If everyone discussing global warming was like you, I wouldn't be sweating this, and neither would a lot of other people.
I am not just whining without proposing solutions either- I think we need to immediately start switching to nuclear power, while at the same time investing more in research on alternative energy- nuclear power should be viewed as a way to transition from hydrocarbons to the next power source... I still have hopes for fusion.
Bingo. I'm there, man. Global warming or not, we need to eventually figure out some way past fossil fuels for burning. We need them for plastics, dammit. Nuclear power wins in both arenas. No burning fossil fuels, and no CO2. Biofuels and such fix the first, but not the second.
But there's a large number of people pushing this as a political weapon to attack the United States, capitalism, and Western industrialism in general, and unfortunately there seems to be a lot more like them then there are like you.
Treaties that put severe restrictions on the U.S. while exempting China should have flagged the real agenda right off the bat.
The big question is: How can we get people like you into the policy zone, and haul the "watermelons" off to some ice floe to enjoy nature?
Space/Science » in reply to What I really don't understand
What you don't understand is that you aren't the problem.
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Anthropogenic CO2.
- Human flatulence.
- More propaganda from those biased eco-whackos at NASA, and Columbia University, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and....
- DO you think people would get excited if you showed them THIS graph?
- What I really don't understand
- R.L.s original post.
- re: Anthropogenic CO2.
- Thank You
- re: Anthropogenic CO2.
- There is nothing dishonest about using that graph
- What makes that graph intellectually dishonest? (n/t)
- Whats the point, its not like people like Scott want the facts