Note that I am not advocating this, or any particular "solution", just that they should be studied and compared on a rational basis. Unfortunately, the average person is not scientifically literate enough to understand the issues properly.
My problem with this is that only a single option for global warming mitigation is considered - reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The fact that there might be other alternatives completely escapes those who prefer to argue about who is going to pay for the option which has been reflexively selected.
The solution with the least impact on our standard of living, which is also within our means to achieve is : Electric cars and electric heating sources, while investing in low or no-carbon emission sources of energy such as solar, wind, fission and fusion
Some citations to back this up, please?
Short of massive engineering projects to reflect heat back into space, condense carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it underground, or some other ridiculous proposal, the reduction of burning fossil fuels is the most practical and brings other benefits (except for oil producers).
The lack of original ideas is very troubling. Let's see some out-of-box, creative thinking.
What to do about it? Please show me the scientific and engineering studies that prove a particular course of action is appropriate. I am tired of the knee-jerk reaction that blithely assumes reducing carbon emissions is the way to go. There are many possible alternatives, including doing nothing at all. A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to forcibly relocate everyone back to caves.
Assad has used chemical weapons against Syrians, and yet he is still in power. Even though there are forces against him, he is still the recognized leader of the country.
Also, notice how no one said anything until Snowden spilled the beans.
And when they started losing business - see AT&T acquisition of Vodaphone, Cisco's problems, etc.
I would like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Cisco, AT&T, Verizon all to stand up together and completely spill the beans on what they have been doing at the government's behest. What could happen? If they were all shut down and their executives charged, the US economy would implode.
Slashdot Mirror
All the links in your search refer to cost-benefit of GHG reductions relative to the cost of a changing climate.
How about some consideration of alternatives to GHG reduction and forcing people to switch to renewables?
He didn't do shit, other than sign his name to CONGRESSIONAL appropriation bills.
He has veto power.
Because the President threatens to veto it.
Yes, Congress passes the laws and the budget, but the President has veto power, which gives him a lot of leverage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note that I am not advocating this, or any particular "solution", just that they should be studied and compared on a rational basis. Unfortunately, the average person is not scientifically literate enough to understand the issues properly.
My problem with this is that only a single option for global warming mitigation is considered - reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The fact that there might be other alternatives completely escapes those who prefer to argue about who is going to pay for the option which has been reflexively selected.
The solution with the least impact on our standard of living, which is also within our means to achieve is : Electric cars and electric heating sources, while investing in low or no-carbon emission sources of energy such as solar, wind, fission and fusion
Some citations to back this up, please?
Short of massive engineering projects to reflect heat back into space, condense carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it underground, or some other ridiculous proposal, the reduction of burning fossil fuels is the most practical and brings other benefits (except for oil producers).
The lack of original ideas is very troubling. Let's see some out-of-box, creative thinking.
There is a country called the Netherlands, largely below sea level. They seem to be doing just fine.
Actually, 30 MPH is dangerous enough. What is your point?
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions...
Is that the only idea you have? No wonder the sky is falling.
So global warming is real, scientists agree.
What to do about it? Please show me the scientific and engineering studies that prove a particular course of action is appropriate. I am tired of the knee-jerk reaction that blithely assumes reducing carbon emissions is the way to go. There are many possible alternatives, including doing nothing at all. A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to forcibly relocate everyone back to caves.
Oops, I hope you are not in business or a tradesman. At least I (hopefully) have a choice in doing business with you.
ALL of them, except my garbageman, who is part of the free-enterprise system in my part of the world.
And if they have nothing to hide, they should have no objection!
Every single person on the government payroll should wear one, and the video and audio live streamed on the internet.
Any gaps in the record are presumptive evidence for employee malfeasance, and public innocence..
Anthropogenic Global Cooling?
There is a petition for that, with over 300,000 signatures. Go and add yours.
http://www.change.org/petition...
http://www.sacknfltaxbreaks.or...
No, disabling it will make you a criminal. Cover a surveillance camera, you are a criminal.
It will be fun when a mother and her children are crushed by a bus when a static discharge immobilises her car in an intersection.
Assad has used chemical weapons against Syrians, and yet he is still in power. Even though there are forces against him, he is still the recognized leader of the country.
The right to bear arms does not preclude private citizens from owning nuclear weapons. We need parity between the People and the regime in power.
Also, notice how no one said anything until Snowden spilled the beans.
And when they started losing business - see AT&T acquisition of Vodaphone, Cisco's problems, etc.
I would like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Cisco, AT&T, Verizon all to stand up together and completely spill the beans on what they have been doing at the government's behest. What could happen? If they were all shut down and their executives charged, the US economy would implode.
If the GOP ever gets back in power, this will quickly and quietly vanish.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
Three felonies a day: http://harveysilverglate.com/B...
Thanks, but not working. Back door still inaccessible.
Chapter and verse - quick, I am in a hurry.
You have obviously not heard of Lululemon.