Probably not. But the fact is that we do have an effect on the earth, and moderating that effect is a requirement for our survival. So in this case, I don't mind so much.

Not in general. But in this case the real science has been unable to sway public opinion. So what else is there to do?

No. The reason it isn't working is because it's uneconomical. Every massive power in the world is fighting the science that tells them they're destroying us. They know it's true. They just don't give a shit. And their responsive lies must be dealt with somehow. I don't care how. Since I tend to mirror the irrationality in an debate when irrationality is evidently not going to be countered with rationality, I have no problem with the same tactic being used on a mass scale. Anyone who wants to know the real science can look it up. It's not like it's being hidden.

It's not possible to make it economical. Do you have any idea how much the entire industry of humanity is based on oil? In time it will become economical, but people don't tend to look at long term goals. They deal with the here and now. Especially in the market place. In the here and now, it's not economical. Switching from oil to anything is a multi-billion if not trillion dollar process.

Wrong. We know that a warmer planet means more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, disease, and extinctions. Habitats are dying. Species we rely on are dying. Virus' and parasites that cannot spread to some areas due to cold weather are now spreading to communities with no defense against them. A warmer planet isn't good for us. It may be good for some species, but not us.

That's your opinion. In my experience, sometimes the only way to fight fire is with fire. And in fact, the only way to counter an irrational argument is to use a rational argument. Someone who is arguing irrationally cannot defeat another who is arguing irrationally. If the only way for them to defeat your argument is to use rational arguments, then they are exposed to their own irrational arguments being irrational.

Not if the truth is also being advertised. And it is.

Strawman. I never made such an assertion. How does people resenting me have anything to do with global warming? I could frankly care less what other people think, unless it negatively affects me.

That's your problem. More people are becoming aware of the reality despite your problem, so I could care less about your problem.

I don't care if you think you have the right to pollute the environment because of willfull ignorance. I'll agree with the law that puts you in jail for trying to poison me.

Obviously you don't care. People are saying what needs to be done to reverse the damage we're causing. If you ignore it then you are a part of the problem.

Agreed. But there's a lot of truth behind the lies. The lies are just breaking through other lies. The lesser of two evils if you will. It's a common situation for life on this planet. Not liking it and fighting to change it is fine and rational. Not accepting it and ignoring it is irrational. The oil companies have fought for far too long to keep their hefty profits at the expense of the species. And I could care less if you have a problem with the methodology used to unseat them.

Again, that's your problem. I care more about my life than complete unwavering honesty. Most people are like me.

Look at the science itself instead of the government reports if you want the reality. Science doesn't lie. That's the big flaw with your entire argument. The government is not the only source of information. Not today. The government always lies. Every government always lies. The trick is in recognizing which lies are for a good result(climate change) and which are for a bad(Iraq). Getting pissy at the fact the government lies isn't going to change anything.

I'm the same way.

And your willful ignorance is irrelevant to me. Ignoring reality will never change reality. Reality is that people lie. Truth is preferred to a lie, except when the truth will not change things for the better. And in this case, the truth has failed. Within moments of the report of the lie, suddenly the US switched rails from "global warming doesn't exist" to "global warming exists". That's all I care about. And it's all you should care about too.

That's right, only the bad science has been able to. 

Not true. In fact the "power" supports the bad science because it makes people want/need their power.

The "science", and I use that term loosely, is not telling them it is true. Only the talking heads and fear mongers are telling them.

I know this will open a can of worms but...there is no catastrophic end of the world coming from global warming. There is no science to support it.

It would be foolish to think that anthropology has no effect on the Earth. But it would also be foolish to think that anthropology, which is infinitesimal compared to the Earth could cause such dramatic changes.

Climate science is in its infancy. Read the whole Third Assessment Report. Count the errors, bad science, and judgements made without complete data. I'm not going to do it here, far too busy as it is, but I could go on for hours.

Don't believe everything you hear. e'hem... the Bible? But if you didn't know any better and were told it was true repeatedly... 

I agree to a certain extent(especially the end of the world bit. We may be capable of destroying ourselves, but we are not anything like capable of destroying all life or the earth itself), but scientifically it's impossible to deny that humans have a significant effect on the global climate, when looking at how the climate works in the first place. Global temperature is dependant on two things at the most basic level: The sun is the primary source, and the atmospheric makeup is the deciding factor in how much sunlight gets through and how much stays once through. The atmosphere is finite. Observations of Venus compared to Earth are direct evidence of how hot a carbon dominated atmosphere gets. And we are pumping more carbon into our atmosphere than it is capable of absorbing. We're also simultaneously destroying the natural counterbalance to increased carbon emissions(trees and ice). We're destroying habitats for species, which can have chain reaction effects that are somewhat unpredictable but always head up the food chain. And like Yellow said, the suggestive evidence is that we're only seeing the beginning of what we're going to see, no matter what we do now. But if we keep up what we're doing for long enough, Earth is going to look like Venus in years to come.

But you are only looking at the American perspective. The US government can alter it all it likes, it can't alter what comes from the UK, Canada, or China. Anyone willing to look at the science is incapable of being restricted from doing so, and seeing exactly what's accurate and what isn't. There is a lot of fear mongering going on, and a whole bunch of bullshit being spouted, but the essential claim in the middle of it all is true enough. The Earth is warming up. And we're at least partially responsible.

 What the hell are you talking about?

Oil is an energy source. If you can come up with a different source of energy that is at least just as efficient, for the same or lower price, people will start using it.

That's what making it economical means, and it has nothing to do with how popular oil is at the moment.

EDIT:

Wait on second tought I think it does have something to do with it.

The current high demand for oil makes it more expensive, and so makes it relatively easier to come up with a cheaper alternative.

No, it isn't. You obviously have no concept of the reality of the situation. And until you show how it could be, you're simply asserting nonsense without evidence.

And you think that there would be good things coming my way? Without even naming them?

Much like theists, I don't care what you believe. If you want to be irrational, you have the right to do so. You do not have the right to negatively impact my life and or freedoms, so I stand firmly behind those who are telling us a truth even if it is wrapped in lies.

Nothing is being hidden. The truth is available to anyone who wants to look at it. If you want to allow yourself to be lied to without looking up the reality then that's your choice.

Your interpretation is invalid and irrational. I said no, then explained what no referred to.

No, it's your problem. You're the one who has a problem. I don't. I'm merely defending my postion that you have a problem with.

You said don't pass laws telling you what to do. I say you have no right to make that request if your acts impact me or anyone else.

This isn't a solution. No court has jurisdiction over the world. And law suits do nothing more than raise insurance rates and make it harder for everyone to get insurance in the first place.

Which means you don't care about the environment. The government may be lying to you, but I'm not telling you there won't be any ice on the planet in 2050 or that north america will be a desert or some bullshit. I'm just telling you that without retracting current policies, we'll be experiencing a lot more climate based problems than we do today.

Denying the problem doesn't make it go away.

I'm not lying. The government and/or fear mongers are lying. If you want to put your head in the sand while everyone else makes effort to survive then evolution will leave you behind. I have no problem with this. Natural selection at it's finest.

No, because you'll be shot 30 times in the face by cops before you get anywhere near me. Any damage you cause will be negligible compared to ignoring the issue at hand.

So look at the science, not the people. How is anyone stopping you from researching it yourself?

People like a lot of people. Environmentalists do tend to fear monger more than others, I agree. That doesn't mean they are flat out wrong in everything they say. Why can't you ignore the idiot with the sign saying the world is doomed and instead see what led the idiot to claim this in the first place?

Climate change is hardly the end of the world. The end of humanity perhaps, if we ignore it. Either way, you go ahead and spread those lies. Not many will be listening to you anymore. They'll see you as being in an apologist postion for oil companies or a similar position.

Except that aerosols used by man were mostly responsible for the cooling period you describe. And carbon levels today are higher than they've been in human history. And they're still rising. Denying the effect of an increasingly greenhouse environment is scientifically irresponsible. Ice core samples show a direct correlation between higher atmospheric carbon levels and higher global average temperatures.

Climate change has been attributed to a great many extinctions. You are simply in denial.

Different cause and effect. Humans weren't pumping hundreds of trillions of carbon particals into the atmosphere while destroying the rain forests that feed on them and watching thousand year old ice shelves that help regulate said carbon particals fall into the sea and melt away. Invalid argument.

Not in the time scale we're looking at. Not even remotely close.

You've posted more opinion than truth, and it's not inconvenient. Earth temperature changes do occur. They do not naturally occur with the speed of which they are occurring now.

Reality. What are you talking about?

It is also a lubricant.

It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else. It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water. It means closing power plants and opening new ones. You must not be grounded in reality to think that you can just switch energy sources without it costing anything.

Popularity has everything to do with costs.

Indeed. Which is why we are finally seeing some movement towards alternate fuel sources. Even though we've known about these problems for more than 30 years, and nothing until the last 5 to 10 was done about it.

Yes, it has. Though I agree the question is how significant.

We know enough.

You're correct that I oversimplified the issue. But surface reflectivity goes down with ice levels. Oceanic absorption goes down with ice levels. Radiative forcing is the issue in the first place. Every factor we know about points in the same direction.

Yes, it is. Because of Mercury. Which is even closer to the sun by order of magnitude than Venus is, yet is massively cooler. Mercury without an atmosphere, when atmosphere is the exact problem we are dealing with. I don't see terrain as relevant. None of Venus' surface is exposed to sunlight. It's all atmospheric. Gravity is nearly consistant with Earth's, if there's anything to show gravity having an effect on climate. I've never heard of rotational and orbital speeds having an effect on climate. You could make a good case for the moon having an effect(atmospheric disturbance), but I don't see why the orbital speed would.
Initial makeup would appear to be irrelevant. Current makeup is relevant.

Edit: This posted before I was done writing and hadn't been able to delve into editting. I don't have time anymore to deal with this point properly. My apologies.

We're destroying the vegetation faster than it's growing, which is releasing even more carbon. You do not counter my point.

You have no evidence to back up your claims. The only reason some species are still alive today is because of government action. And there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to empirically state that there's more diversity today than ever before. You'd need a running history of the planet to claim this. Life does not have such a running history. Only geologic features do.

Why?

The United Nations is as much a political body as the United States. My apologies for the error, however the essence of my statement is still valid. The UN can no more control science than anyone can.

I'm not talking about the IPCC report. I'm talking about the science of global climate. As for the rest: Two words: The internet.

I have no idea what the context here is. But the very fact that you own a copy is mere proof that whatever it was could not be completely hidden. With the internet today, it's an order of magnitude harder. If a scientist shoots an irreperable hole into climate change, noone can keep him quiet.

Actually I was aware that the global temperature difference seems negligible. But a small change in mean temperature can mean drastic local changes. I believe the calculation for maximum disruption of climate temperature based soley on carbon was 1.5c. I may be off by a bit.

You said it's a fuel, I pointed out it's more than that.

Strawman.

Nope. Just try putting deisel in a standard gas tank. See what happens. You don't have a clue do you?

Doesn't work that way. It's uneconomical to use a different fuel source than everyone else is using. You go ahead and open a hydrogen fuel station. You'll be bankrupt in a week. Maybe you'll learn something though.

Yes, you do.

Takes a lot of time for every vehicle on the road/in the air/on the water to die. And lots of people aren't smart/don't care/or simply don't know. That's why they buy SUVs. Like I suspected, you aren't grounded in reality.

You have any idea how much it costs to make a power plant? Any idea how much it costs to close one? How much to clean one up? IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL. Brainless suggestion.

Flat out lie.

Two lies in two comments. Might save money 20-100+ years down the road(depending on certain circumstances), not today.

You don't know how the economy works in the first place quite obviously.

Only if popularity drives the new source. And it's not. Neither is it about to. So your point is moot.

Strawman. I said SWITCHING fuel sources CANNOT BE ECONOMICAL TODAY. Try reading for once.

Why are you hung up on this? I merely pointed something out.

Conclusive proof that even atheists can be irrational.

Again you speak for yourself.

Where are you going to fill up?

It's completely inapplicable. That was the first fuel source for the first cars. There wasn't anything to replace. The industry was being started for the first time. Today it's replacing a fuel source that the entire planet uses. You don't just flip a switch and suddenly everything uses a different fuel source. Do you even know how engines work?

You keep talking to yourself....

Flat out lie.

How is a new technology cheap and easy to maintain? Show me one piece of new technology that is a fundamental block of our society and was universally accepted in a day. Or a year. Or ten years. Just one.

And how am I going to do that you brainless twit? You giving me power to change the education system and what corporations and governments can do and say all of a sudden? I'm starting to think you I should let you live in your cave and leave you to your idiocy.

Really? You useless shit. Why haven't these things already taken over then? Yep. You feel free to wallow in your foolishness. You aren't worth educating.

No, it does not. It could be that simple, at least for a large portion of things. Going off gasoline could be as simple as converting from 4 to 2 cycle engines. Simply going diesle, which will burn pretty much any hydrocarbon if tweeked correctly. Make it CHEAP and the technology WILL follow.

Yeah, so we can do that in what, 10-20 years. How long do cars last? Ten years, at most for the most part. Big shit like locomotives, trucks and tankers are ALREADY diesle. Any such switch would take only slightly longer. Engines don't last for centuries.

No, it does not. It means burning different fuel, little more.

If it burns, it works. Period.

20 years is NOT a long time. It's PDQ in the grand scheme of thinngs and that sort of time frame is feasible for such a crossover. You agree below yourself. Cost in such a case is arbitrary, we're simply replacing technology, not revamping the whole fucking world. You have poor concept of the difference between different types of engines and the work and technology that goes into them. Going diesle or hydrogen would be a step BACKWARD as far as production goes - both would be simpler designs than gasoline equivalents.

What retard would ever say it would be instantaneous? Only one who thought the time frame I laid out was unreasonable for such a change. Pick one.

 Yeah, so how, exactly, did you refute my point? I've worked in the industry and developed technolgy for it. A traditional coal plant can function FINE burning coal, oil, wood, charcoal, trash, pretty much anything that you can set on fire. It really is a simple process - burn things, boil water, use steam to make electicity. We've been doing it for over a century.

As far as emmissions go, you're WRONG on that front as well. New membrane technology in conjuction with traditional scrubber systems can abate about 80-90% of such a plant's emmissions. New ideas such as using membranes to sequester CO2 and pump it underground are also quite close to becoming reality. 

Check temperature records and you find the cooling did not occur. We were threatened with a coming ice age. Didn't happen.

Of course. Means nothing. How far back does human history go? 100,000 years ago CO2 level was almost identical to today. There's no evidence to suggest this is entirely caused by humans just like the last time when it clearly was not.

True. But making assumptions about it is equally irresponsible.

And they also show, particularly the Vostok samples, that the temperature increase is ahead of the carbon increase. Which makes perfect sense due to the nature of sea water's storage of CO2.

No science has not proven this at all. The IPCC and Al Gore claim this, and they show their charts as proof. But real science has not proven this.

The bulk of the increase in temperature since 1880 occured BEFORE the bulk of increase in CO2 emissions. This is a fact that even the IPCC states. They then claim that subsequent temperature increases are entirely resulted from human activity, as if the natural forces all stopped suddenly. It's absurd.

Perhaps for you or the doomsayers. No we do not know enough about climate science to make rash decisions. The IPCC admits that we cannot see these effects on short timescales. Yet we base legislation on it anyhow.

It changes with many factors. And ice levels actually haven't changed much. They vary naturally too. We've lost some ice in one place but gained it in another. Ever wonder how Greenland and Iceland got their names? Greenland is mostly ice today, but once was mostly green. Similar story for Iceland. Salinity affects ice formation too. Changes in ocean currents and temperature, an quite possibly human activity alter salinity.

Oceanic absorption of what?

Not at all.

You cannot compare any other planet. They are all different. Some with atmoshperes some without. Composition, distance from the sun, rotational speed, gravity, all of it are the very reasons why you cannot compare.

Gravity has a great effect, gravity alone determines density of an atmosphere's atoms and their ability to form molecules. On Earth for example about the only place you find atomic oxygen is at the top of the atmosphere, closer to the surface the density is too high for it to exist. Layers within an atmosphere are often governed by gravity.

How much salt water is on Venus? Salt water retains about 10 times the amount of CO2 as does Earth's atmosphere.

Volcanic activity, ocean and air currents, and surface reflectivity will certainly be different than here. Even rotational angle has an affect due to the nature of regional heating and cooling cycles.

You're right in that the atmosphere of Venus keeps it hot. The mean surface temperature of Mars is -63°C. Earth if it did not have an atmosphere is estimated to be -18°C.

Venus has a thick layer of sulphur above the layer of CO2, Earth doesn't. Guess what, different atmosphere, different rules. Sulphur on Earth has a net cooling effect.

As for light reaching the Venus surface it does indeed. If it didn't there would be no greehouse effect there. The effect functions by reflecting light energy back down to the surface. If no light hit the surface it could not reflect up. The primary element of it all is ultraviolet light, not visible light, including here.

Apples to Oranges.

This would not be releasing more carbon, it would be processing it less. But no we are not destroying vegetation faster than it is growing. In the United States for example the amount of forest land is about the same today as it was in 1920. There's been some slight fluctuations but it's been basically flat. This as the demand for forest products is the highest it's ever been and continues to rise.

I have plenty of evidence. This is a well known fact.

Name one. And prove government action did it. Government and Greenpeace might claim success, doesn't make it so. In fact most species identified as endangered are not.

Easy, we have nothing to compare it to. Did humans cause Venus' atmosphere? No it's there naturally. The solar system is 4.5 billion years old. We know that even Earth has changed greatly over it's existence, it was once a much much hotter planet. Earth has been through 16 ice ages. Today's temperature and CO2 levels are almost identical to the last tepid period and very close to all the others.

Nobody controls science. Governments however can and do control where research money goes and censor the findings.

And you must dig deep for the information. Global warming alarmism is in the foreground. Most everything running to the contrary is hidden.

The point is that government tried to hide the information. Yes it's not completely hidden, but they try. And if you don't look for it you will not find it easily.

They try all the time. Government continually cuts funding off for anyone going against the grain. Global warming activists use ridicule to attempt to damage reputations.

Or not. And it would mean global changes, not local. Local temperatures fluctuate all the time.

Some have assumed various values. The IPCC model calculated increase is .6°C. Again that is not a measured increase.

Measured increases, which some suggest there is, are also subjective. The reason is that our ability to measure the Earth's mean temperature changes over time with technology. There's no single place on the planet that can be used for this measurement. A number of places are used, averaged. As the number goes up the value will likely change.

Understand that I, and others, are not saying that there is no global warming, or that human activity doesn't have an affect. Do not assume that the talking heads and treehuggers are telling the whole truth. I'm all in favor of alternative fuels and higher efficiencies. I'm not saying we are free to be irresponsible. But we don't need to panic. We don't need to waste $300 billion on mandates that have been shown to account for virtually nothing in slowing global warming.

A 4.5 billion year old planet. 1.6 million years of ice age cycles. And humans are going to break that?

In 1883 the eruption of Krakatoa spewed tephra particles into the air, spreading over the entire planet. The sky had an orange color and a halo around the sun, global temperatures were 1.2°C lower. Weather patterns were chaotic for years and did not return to normal for five years. The Earth itself has a greater affect than anything humans have ever done.

Which is WHY I said the process would be cost driven. No new technology will be implemented unless it economical. Twenty years is a feasible amount of time to implement such tech in the US and the rest of the industrialized world. There WILL be holdouts, but they will be ever diminishing as the technology spreads.

There has been stalling by people with vested interests in current technology. Nobody disputes that. The fact remains though that if you can come up with an idea or concept that is marketedly more economical, it WILL be embraced - and it WON'T happen over night, at least not in an idustry where products last 10+ years. Hybrids are gaining more market share as they become cheaper and are proven to work. As gasoline prices increase, their market share will increase as well. Give it a decade or so and a SIGNIFICANT amount of vehicles on the road will use that technology (unless somehthing better comes along, which may indeed be the case and may be why some are hesitant to embrace hybrids).

You completely ignore economics and practicallity here. Yes, we COULD all be driving electic cars right now, IF economics were not an issue.

No, it's simply a matter of practicallity. You don't switch your company over to unproven tecnology overnight. You introduce a few new models with the new tech, see how it does, see what other companies produce, demonstrate that the concept works and is reliable. Then you begin leaning in that direction. 

Technology wise. Electric motors are fundamentally more simple than their equivalent powered gasoline counter parts. 

Fine. I do apologize for my choice of words there, btw. I think you have an unrealistic idea of how fast technolgy ought to progress in the absence of economic drivers, especially when considering industries where the products last for a decade+. This isn't the Manhattan project or Appollo Mission here - there aren't billions of dollars to throw at it, there isn't an economic driver to justify that sort of investment. There may very well be an environmental driver, but this has only relatively recently become clear - and furthur to this, it is not clear to me how auto makers are responsible for fixing the world. If the environment is a concern for you, alternatives are available, and they are being increasingly produced and are becoming more and more popular.

Because it is CHEAPER. Cost IS an object in this case and MUST be considered.  

A false dichotomy. The choice cannot always be made between buring coal or trash, building a dam and putting up an assload of soal panels. The coal plant is ALREADY THERE, we CAN make it cleaner. Dams take a decade to build, and have serious environmental impacts all their own. Solar is still ridiculously expensive compared to other alternatives - the technology is in its sophomore year; there ARE very promising solar technolgies on the horizon. Point is, retrofitting what we already have is cheaper and almost as effective. When the coal plant reaches the end of its life or we run out of coa (which won't be any time soon)l, maybe then we build something else. But if we can make the coal plant say 80-90% cleaner, how is that not the best choice when taking cost into the equation? The point is you don't just scrap the entire infrastructure because a new tech may be promising - not in the power industry and not in the automotive industry. The bigger and more costly it is, the longer it takes to switch out or change.

I fully support nuke power, unfortunately the public does not. It only takes a Chernobyl and a TMI to make that take the black sheep for decades. 

Didn't realize there'd been another response here.

20 years would have been a feasible amount of time 20 years ago too. The potential for an economical fuel change was there then almost as much as it is now. Yet nothing happened(despite the fuel shortage of the 70's). Nothing continued to happen until global warming started to become an issue. And so I will remain supporting those who are a bit flippy over it. If for nothing else than my own lungs.

Alternate fuel sources cannot be economically superior to current ones until they have been at least partially implemented. It's a simple logistical fact, barring a discovery that some common element can produce insane amounts of energy for marginal cost. Therefore there is no economical advantage to switching fuel sources for the sake of it. Especially if switching sources means less income for those controlling the current source. There must be external pressures to fuel change. It's an evolutionary fact of existance. Hybrid vehicles(contextually, not by definition) didn't even exist until emissions started to be a social issue. There was no advantage to making one. No reason to.

I might have exaggerated the timeline very slightly, but the driving force of my point is completely valid. Technologies existed that could have erased coal and oil consumption decades ago. Not instantly at the time, but certainly by now if implementation had begun then. The only reason they are becoming more economical today is because the social views of global warming are fuelling demand for the alternative power source. They were not going to switch on their own. Demand and supply.

Companies put all their marbles into pushing unproven technology all the time. Practicality doesn't make shitloads of money. Risk does. Rule #1 for CEOs. The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives, and they are dependable. They are also cleaner for us to breathe, and have less impact on the environment than gasoline burning.

Some newer hydrogen engines are combustion engines. While I'm not an engineer, I'm don't see much of a technological difference between the two.

It's no problem. I've noticed you're passionate about your philosophies, and I don't mind expletives as long as they aren't directed specifically with intent to ad hom.

The economy isn't the only driver. Some things are more important than permanent economic stability. I think you have a strange idea of how much right companies have to poison us so they can line their pockets.

That coal and oil use have negative environmental and health impacts has been known for decades. Centuries even regarding certain applications. Alternatives have been known for decades. That's a sufficient driver. I don't believe people have the right to infringe upon others rights. Particularly the right to live.
And auto makers aren't responsible for fixing the world. They aren't the driving force in this scenario anyway though. They'll respond the same way consumers will. It's the source that needs to change. Fortunately it finally is. Thanks to the possibly immaterial anthropomorphic global warming scenario.

And it's about time too.

Not in comparison to societal health. Cost is a secondary factor. A very significantly lower factor than health. Without health, money is irrelevant.

Straw man. I asked a question, I did not stake a position. Nor did I suggest that the options in my question were the only options to be had. I merely kept it short and to the point instead of paragraphical as I was seeking clarification.

In this day and age, there are always alternatives. There just has to be a willingness to look for them.

Something that wasn't even considered until the global warming issue arose in the first place. So yeah, it's good that things are being done to make it cleaner. But if there are cleaner alternatives, there's no logic in building new coal or oil plants. Yet new plants are in the development stage.

Granted. Though that impact can be largely or entirely negated. And is less immediately serious than the clouds of exhaust hanging over our cities and plants anyway.

I wouldn't say ridiculously expensive. The price has dropped substantially in recent years. But it is out of the range of the average consumer I agree. Which could be mitigated by government sponsorship of material. A far better use for tax dollars than the war in Iraq to keep oil flowing I think.

Because lives are infinately more important than a few dollar symbols on a companies payroll. And 10-20% emissions are quite capable of causing health problems. Retrofit and filter until there's an alternative sure, but once there's a healthier alternative, it should be the standard. Not the alternative.

I never suggested the entire infrastructure be scrapped. I'm fully aware that the current infrastructure must remain in place until an alternative has replaced it and proven itself functional and dependable. There's no other way I an think of to make a switch like this while remaining economically and socially responsible. I never once suggested we should go out and tear down every coal plant in existance when we have nothing to make up for the lack it would cause in the power grid. But it should be a goal to work towards.

Indeed. Most of the problems anti-nuclear people espouse are easily mitigated by responsible conduct and planning.

I saw an interview on 60 Minutes with a government scientist that has repeatedly written papers saying that we're getting close to the point of not being able to fix things.

His papers were heavily edited by politicians (Not scientists, POLITICIANS!) that didn't want it to sound like we need to step up and start fixing things NOW.

 I agree with all your points except this one.  Nuclear is heavily subsidized which brings down the direct price to consumers.  There's a rush to build new reactors because the Bush administration provided $8 billion in government funds.  If that same amount was provided for alternative then there would be an even bigger explosion of clean energy.  The fuel also must be mined and refined which isn't terribly good for the environment.  It's also not renewable and the cost of the fuel has increased about 120% in the past few months.

So it's not the safety concerns that turn me off of nuclear.  It's the requirement for huge taxpayer subsidies, the fact that it isn't renewable, fuel mining and processing is harmful to the environment and there is currently no safe means to dispose of the waste. 

Whew, this video is 75 minutes long...maybe I'll take the time to watch it later....as for your 4 points, they don't convince me of a global scientific conspiracy:

1) I'm sure not very many.  Plus you could use this excuse to counter any scientific theory you happened to disagree with.  Evolution?  Conspiracy to give researchers, from chemists to paleontologists, jobs.  Without this evolution conspiracy there would be no need to fund these so called "scientists".  Astronomy? Funds everything from telescopes to multibillion dollar space shuttles.  Look at all the jobs there...this proves stars are just lights hanging in the sky...not the other stars "scientists" claim.

2) You let me know when someone goes to jail for an environmental offence.  I'd love it to happen, but lets face it, driving around in your Hummer doesn't make you some prosecuted minority.  I'll admit governments love people to hate each other, but they also love corporations and industry (these produce huge amounts of tax dollars).  Why would you want people hating these organizations, when you spend so much elsewhere to keep them propped up?  Much easier to sow seeds of racism and nationalism...that gets people hating each other AND has the benefit of helping government interests. 

3) No I don't remember.  But it doesn't matter.  So what?  Global warming is global, meaning its a world wide increase in temperature.  This could cause climate to shift warmer or cooler in different specific regions.  Besides, I thought the big argument against global warming was that people have been talking about it since the 70s and there hasn't been a global catastrophe?  Shouldn't you try pulling out this more valid accusation?

 4) Fad?  Yeah, you know how cool those "scientists" are, every kid I know wants to be one.  Is it any coincidence that white lab coats are the height of fashion this summer?

And the comment about the sun?  Are you expecting people to argue the sun doesn't warm the earth?  Sun + CO2 = Global Warming.  Its like arguing the glass in a greenhouse doesn't heat the greenhouse, the sun does.  Well duh, of course the sun does, thats the whole point, isn't it? 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

At most only a quarter of the effects can be solar related.

Kriz,

They weren't so much "points" for arguementation as they were just highlights and thoughts frrom and about the movie.

D-Cubed,

The science is highly disputed, contrary to itself, and incomplete. Satisfying yourself, and indeed flattering yourself, with the idea that we as humans could have such a massive impact with the simple production of C02 only is naive. The Earth exists within a greater context, it's not just the earths environment that affects earths temperature. If nothing else the idea behind solar activity driving our climate change coming from the originator of the study should at least make you skeptical. This guy specializes in studying solar activity and was made famous for producing accurate results, and now no one's listening...