Please explain anti-global warming to me

global warming is real. There is a slight and steady increase in the planets mean temperature.

Global warming due to humans is not so real.

When you go to a magic show, and the magician does the disappearing lady, you are only seeing teh parts that the magician wants you to see. you see the girl. you see her disappear, and you see her reappear somewhere else. It is a fact that the girl was there, and that she moved. When and how the girl moved is what the magician is tricking you on.

In global warming, we know that the temperature is rising, but the magicians are trying to make you believe that we humans are to blame, and they show you data that "proves" it.

The reality is: the data only proves that there has been an increase in co2 and an increase in temperature in the recent few hundred years (if that long). in science this can be explained as:

1: the increase in co2 is causing an increase in temperature
2: the increase in temperature is causing an increase in co2
3: there is an outside and unseen variable causing both an increase in co2 and an increase in temperature

there is nothing in the data that directly proves that humans are responsible for the increase in co2, nor do they prove that co2 is the cause for the increase in temperature solely.

now, if we dig further, we can see that core samples from across the globe that reveal climate samples dataing back hundreds of thousands of years (and not just the several decades or so that global warming proponents show you) reveal there is a long term cycle that the earth has for temperature and coresponding co2, and we are right on track...

Right off front, I need to say I have pneumonia. So I hope I am clear, but I really wanted to respond to this while it's fresh in my mind. Please forgive any incoherence.


I think this is a very complex problem, that cannot be answered with just one solution, or be blamed on one or two motives.


This has been on the tip of my tongue lately. There has been a VERY BIG push to donate money to other countries in the form of aid and structure in the last few years...this was suggested before the big push of global warming taxation. Which makes me question motivation.

I think there are good people who think we have a responsibility to our poorer neighbors, which to me that appears where the global warming controversy seems to be focused.

Of course, there are those who's motivations are to tax us even further so our lifestyle choices will be reduced. They are probably the same people who think we have too much internet.

I also think there are those who think it's a perfect opportunity to steal-not necessarily a deliberate steal, but perhaps as a last resort. I'm sure in some ways they tell themselves that if the solution doesn't work, they'll still find a way to come out on top.

And then there are those who would deliberately steal.

And I certainly believe there are those who would like to take more power away from citizens and give to a world party.


These problems we need to solve are real. Whether we're having global warming, or global cooling, or no change that we can affect, we have to deal with the changes that are coming. So much illness and death of the environment IS happening. The question is; How do we deal with the results of that, and can we stop and slow the process?

The thing that concerns me the most: Why are average citizens being blamed for this? If the products we buy are making us sick, shouldn't the companies be discouraged from bad products by industry standards and rules of ethics? Why is Kraft allowed to sell products that promote obesity and addiction? Why are the animal industries allowed to torture? Are they no different than the tobacco companies? Do they not have accountability? You'd think the FDA does nothing but read biased reports with the rampant problems in our food industry. Shouldn't the finger be pointed at business that continues to poison? Which makes me think that the global warming hysteria is happening because THEY THE BUSINESS don't want to be accountable, that it really is about profits again. Perhaps this is an obfuscation after all. The business wants the focus to be on us rather than them. Because as long as You and I are blamed for the poison, after all, we asked for it right, they won't have it affect their bottom line (whether that's true or not). Plus, if the business was more responsible for it's actions, every product we buy would be a good example of OUR participation in the process. I buy organic, local, non-toxic products (for the most part). Why should I have to pay more taxes because some a**hat doesn't think they're responsible for what they put in their mouth (and I really like that quote, don't piss in the river. ) I already pay around 50% of my income that I worked VERY hard to earn.

Isn't the whole point of government to resolve problems like this? We don't need government to wipe our collective "backsides," we need them to put reasonable accountability to those who would exploit others in the grand scale.

So I'll just say this: I think the problem has been transferred from what we resisted in the 70's and 80's for the purpose of corporate gain.

Originally posted by gotrox



The theory that "evil polluters" are running a propaganda campaign with big money to discredit global warming----oops----"global climate change" is a false one. Indeed, the global tax scheme bothers them not a bit, as it won't cost them a dime.
Here is how it works, for any who care to look it up:

Everything will have either a "carbon debt" or "carbon credit" attached to it. Every company will have a carbon cap limit. Any person or item or company who exceeds their allotment will have to purchase extra credits-----from "Blood and Gore" (google the company, the name was changed, though I rather like the original)
The extra cost is not borne by the originator, but passed on to the end user.
Now, the other side.
Suppose you just happen to own a couple thousand forested acres in Paraguay. (Any names happen to come up?) Each tree in that forest fixes a supposed amount of carbon per year. That property owner gets a large amount of carbon credits to sell every year, while doing nothing but sitting on the veranda of his mansion slamming mint juleps.

In closing, honest science is done openly, with scrutiny and data open to review. Any who attempt to hide the data and refuse independent analysis are not doing science, they are following an agenda.
As a "scientist", you know this last to be factual.

I'm sorry, I hadn't had a chance to read your post. I didn't mean to disregard your post: You summed up very well what I was thinking.

Even IF we decide that the big bad corporations are in a large part to blame for the world's current situation, be that global warming or any other problem that needs a scapegoat, the truth is regulating them to death, or protesting, or writing them scathing notes describing how very bad they are being won't really change anything. Corporations have no feelings to be hurt and if the government steps in and makes it too hard for them to operate in one place they will just get up and move somewhere else.

I get the feeling that people see a corporation as Mr. fake tan in his Armani business suit sitting around a conference table of yes men just thinking up new ways to stick it to the public. This is not the case; in fact, corporations our entities unto themselves and are no one person at all. Everyone in a corporation has someone else to answer to that affects the choices they make, Every manager up to the CEO, then the CEO is answerable to the stock holders, and even they have to answer to both the need to protect their investment financially and the image of the company to protect their investment long terms as well as many of their own public images.

In the end all these choices end up skewed towards making the company a more efficient money maker. That is what corporations are really all about. No matter how we wish it were different. They aren't people but in fact a money making machine given a life of it's own. You can fire all the upper crust leaders and new people will just step in and the corporation will go on.

So if we want to change things we have to train it like a dog. It eats cold hard cash, so only feed the corporation that cash when it does as you wish. If you need those products or services then band together in co-ops and create what you need locally. If you want others to follow, make your way the more financially sensible. Yes education is important, and educating the public will be the key for the long term lasting changes, but money speaks to the people today.

reply to post by xelamental


here is a good video outlining some of the global warming scams with links in the description of the video.

Originally posted by xelamental
Firstly, let me explain my position. I am pretty much on the fence with global warming. I don't understand the science behind it, and have always been pretty skeptical of global warming. I am friends with many scientists who do believe, including one leading researcher and have had some pretty interesting arguments with them for and against.

However, I would *like* to have clear evidence for global warming presented to me. The oil companies are probably the most well-documented evil companies in the world, and their propaganda machine is second to none. Our dependence on oil is a huge problem. I struggle to understand why anyone would be anti-global warming from a philosophical standpoint - you are basically supporting the evil empire itself. I can't seem to think of a single reason why we would like to believe in the oil companies instead of the environmentalists; environmentalists are demonstratably the lesser of two evils in all cases I can think of.

Please enlighten me. Why do you not believe in global warming?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by xelamental]

How can you be "Anti-Global Warming", when there is no Warming at the moment? Mother Nature sure seems to be "Anti-Global Warming" at the moment, yet certain individuals seem hell bent on covering-up that fact. Instead, you should be asking how some can ignore the reality with an egregious lie simply to line their coffers full of 'AGW Stocks & Bonds".

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


not true.

the earth is warming over a long term cycle, just not man made... i have posted a small amount of data in the form of line charts in my previous post...

other than that, yeah. MMGW is a scam

Originally posted by wx4caster
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

 

not true.

the earth is warming over a long term cycle, just not man made... i have posted a small amount of data in the form of line charts in my previous post...

other than that, yeah. MMGW is a scam

Thats funny all three of us see this from an angle -

I think C&T is a scam, but I believe Earth is an organism of sorts and I believe human
activity is toxic to the Earth. That being said, it would make sense that a larger organism would make itself inhospitable to a detrimental microbe. It is my opinion that we are too small and stupid to make the connection.

I am fortunate that I can be introspective and think outside of the box, I only wish so many were not in denial.
Ironic you mentioned magic - to perceive something new as magic is what has always marked the old school when presented with the future. Further more, a virus is not aware enough to understand that its processes might create its own utter destruction
by killing its host and its eco system.

Of corse this all leads to the complete denial of any human impact upon the Earth, to protect business under a deep pile of excuses... I am sure the hundreds of species that go extinct every week have nothing to do with human activity C&T or not - seems the goal is to burry the old head way up there.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by wx4caster
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

 

not true.

the earth is warming over a long term cycle, just not man made... i have posted a small amount of data in the form of line charts in my previous post...

other than that, yeah. MMGW is a scam

Thats funny all three of us see this from an angle -

I think C&T is a scam, but I believe Earth is an organism of sorts and I believe human
activity is toxic to the Earth. That being said, it would make sense that a larger organism would make itself inhospitable to a detrimental microbe. It is my opinion that we are too small and stupid to make the connection.

I am fortunate that I can be introspective and think outside of the box, I only wish so many were not in denial.
Ironic you mentioned magic - to perceive something new as magic is what has always marked the old school when presented with the future. Further more, a virus is not aware enough to understand that its processes might create its own utter destruction
by killing its host and its eco system.

Of corse this all leads to the complete denial of any human impact upon the Earth, to protect business under a deep pile of excuses... I am sure the hundreds of species that go extinct every week have nothing to do with human activity

C&T or not - seems the goal is to burry the old head way up there.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by Janky Red]

please do not lump me in with those who think that humans have no impact on thier enviroment. i am mereley stating that the global warming issue and carbon trading is a scam based upon the hoax that humans are WARRMING the globe.

see my additional thread HERE

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by wx4caster
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

 

not true.

the earth is warming over a long term cycle, just not man made... i have posted a small amount of data in the form of line charts in my previous post...

other than that, yeah. MMGW is a scam

Thats funny all three of us see this from an angle -

I think C&T is a scam, but I believe Earth is an organism of sorts and I believe human
activity is toxic to the Earth. That being said, it would make sense that a larger organism would make itself inhospitable to a detrimental microbe. It is my opinion that we are too small and stupid to make the connection.

I am fortunate that I can be introspective and think outside of the box, I only wish so many were not in denial.
Ironic you mentioned magic - to perceive something new as magic is what has always marked the old school when presented with the future. Further more, a virus is not aware enough to understand that its processes might create its own utter destruction
by killing its host and its eco system.

Of corse this all leads to the complete denial of any human impact upon the Earth, to protect business under a deep pile of excuses... I am sure the hundreds of species that go extinct every week have nothing to do with human activity

C&T or not - seems the goal is to burry the old head way up there.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by Janky Red]

please do not lump me in with those who think that humans have no impact on thier enviroment. i am mereley stating that the global warming issue and carbon trading is a scam based upon the hoax that humans are WARRMING the globe.

see my additional thread HERE

Well, the practical implication is rising seas...

The CFC use was proven to diminish ozone molecules which allowed more radiation to
diminish ice pack. There was a lobby against CFC mandates as well claiming it was a hoax that humans were melllting the ice or bringing about melllllanoma.

My point is many are using the AMMGW stance to halt any environmental legislation or
any future science which may prove human activity does warrm the globe or cooolll the globe or gives the entire species cancer or WETF it may be.

You can be anti C&T and still recognize man does impact the earth - if science stated man was inducing an ice age would ya you be happy with that implication?

I think the implication of AMMGW implies something else completely.

Man cannot impact the Earth or really, itself

Argue the scam itself, good enough argument there

but I'll be damned if giant glaciers aren't out to sea visiting NZ, Africa climate went sterile in a couple decades, the eons of snow pack on the sierra nevada range, gone...

I have a feeling the implications are man has not induced any of this because C&T is a load of Crap.


I am not sure who is who - but am damn sure the goal, like it or not, is keep on keeping on

IF thats the goal, mission accomplished





[edit on 7-12-2009 by Janky Red]

In the original post the OP mentions he doesn't understand the science behind GW.

Several posts later he admits to being a scientist.

I find it highly questionable that someone of a scientific background wouldn't have at least a rudimentary idea of the science behind the argument for global warming (whether one agrees with the science/argument or not)

He then curiously phrases his OP as 'Please explain anti-global warming to me'

Surely, a more reasonable question (considering his self-admitted ignorance of GW) would be 'Please explain global warming to me' ... How can you want the case AGAINST something explained to you if, as he states, he doesn't understand the case FOR that something.

Just thought I'd point it out

Originally posted by gotrox
As an "honest scientist", what would be your honest peer review to a theory that in real world statistical analysis, produced the opposite results of the thesis?

As a scientist, I would ask not whether the temperatures are lower in absolute terms, but have we caused an increase from what it would have been. I think that is what the scientists are trying to get at, but I'm not a time series guy so can't comment on the methodology.

If you happened to read not just the e-mails, (which are a small part of the UEA files) but the REM's of the program coders ( a very large part of the leaked files), you would have to come to the obvious conclusion that the data used for supporting the theory of global climate change was purposefully biased, with knowledge that the input parameters were designed and modified to produce the desired result.

I used to design software for bioinformatics laboratories. I saw nothing wrong with what I have seen. Often you want to say "would my program run correctly if I gave it a certain type of data". I see nothing wrong with that. Do you? Obviously the code itself could have been better structured, but can you honestly claim malicious intent when almost all software in the world has this type of test data included in it? If you don't believe me, go and look at the test suites for any open source scientific software.

History shows several attempts to make mankind a villain and earth killer who's only redemption is to pay money for his sins. You should read "Eco Science", co authored by our very own J.P. Holdren---"science czar" to the white house. The certain fact of earth's demise at the hand of mankind, and the ecological disasters decimating life on the planet are loudly proclaimed.

I'm not on either side - I think it's possible they are right, possible they are wrong. Are you able to 100% say you are right?

But------- Because the prevailing theory only a couple decades ago was that the planet was entering an ice age, and particulate emissions were blocking the suns energy from reaching the surface, the money scam to heal mother earth was a different one.

I find this hilarious too. Remember only 300 years ago the earth was flat, and 50 years ago computers would never get smaller than a room.

The theory that "evil polluters" are running a propaganda campaign with big money to discredit global warming----oops----"global climate change" is a false one.

You do know that the only people consistently putting out research against climate change are those funded by big oil right?

Indeed, the global tax scheme bothers them not a bit, as it won't cost them a dime.
Here is how it works, for any who care to look it up:

Everything will have either a "carbon debt" or "carbon credit" attached to it. Every company will have a carbon cap limit. Any person or item or company who exceeds their allotment will have to purchase extra credits-----from "Blood and Gore" (google the company, the name was changed, though I rather like the original)
The extra cost is not borne by the originator, but passed on to the end user.
Now, the other side.
Suppose you just happen to own a couple thousand forested acres in Paraguay. (Any names happen to come up?) Each tree in that forest fixes a supposed amount of carbon per year. That property owner gets a large amount of carbon credits to sell every year, while doing nothing but sitting on the veranda of his mansion slamming mint juleps.

Do you think an incentive to not cut down trees is a bad thing?

In closing, honest science is done openly, with scrutiny and data open to review. Any who attempt to hide the data and refuse independent analysis are not doing science, they are following an agenda.
As a "scientist", you know this last to be factual.

Absolutely. It's another reason I got out of it - my speciality is in interpreting experimental results and very few fields actually publish them. It's frustrating and bad for the world.

My perfect world would get rid of patents & commercial journals and make every researcher state hypotheses before data collection starts, with methodology, data and analysis being open for all.

Originally posted by Dagar
In the original post the OP mentions he doesn't understand the science behind GW.

Several posts later he admits to being a scientist.

I find it highly questionable that someone of a scientific background wouldn't have at least a rudimentary idea of the science behind the argument for global warming (whether one agrees with the science/argument or not)

I can guess, but I have never read a single paper in the field. I guess they are looking at deviation from expected temperature, so even though absolute temperature might be decreasing, we could still be causing an increase. I do know that subspots were at an 11 year low from reading random internet articles, that's about it - plus talking to scientists about it on very irregular intervals. No one has convinced me either way yet.

He then curiously phrases his OP as 'Please explain anti-global warming to me'

Surely, a more reasonable question (considering his self-admitted ignorance of GW) would be 'Please explain global warming to me' ... How can you want the case AGAINST something explained to you if, as he states, he doesn't understand the case FOR that something.

Just thought I'd point it out

Good point, it was a poorly designed question. Perhaps you should be a scientist

reply to post by xelamental


Even if global warming is 100 % caused by human ... ( and it could be 5%)

THe global cooling is systemic, the ice age are happening every X years on earth : and the temp goes up, then it goes down : COOL

This is called a system : you have it in you home.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by psychederic]

Big Oil is funding the green movement, that is a fact. They are pointing people in one direction while knowing full well that it plays right into their hands. Clever, too clever for most uninformed and ignorant simpletons out there who feed on every bit of disinfo the MSM spews.

"Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was subsequently restated by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”

www.infowars.com...

Global Warming is real.

It was predicted long ago when we discovered the benefits of having an atmosphere, and how it works.

Just look at the moon, it doesn't have an atmosphere. In the Sun it is extremely hot. In the darkness and shade it is extremely cold. If it had an atmosphere with greenhouse gases like Earth, it would have less extreme temperatures. This is because the atmosphere lets in certain wavelengths light, and blocks certain wavelengths of light.

Because the atmosphere blocks certain wavelengths of light, it protects the Earth from harmful light. The light that isn't blocked passes through and is absorbed into and reflected from Earth, and that warms Earth. When the light is absorbed and or reflected, the wavelength is changed. The changed wavelength can't pass through the atmosphere and is trapped, this too warms the Earth. Without greenhouse gases Earth would freeze. This is all a fact. You can't deny it, becaues it is scientificly proven, and you would be denying the basics of what we know about atmospheres.

Humans are producing insane amounts of extra greenhouse gases, mainly CO2. This is adding to Earth's greenhouse gases that keep Earth warm. This means it will not only block more harmfull light from entering, but also trap more light from leaving. This will warm the Earth.

The Earth has serveral systems that absorb greenhouse gases. Oceans absorb CO2, and plants absorb CO2. However, we have been creating more CO2 than Earth can absorb. This means we have extra CO2 that can't go anywhere, and is collecting in the atmosphere.

Observing the temperature of Earth is not the only factor that is looked at when studying Global Warming. This is because the Sun is another main factor of temperature changes along side changes in the atmosphere. So when people discredit Global Warming because they believe all other planets are warming, they are doing nothing but highlighting changes in the Sun and ignoring changes in the atmosphere. They both go hand in hand. You can't just discredit Global Warming because there might be a cooling trend, because that too can be linked to other things. The fact still remains thet humans are adding to our atmosphere is amounts never before seen on Earth.

Earth has a blanket (atmosphere). Humans are adding to the blanket and making it thicker (which makes things warmer). You can't discredit that by saying it's getting colder or warmer. That would be like denying you are even wearing a blanket just because it's getting colder outside. Also it would be like denying the blanket is making you overheat just because it is getting warmer outside.

Just imagine that.... imagine a girl with a blanket on top of her, and it starts getting really cold around her, and she says "I deny having a blanket on me because it's getting colder and I'm colder", and yet, she still has a blanket on. That is a delusional girl...

Now imagine a guy with a jacket on, and he is outside in the Sun. The Sun is making the temperature around him higher and higher and the guy gets hotter and hotter, and he says "I deny that my jacket has anything to do with my overheating, because the Sun is just making things hotter". Well that guy wouldn't be too bright... because that jacket is causing him to retain heat. Now imagine his jacket was getting thicker and thicker, and he knew this scientificaly and yet still denied the jacket had something to do with his overheating... that is pure delusional... He needs to make his jacket thinner to cool him down. We have to do the same for Earth, however if we completly take the jacket off, the Earth would freeze to death.

So yeah, global warming is real... deniers are the girl and guy that deny having a blanket or jacket on....delusional.

reply to post by ALLis0NE

• Qualitative Analysis - an explanation of how different variables affect a system.
  
  
• Quantitative Analysis - an explanation of how much specific changes in variables affect a system.

That is an excellent qualitative analysis. Care to give us a quantitative analysis?

That is where the question lies. No one disagrees qualitatively.

TheRedneck

Massive climate change is happening!
For the younger posters (regardless of where on the globe you live) ask for a consensus opinion …from your parents age group.

There is a possibility

A. That the main cause is some unknown factor(s) (eg Sun Galaxy etc). If so science is not yet sophisticated enough to categorically identify such in specific detail.
B. That increasing man made greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor. One does not need to be scientist to recognise this massive increase and observe the effects. Scientists are able to collect observable statistical data and sophisticated enough to develop a theory as to how greenhouse emissions may be causing the observed.

Therefore the reaction ... is a RISK MANAGEMENT decision.

As has been pointed out already, it is an almost miraculous set of coincidences or factors that permit life, as we know it, on the planet to develop. One of the main ones is our fragile atmosphere and a slight average temperature change will effect every living thing and likely cause the eternal extinction of many species.

If we presume, that life evolved in response to environmental conditions and survival of the fittest. Then lets examine the impact (the mammal) Homo Sapiens (us) are doing to cause change the environment.

It took unknown millennia for man to develop the primitive wheel, then several further millennia for Sir Isaac Newton to observe fundamental forces and lay the ground work to describe them. A further century plus for Faraday to set the rules for electrical induction, another half century for Edison and mainly Tesla to make global electrical transmission possible and others to develop the automobile, and Wright Bros to create the first aircraft with very short impractical flight.

THEN in the 20th century humanity motivated by selfish greed and power went CRAZY and started raping the planet.

Mindlessly ruining environment to extract unrenewable finite reserves to the extent that oil is now becoming scarce , digging up uranium to create nuclear weapons that could annihilate the planet 20 times and producing toxic waste that no one yet can eliminate, decimating world forests, eliminating species such that even the valuable Honey Bee is struggling, and so polluting the living space that it is not uncommon to see whole cities wearing masks to cut down the toxic fume intake! We can send spaceprobes to the outer reaches of the solar system, but do not understand the Sun, and prefer to collide "particles" looking for the mysterious non existent Higgs Boason god! than develop sustainable clean energy.

It IS TIME to stop and re-evaluate and to use our knowledge to try to help make life a sustainable phenomenon.


IF, in 2050 the world reduces greenhouse gas emissions to even 1950 levels and it is discovered and proven that IT was NOT the cause of Global climate change then......

WE as the dominant and most destructive animal on the planet can be proud that we WEREe brave enough to sacrifice comfort to eliminate the possibility and develop cleaner sustainable energy and a cleaner planet, and managed the risk as best as we could.



……The OPPOSITE, you hyena sceptic deniers,.....is too TRAGIC to even contemplate!

I completely agree that climate change is happening, but on a systemic scale: ice age --> hot period --> ice age...etc. I used to believe that we were on the upswing from an ice age, but I am starting to think we are actually on our way back to an ice age. I have read that the entire solar system is heating as well by means of the sun actually getting hotter.

Have you guys seen this: Global Warming and Hackers

Apparently, some hackers got into data files and email at Hadley CRU and released a bunch of documents and emails to the public that are very telling...these people were hiding the real data and putting out false data to satiate TPTB. Very interresting read...however, I never believed we were the only reason for global warming and the warming solar system info confirmed that for me.

There are 4 anti global warming groups.

One blames the sun and controlling CO2 will do nothing.
another blames normal fluctuations in the planets temperature. and controlling CO2 will do nothing.

The third group blames a number of gasses like methane and water vapor for most of the temperature raise along with a minor contribution from CO2. controlling CO2 alone will do nothing alone to control AGW.

The forth group believes that there is no raise in temperature and its bad science bases on bad reading because of condition like urbin heat island effect and bad location of weather recording devices plus scientists that are adding corrections and adjustments to run a scam for grant money and government money. in this case controlling CO2 will do nothing.

I believe its some of all the above and controlling CO2 will do nothing and is a waste of time and a rip off of our money.

Nothing is is simple and the occam razor science that it must be CO2 is dead wrong in this case.

I believe the biggest proof that environmentalist do not believe CO2 is the cause is there opposition to solar and wind plants in there backyards.
In fact i have yet to see a solar or wind project that the environmentalist have not opposed anywhere in the US. When you add to that the total opposition to nuclear power that the green movement still has you have to believe AGW is BS and just a scam to get rid of power plants and other uses of coal and oil without replacing them.

I know that the green movement want is to believe we can use hydrogen and batteries to run our cars but at the same time they have set it up to block the energy sources to use the same cars.

I ask that congress pass a law that all cars including the elites armored limousines must meet all gas mileage laws that the rest of the cars in the US meet.
force AL gore and his rich enviromentist friends like George Soros and Obama to ride around in cars build just like the rest of us have.