[Wondergirl]

W.G.: In the U.S., the scene in the picture you've shown here should be a rarity. At some point, a balance must be considered between what you see here and carbon emissions: Much of what you see can be burned for fuel by BOILERS.

That scene was in the Eastern Hemisphere, north of Australia.

[paraclete]

I have no doubt of that

[tripinnholiday]

Reason behind climate change is human's stupidity.

[jlisenbe]

Reason behind climate change is human's stupidity.

Stupidity in what way?

[paraclete]

Reason behind climate change is human's stupidity.

yes the stupidity of thinking Humans can control the climate

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete: YOU NAILED IT!

[talaniman]

Surviving whatever Mother Nature is up to is a matter of adaptability.

[paraclete]

Yes Tal, and humans have been adapting, and will continue to adapt

[jlisenbe]

Don't really have much choice.

[paraclete]

This is true, however some think the effects can be stopped and reversed by limiting CO2 emissions, this is stupidity and we are wasting resources when we should be adapting. New cities should be built away from the coast, and populations moved before a crisis arises, new water storages should be built and we should be finding ways to grow crops vertically using buildings as well as harvesting storm water. Cities like New Orleans should be abandoned and rebuilt inland.

I do understand this problem, there are many coastal places which will become inaccessable

[Vacuum7]

The CLIMATE CHANGE BUNCH do not practice science: CLIMATE CHANGE is a religion.

Meanwhile, to demonstrate how much CLIMATE CHANGE rhetoric is designed to impugn the U.S., check out the facts: Red China, by its little old communist self, has bee identified as spewing out 28% of the worlds "Carbon Emissions"....the U.S. only chips-in 14% of the world's total carbon emissions.....If you listen to the left, they would have you think it the Carbon Emissions #'s were reverse and that the U.S. was responsible for most of the world's Carbon Emissions.

[talaniman]

You could say the same about those right wing drill baby drill fanatics, who have no clue about cleaning up the messes they make and screw clean water land and air. Haven't had good shrimps since the gulf spill but who cares? Look the numbers are the numbers and when we turned our backs as leaders by example the numbers get worse, but who cares, right?

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: No, it just means we get REAL SERIOUS WITH THOSE THAT DRILL: IF YOU SPILL, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. If your business is pumping oil out of the ground or, in this case, from below the Gulf, and you want to keep pumping that oil, you better get your act together on the environmental side: that's the message that needs to get out there....need to stop pussyfooting around with the producers and talk to them in a language they understand, which is $$$s in fines for screwing up. Yes, oil handling can be a problem but it doesn't HAVE to be....Nuclear can definitely be a problem but it is relatively clean, minus a few episodes over the last 50 years or so, and oil drilling needs that same intensity of focus to make it more in line with our expectations: We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. It behooves the U.S. to wean itself COMPLETELY from the sandbox of pain called the Middle East: We need to position ourselves where we can tell the M.E. to go eat their sand, we don't need their oil.....and the thought of the U.S. staying around the M.E. JUST TO PROTECT EUROPE'S OIL IS DISGUSTING: LET THE EUROPEANS GET OFF THE DIME AND PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS! Personally, I think many in the U.S. are still frightened by the specter of Germany rearming itself to the teeth and going abroad....you'll never hear this but I think the thought is in the back of many minds.

[talaniman]

Be darned if I don't mostly agree with you Vac! I think drillers should be wholly responsible for clean ups and safety considerations which includes power companies being responsible for waste management, and the occasional pollution from spills and contamination of land, air, and water, along with the very real health risks to humans because of it.

Where we diverge however is acknowledging how the rest of the world, mostly ALLIES can meet their energy demands effectively which is mostly through the ME, and Russia, who are already armed, and arming as we speak. I worry less about Germany as a military threat than as being leveraged to comply with making a deal with Russia and the Saudis or any other energy producer for that matter simply to meet their energy needs. It's one thing for us to be energy independent, but we cannot ignore that our allies are not.

Right now nuclear is a viable solution for them but until they are at that point, they need oil! An affordable and reliable supply of it. That's just the reality of the world.

[paraclete]

The CLIMATE CHANGE BUNCH do not practice science: CLIMATE CHANGE is a religion.

Meanwhile, to demonstrate how much CLIMATE CHANGE rhetoric is designed to impugn the U.S., check out the facts: Red China, by its little old communist self, has bee identified as spewing out 28% of the worlds "Carbon Emissions"....the U.S. only chips-in 14% of the world's total carbon emissions.....If you listen to the left, they would have you think it the Carbon Emissions #'s were reverse and that the U.S. was responsible for most of the world's Carbon Emissions.

You have a poor memory there was a time when the US was the largest emitter, then they exported their industries to China along with the condemnation, but the damage the US did is still in the atmosphere, that is if you believe climate science which is akin to Scientology. The US still buys goods from China so don't point the finger. You have a lot of renewables but in twenty years you will have to renew them which is very expensive.

Right now nuclear is a viable solution for them but until they are at that point, they need oil! An affordable and reliable supply of it. That's just the reality of the world.

Tal what we need now is new technology, coal is old, oil is old, solar is old, wind is old, but if we were to harness the power of water

[Athos]

... some think the effects can be stopped and reversed by limiting CO2 emissions, this is stupidity....... New cities should be built away from the coast, and populations moved before a crisis arises,........ Cities like New Orleans should be abandoned and rebuilt inland.

Yeah, move New York City a few miles inland. That should be a simple project.

Talk about stupidity!

I do understand this problem

No you don't, you're clueless.

[jlisenbe]

Still waiting on that Matthew 25 response. Been a while.

Yeah, move New York City a few miles inland. That should be a simple project.

I kind of questioned that one myself. Coastal cities are there for a reason. New York City would not be NYC without its port facilities. Moving New Orleans is not going to happen. Besides, we shouldn't move anything over a half-inch rise in sea levels.

[talaniman]

Tal what we need now is new technology, coal is old, oil is old, solar is old, wind is old, but if we were to harness the power of water

That's great except for where there is a great lack of water, like the vast Australian wilderness for example. Even you guys haven't solved that one yet.

[jlisenbe]

That's great except for where there is a great lack of water, like the vast Australian wilderness for example. Even you guys haven't solved that one yet.

I kind of questioned that one myself. I assume he is talking about harnessing the energy of waves and tides, but I don't know of anywhere that is happening, and I would think it is going to be really difficult and expensive. Other than nuclear, I don't see anything on the horizon that can take the place of fossil fuels.

[talaniman]

I think scrubber and capture technology is entirely viable if you can get past the initial investment and loss of some profits for a short while. Heck the taxpaying consumers tout the expenses any way you cut it. None of us could afford lights if our government didn't subsidize these companies any way.