For all of you who don't believe in Global Warming?

Question

Do you still support the use of renewable energy? I know quite a few people who don't believe in Global Warming but they think we should continue to use fossil fuels until we run out and then get something else when we have to

Answer 1

i hate global warming put some coolent on earth

Answer 2

What sources are  you advocating?  I was raised in a loggining family and wood is a renewable and sustainable energy source and not utilized to its potential. AGW believers are not sure what they want on energy, they want less people, and less freedom for people because they know what is best for the people.

Answer 3

Absolutely. Competiveness in free markets is always a good thing. Practical Alternative fuel sources would no doubt decrease the demand for fossil fuels thereby bringing down the price.

It is morally wrong to be wasteful. All industrialized countries are guilty of this. They all need to change their way of thinking, but I don't think, socialists attempting to force this change with scare tactics from an unproven theory will be an effective means of doing so.  

Answer 4

It comes down to cost.  If renewable energy can be produced at the same cost as the energy we use today I'm all for it.  If it's going to be more expensive then not just will energy prices go up but every item or service you buy will be more expensive so I wouldn't support it then.

Transportation relies heavily on oil to function.  And so far, except for hybrids and a few electic car experiments that don't work very well, there is nothing available, or on the horizon, to replace oil.  Ships, trucks, and planes can't run on solar power.  Some trains do (especially in Europe), but providing electricity over North America's vast network of tracks (often through large desolate areas) is not an option.  It is very necessary to continue exploration for new oil sources.

Can you just imagine the electrical brown-outs or black-outs if everyone had an electric car plugged in at the same time?  They work in theory (aside from speed, range and safety) but a lot more work has to be done before even a car can be considered a worthwhile renewable-energy vehicle.

Answer 5

When it become efficient yes.  

Answer 6

I support the use of renewable energy and I do not believe in man made global warming.  Higher Carbon Dioxide levels are good for plant growth and active plant growth sequesters carbon and releases oxygen.  What little warming that has occurred is well within normal fluctuations.

Answer 7

There is absolutely nothing wrong with renewable energy per se. It's just that solar, wind, hydro etc. are all inefficient and expensive. Coal and nuclear power plants produce by far more power than all other sources of energy, they're more economical and although nuclear plants don't, coal plants actually benefit the environment and agriculture by emitting CO2 which all plants need to survive. An increase in CO2 means an increase in plant life which means an increase in animals. An increase in CO2 also means farms can be more productive and so world hunger will decrease. So why would you not use coal? By doing so you're helping the environment and the poor impoverished people in third world countries. Lots of politically extreme environmentalists like to blame CO2 for global warming when in fact not only is CO2 only a very minor greenhouse gas, we don't produce CO2 anywhere near the scale that nature does. Besides currently we have some of the lowest temperatures in the history of Earth, exceeded only when the Earth was completely frozen over. All studies point to a warmer climate being beneficial for all life on Earth. During the mediaeval warm period there were vineyards growing in Northern Britain, something impossible today. This period was characterized by high prosperity for the time and may have even helped usher in the renaissance. In contrast to this the little ice age (around 1750) was so cold the Thames was frozen over for much of the year. This period was characterized by poverty, starvation and disease.

So I do think we should keep using coal and nuclear until we run out of coal and uranium/plutonium which won't happen for a very long time. The world has so much coal we could power the entire world for centuries even including exponential population growth. This coal was formed during the Carboniferous period in which the entire world was covered by swampy forests. The industrialization has restored all this lost carbon to the carbon cycle thereby making it available to nature once again.

Answer 8

Is there warming and cooling of the planet, yes. Is there any scientific PROOF that  the planet is warming and caused by mans activity, no. The same people that are saying the ice caps are all going to melt were saying we were about to enter an ice age 30 years ago. You can't have it both ways. As for fossil fuels, this is a completely different issue. Is the supply limited, yes. Should we use it all up before looking for an alternative. absolutely not.  

By the way, has anyone noticed how bad the air is in Beijing? It's amazing that China and India, two countries that are currently polluting the air at rates we haven't seen in this country for thirty years are getting a pass while the US is still the bad guy.

Answer 9

Subject: IT IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, BUT IT IS A SHIFT IN CLIMATE ZONES DUE TO THE DECREASE IN THE EARTH'S OBLIQUITY

> The earth's obliquity Angle decreases by 0.47" each

> year, which changes the focus of the sun's radiation

> on earth, resulting in climate shifts. As the

> obliquity angle decreases, the hemispheres change in

> basic temperature with the south becoming colder and

> the north becoming warmer.  When the obliquity angle

> reaches about 22 degrees, it will start to go the

> other way and the north will get colder again and the

> south will become warmer.  Obviously, and counter to

> Al Gores unlearned theories, the warming of the

> northern hemisphere cannot be stopped by man.  It will

> stop and reverse itself.  Then the climate shifts we

> presently experience will be goin the other way.  It

> is pure logic applied to astro-physical law.

>

> It has long been recognized that rather than staying

> constant, obliquity varies slowly with time as a

> result of external gravitational influences. The Moon

> and Sun's tidal torques on Earth's ellipticity give

> rise to the familiar 26,000-year astronomical

> precession, while the gravitational pull of other

> planets, primarily Jupiter and Venus, slowly perturbs

> the orientation of the ecliptic plane in space. The

> combined effect observed by Earth dwellers is an

> ~41,000-year oscillation in the obliquity with overall

> amplitude typically of about 2°. This oscillation is

> one of the three Milankovitch cycles that ultimately

> affect our long-term climatic system and serve as the

> pacemaker of ice ages. The present-day obliquity

> happens to be close to the mean value, and we are in

> the middle of a downswing (see figure (1)). In terms

> of real distance on the Earth's surface, one should

> see a slow equatorward shift of the tropics by 14.4 m

> a year-well over 1 km in a century!  

Answer 10

no, GW deniers as they are called, believe that the earth has cycles and GW is normal and not something man made.  We believe that any alternate source of energy and conservation or good.  We don't not believe the earth has to be retooled and that a redistribution of wealth is required to stop GW.

All alternate energy sources must pay their own way.  We have enough research going into alternatives and taxing for increased research is not right.  Reasonable tax rebates and such are OK too.

H2 is not a fuel and it should not be researched or promoted as anything other than a competitor to chemical batteries.

Electric commuter cars are fine as long as people realize they run on coal. Staes like CA must join the US and build their own energy sources or face import taxes from States that produce energy.

Answer 11

Absolutely-- I support the development of renewable energy sources. However the reality of today-- and the near future (less than 10-15 years) is that coal, natural gas and nuclear make up 90%+ of our electrical generation capacity in the USA. Solar, and wind are very small fractions of our requirements.

I am FOR the immediate development of solar, wind, and any other renewable energy source-- BUT this is an inter-generational change and will take many many years to implement. We need a Comprehensive energy plan from Congress that can affect this change over the next 30-40 years-- I just don't see them doing this yet.

http://www.neighborsgo.com/blog/boatman2...  

Answer 12

I believe we should use renewable energy if it is economically feasible without large subsidies. Large dams are great at producing energy, but the locations for them are limited. Wind farms do make sense in rural areas with lots of wind. Solar also makes sense in limited areas. The problem becomes when we try and force a technology when it is not currently economically feasible. This causes higher energy prices and higher taxes (for subsidies).

Personally, Nuclear should be one of the areas we really expand. It can be done safely and is  a cheap for of energy (if we can eliminate all the red tape).

Water, solar, and wind are great ion small scales, but they can not replace coal/nuclear for large scale applications. Maybe if there is a break through in the technology, they will be more feasible. But until then, we should go with what works, Nuke, coal, etc.

Answer 13

Sorry but the plants have recycled fossil fuel for a few millions of years and will continue. We will never run out of fossil fuels. We may have some trouble finding it but it will be there.  

Answer 14

i don't understand why anyone wouldn't believe in global warming, i mean HELLO CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHAT THE h**l IS GOING ON WITH THE WORLD OTHERWISE?  

Answer 15

I think at best humans have only a minor impact on climate given the small scale of our emmissions compared to the natural co2 so you could call me a AGW skeptic.

Whilst I dont support the IPCC's projections and the proposed tax schemes like carbon trading or the impossible to meet Kyoto targets,  I am all for renewable energy sources and reducing pollution and our impacts on the environment, I am an enviromental engineer after all. I work with environmental groups to restore satlmarshes, wetlands etc... I do volunteer tree and wetland planting and I work with councils and developers to reduce their impacts of the environment. I believe its activities like this that best benefit the environment whilst meeting our needs for development.

I love the idea of harnessing sun wind and geothermal engergy, the downside is solar and wind are costly and perform poorly and are un-reliable. Its not to bad if you use it in conjuction with conventional power, but for the third world these sources are to costly and cannot be used as a primary power source reliably.

I am however a fan of hydro power such as tidal lagoons or hydro electric dams, these are the most effective renwable and green power sources. However, its very hard to build them as environmentalists often object to them, as with wind farms.

The severn tidal barrage in the UK across the Severn Estuary is a good example of an how the tide can be harnessed to generate a huge amount of power whilst shortening drive times to Swansea from the southwest of England - but its opposed by environmentalists, so instead they will end up having to build 3 nuclear power stations which will also recieve opposition.

Not that Nuclear is that bad, its the cleanest form of energy production we have, its just the fuel and waste thats a long term issue.

I think we should be diverting funds into making solar more effective and cheaper so that developing nations can use it inplace of coal burning and also look at new sources like Fision.

It is a balance of protecting the environment whilst meet the economic needs of the people.

I think spending trillions of $ on reducing co2 could be better spend on developing better and cheaper renewable energy sources

I am also worried about poorly thought out so called "green" fuels created in a panic to stop co2 production without thought of the larger effects. bio fuel is a good example, it can use more co2 to make than burning petrol and pushes up food prices and causes deforestation. Good idea that! At least 2nd generation biofuels may be better.

Answer 16

I do support the use of alternative energies that will reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and to prepare us for a time when fossil fuels are not our primary source of energy.

I am not in favor of paying more for energy just for the sake of it being renewable.  If there is an economic advantage to using solar over coal, I am all for it.  If T. Boone Pickens' wind farm will reduce our need for natural gas generators and allow us to burn natural gas in our cars, I am for that as well.            

Answer 17

I don't believe in GW but I do think renewable energy sources are worth using. If they could become more cost effective and more widespread useage, then they'd have my full support.  

Answer 18

Key point to be made on this subject, all of the major proponents of the AGW scam are against high tech answers to the energy problem. A few of the will support nuclear but they all seem to reject the real solutions to be found by going into space. If Jimmy Carter had not made his anti technology edicts the US today would be exporting cheap space generated electricity to the world and oil usage mostly for the making of plastics would be less than a tenth what it is today. There would be no call for reducing Co2 because with virtually no excess output people would recognize that it is solar activity not Co2 that brings about warming and cooling of the planet.