Are you a little slow? Should I type slower so you can keep up?

1. Solar and wind power are likely a decade or more away from being anywhere near a viable replacement for fossil fuels. The fact is that last year growth in coal, oil and natural gas outpaced the growth in renewable energy by a wide margin. So while it's a wonderful goal, it's not yet capable of making much of a dent, because the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. Would you want a loved one on life support in a hospital that depended on those sources of power, I sure wouldn't.

For your solar power needs, the sun provides about 1.3KW per square meter in direct sunlight, that means a very expensive solar panel one square meter in size will not adequately power your wife's hair dryer. And what happens at night or a rainy day? As for wind power, large areas of the eastern part of my state are growing wind farms, and while I find them to be a blight on the landscape, having ruined more than one of my favorite photo locations, I only occasionally see a few of them actually turning. And only once in the years since they've sprung pu, have I ever seen them all going at once.

2. There is no correlation between your smog, and global warming/climate change, none, zero, nada. Repeating that mantra will not make it a fact. For instance, having pollution over your city, it's going to raise the overall average temperature in your overall geographic location. Sorry it just doesn't work that way. Remember the Einstein quote I gave you on the previous page? As his quote says, you can repeat experiments till you're blue in the face and even if they work every time you try, that doesn't prove the theory correct. The proof of that, lies in the fact that there are very few "Natural Laws", and that's why even though his "Theories of Relativity" have never been dis-proven, yet they are still just theories, and not the "Laws of Relativity". However, if even one experiment were to prove a theory correct fails, then the theory must be discarded as flawed. Nothing prevents you from modifying the theory to account for the flaw, but the original theory is out.

3. Here's one last fact for you to chew on, every single theory about Global Warming/Climate Change and the supposed causes being all man's fault have had failures, yet the unscrupulous scientists in their quest for more and more grant money keep telling the bureaucrats and any nit-wits who'll buy their crap, what they want to hear. The theories are wrong, but just like Gore's Hockey Stick, they just keep trying to sell their BS.

In conclusion, while I fully support alternative energy research, it's still in it's infancy, and as i pointed out above, it is still a long way from being a viable source to meet the growing demand for energy. Furthermore, blaming the actions of mankind for the change in climate, and taxing those who create CO2 is nothing but a pick pockets dream scheme.

As I said cleaning up the environment is a good thing. OK lets look at fossil fuels. If there were no fossil fuels we would still be riding horses. So called green energy is not so green. Electric cars so far don't really work. We have enough natural gas ( which reduces CO2 by about 50%) to last 300 years if we would just get it. There is technology currently to run every diesel engine with natural gas. Every car and truck could run on nat. gas. This would make for cleaner air. We should have more nukes they are cleaner still. THERE YOU GO. PROBLEM MOSTLY SOLVED.

You poor naive soul, it's called MONEY! Government regulators want data to support their regulatory ambitions, so they ask scientists to get them that data and they give them grants to pay for that research. Now if the scientists don't give them the data they seek, do you think they'll get more money? Of course not, you don't pay for data you don't want, you'll go find someone who'll give you the data you seek, so it seems like a hell of a motive to cook the books to me. Did you bother to read about "ClimateGate" & "ClimateGate II"? The examples of outright manipulation of data by the scientific money grubbers is really quite astounding. The only people who try to downplay those facts are those with an agenda to support. Albert Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.", this was based on his understanding of the scientific method. The fact is that every one of the man made climate change theories has been disproved by experimentation or empirical data. Therefore the theories are wrong and every honest scientist knows it.

For instance, most of the "Global Warming" scare mongering of the 1990's and early 2000's was based on climate models, virtually all of which predicted continuing rises in temperatures at the levels of CO2 that were occurring. None, not a single one, of those climate models predicted the way that the climate has acted. The models did do one thing though, they guaranteed a continued flow of our tax dollars in the form of research grants to those scientists who were consistently providing the sort of data that the regulators wanted.

The fact is that the earth's climate has always been changing from the beginning of time and there is absolutely nothing that man can do to make any real difference. Furthermore, no objective scientist who understands the scientific method would stand behind the vast majority of the claims about "Anthropogenic Global Warming" for the reason Einstein knew his theories could never be proven, but a single experiment that didn't support the theory would prove it wrong.

Albert Einstein also said "Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character." Something too many scientists today lack, as proven by the number of them who continue to promote a thoroughly bogus agenda.

Those who checked the links are now aware that the original post was just so much BULLDUST. Since this same fallacious post was used for Clinton and Bush2, it should be the policy of UHH Admin to require retractions for posts that are proven untrue and only posted to promote a political agenda.

The Chit-Chat section would be an invaluable vehicle for presenting opposing political views rationally and civilly. Unfortunately, political views of all stripes seem to monopolize it for name-calling, unfounded assertions passed off as legitimate opinion, and tacit racist rants passed off as "humor".

And before anyone else suggests it: yes, I draw value from the Photo Discussion sections and concentrate on posts there, but once in a while a controversial Post title in C-C piques my curiosity.