Doug3370 wrote: There are natural processes that will, ever so slowly, remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The sooner and the faster we reduce our emissions, the smaller the peak CO2 level will be and the sooner the atmospheric CO2 concentration will return to levels that make for a climate friendly to humanity. We can debate the cost, but it's just a fact that wind turbines don't generate CO2 but coal fired plants do.- Tired of that $2.6 Million Program that Teaches Chinese Prostitutes to Drink?
Dear Comrade No. 3370,
There are processes that will “ever so slowly” remove CO2, and we have to remove CO2 “sooner and faster?”
Never heard a liberal make so eloquent an argument that they have no idea what they are talking about. As you say, wind power and other renewable energy sources won’t do the magic that your global warming religion demands- because according to you guys, the global apocalypse is so close already- and the wind power remedy won't solve it "sooner and faster."
So why even do it? Because a futile and expensive liberal attempt at doing, something-- anything-- is better than nothing?
Doing “something” in this case is far more destructive than doing nothing.
Why? Because it delays the day when other energy sources can compete on a cost basis with fossil fuels. When that day comes, the problems associated with fossil fuels will be over.
Going back to my original premise, the Renewable Energy Standard is not expected to have any impact whatsoever on global warming, even if you accept the so-called science as “settled,” which I do not. The reason why is that the renewable energy is expected to make up only a very small fraction of energy production by 2040.
The issue is not how much the United States consumes. The issue is how much China, India and the rest of the developing nations will consume. Energy consumption will increase by about 40 percent by 2040, with the US energy demand remaining essentially flat.
In Other News: Can We Ask Al Qaeda for a Refund on the Bowe Bergdahl Prisoner Swap? | Michael Schaus