Global warming a scam to enrich a few at cost to many

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
but if the democrat wins, will America consider itself rescued when he ups the TAXES?
Single earner $30,000, currently paying about $4200 in income tax.
With Obama, he wants to take your FEDERAL tax from 15% to 28%...so plan on about $8200 per year.

Southern B wrote:

<quoted text>

<snip> Missing in this discussion is nukes which has no carbon footprint. <snip>

Southern B wrote:

We need to strive for energy indepandance first and foremost. It starts with nukes which are currently on fast track permitting. We kept on schedules with installation of scrubbers on the coal plants and replace the 50 year old out of date plants where nukes will not work. We carefully place wind mills in places where view sheds and birds will be minimally impacted. The ones on the Allegheny Front are quite the eyesore. Also the wind blows to hard and the winter are to rough to be economical. We encourage conservation, small wind and solar generations for homes and business. We increase the infer structure for natural gas so we can utilize our vast reserves. In the short term we drill off shore. It was amazing that oil dropped $20 dollars a barrel from a meaningless act by Bush. We start drilling offshore, oil will drop even further.

willard wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you offer suggestions many of which I can support (still no on nukes -though).
My problem with off shore drilling is not esthetic but environmental. The administration and currently McCain are doing their best to keep the truth about oil spills from hurricanes off the radar.
MSNBC: More than 500 cleanup specialists are working to contain 44 oil spills ranging from several hundred gallons to nearly 4 million gallons, the U.S. Coast Guard said in an assessment that goes far beyond initial reports of just two significant spills.
[...]
The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana.
That is about two-thirds as much oil as spilled from the Exxon Valdez tanker in 1989. But unlike the oil from the Valdez, which poured from a single source, these oil spills are scattered at sites throughout southeast Louisiana.
The intensity of hurricanes appears to be increasing and the threat of damage further inland also increases. This is one point that the MSNBC report demonstrates.
You wrote: "We encourage conservation, small wind and solar generations for homes and business. "
Interestingly, the Pickens Plan site has a link to a small footprint wind generator, which is safe for birds. It’s called the "Windspire".
His plan also shows how we can utilize natural gas more efficiently - something else we agree on.

Judged:

1

1

1

willard wrote:

<quoted text>
Come on man!
If you eliminate entrepreneurship, corporations and the marketplace - you've got but one answer - government. If that wasn't implicitly clear by inference - now you understand it explicitly. However, you knew that already didn't you?

Southern B wrote:

<quoted text>
Or to spend trillions on something we have little to no control over would be an even greater sham. Missing in this discussion is nukes which has no carbon footprint. I can guess how you feel about that. The difference between us is more the timing than anything else and maybe our knowledge base. You are likely more versed in the water issues than I and I am more science based than you. I also do not believe capitalism is evil and think it encourages and rewards hard work and risk along with a multitude of advancements in multiple areas.

willard wrote:

<quoted text>
Can't go with nukes. Until they can solve the waste problem, it will be an impossible issue. I lived within 30 miles of 3-mile island and I can tell you, we were all plenty scared, for a long time.
Yes, nothing quite like that has happened again (here), but the potential is there and the results would be catastrophic.
There is no carbon footprint, but there is a plutonium footprint. Given the state of our infrastructure with roads, bridges and railroads, I wouldn’t want to see something happen. The place that is most discussed for the refuge is NV. They don’t want it – do you blame them?

willard wrote:

<quoted text>

You wrote: "We encourage conservation, small wind and solar generations for homes and business. "
Interestingly, the Pickens Plan site has a link to a small footprint wind generator, which is safe for birds. It’s called the "Windspire".
His plan also shows how we can utilize natural gas more efficiently - something else we agree on.

Southern B wrote:

<quoted text>
I am looking to building an office next year and would like to use wind. It is still a little pricey but I think it will continue drop in price. Msnbc is as valid source as Rush. The only difference between the two is one is to the far left and the other to the far right. Each will say and distort facts to further their political agenda.

Ticker wrote:

<quoted text>
Willard , 3 Mile Island was another scam. You might have been scared but of what? The media, that made a big deal out of nothing more than an overheated reactor that caused zero damage to anything and anyone. What a crock of chit Williard sure you can find a better lie than this to present.
Wonder where France Japan the UK and the rest of the countries that use nukes for power have over come the now non-problem. They are now recycling the waste and the problem is solved. Try doing some research first Willard . It might keep you from looking as stupid as Gordon.
Here is just a tidbit of information Willard that you can find if you just take time to look.
'All waste management solutions, not just nuclear, involve moving waste from one place to another. Household garbage is moved to a landfill and a small portion is recycled. That's because, although uneconomic, it is politically correct to do so. A large portion of so-called "nuclear waste" could also be economically recycled but this is currently politically incorrect, at least in the United States. France, the United Kingdom, and Japan are basing their long-term programs on recycling.'

tangled bank wrote:

<quoted text>
While you are right about TMI - but let's not forget Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster, or simply Chernobyl, was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union. It was the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and the only instance so far of level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor. Thirty people died in the explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to fallout.
The nuclear meltdown provoked a radioactive cloud that floated not over just the modern states of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, but also Turkish Thrace, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, The Netherlands, Belgium, Slovenia, Poland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, France the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man.
Somehow - I don't think an accident involving Household garbage would cause this sort of problem.

willard wrote:

<quoted text>
Beats the alternative. The top 5%, will pay more too. that way, my children and grandchildren will have a better chance at success.
... I'll take my chances on Obama's bill

Joe Mama wrote:

You know, that last comment was far too nice. People like you who force your morals on others are repulsive. The global warming problem would go away if all of those who truly believed in extreme environmentalism would just do the right thing: slit your wrists and let society not have to deal with your carbon footprint. GFY.

timpeck wrote:

No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,...
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"...

Baja Clave wrote:

<quoted text>
Like everything else you post about GW - this post is already debunked.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_a...