Global Warming a Hoax, don't worry you will still pay for it.

[eddavidson9]

Here chew on this one while you are at it.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

good article...make sure you read the whole thing carefully.

 

[MACFLY]

good article...make sure you read the whole thing carefully.

I did and if you are referring to the point he makes about still believing that global warming will happen I ask you the following. The global cooling piece was somewhat recent. This indicates the science is evolving and changing rapidly. How does this reality jive with the IPCC report which indicated rapid warming. you have scientists within that group that cant agree on how long this cooling period will last. In fact some articles in the paper today are still citing that global warming is occurring more rapidly. So you have at best a dichotomy and at worst some very contradictory events occurring. This lends more credibility to the argument that we dont really understand much of what has occurred let alone much of what will occur in 20,30, or 50 years. the argument has been made that the debate is over. I surmise from what I have read that it is not over. Fundamentally, what this tells me is that none of the massive transfer of wealth and taxation is warranted based on what we know today. IMHO. There is a body of science that suggests we have been in a cooling trend and that the changes are due to very common and natural changes in our environment. If the IPCC report took this cooling period into account why then not mention that cooling might occur. The issue is much more complicated than asserting as fact that we are on a permanent warming trend primarily caused by man.

None of this by the way means that I believe we should continue the way we have been. In fact I have stated several times that I believe we should be investing in alternative energy sources and developing the requisite knowledge to be considered a world leader in this space. Just dont do it through massive taxation and regulation that will kill any and all innovation in this space. China is now subsidizing billions of dollars of investment incenting companies to come up with green energy sources. You think they are doing it because the fear the end of the world...No they see another way to make money..so should we.

 

[eddavidson9]

I did

i assumed you did...it's not all about you ya'know!

just wanted to make sure people didn't miss the point that global warming is in not refuted by the article. it's a good example of the lack of consensus over a complicated issue though.

 

[MACFLY]

i assumed you did...it's not all about you ya'know!

just wanted to make sure people didn't miss the point that global warming is in not refuted by the article. it's a good example of the lack of consensus over a complicated issue though.

Well my apologies I misinterpreted your post. again my apologies.

 

[Durango]

The link you provide for a 30% increase doesn't wash.

 

[MACFLY]

The link you provide for a 30% increase doesn't wash.

Your reply makes no sense..oh wait are you directing this reply to me? If so your reply makes no sense...suspect you already know that... whoever you are masked man?

 

[EtchaFly]

Oh boy oh boy what I've been missing here! CHICKEN LITTLE HELP! THE SKY IS FALLING DOWN!

I watch discovery channel. From the looks of things Id have to say that Antarctica will fall into the Ocean by 2064. The seas will raise 23 feet and I will be dead.

Did I mention the 2012 crisis? Why ignore this issue.

 

[MACFLY]

Oh boy oh boy what I've been missing here! CHICKEN LITTLE HELP! THE SKY IS FALLING DOWN!

I watch discovery channel. From the looks of things Id have to say that Antarctica will fall into the Ocean by 2064. The seas will raise 23 feet and I will be dead.

Did I mention the 2012 crisis? Why ignore this issue.

Looks like we have to get as much fishing in as possible. I think think the Mayans are on to something

 

[MACFLY]

Doesn't get any more mainstream than the WSJ.

I thought we werent supposed to focus on the messengers..only the message

 

[tompg]

I thought we werent supposed to focus on the messengers..only the message

That is sarcasm, right?

 

[MACFLY]

That is sarcasm, right?

One part sarcasm one part serious...well maybe 2 parts sarcasm since I included a smiley face but you did tell me I was attacking the messenger when I mentioned thr liberal orientation of Democracy Now and the Socialist orientation of Edward Herman....anyway the intellectual in you can understand irony I'm sure

 

[tompg]

I get the sarcasm but offer no irony. The irony is someone posting an article from the WSJ while complaining that the content of the story is not reported in the mainstream media.

 

[MACFLY]

I get the sarcasm but offer no irony. The irony is someone posting an article from the WSJ while complaining that the content of the story is not reported in the mainstream media.

Ooh I love Irony: Lets see what kind of irony are we talking about here.

Verbal
Dramatic
Situational

Combination of two or more of the above Im going to say situational.no I mean dramatic..oops can I get a lifeline. In truth I can see the Irony but some would argue that not showing the content on TV indicates purposeful bias towards one side of the issue. On the other hand its possible the WSJ has more viewership than some of these stations. Ah its time for bed. Have good night

 

[the river fox]

I feel Mr.Joe Walsh nailed this one years ago,(if i knew how to upload the video I would have...see it on you tube Joe Walsh life of illusion)
"POW! right between the eyes...... Oh, how nature loves her little surprises........ WOW! it all seems so logical now......it's just one of her better disguises......and they come with no warning....Nature loves her little surprises...............CONTINUAL CRISES............THEY HAVE NO MEANING.."

 

[mbwmn]

That is sarcasm, right?

yes.
but i've had similar issues w/ "creditable" sources on this and other boards.
apparently Rueters, AP, and the BBC are only legitimate sources when they don't publish something...ie: "i searched Rueters and they didn't have anything about it, so it can't be real".

 

[mbwmn]

good article...make sure you read the whole thing carefully.

Shh! don't be ENCOURAGING people to actually READ. Next thing you know they might form their own, educated opinions!

If that had been a FoxNews link no one would have clicked through I bet.

 

[mbwmn]

Did I mention the 2012 crisis? Why ignore this issue.

yeah, 2012 crisis should make 2013 a banner fishing season w/ the deeper water to hold the trout over, no?

 

[the river fox]

yes.
but i've had similar issues w/ "creditable" sources on this and other boards.
apparently Rueters, AP, and the BBC are only legitimate sources when they don't publish something...ie: "i searched Rueters and they didn't have anything about it, so it can't be real".

Dam.................just hang out with my band and chill......we are older educated men.... and not sweating it much...

 

[Future Fanatic]

Dam.................just hang out with my band and chill......we are older educated men.... and not sweating it much...

... "and the band played on", eh?

I just couldn't help myself, with a metaphor like that just dangling out there...

 

[MCOSTA]

Here's my view:
I suspect that there may be a possibility that humans have created an artificial warming of the atmosphere, and/or may have accelerated a natural warming.

I would support further data collection and careful review and interpretation of that additional data, to the extent that I would contribute a small $ amount to further the science if I were satisfied it was impartial. How 'bout you? Oh wait, head in the sand again...


I vehemently oppose ANY legislation based on the data, or interpretation of the data, as it is now.

Step up and donate your yearly salary to the IPCC and show us just how "selfless" and committed to resolving global whining you really are.

Nice job...and I suppose YOU sit at your computer (excuse me, high-tech trash) and wage wars on various message boards with anyone that opposes your point of view. Well done, Dudeeee! And I suppose you act like you own every trout stream you visit, too, right?

As an environmental scientist, educator, and someone that genuinely cares about the future of our planet (but cares little about you), I will not defend myself or cite an OVERWHELMING body of scientific evidence in response to your comments. You can find relevant information here: ScienceDirect - Home (an e-database for for scientific, technical, & medical research - a subscription may be required to access/download full articles, but is NOT required to view abstracts; used this database extensively as a grad student at RU = excellent!). Do the world a favor: educate yourself FIRST before you argue in favor of this or denial of that.

"...show us just how "selfless" and committed to resolving global whining you really are."
I'm already doing my part by educating young people in a public school setting so they can make informed, important decisions for themselves.

So...your argument(s) remain flawed for two reasons: 1) you've cited media outlets as opposed to research publications, and 2) you keep insisting this a political issue. It's not.

Good fishin to you & yours (you do fish, right?) - YOU WIN, I'm out of this (political) debate.
------------------------------
/mac

 

[MCOSTA]

Well Gee I guess you have just shed a whole new light on this subject then haven't you...or maybe not. Do yourself a favor and stop mimicking the line about listening to Fox news. Thats a half ass reply if I have ever seen one. You clearly didnt read this thread because in it were expressed several alternative views.

Here is another link. Home - Global Warming Petition Project Apparently 31K plus scientists disagree with you on whether Global Warming is real or caused by man. As for the Nobel Peace Prize, any group that would award a peace prize to yassar arafat..well hopefully you get the picture. For the last few months there have been dozens of articles that state we may be heading to a period of global cooling. In addition to articles spelling out how the IPCC presented flawed records or dismissed evidence that didnt line up with their claims. So you can do us all a favor and pump your brakes..you are no more knowledgable than the rest of us.[/quote]

-------------------------------------
Really???? Unfortunately for you, I am, which is precisely why I poked my nose in here.

Unlike YOU, Mr. CHICKEN MacNUGGETZ, my opinions/beliefs may be relied upon by U.S. Courts as an expert witness.

And yours will just remain fightin words in a forum...well done,sir.

 

[Future Fanatic]

I'm already doing my part:educating young people in a public school setting so they can make informed, important decisions for themselves.
/mac

So he's one of them public school, government paid brainwashers. "HEY TEACHER, leave them kids alone!" He's helping kids make informed decisions for themselves (obviously, as long as they make "the right" decisions according to him.)

 

[tompg]

Future, Are you a product of private schooling or public schooling or home schooling? I would like to understand how you came to be such a free and independent thinker.

It is tough in this day and age, with the government stealing all my earnings, to avoid public-school, government-paid brain washers. Private schools are even worse. Oh my you should meet some of those liberals. They all studied liberal arts you know.

 

[mbwmn]

Nice job...and I suppose YOU sit at your computer (excuse me, high-tech trash) and wage wars on various message boards with anyone that opposes your point of view. Well done, Dudeeee! And I suppose you act like you own every trout stream you visit, too, right?
I sit at my computer screen and comment on posts that say "Global Warming A Hoax". So do you. But you post that you're 'disgusted', and attempt to chastise those of us who are unwilling to PAY for a theory. Did you expect a kiss on both cheeks?

I consider every trout stream I visit part of a communal 'backyard". Regardless of whether it's a trout stream or somewhere in the inner city I don't leave my trash around, and i'm getting tired of picking up after those who do. If you don't then related comments in this area can be ignored.

You say ' Global warming is no theory' and then say you are a man of science. How could that be? Even when the data is accepted unquestionbly and then manipulated unquestionably by the Global Whiners it still proves nothing by the head scientist's own criteria and admission!
I can show mathematical evidence that electricity exists, and explain and predict it's behavior. I can also just as easily explain through mathematics that light is a particle, and then explain mathematically that it is a beam. NO POLITICIANS ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY THINK LIGHT IS A PARTICLE, or because they don't believe in electricity. They are trying to change the world because of a warming theory.
I'm a big fan of Darwin. I believe Darwinism is still a THEORY though...and politicians aren't trying to change the world because of it.

The point I failed to make is that all the "chicken littles" like yourself complain about Global Warming, but they still suck up energy and pollute for computers and large cars, and they think someone else needs to fix the perceived problem. They are typically the fisherman I need to clean up after at every river I go to. They are clearly PART of their problem and never admit it. They just want to pay to make it go away. If it's really as bad as you think you should be moving into your cave soon, no?

I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR A THEORY. I can't afford it. (You can't either, you just can't see the cost yet.)

If you want to pay for Global Warming I won't stop you. Did you need a stamp for your check? Can I drive it down to the post office in my (relatively) fuel efficient car, it's on my way...or did you want to take your SUV?

As an environmental scientist, educator, and someone that genuinely cares about the future of our planet (but cares little about you), I will not defend myself or cite an OVERWHELMING body of scientific evidence in response to your comments. You can find relevant information here: ScienceDirect - Home (an e-database for for scientific, technical, & medical research - a subscription may be required to access/download full articles, but is NOT required to view abstracts; used this database extensively as a grad student at RU = excellent!). Do the world a favor: educate yourself FIRST before you argue in favor of this or denial of that.
I bow to your credentials. If they were climate-specific credentials it might make a for a more interesting argument. I would have a list of questions for you. If you were Al Gore or Phil Jones it still wouldn't hold much weight though.

If you told me you were bicycling to work, or driving a 400,ooo+ mile pickup (like mine) rather than waste the energy and resouces required to build a new one I would be interested in hearing more about how you feel so strongly about and are so committed to a theory. But it appears that you feel strongly enough to pursue a teaching career in your chosen (or a related) field. All the other Global Whiners thank you for your extreme sacrifice I bet...


As soon as your scientists provide OVERWHELMING indisputable evidence (facts) that makes Global Warming more than just a theory I'll read it all. Meanwhile I'll leave scientific arguments to the scientists. If the politicians would do the same you and I wouldn't be posting.

"...show us just how "selfless" and committed to resolving global whining you really are."
I'm already doing my part by educating young people in a public school setting so they can make informed, important decisions for themselves.
Thanks for that, I think. I can only hope you're teaching that it's a theory and personal opinion, not proven fact. Scary that are impressionable youngsters...nevermind...

So...your argument(s) remain flawed for two reasons: 1) you've cited media outlets as opposed to research publications, and 2) you keep insisting this a political issue. It's not.
I cited a BBC interview w/ the keeper of the data, Phil Jones at the CRU.
I would think he holds some weight on the matter. He is a scientist. He specializes in climatology. I found his interview revealing, as he is a Global Whiner Specialty Scientist of the highest merit, or was. He's YOUR guy, not mine. You didn't even bother to read the interview or you would have argued about it.

(An earlier post of mine linked to The Wall Street Journal.)
YOU complained about FoxNews and CNN.

This is a political issue.
Politicians went to Copenhagen.
Politicians are backing a THEORY.
Politicians will be trying to pass laws and are signing treaties with other countries that will change the lives of everyone on the planet.
Politicians are making agreements that will shift (redistribute) wealth on a GLOBAL scale.
Scientists are merely arguing a theory.
Politicians will make us pay for that theory.

You need to grow a thicker skin. I'm one of the easy ones. Remember, I also said this:
---I suspect that there may be a possibility that humans have created an artificial warming of the atmosphere
---I would support further data collection and careful review and interpretation of that additional data, to the extent that I would contribute a small $ amount to further the science if I were satisfied it was impartial.

Hey, I'm halfway there, you just need to give me more and better proof before changing all our lives. I'm willing to spend money to help you! YOU AT LEAST NEED TO ADMIT THAT IT WILL CHANGE OUR LIVES, and show that you have already taken steps and made changes in your personal life to mitigate that which you call fact.

Additionally, I'll throw this in: I support tax breaks to any AMERICAN businesses trying to lessen real-world emissions (company vehicles, power plants, etc.) and reduce fuel consumption voluntarily. This will cost me money (I'll have to make up a portion of the taxes they won't pay). It will lessen our dependance on fuel (foreign and domestic), and further science that makes more efficient use of what is a limited resource. Additionally, it will lessen emissions that cause measureable harm to health and environment. These are ideas which will have positive and measurable results. [I will NOT support paying large corporations huge amounts just to idle their coal plants (as is being done now). This is the equivalent of paying hookers not to have sex in an attempt at reducing STD's...almost as bad as trading CARBON CREDITS w/ 3rd world countries!]

But, back to my earlier statements that it's a political issue.

Can you deny that there will be massive changes in the way our lives work if the politicians and scientists from the Copenhagen party have their way?
Do you understand that the rule(law)-makers lives will change for the better?
Have you even thought that far ahead?
You are already denying the political impact of your statements, and doing nothing to prove a theory.
Additionally you are not changing anything in your personal life to mitigate the theory. The best you've offerred so far is that you're brainwashing children in public school. I am arguing about the political (and monetary) impacts of something that is a theory becoming a political position. You (the man of science) are trying to convince me (and others I guess) that it's not a theory. When you are ready to debate the impact of Global Warming politics bring it.

Good fishin to you & yours (you do fish, right?) - YOU WIN, I'm out of this (political) debate.
------------------------------
/mac

I do fish. Good luck to you, too.

I can only win when others stop voting for theory because they don't understand the consequences to the future of America.

Hopefully I won't be saying "I told you so" when you ride by your favorite fishing hole in mass transit, and see the same fatcats who argued over the menus and complained about the lack of limos at Copenhagen, as they will be the only ones who can afford to drive to it and fish.

 

[MACFLY]

Future, Are you a product of private schooling or public schooling or home schooling? I would like to understand how you came to be such a free and independent thinker.

It is tough in this day and age, with the government stealing all my earnings, to avoid public-school, government-paid brain washers. Private schools are even worse. Oh my you should meet some of those liberals. They all studied liberal arts you know.

Tom
For a guy who claims to be read in on a level the rest of us can only dream of..you sure missed the plot on this one.

 

[MACFLY]

Well Gee I guess you have just shed a whole new light on this subject then haven't you...or maybe not. Do yourself a favor and stop mimicking the line about listening to Fox news. Thats a half ass reply if I have ever seen one. You clearly didnt read this thread because in it were expressed several alternative views.

Here is another link. Home - Global Warming Petition Project Apparently 31K plus scientists disagree with you on whether Global Warming is real or caused by man. As for the Nobel Peace Prize, any group that would award a peace prize to yassar arafat..well hopefully you get the picture. For the last few months there have been dozens of articles that state we may be heading to a period of global cooling. In addition to articles spelling out how the IPCC presented flawed records or dismissed evidence that didnt line up with their claims. So you can do us all a favor and pump your brakes..you are no more knowledgable than the rest of us.[/quote]

-------------------------------------
Really???? Unfortunately for you, I am, which is precisely why I poked my nose in here.

Unlike YOU, Mr. CHICKEN MacNUGGETZ, my opinions/beliefs may be relied upon by U.S. Courts as an expert witness.

And yours will just remain fightin words in a forum...well done,sir.

Anyone that needs to pump up their own self importance on a flyfishing forum has some security issues. I noticed you didnt post your resume for all to see. Is that in your next post BTW if in fact your opinions are going to be relied on by the supreme court I suddenly feel much better about this massive theft of american taxpayers never happening. Chicken MacNUGGETZ????..clearly comedy not one of your strong suits. Again if you read the whole thread you would have seen several posts regarding alternative ways to lower energy consumption but hey why let the truth get in your way.

 

[MACFLY]

Nice job...and I suppose YOU sit at your computer (excuse me, high-tech trash) and wage wars on various message boards with anyone that opposes your point of view. Well done, Dudeeee! And I suppose you act like you own every trout stream you visit, too, right?

As an environmental scientist, educator, and someone that genuinely cares about the future of our planet (but cares little about you), I will not defend myself or cite an OVERWHELMING body of scientific evidence in response to your comments. You can find relevant information here: ScienceDirect - Home (an e-database for for scientific, technical, & medical research - a subscription may be required to access/download full articles, but is NOT required to view abstracts; used this database extensively as a grad student at RU = excellent!). Do the world a favor: educate yourself FIRST before you argue in favor of this or denial of that.

"...show us just how "selfless" and committed to resolving global whining you really are."
I'm already doing my part by educating young people in a public school setting so they can make informed, important decisions for themselves.

So...your argument(s) remain flawed for two reasons: 1) you've cited media outlets as opposed to research publications, and 2) you keep insisting this a political issue. It's not.

Good fishin to you & yours (you do fish, right?) - YOU WIN, I'm out of this (political) debate.
------------------------------
/mac

The OISM project is far from media related. It is a group 31000 scientists that have produced peer reviewed data. So perhaps you should get yourself more educated. Again with advertising your resume (I used this when I did my graduate work at Rutgers). Let me guess you majored in French and minored in economics..than you found out the world had little need for for French economists so you decided to be scientist

 

[MCOSTA]

I cited a BBC interview w/ the keeper of the data, Phil Jones at the CRU.
I would think he holds some weight on the matter. He is a scientist. He specializes in climatology. I found his interview revealing, as he is a Global Whiner Specialty Scientist of the highest merit, or was. He's YOUR guy, not mine. You didn't even bother to read the interview or you would have argued about it.
--------------------------------------
He's not my guy. Environmental scientists like myself are trained in (4) core areas: law & policy, environmental chemistry & physics, & biological systems. My arguments are based on empirical data, personal experience and formal training, NOT interviews/broadcasts/and or mainstream news. Atmospheric science, including climate change is a different, but related (graduate) program of study.

Perhaps you didn't see the link I posted earlier to ScienceDirect; alternatively, you might want to look at Agricola, SpringerLink, and/or the Web of Science - use these indexes and databases to search for articles on a particular topic. Enter search terms climate change and browse the results. Usually you can read the abstracts and view the diagrams free of charge (usually, but not always). Climate change is real, it's now, and it's primarily* attributable to human activity - like it or not. There's no debate.
*notice I've italicized primarily

The point is: you can't rely upon anything generated by news agencies. There's usually an element of truth, a fistful of spin, and a heaping serving of bias...you've heard of editors, program directors, and producers, right? Surely you know the difference between scientists and non-scientists (maybe not). The other point is you're never really sure who you're arguing with here in these forums - NOBODY here knows me, including you. I'm just a lurker.

To be fair, you, mbwmn, seem to take more interest in this subject than most - and for that reason alone, I commend you. Still don't care for some of the rude remarks directed at me (i.e., MACFLY) - but hey, MACFLY knows everything! Go get 'em, Mr. MACFLY I Read This Recent Article in US News & World Report! I suspect he's close to solving the world's problems and I definitely don't want to slow the big guy down.

...did you want to take your SUV?
NO, I don't own an SUV, and ALWAYS pick up after myself. Comments ignored.

I'm a big fan of Darwin. I believe Darwinism is still a THEORY though...
FYI: "Darwinism" is NOT connected w/ Charles Darwin and/or evolutionary biology; evolution is easily shown under lab conditions using relatively short-lived organisms such as mice, guppies, bacteria, etc.
- you're talking about something else.

Again: "good fishin" and take care.
-------------------------------
/mac

 

[MACFLY]

I cited a BBC interview w/ the keeper of the data, Phil Jones at the CRU.
I would think he holds some weight on the matter. He is a scientist. He specializes in climatology. I found his interview revealing, as he is a Global Whiner Specialty Scientist of the highest merit, or was. He's YOUR guy, not mine. You didn't even bother to read the interview or you would have argued about it.
--------------------------------------
He's not my guy. Environmental scientists like myself are trained in (4) core areas: law & policy, environmental chemistry & physics, & biological systems. My arguments are based on empirical data, personal experience and formal training, NOT interviews/broadcasts/and or mainstream news. Atmospheric science, including climate change is a different, but related (graduate) program of study.

Perhaps you didn't see the link I posted earlier to ScienceDirect; alternatively, you might want to look at Agricola, SpringerLink, and/or the Web of Science - use these indexes and databases to search for articles on a particular topic. Enter search terms climate change and browse the results. Usually you can read the abstracts and view the diagrams free of charge (usually, but not always). Climate change is real, it's now, and it's primarily* attributable to human activity - like it or not. There's no debate.
*notice I've italicized primarily

The point is: you can't rely upon anything generated by news agencies. There's usually an element of truth, a fistful of spin, and a heaping serving of bias...you've heard of editors, program directors, and producers, right? Surely you know the difference between scientists and non-scientists (maybe not). The other point is you're never really sure who you're arguing with here in these forums - NOBODY here knows me, including you. I'm just a lurker.

To be fair, you, mbwmn, seem to take more interest in this subject than most - and for that reason alone, I commend you. Still don't care for some of the rude remarks directed at me (i.e., MACFLY) - but hey, MACFLY knows everything! Go get 'em, Mr. MACFLY I Read This Recent Article in US News & World Report! I suspect he's close to solving the world's problems and I definitely don't want to slow the big guy down.

...did you want to take your SUV?
NO, I don't own an SUV, and ALWAYS pick up after myself. Comments ignored.

I'm a big fan of Darwin. I believe Darwinism is still a THEORY though...
FYI: "Darwinism" is NOT connected w/ Charles Darwin and/or evolutionary biology; evolution is easily shown under lab conditions using relatively short-lived organisms such as mice, guppies, bacteria, etc.
- you're talking about something else.

Again: "good fishin" and take care.
-------------------------------
/mac

Typical

You come on a forum and start criticizing people and when you get some return fire you whine about it. You keep quoting science direct. I gave you the OISM project (peer reviewed). Lets now take a step back and lay out the issue. You claim Global Warming is Real....If you believe it to be real how do you propose we fix it? If its caused primarily by man (I have noticed the inclusion of primarily or mainly lately to these statements which is like moving from global warming to climate change). How is it that man will resolve this issue? Whats the solution? As I said, there was some debate about this earlier in the thread. The point that MBWMN was making is that all of the people screaming about global warming/climate change demonstrate very little in the way of living your own greener lifestyle. If you believe in something so strongly why not demonstrate your belief through actions that will make you greener. Now of course you can come back and say you live under a rock and your carbon footprint is zero but the reality is likely far different.

 

[MCOSTA]

MACFLY:
The reality is we're all stuck - me & you both - I must drive my Jetta to get from point A to point B, and I must use electricity in my home and at school, and my carbon footprint >0. There's definitely no easy or obvious answer, and I don't propose one here. About all we can do is drive fuel efficient vehicles, recycle and reuse, and turn the lights off when not in use. And I do.

Seriously, I don't know what the answer is...as a single man and teacher, I'm already overtaxed and underpaid, so I def don't want to pay more (as mbwmn pointed out) for ANYTHING for any REASON.

At least you guys debate the issues here - way better than half the nonplussed individuals I work with. The kids will ultimately decide for ourselves if legislation and/or a comprehensive national energy policy will be required - you and I will be dead.

I'm NOT trying to win this debate...I simply represent the agreed upon view among most* contemporary scientists.

Respect my point of view, and I'll respect yours. Don't assume anything about me, and I won't make any assumptions about you. That said, I'm done. I think.