMAS prediction of ice volume is correct and inline with real data – see Fig. 3 in this paper: personal.soton.ac.uk/pgc1g08/grl50193.pdf

Since PIOMAS has been validated by direct measurement (CryoSat) using it to calculate ice volume back to 1978 is legit. It is of course not as good as measurement from CryoSat, but it should be pretty close to reality.

 

[weller2]

No, what I am saying is, who do you think put the fossil fuels in the ground for us to use? Who created everything? Who is in control of everything? God! We are to be good stewards, that doesn’t mean the extremes you support which hurt real people in real way today and tomorrow.

Well, we are pretty lousy stewarts, it seems.

Humans do not produce any CO2, God is the creator we simply use what He has given us.

Interesting. Are you saying that burning coal does not produce CO2?

For every chart or study you produce I can find one which “proves” just the opposite to be true. This is the entire issue I have, there is no credibility in the sources, and therefore, the material.

That’s very postmodernist (relativist) concept of truth.

The coal industry being attacked as though criminal. Real people seeing real hardship because of lost industry without hope to take care of their families. Please do your homework, look up the state of the West Virginia coal mining country; I’ve been there and have seen the plight first hand that this administration has inflicted on these people.

I will do the homework, thanks.

If you want to know my view on policy: if I was ruling the world (haha!) I wouldn’t try to shut down coal-based plants, I would simply impose a ban on building new ones. That would probably be enough to get the situation under control.

Industry is normally demonized because some think that it abuses nature and/or people; the GW crowd does just that to make money and you support them. Very telling…

I’m actually very pro-industry and I dislike tree-huggers. In my opinion tree-huggers are one of the reasons we have that CO2 problem in the first place, because they have successfully delayed progress in nuclear energy for 40 years. And Al Gore and his carbon trading scheme, in which he is a major shareholder… My God. I’ve never seen something so evil.