The solar cycle is 11 years long, if the solar minimum causes an ice age, why have we not experienced an ice age every 11 years.

I'd hate to ask, but what embargo are you talking about.

Exercitus, when one gives a solution to a complex problem, he should be able to explain:
1. Does the solution really solve the problem?
2. Will enough people put the solution into effect to make it work?
3. Is the solution available now or in the near future?
4. What is the true cost of the solution?

Pie in the sky does not make very good solutions.

Are you suggesting that we don't have the tech to go green right now? The problem is not the acting itself, its the fact that won't act. Through cuting the energy we do use while producing our energy through renewable means we could easily completely destroy our energy dependence. Wind works, Solar works, Nuclear works, Fusion probably will work in the near future (if it does we'd never need anything ever agian). We can also work on carbon capture, possibly through seeding the sea with iron. Electric cars instead of gas and mass transit will all help. We do not have to revert our civilization back a thousand years, all we need to do is not destroy what we have.


1. Does the solution solve the problem? Yes, we would be energy indpendant and even if all the oil in the world was used up we would be fine (assuming we survived global warming).

2. Will enough people put into effect to make it work. Government's job, not mine. People are allready shifting toward green, a carbon tax that funded research would help nicely.

3.Is the solution available now or in the near future? Now, with the notable execption of fusion. If it does work, immagine a world powered by twenty or thirty power stations producing huge amounts of electricty and even transmitting it through the air? Now, we could get by just fine, in the future, we'd be even beter.

4.What is the true cost of the solution? A good deal cheeper than the one we have now. If we had to pay the true cost of turning on that lightbulb our economy would go into a tailspin (even worse than what's doing now). The problem is that if we continue the way we are now, it's entirely possible that a good deal of our coastline would end up under water. Did you ever see the adds for the Nat Geo "Six Degres Could Change Our World?" English scientists reciently predicted that we would see a minimum change of six degrees, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions right now. Do you really want to see what eight or ten degrees of cange might be?

You are very right. Pie in the sky does not make a good solution even if all you have to do is stay the course.

Exercitus,

Everyone of your post is filled with common platitudes, liberal media talking points and no actual facts and sources to back anyone of them up. You take unrelated items and add bits and pieces of what you have heard and read and jumble them all up together to come up with the expansive answer that does not really answer anything. It does not make your point any clearer or any more valid. I have attempted to separate the parts out and then fit them all back together to address what I think the point is you are trying to make and then respond to it but I find that this process takes up hours of my time. I do appreciate that you do not resort with the common tactic of name calling as so many do when they are asked to explain what they mean. I believe that you need to try to just keep your comments and any questions a little less broad. Do a little fact checking yourself before you post. Everything that you have heard does not always make it the truth.

http://www.greengeek.ca/2006/08/10/seed ... te-change/


Iron seeding, wonderful thing. You can put iron in the ocean to promote alge growth and becuase alge removes CO2...


Do I really need to explain Wind and solar power to you?


As for taxes, I don't care how'd you's implement them, but the idea is to make ecologically damaging energy's prices reflect their true cost. Sit back and let the free market go to work.

Incentives could easily be funded for revinue from the taxes, perhapse through contests to encourage innovation or tax breaks for eco friendly companies.

Have you heard of fusion? Think about what you could use that for? Imagine how much essentially free power could be produced?
Wikipedia does a good job of its in depth explination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

http://fusionpower.org/
Incase I encounter any anti-wikipedia arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourt ... the_future




I can't find the brittish group but the IPCC is predicting between 2 and six degrees of tempreature change last year (if you look at the previous reports this number goes up with each one) there was criticism that it was too conservative.


Exactly what more do you want? We can act and the video explains why. What more do you want?

Exercitus, the US has spent trillions of dollars over the last century building factories, autos, houses, farms, machinery and other things to run on oil derivatives. We are going green where we can, but it will take time and tremendous amounts of money to change over. It's a difficult job to keep a war going, maintain competitive production globally and change to a green society. People have seen the benefits of it, but it will takes years to accomplish. It will totally change the way we live and cost trillions.

Exercitus wrote:What no astrologers? These people are not scientists, they are college grads, most of which don't even have a degree in anything close to climatology.  Notice that out of the 30000 sigs,  only 500 of them actually have degres in related fields. From the National Science Foundation.   There are about 655 thousand doctoral scientists, SCIENTISTS, not graduates in this country.  Of those, about 20000 of them hold degree comprable to the disenting minority that's about two and a half percent (I'm assuming that all of the 500 hold doctorates).  In addition, the site admits to some forged signatures so I'm also giving you the benifit of a doubt on that too.  

I realize that Exercitus has been banned but I won't let his intentional lying stand.  I don't know where he gets his numbers but thousands have degrees in science.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.  Here is a list of the qualifications of those who have signed the petition:

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)
1. Atmosphere (578)
  I) Atmospheric Science (114)
  II) Climatology (40)
  III) Meteorology (341 )
  IV) Astronomy (58)
  V) Astrophysics (25)
2. Earth (2,148)
  I) Earth Science (107)
  II) Geochemistry (62)
  III) Geology (1,601)
  IV) Geophysics (334)
  V) Geoscience (23)
  VI) Hydrology (21)
3. Environment  (971)
  I) Environmental Engineering (473)
  II) Environmental Science (256)
  III) Forestry (156)
  IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)
1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
  I) Mathematics (575)
  II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)
1. Physics (5,106)
  I) Physics (2,310)
  II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
  III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
2. Aerospace (585)
  I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)
1. Chemistry ( 3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)
1. Biochemistry (768)
  I) Biochemistry (703)
  II) Biophysics (65)
2. Biology (1,365)
  I) Biology (985)
  II) Ecology (72)
  III) Entomology (57)
  IV) Zoology (145)
  V) Animal Science (106)
3. Agriculture (791)
  I)  Agricultural Science (314)
  II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
  III) Plant Science (292)
  IV) Food Science (74)

Medicine (3,069)
1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)

General Engineering & General Science (9,992)
1. General Engineering (9,751)
  I) Engineering (7,289)
  II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
  III) Metallurgy (387)
2. General Science (241)