how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

While AGW is the culprit, the item which will break us, financially, is water.

As AGW warms the climate we already see rainfall changing places. We built our farms where the water was. Now that it is moving, do we relocate the farms or the water. Moving water is pretty well known technology, but requires a great deal of energy. In the past the sun supplied the energy for the water cycle with no help from us. It evaporated, it moved, it condensed. In a warmer climate we'll either need to help mother nature, or relocate our farms.

One thing about big cities is that they tend to grow upon the water. Ports. Now the water is relocating from the arctic and Antarctic ice fields to the oceans and eventually around our skyscrapers. Move the skyscrapers or hold back the water. Big, big bucks.

Here's the only saving grace. We can kick the can down the road to our grandchildren instead of solving it.

I'm thinking that they're going to be pissed if we ignore it.

Ahhhh yes water...the NEXT reeeeeaaallly big thing. Here's a clue for you, the fear mongers, of which you are a sock of one (probably olfraud) allways need to have some "dangerous" terriible thing to pluck the pockets of the unwashed. You guys would make the Borgias proud. Hell you'd OWN the Borgias!

 

[westwall]

Reality differs with your propaganda.......

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-5020/

Big oil now seeing green - The Denver Post

Research: Big Oil putting more money into alternative energy programs -- Tuesday, February 17, 2009 -- www.eenews.net

Big Oil's Big in Biofuels - Businessweek


BP Alternative Energy continues to invest in a sustainable and secure energy future – producing low-carbon fuels and power, while developing sustainable energy technologies.

"BP made a commitment in 2005 to spend $8 billion over 10 years on alternative energy. We are investing at a faster pace than this, and at the end of 2011 we had invested approximately $7 billion, with more than $4 billion of that in the United States.

BP Alternative Energy focuses on those segments of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business. This has led us to focus on wind and biofuels, businesses that are material, scalable, and suited to BP's core capabilities. We also invest in clean energy technologies to gain strategic insights on the advances occurring in this sector."



BP Alternative Energy | BP in America| BP worldwide | BP.com

And on and on......your assertions are crap.

In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.

I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.

Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.

They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.

 

[PMZ]

In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.

I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.

Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.

They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.

You continue to expose us to why you are so easy to fool.

No matter. Every generation progress overwhelms those in love with the view in the rear view mirror. The Greedy Generation no less.

The ship of conservatism has tripped over Italy, is on its side, and your Captain is already ashore. Do what you feels best.

 

[PMZ]

In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.

I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.

Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.

They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.

"The One Percent Solution"
"By Michael Martineck on December 12, 2006"
"Armory Lovins makes his living studying energy use and efficiency. According to the physicist and cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute environmental think tank, the modern automobile uses just one percent of its energy to move its occupant hither and yon. The number is shockingly small, and it may point to big changes for future cars."

Probably doesn't count the energy it takes to get the fuel out of the ground, refine it, and transport it into the car.

 

[westwall]

"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.

They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.

You continue to expose us to why you are so easy to fool.

No matter. Every generation progress overwhelms those in love with the view in the rear view mirror. The Greedy Generation no less.

The ship of conservatism has tripped over Italy, is on its side, and your Captain is already ashore. Do what you feels best.

I have a feeling that I am far more energy efficient than you ever will be. i've had an operable solar system for 28 years now...you? I have a water wheel as well...you? I have cars that are very old but very efficient and are paid off....you? We grow most of our own veggies...you?

You see dear sock you talk a big game but in the end you are just full of hot air.

 

[Foxfyre]

How many 'green energy' proponents are willing to look at the real cost of producing all that 'green energy'. It requires a maximum sized semi flat bed trailer to transport a single blade of the typical wind turbine, and that one blade is ALL that truck can transport. What energy was required to acquire and process the materials that went into that blade as well as the manufacture of the blades themselves which are most often mostly fiberglass reinforced with 'gasp' carbon fiber? How long does the wind turbine have to operate in order to offset the 'ungreen' processes used to build, transport, install, and maintain it?

Each tall wind turbine, including a safety margin around it in case it falls, requires about a half acre of land plus roads leading to it. A wind turbine to provide all the electricity for a single house costs something like $30k to build and $300 to $900 per year to maintain. It will be a long time before a homeowner will recoup their investment via lowered electricity costs or the environment will recoup in green energy considering the energy 'pollution' necessary to manufacture and install the turbine.

For that matter the huge turbines that can generate enough electricity to power 300 homes generally cost something like $3 to $4 million each. Given the fairly high maintenance on these things, how long will it have to last to recoup the carbon savings. How long to recoup the cost in electricity production given that these things still cost a bit more to run than the equivalent use of coal?
http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

A coal powered plant that can provide power for 700,000 homes costs something like $2 billion making it three times more cost effective than the 2000+ wind turbines necessary to provide the same amount of power.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cfpp/CFPPs/HowCFPPsWork.htm

Noise pollution is a problem with wind farms as well as them being placed in places that can really create an eyesore. Several communities in the USA and abroad have reported that their thriving tourist industries declined significantly after wind turbines went in and spoiled pristine views. And many places have passed ordinances prohibiting them from being located near residential areas due to unknown negative effects of them on people.

The upside is wind is free. And while it takes a hell of a lot of wind turbines across a large expanse of land to produce as much electricity as one coal fired power plant, wind turbines are at least more efficient and less costly than solar power and take up less room to produce the same amount of energy.

I read somewhere that we would need something like a billion wind turbines to replace coal and coal, I believe, accounts for less than 50% of all electricity production. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing that enough wind turbines to replace coal would take up a whole lot of good farm and pasture land. That's probably why small countries with a coastline and populations approximating a large U.S. city or medium sized state are putting their wind turbines out in the ocean.

And as for the heavily tax payer subsidized ethanol, there is even less reason to push that as a CO2 reducing, green energy component. See this scientific test on that run by Edmunds:
E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

And the costs cited in their study don't even include the cost to us tax payers in direct subsidies or the more expanded much higher food costs in both grains and proteins when food crops are diverted to production of ethanol. And a huge chunk of those subsidies are going to those much maligned oil companies.
See this:
Ethanol Subsidies: Too Much for Too Little | Taxpayers for Common Sense

Seriously folks. We need to use some common sense and honesty in evaluating this stuff. "Green" is green only if it actually helps the environment in necessary ways. When it fails to do that, no amount of propaganda, 'feel good' rhetoric, or noble sounding titles makes it something any of us should be forced to do.

 

[gslack]

"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.

They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.

"The One Percent Solution"
"By Michael Martineck on December 12, 2006"
"Armory Lovins makes his living studying energy use and efficiency. According to the physicist and cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute environmental think tank, the modern automobile uses just one percent of its energy to move its occupant hither and yon. The number is shockingly small, and it may point to big changes for future cars."

Probably doesn't count the energy it takes to get the fuel out of the ground, refine it, and transport it into the car.

You didn't provide a link to your crap, so I took the initiative and did so for. You're welcome... BTW, you weren't trying to pass someone else's work off as your own were you? Your previous posted nonsense and now this, well it seems you either have an aversion to proper citation or...

The One Percent Solution | The Truth About Cars

Seems he likes to tell us how inefficient regular gas engined cars are.. That's nice but it seems the alternatives for the most part a re far worse.

But hey lets not go on about perspective here, the mans got books and a "negawatt" market to sell...

Yes the Rocky Mountain Institute, a environmental think-tank...And their head guy Amory Lovins, dreamer extraordinaire.. LOL he wants a "negawatt" market... It's a fictional thing he made up to try and cash in on "green" energy.

Negawatt revolution [edit]

Amory Lovins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A "negawatt revolution" would involve the rapid deployment of electricity-saving technologies, such as compact fluorescent lamps.
A negawatt is a unit in watts of energy saved. It is basically the opposite of a watt. Amory Lovins has advocated a "negawatt revolution", arguing that utility customers don’t want kilowatt-hours of electricity; they want energy services such as hot showers, cold beer, lit rooms, and spinning shafts, which can come more cheaply if electricity is used more efficiently.[13]
According to Lovins, energy efficiency represents a profitable global market and American companies have at their disposal the technical innovations to lead the way. Not only should they "upgrade their plants and office buildings, but they should encourage the formation of negawatt markets".[14] Lovins sees negawatt markets as a win-win solution to many environmental problems. Because it is "now generally cheaper to save fuel than to burn it, global warming, acid rain, and urban smog can be reduced not at a cost but at a profit".[14]
Lovins explains that many companies are already enjoying the financial and other rewards that come from saving electricity. Yet progress in converting to electricity saving technologies has been slowed by the indifference or outright opposition of some utilities.[13] A second obstacle to efficiency is that many electricity-using devices are purchased by people who won’t be paying their running costs and thus have little incentive to consider efficiency. Lovins also believes that many customers "don't know what the best efficiency buys are, where to get them, or how to shop for them".[13]

Yes,yes please buy 50 shares of "negawatts".. Sounds somehow familiar to me.. Oh yeah its like carbon credits... Brilliant another al gore cashing in on misery he sells..

 

[westwall]

How many 'green energy' proponents are willing to look at the real cost of producing all that 'green energy'. It requires a maximum sized semi flat bed trailer to transport a single blade of the typical wind turbine, and that one blade is ALL that truck can transport. What energy was required to acquire and process the materials that went into that blade as well as the manufacture of the blades themselves which are most often mostly fiberglass reinforced with 'gasp' carbon fiber? How long does the wind turbine have to operate in order to offset the 'ungreen' processes used to build, transport, install, and maintain it?

Each tall wind turbine, including a safety margin around it in case it falls, requires about a half acre of land plus roads leading to it. A wind turbine to provide all the electricity for a single house costs something like $30k to build and $300 to $900 per year to maintain. It will be a long time before a homeowner will recoup their investment via lowered electricity costs or the environment will recoup in green energy considering the energy 'pollution' necessary to manufacture and install the turbine.

For that matter the huge turbines that can generate enough electricity to power 300 homes generally cost something like $3 to $4 million each. Given the fairly high maintenance on these things, how long will it have to last to recoup the carbon savings. How long to recoup the cost in electricity production given that these things still cost a bit more to run than the equivalent use of coal?
How much do wind turbines cost? | Windustry

A coal powered plant that can provide power for 700,000 homes costs something like $2 billion making it three times more cost effective than the 2000+ wind turbines necessary to provide the same amount of power.
NETL: Coal-Fired Power Plants (CFPPs)

Noise pollution is a problem with wind farms as well as them being placed in places that can really create an eyesore. Several communities in the USA and abroad have reported that their thriving tourist industries declined significantly after wind turbines went in and spoiled pristine views. And many places have passed ordinances prohibiting them from being located near residential areas due to unknown negative effects of them on people.

The upside is wind is free. And while it takes a hell of a lot of wind turbines across a large expanse of land to produce as much electricity as one coal fired power plant, wind turbines are at least more efficient and less costly than solar power and take up less room to produce the same amount of energy.

I read somewhere that we would need something like a billion wind turbines to replace coal and coal, I believe, accounts for less than 50% of all electricity production. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing that enough wind turbines to replace coal would take up a whole lot of good farm and pasture land. That's probably why small countries with a coastline and populations approximating a large U.S. city or medium sized state are putting their wind turbines out in the ocean.

And as for the heavily tax payer subsidized ethanol, there is even less reason to push that as a CO2 reducing, green energy component. See this scientific test on that run by Edmunds:
E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

And the costs cited in their study don't even include the cost to us tax payers in direct subsidies or the more expanded much higher food costs in both grains and proteins when food crops are diverted to production of ethanol. And a huge chunk of those subsidies are going to those much maligned oil companies.
See this:
Ethanol Subsidies: Too Much for Too Little | Taxpayers for Common Sense

Seriously folks. We need to use some common sense and honesty in evaluating this stuff. "Green" is green only if it actually helps the environment in necessary ways. When it fails to do that, no amount of propaganda, 'feel good' rhetoric, or noble sounding titles makes it something any of us should be forced to do.

All excellent points that the hysterical left completely and wilfully ignore.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks West and I know they'll ignore it. But if we don't keep putting the truth out there, those who want to know the truth and who want enough information to put all this into proper perspective sure as hell won't get it from the likes of Mamooth, PMZ, and Saigon.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.

 

[mamooth]

Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth. So there are absolutely no worries about that.

 

[westwall]

Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.

Sure thing admiral. Yooooou're so studly!

 

[gslack]

Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.

And there it is... The obligatory mammoth claim of being stalked after he spends days pestering the same person...

Look admiral konrad poopie saigon pmz, which ever one you are, it really doesn't matter, you're essentially the same, a lot of BS and no substance.. Look I'm a nuclear engineer/astrophysics modeler/expert at whatever is needed here today. See I can do it too..

You're a worthless lying internet fake, and the sooner the forum realizes it and deals with you the better it will be. Personally I think accusing someone of stalking in an open forum should be a rule violation, especially considering you are the one begging for attention from that person you accuse.. Wait a tick..

Isn't saigon the one who has posting fox so desperately in this thread? Why yes, yes it was.. So now she's obsessed with you? LOL,is that and admission socko? I think it is. But really we already knew that admiral...

ROFL, remember when I told you you would out yourself socko? I hate being right all the time... it's a curse....LOL

 

[gslack]

You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth. So there are absolutely no worries about that.

Funny thing is he obviously forgets his character again.. Saigon was desperate to get your attention earlier now he comes playing she's obsessed with me attention seeking game..

LOL, he's brilliant..

 

[flacaltenn]

Amazingly stupid YouTube, yet skook seems to think it makes sense. It really is the best he can do, though, given his limited brainpower.

If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light. According to skook's theory, that can't happen, since it's just a trace. Given it does happen, it thus proves how skook's theory is retarded, as is any person who spouts such a retarded theory.

Put that same drop of ink into a glass of Pepsi and the amount of increased light absorption will be minimal. In fact -- what CO2 absorbs is largely what water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) already absorbs. So that in the presence of abundant water vapor, there will be little effect from increasing CO2 for longwave IR emissions..

That and the CO2 temperature forcing is logarithmic.. Meaning that increasing concentrations have decreasing effect on longwave absorption contributing to surface heating. You have to double the concentration to get the same increase that you already got. So from 400ppb to 800ppb and then to 1600ppb for the next doublings of temp increase. Considering the concentrations already doubled many times BEFORE man discovered fire --- it's NOWHERE near linear anymore...


To perfect your "ink absorption" analogy.. We should use an ink that only absorbs a narrow sliver of the yellow light spectrum added to Bloody Mary...

 

[Saigon]

Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.

Because they are pollutants, are expensive, and have to be imported from countries who are not US allies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.

Because they are pollutants, are expensive, and have to be imported from countries who are not US allies.

There ya go... A MUCH stronger and HONEST environmental assessment.. Without all the phoney "the earth has a fever" drama...

Except that we're doing a fine job of reducing pollution and GH gas emissions WHILE USING these fuels.. So much so that our GH gas emissions are LOWER than they were 10 years ago in this country.. Just by shifting to Nat gas.. Which we've just discovered we have PLENTY of right here in the good ole USA..

 

[Saigon]

Flac -

I have no problem with using natural gas; I just think it is wasted in electricity production. I would prefer to see western countries using natural gas as LPG or CNG in transport.

A mix of nuclear, tidal, solar and perhaps wind and waste incineration can provide enough electricity.

 

[Saigon]

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

This is interesting.

So we know that oil companies funded fake 'research' in order to justify not acknolwedging climate change - so your argument here is that they are also funded fake 'research' in order to justify backing climate change.

That's a really logical argument, particularly given the oil companies have been forced into massive research into new fuels at their own expense as a result.