keeping this thread alive huh?

That is where the scientific community doesn't agree.

Look Mafoo, I hope they are wrong... but what if it is the true (it is not 100% proven but it gets closer to the 90% than the 30%) ?

I have a problem with the American-republican message because to me, it is not about global warming but rather oil economy (and protecting their interests).

They say such regulations is an encroachement to the principle of liberalism right ?

Where was their liberalism when GM release the EV1 ?

What is it with the Bush administration putting the pressure on a private company to destroy their prototype ?

They just protected their interest and  prevented them for creating a new market...

IMO, The question is not about the scientific facts.. it is about creating a new energy-independant-efficient economy... and it is incompatible with the "old-fashion" American way of life...

Don't forget that the idea is not knew (started in the seventies)... but was canceled thanks to a very cheap oil price...

i cant believe this thread actually exists,do people REALLY believe that humans had no impact?there was a tv documentry saying that and gues what?it got taken down because the people actually twisted the scientists involved words,in short it was a scam with no evidence.I know people will say,oh but it costs money but this is the future of our planet at stake.Suprising isnt it that rich, gaz guzzling rebuplican americans talk about the costs involved and how we have to worry about the economy,in fact until a few years ago they refused to beleive that they contribute to global warming.As someone said the economy will go up and down but the changes happening to the planet are ireversiable

No matter whether man made global warming is true or not, the proposed solutions to deal with that problem are what we NEED to do for many other reasons... such as improving people's health, becoming less dependent on oil and coal...

Bottom line, let the scientists argue global warming, but decrease pollution and oil/coal use at the same time. It's the safest thing to do.

Another consideration that people always seem to miss is that, even if you assume that the production of greenhouse gasses by man is having a negative impact on the climate, our ability to increase CO2 output (or even to maintain it) is very limited because we're at a point where cost effective fossil fuels have (mostly) been exploited. We're already at a point where our ability to increase the supply of conventional energy is not meeting the increased demand of this energy, which is the primary reason why in the middle of a deep recession the price of Oil remains high (when you look at it from a historical perspective) ... even if we tapped every fossil fuel based energy source in the world, within the next 20 years we would hit a point where we have a shrinking supply of fossil fuel based energy sources and any increased demand will only translate into skyrocketing energy costs.

Knowing that (if we're very lucky) we will be able to produce 10% to 25% more energy from fossil fuels before we (essentially) hit peak production, how are we going to get to outputting 2 to 4 times as much CO2 as is assumed by the climate models that project doom for our planet?

Realistically, we're going to hit a point in the very near future where the average price of oil will hit $100 and remain above that until it is phased out; and from there it will most likely ramp up to $400 or $500 before we can mass produce cost effective alternative energy sources to phase out oil; which is something that throwing more money at will (probably) not have that much of an impact on, because the technology has to be developed to make it better which is something that just takes time. Much like 9 women can not have a baby in one month, you can't just have more companies working at trying to find a "Breakthrough" in alternative energy to make it come along any faster.

A lot of the efforts to prevent "Global Warming" are pointless even if you consider it to be a man made problem, and will probably only result in a very painful and expensive transition being dramatically more painful and expensive; and if people are forced to make a choice between driving to work, feeding their family, or heating their homes it is unlikely that they will have the spare money needed to pay for their children to have a better future.

@HappySqurriel: I see your point, but there's still a lot of crap around to burn other than oil... we can (and unfortunately, probably will) burn coal, wood, plastic...

NJ - that doesn't mean it's cost effective.

I really don't see how you can argue with this.  Are you guys really in support of all the money we funnel to Iran and other states that sponsor terrorism?  Are you guys really in favor of the dangerous cost of oil-cost of the dollar balance which could help cause the U.S. dollar to collapse?  Do you guys really think our current energy policy is sustainable, diplomatically, militarily, and economically?  Do you guys really think investing in new energy technologies, including nuclear energy, at an accelerated pace is a bad thing?

I don't understand how you guys can justify spending trillions and trillions of dollars on the military ($5 trillion since 2002) but balk at the idea of doing something that would weaken many of our enemies by taking money directly out of their hands simply because it will cost people $100 more a year.  How is that money not well spent?  Isn't that the role of the national government, to provide for the people's defenses in the most effective way possible?  This would be much more effective on states like Iran than typical economic sanctions as it would dry up their only source of revenue.

it is if you're not poor.

The method they are going to use is to make cheep energy as expensive as green energy. If you live paycheck to paycheck, and you are told it's now going to cost $350 more to heat your house, I am not sure that's the "safest thing to do".

My personal views, is I don't mind paying $350 more to help find an alternative solution to energy. I however, don't need it to eat. Millions do.

The rich pay for the war. Energy, everyone pays for.

And I don't know who told you $100 a year, but they are full of shit.