Solving global warming with giant vacuums

I'm trying to think if I've ever heard of anything stupider in my life. So far the answer is "no."

"Orchards of filters." How lovely. Those things are as ugly as the windmill farms in California, despoiling the visual environment and killing birds and interrupting other wildlife. Isn't it funny that the enviro-nuts can propose something like this and oppose a much smaller drilling field for oil.

Wow, this is about the most idiotic idea I have ever seen. What's next, a car that runs on charcoal briquettes?

Maybe they could suck the wind out of that blow hard Al Gore and this idiot dribble?

Rather than waste money on this idiotic scheme, we should be investing in the technology to produce clean energy from coal. We have enough coal to generate the electricity we need for over 100 years.

The enviro-fascists would never agree to have these devices all over the landscape, let alone agree to nuclear generation to power them. If this were April first, this article would sense.

Solving the problem will cost some trillions. Not solving the problem will cost many trillions plus lives and our way of life (unless off course you're over seventy). Fox News should not be one's only source of science and education.

Give the job to the Dumocrats,They know how to SUCK (mouths wide open)and dont say anything worth while anyway.

This scientist wants to return our climate to that of the 18th Century?!! Last I read, we were under whats called "The Little Ice Age" in the 18th Century. Break out the parkas!!!

Man attempting god's work!

We can't say for sure that CO2 is the enemy, the current warming trend may be the result of many factors, including the output of the sun. Since there are many periods in the earth's history where CO2 was much higher with much lower global temperatures, I'm not bought into the whole CO2 is evil plan.

I think as the science gets better, we'll have a better understanding of the actual mechanisms at work, and hence a better way to understand what, if any, interventions make sense.

My bet is no intervention is necessary.

kent wrote:

Solving the problem will cost some trillions. Not solving the problem will cost many trillions plus lives and our way of life (unless off course you're over seventy). Fox News should not be one's only source of science and education.

we are spending that on the war now

I have to agree with the other comments, This has to be the stupidest uglyest thing ever dreamed up and what a waste of money. What global warming? weather runs in cycles. How come when the temperatures in Chicago in the early 1900's in January were in the 40's no one was yelling global warming then. It goes in cycles folks, the past winter just proved that and the ice caps in the polar region are thick again.

joe wrote:

Man attempting god's work!
We can't say for sure that CO2 is the enemy, the current warming trend may be the result of many factors, including the output of the sun. Since there are many periods in the earth's history where CO2 was much higher with much lower global temperatures, I'm not bought into the whole CO2 is evil plan.
I think as the science gets better, we'll have a better understanding of the actual mechanisms at work, and hence a better way to understand what, if any, interventions make sense.
My bet is no intervention is necessary.

Wow, still don't believe CO2 is the reason for global warming, despite almost every expert stating otherwise. Interesting...

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, still don't believe CO2 is the reason for global warming, despite almost every expert stating otherwise. Interesting...

You are gullible if you believe that the majority of scientists are convinced CO2 is causing global warming. The liberal media speaks in hysterical tones about the results of global warming, and yet there are many climatologists who question the cause and effect. You might ask yourself who benefits from these schemes to reduce carbon emissions. Al Gore does, for one. He has a company that trades in carbon credits. Just thought you ought to know.

This sounds like an al gore idea.

Oh, BTW, the consensus indicates you're an idiot. Don't believe it? Too bad, your science backing your non-idiot status didn't make it into the consensus.

Not fair is it?

Not scientific either.

CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher before without a corresponding increase in temperatures. Some scientists note this non-correlation in their research.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, still don't believe CO2 is the reason for global warming, despite almost every expert stating otherwise. Interesting...

To all the "chicken littles" out there... The Sky Is Not Falling!!! repeat... The Sky Is Not Falling!!!

What a big, steaming pile of crap!

Keen Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
You are gullible if you believe that the majority of scientists are convinced CO2 is causing global warming.

The only people who are saying that global warming ISN'T being caused by man are the people who benefit from pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air as waste. They pay scientists to spread their lies, and people such as yourself eat that junk science up. Just thought you ought to know.

While they're removing the CO2, can they take care of the lint on my shirt?

We already have very efficient CO2 scrubbers -- we call them trees and bushes and grass.

Besides, the 'man-made' global warming crisis is a hoax. Global warming? Yep, sure is there. Man-made -- nope, no credible evidence.