Read more carefully.  The article you linked to even mentions that those unconventional sources are more expensive.  Cost is why we use oil, when it jumps from $10 a barrel to get out of the ground to $40, we wont be using it for everything anymore.  He's also counting the years at current levels of consumption, which doesn't follow the over-estimated expansion rates to hit 2C per decade.  There's a very big difference between that zero growth estimate of 50-200 and the real world problems with the doomsday scenario of the AGW crowd where usage accelerates and we jack the CO2 levels through the roof.

CO2 levels don't gradually climb, they're flat with production levels until we hit some mythical tipping point and cause the fictional cascade effect.  To jack them up that high, we have to jack production up that high, something far more expensive than current electric cars and nuclear power.  Hell, sticking the current solar panels on your roof is cheaper than that will be.

Crazy greeny dudes.

Acid rain didn't kill the rainforest, drought did.  Oil spills caused by offshore drilling are far surpassed by natural leakage, they aren't even in the same factor.  There's nothing there in ANWR, so building an itty bitty drilling installation and a road through all that nothing isn't raping some pristine wilderness.  The caribou don't give a shit about them, and they wont miss the square mile of grazing land they lose.

If you're going to jump up someone's ass for this sort of thing, at least pick something that's actually real.  The Hudson for instance, getting a river to the point where you still die even after being saved from drowning.  When ten million people shit in their drinking water, that's a problem.

No, his comments were directed at me.. and everyone else that doesn't agree with him:

There is a word for such an attitude. Its called being irresponsible.

Well, my attitude is all these AGW followers want to fix a problem with the EARTH'S ENVIRONMENT that doesn't exist!!!  I've seen ideas for fixing this mythical problem from shooting iron filings into the atmosphere to painting all the roofs in world white... some are silly, and some could cause incredable damage... THAT'S what's irresponsible!! 

So did I jump down his throat???  Damned right!  Because I think this is serious... your screwing with my daughters future on this Earth... this is VERY serious!!   

By the way... I have a beautiful 72 gallon fishtank, fully planted with live plants, and a 20 lb tank of CO2 in my bedroom that slow bleeds bubbles into it to keep them healthy.  Yeah, I said it CARBON DIOXIDE!!!  In my bedroom, in a 20 lb industrial tank I purchase only a few blocks from here... So don't tell me I don't know the truth... CO2 is NOT pollution... it's plant food!

Wanna really mess up the rain forests?  Just get rid of all the CO2 in the atmosphere and you'll get your wish, because all the plants on this planet will die... and then us behind them!!  Sound a bit extreme???  No more than listening to Al Gore spew on about The "Global Crisis" and how we'll all be dead in 50 years from too much CO2!!! 

I used to have a 55 gallon salt water tank, long time ago. I never though to induce CO2 to help the plants grow - good idea.

My prize was my lionfish. After a couple years he had grown to nearly 10 inches nose to tail, and ate 6-8 feeder goldfish a day. Then I joined the Navy and had to give the tank away to a neighbor. I was a bit careless when I was transferring him, and I got stung on my thumb. Nasty thing, lionfish stings. They have a venom similar to that of a cobra (I later found out). My thumb swelled to twice its normal size in a few minutes, and felt like it was being pounded by a hammer. My first thought was to get the poison less localized (and diluted, so perhaps my system could deal with it), so I put my thumb under very hot water to dilate the veins. It helped. The swelling wend down some and the pain lessened.

Later that day I went to visit my brother. I told him what happened, and he called our mother! Between them both, I was forced to call the poison control center (they actually wanted me to go to the hospital, but I hate doctors). Funny thing, when I talked to the Alameda poison center (one of the best in the nation) they had no idea what to do.   They had to call around, and finally down to San Diego, to get any information on lionfish venom.

After a couple hours of phone calls with them they told me, there is no anti-venom, but... apply heat - as much as you can stand. It neutralizes the poison.  

Turned out, my initial instinct was correct - but for the wrong reason.

I went through all of that for two reasons.

First, now you know what to do if you are ever stung by a lionfish.

Second, while CO2 may be good for plants - it is not so good for such things as shell fish. It weakens the shells. It may be bad for coral, as well.

Everything needs to stay in the proper balance and proportion, or something is going to suffer.

So while your initial instinct to help the plants is correct, it is also wrong reasoning when it comes to the overall health of the entire ecosystem. (Just as my instinct to apply heat would have been wrong if the poison had not been neutralized. I could have just as easily died by spreading the poison to my heart.)

Heat also neutralises stingray and scorpion fish venom to my knowledge.

Good point. However, if you point out that a certain solution is bad, without having an alternative, you must admit this and state the importance of coming up with an alternative. The media has put so much emphasis on why carbon trading schemes may not be a good thing, that few people actually think about alternative solutions. So I guess in that sense, doubt hasn't done much good.

I never thought of it like that before. Interesting point.

I disagree.  Skeptics are addressing the issue at hand, but it is the AGW religious that are attempting to distract the populace from their main agenda.  Which is total control over every day life (what you can eat, breath and drink).  Indeed, if as the skeptics allege the issue is not settled and we need more studies (not phony hockey sticks), then that is not being done as the AGW proponents are pushing bad science for what?  What could possibly be the reason?  Clearly it is not altruistic (or they would not then also be NIMBY on Wind and solar, and dead set against nuclear). 

What most people realize is that there is a problem with Al Gore and his buddies on the propaganda they are speweing.  But as long as Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. refuse to allow good science to prevail, there will not be a lot more converts, but a lot of skeptics.  And of course as long as the skeptics have to waste time pointing out the obvious, then the truth will remain a mystery and everyones time will be wasted by the hysteria of the religion.

And that is where you are wrong . Even if cutting emissions is good for environment (which is not sure until our knowledge about climate is complete), it is not good for economy...therefore it is bad solution. It has to be good for both to be a good solution.

This is the strawman argument.   We also know that CO2 has been much higher in the past, and yet the earth has abided.  So what we dont know if it is damaging since CO2 is critical for half the eco system.  In other words - is the planet that has survived 4.5 billion years so fragile that microscopic amounts of a natural gas can send it spinning out of control?  or is the earth very resilient and able to accomodate fluctuations like this without batting a proverbial eye lash?  Given what we do know about the earth, I tend to believe the later is true.  In other words, like the human body where a climate of mid 70s is "stable", it still can undergo wide temperature swings with no ill effects.  What makes us think the earth cannot do the same, given the magnitude it has had to get things to the point where it can fight off "infections"?

This is close to the correct perspective.  But it should properly be:

When the existing balance and proportion are perturbed, some things are going to suffer... and some things are going to prosper.

Nature makes no value judgments, only we humans do that.

But, nature didn't put excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans did that. So if we end up causing something to suffer (that may be us suffering too), do we take responsibility for it, or do we just chalk it up to nature being nature? Survival of the fittest does not = acceptable. Just because somethings survive and some don't, doesn't make it acceptable.

For example, a strong man murdered a weaker woman and raped her. Does that make it acceptable because the stronger survived? No, because it wasn't natural and is morally wrong.

So if our CO2 ends up hurting the enrivonment along with its inhabitants, while some may survive and others die off, that doesn't make it any more acceptable. This is because it was NOT natural.

Again, this is if AGW is indeed an issue. I am not arguing the existance of it. I am arguing the morality of the issue.

I like how this argument has moved over the the morality and natural processes of things, though. I think AGW opponents would have an easier time if they stuck with touting scientific theory than if they tried to counter with morality reasons. That is placing doubt of its existance and not claiming morality to something that won't turn out to be moral.

And this is where you fail to see the point in my previous post. You are tunnel-visioned in your ideology, that you failed to see that I was NOT talking about any particular solution. Yet, you went ahead anyway and claimed that I mentioned any sort of emissions capping. I did not. That is why in my previous post I said the following:

I did not say anything about capping emissions, yet your tunnel-vision led your to believe I did.

Cutting emissions is different than capping emissions. For the sake of further argument, I suggest you distinguish between the two.

In otherwords, if you disagreed with my previous statements (about cutting emissions being bad), then you are claiming that if Microsoft wanted to implement green technologies into their corporation in a myriad of ways, then that would be bad for the economy. Which it wouldn't be.

And thus my point that I made is still correct.

Sure, no problem.

The term cutting emissions is simply a broad term that means the cut back on the emissions we produce. This term does not differentiate between the means to so. A synonym for "cutting emissions" would be to "lower emissions".

Cutting emissions could be anything from me (a consumer) purchasing an efficient hybrid vehicle. Or it could be a company heating a new branch office with geothermal. Or it could be placing a solar panel on your roof.

Capping emissions refers to the economic policy of enforcing restrictions on companies that produce CO2 and exhaust it into the atmosphere. Such caps could result in tax penalties and the like. This is the term that you are against as it involves government interfering with business.

One is a term that relates directly to an economic policy (capping emissions), while the other term is a broad and general term that doesn't have to touch economics at all (cutting emissions).

Hope that helps!

(For purposes of this thread, instead of saying "cutting" emissions, I will say "lower" emissions if that helps you translate it easier to avoid confusion.)

That is the problem with listening to hype instead of doing your own research. Historic CO2 Levels One thing that most people forget is that man is not the only factor on this planet.

It is disputed by a lot of scientists based on Lake Vlodstock and glacier ice core samples

Quite true.  Life has existed for about a billion of those years.  So your point is?

That is an hypothesis, not a fact.  Please learn the difference.

And your point again is?  Life came from the oceans.  land is not necessary for life.

So I guess the norsemen of the 13-14th centuries were not adapting?  Seems they had some very nice farms in Greenland.  Indeed, historians, based upon Peter's Pence records, estimate the population in Greenland at the time to be about 70k.  Care to check what the current population is?

I see you are very passionate about the issue, and also very ill informed.