Yet another paper shows human activity is responsible for climate change

How about the AGU?
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Russia Browning: The 2010 Heat Wave Was Not an Isolated Event[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

I'd like to know why resisting environmental protection policy is a political issue for conservatives. Why all of this active resistance to saving the planet from catastrophe? Why the denialism? Why can't we just get away from burning fossil fuels?

The only reason I see for this is that there are huge monied interests interested in keeping the oil industry booming for their own personal gain. They will destroy our one little home in the vast universe and the future of all mankind with it for the sake of a short-term monetary profit.

 

Why all this resistance to nuclear power? Why all this resistance to natural gas fracking. Why all the resistance hydro-eclectric? Why all the resistance to low CO2 emission clean coal technology?

The only reason I see is that there are huge monied interests in keeping the alternative energy industy booming for their own personal gian. They will destroy our one little home in this vast universe and the future of all mankind for the sake of a short-term monetary profit.

Well that and fascism. I'm done calling your side socialist. You are a specific type of socialists, fascists.

 

No resistance here.

Because to avoid gas getting into the water table (drinking water), each and every well casing must hold perfectly, forever. What are the odds of that happening?

C'mon. Who's against that? Really?

Because "clean" coal is still dirty. If you want to make coal really clean, you have to remove the carbon. Which makes it not-coal.

According to Godwin's Law, I've just won this debate!

 

Your vote does. This is a republic I dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you personal feeling is. Your vote is all that matters and you vote for representatives who do.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Thousands of feet and rock separate drinking water and gas.

Environmentalists because of its effect on natural habitat.

Clean coal has significantly improved thermal efficiency over conventional coal generation. This efficiency results in about a 40% decreases in CO2 emission per MWH. That is far more significant and feasible reduction in CO2 emissions than green energy fantasies.

Godwin's Law is about Nazi's. Fascism is a political system not an ideology. <<< Personal Attack >>>

 

Really?? And you know that in every single case?? How?? You know I am sure that BP was telling everyone it was safe to drill in deep water too

Hmmmm - would be interested to see some cited cases

That still leaves 60% so they are going to have to get a LOT cleaner

And it is STILL an Ad Hom

 

Your sarcastic response only worked up until the last, unmodified line: They will destroy our one little home in this vast universe and the future of all mankind for the sake of a short-term monetary profit.

This is pretty far removed from what those in favour of alternative energy are working for. It gets sillier still when you ask about resisting fracking, because that is clearly a catastrophe waiting to happen. You can expect groundwater pollution, earthquakes and possibly even volcanism as a consequence of it. And what are we getting in return? A way to pump some more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. I'd call that a lose-lose.

 

Putting so much effort into pie in the sky ideas like wind and solar when there are real proven solutions already available is greed.

I can also expect that beyond the edge of the universe is nothing but cake.

 

There is nothing "pie in the sky" about either of those ideas. Solar can be very effective, as can wind. Since wind kills a lot of birds and uglies up the landscape, though, that one probably should be avoided.

I personally am not entirely opposed to nuclear. It's dangerous, but it is certainly cleaner than many alternatives.

 

Prove it.

Not when you drill a hole through those thousands of feet of rock. Which is exactly what you do when you drill a gas well. At that point, the only thing preventing gas from migrating into the overlying aquifer is the well casing, which must hold perfectly along its entire length, forever.

Name any two environmental groups that are opposed to hydroelectric power. Should be easy, unless of course you're just blowing smoke.

Sixty percent of a huge number is another huge number. Meanwhile, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal are [a] carbon free; and currently deployed in many, many places around the world.

If you don't have any logic, evidence, thought, or science on your side, you can always try insults. I hear that's very persuasive.

 

anyone who has access to the internet yet still thinks this way chooses ignorance.

 

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Look at any study that's examined the issue and you will find that nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity that has ever been invented.

Number of people killed in Tohoku earthquake and tsunami: 15,000+. Number of people killed by Fukushima radiation release: 0. Number of people eventually expected to die because Fukushima radiation: 0. See this thread.

 

that would certainly seem to fit with your understanding of the natural world.

 

One should not rule out carbon neutral technolgy. Burning cow dung could produce a lot of electricity. The state of Kansas produces 7 billion pounds of cow manure a year. Each cow produced the same amount of energy contained in 140 gallons of gasoline per year.

By buring the biomass we could reduce methane emissions and the CO2 released into the atmosphere would be the same CO2 that has been taken out of the atmosphere. The CO2 could then be recaptured in the form of plant life and recycled into more fuel. This could be done by digesting the manure with water to produce methane gas to burn, or the manure could be dried to burn like coal or wood. Dried manure could also be sold in the form of pellets and used in wood type heaters to heat homes.

This would not be a solution for everyone but if we use different technologies for different situations we could wean ourselves off fossil fuels very quickly. If we get 10% here, 20% there, and 70% from other sources we could solve this problem.

We have geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass and many other technologies that could provide for the worlds energy needs.

The only thing that stands in the way is the will to get it done.

 

there are loads of examples where things like this have been introduced, and with really positive results ... pig manure powering a brewery and smallgoods factory for example ...

a lot of these things may not be large scale, but collectively they reduce carbon emissions significantly - and it is absolutely true that what we need most is the will to look at what can be done, instead of saying its all too hard and pretending that carbon emissions are not a problem