| Friday, September 19, 2008 - 05:09 pm |
While you have done excellent research and provided detailed argument, look at the conclusions being drawn in your information and the methodology. Tree rings?!?
There is only one objective conclusion:
We have absolutlely no idea what is REALLY going on with our planet much less why.
There are more than enough commonsense reasons to transition away from fossil fuels and keep pollution to minimal levels. Preserving and managing natural habitats for future generations has been popular for 150 years in America.
But to use these half assed studies to draw these doomsday conclusions is beyond irresponsible. It is deliberate political propaganda for one end:
Global Socialism. period.
If the Environmentalists had an ounce of credibility they would be screaming for nuclear fission and funding for fusion research, yet they hate these above all others.
Why? Because at the core of this "philosophy" is a sociopathic belief that humanity is incompatible with Nature and needs to mostly disappear. These are the same folks that advocate population reductions despite scientific concern over the shrinking global gene pool. Oops. That must be bad science.
Any 1st year physics student knows that the energy potential in any of the "alternatives" cannot begin to replace that supplied by fossil fuels.
It's simple math. We could cultivate half of the surface area of the planet, and cover the other half with solar panels between the windmills and it still wouldn't dent demand. FACT.
No wishful thinking is going to change that. Demand can be reduced slightly for the modern nations that can afford it, but China alone will undo our efforts.
Fusion and fission are the only real alternatives, the rest are smoke and mirrors that feel good but offer little and never can.
Shall we discuss the energy deficits of recycling anything but steel, aluminum, and precious metals?
That's right kiddies. Recycling glass, plastic, and paper USES more energy than it saves.
But let's not permit reality to intrude on the argument.