Is Nasa out of line on global warming ?

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

I don't think you're paying attention to what I'm saying. I SAID I believe our tax system needs work. Funds need to be spent more efficiently and managed better. You're making an arguement when there wasn't one. You're the one that said that NO tax was a good tax, and I just pointed out where some of it does go to good. And any check I write is to the actual organizations that are doing the work, because I don't trust the government to put my money where I want it to go. (And that means the WHOLE government, no left wing right wing nonsense for me) Besides, I hardly think the "greenies" are the ones controlling how and where are tax money is being used right now. If you place blame, you have to place it on the WHOLE government, not just one sect of it.

And yes I DO put my money where my mouth is. I donate considerable amounts of money to organizations I believe in. Not to mention the time and money I spend on conservation efforts. . .and I hardly have much money to spare. I have a family to feed as well, you know.

Edit: And, by the way, on average, only 1.6% of tax dollars are put towards environmental concerns. About a quarter of it goes for the military. Although, of course, that's probably increased dramatically....

Edit again: Here's a decent tax breakdown for you link Not the best, but I'm honestly too tired to go searching through the internet.

Here's a snippet:

Nearly three-quarters of the federal budget goes to four areas: the military, health-care benefits, interest on the national debt and Social Security.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Sweetsalem82103

[MasterPo]

And yes I DO put my money where my mouth is. I donate considerable amounts of money to organizations I believe in. Not to mention the time and money I spend on conservation efforts. . .and I hardly have much money to spare. I have a family to feed as well, you know.

That's my point - you contributed to an organization you wanted to. No one forced you. Not like with taxes.

But you're getting off topic.

The issue is the #1 (sometimes #2) agend of global warmers and greenies is to raise taxes for starters. I didn't know taxes will solve global warming.

I don't know what speeches you read. Doesn't matter. Speeches are irrelevant. Look at the policies and proposals that these people and groups are putting forth to force down our throats. Look at all the new regulations, government control, government intrusion into your and mine daily lives! And yes, the avalanche of new high taxes.

Look at what people are writing. Al Gore, the High Priest of Global Warming, wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance" that the internal combustion engine is a greater threat to life on Earth than nuclear weapons! Think about that! Your car is more deadly to him than a nuke bomb!!!

Look at the articles and news stories coming out of England lately. Fat people are being blamed for global warming as they use more energy. People with kids (like you) are using more. People who eat meat are using more. Where have all these things come from before? It's the same old same old but now with the threat of world catastrophy and aimed straight at Americans like you and me.

That's the ticker. ALL these ideas and proposals are about AMERICA has to change. Few other countries. In fact, read the Kyoto treat. Many countries are specifically exempt from global warming regulations. In fact, the treaty specifically says they are allowed to pollute as much as they want to grow their economies! But you and I have to suffer.

Some global agreement and approach.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

I was speaking not only of the speeches, but also of the policies. To be honest, I'm tired of debating this with you. You asked for someone to contribute some facts, I did, and you dispute them. i.e.- You asked for someone to give you an example of a country that uses over 40% renewable energy sources, I gave you that. You moved on to a new arguement. For every arguement that is resolved, you bring up ten more, some that don't make any sense or things that have already been dealt with. . . You believe what you believe, and I don't think ANYTHING can convince you any other way. Its a futile and draining cycle, to be honest. I've DONE my homework, or else I wouldn't have been able to provide you the numbers you insisted didn't exist. If you had done your research, then I wouldn't have had to look anything up for you.

The truth is, other nations have done this, they've survived without the doomsday you predicted and have prospered because of it. Keep on believing whatever you want to but you're obviously not as well informed as you think you are. Regardless of what YOU believe, I do my research as unbiased as possible. I hate political parties, I think they divide the nation unnecessarily and cause too much fact twisting for my liking. ALL PARTIES DO IT. Not just one or the other. In short, I don't submit to the childish game of name calling between the parties or any of that nonsense that you apparently do. Its useless and rather silly, to be honest.

And, OTHER COUNTRIES ARE SWITCHING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY. Its NOT just America. We already went through that. You sound like some awful conspiracy theorist. Its really tiring, it really really is.

And you complain SO much about taxes. . .geez, go LOOK where the money goes. Out of the say $25,000 per household only $305 goes towards environmental concerns. That's not alot, so what if they increase it to, say $1000? That'd be understandable, because at least it'd be going to a good cause. Not to mention, if we actually started working on some of the problems in our tax system, raising taxes wouldn't necessarily be needed. There are plenty of things we can cut or reduce, but the problem is the government actually doing it. If they don't make cuts and re-sort what money goes where, then there is no other option but to raise taxes. Its NO ONE'S fault. No one particular group or party, its the ENTIRE governments fault because NO ONE has yet to do anything about it. . .

Besides, you want to complain about taxes? Go complain about the war that is draining this country. . .and how much of our money goes into that. THAT'S where most of our tax money has been going, so of course they need MORE to pay for the other things because the war is draining the pool dry. If you're going to support the war, then don't complain about how much money its costing you (however much you pay in taxes) to keep it going on. Also, don't complain about something that can HELP us and something that would probably take LESS money out of our pockets than the war has.

Its going to take money to change the national grid. Its going to take money to upgrade the grid anyways. Why not pay a little more and get clean energy in the process? And I see nothing about it as "suffering". I see it as advancement.

All that being said, this will be my last post in this thread unless someone has something constructive to talk about. . .

Edited August 8, 2008 by Sweetsalem82103

[MasterPo]

Young and conservative - no heart.

Old and liberal - no hope.

It's been fun. Good luck.

[MasterPo]

All that being said, this will be my last post in this thread unless someone has something constructive to talk about. . .

I take back my last post. I'm not letting you off the hook so easily.

You made several statements about global warming, policies and should-do's yet haven't given any good examples of the effectiveness anywhere in the world of these ideas, nor have you explained how people like me (and you too) are going to be able to afford the massive taxes and fees all these changes come with.

This is typical of greenies and global warmers. When someone asks for specific examples and gets down to the details of how we would live (and pay) in a "green" nation they get flustered and run.

You may not respond to this, maybe not even read it but I don't conceed the point at all. If anything I stand victorious in my logic.

[jenhorror16]

I think she did, actually. You just must have conveniently over looked them. Typical of an uber right wing conservative.

She gave alot more facts then you did, btw. Including good examples of countries that have done good with these technologies.

But go ahead. Think yourself victorious. I wouldn't want to sit and argue with a person that ignores half of what I said either. And. . .er. . .I think your logic has actually been lacking on this topic.

Nice try though!

Edited August 8, 2008 by jenhorror16

[MasterPo]

I think she did, actually. You just must have conveniently over looked them. Typical of an uber right wing conservative.

She gave alot more facts then you did, btw. Including good examples of countries that have done good with these technologies.

But go ahead. Think yourself victorious. I wouldn't want to sit and argue with a person that ignores half of what I said either. And. . .er. . .I think your logic has actually been lacking on this topic.

Nice try though!

I reread the whole thread. I don't see one single fact of anywhere in the world that has tossed out oil and successfully replaced it with wind and solar while keeping the same standard of living and level of taxation. Not a one.

I did put forth a bunch of facts that are always overlooked or just poo-poo'd by greenies: Taxes will rise dramatically, costs will likewise also rise dramatically, people will be out of work (no one ever posted a link to how many thousands or millions of jobs any environmental policy created), and you and I will loose more and more personal freedom while people like Al Gore still live in McMansions, ride in limos and fly on private jets.

I pointed out this "great" technology would cost me $40-45,000 to install in my home (someone else said $30,000 in theirs which is still mighty high!), that wind and solar needs massive tax subsidies to stay a float and can't survive on it's own, and why aren't super-poluted countries like China and Russia running at warp 10 to tare down oil and coal power plants and put up wind and solar? Just look at the air problems this week at the opening of the Olympics!

And I pointed out all these say rhetorical arguments have been stated over and over for 20 years. And we're still here, alive and happy. So why should I believe them today?

Prove me wrong. Or is it one of those things you either get or don't get? Very scientific.

[jenhorror16]

Oh my god, did she NOT post a link to a website about how china IS starting to switch to other energy sources? Are you slow or something?

Most of your "facts" are speculation, btw. And I think your understanding of taxes is worse then mine. You're predicting what will happen. Norway has an extremely high standard of living. It seems expensive to someone unwilling to educate themselves on every aspect of their society. But you have to consider that they don't have to pay for college, or healthcare. Talk to people that LIVE there before you make silly assumptions. You have to take in the big picture, which you don't seem to be capable of taking. In fact, go talk to anyone from Norway, Sweden, or Denmark... I'm sure they'll fill you in on exactly HOW good they live. In fact, Denmark's standard of living went UP after they ended their dependence on oil from other countries.

And why do you keep spouting how much it would cost you personally to put these things up? They aren't asking anyone to go do it themselves, they want to replace the entire grid. God, nothing gets through you does it? Its like arguing with a brick. A very slow and uneducated brick. If the stuff is mass produced, its cheaper. Of course its going to cost more if you only do it for one house. . .but if you have a FIELD of them, its going to cost less. And I've seen pictures of some of the fields, they make it so the land can still be used for grazing.

I think salem got it right when she said if you want to complain about how high the taxes are now, then go complain to who's in office now. Don't blame it on people that don't have control of the system at this point. Maybe when someone ELSE gets in office, our taxes will be balanced out better and less money will be going to stupid things, and more can go to renewable energy. . .which would mean you wouldn't have to pay that much more in taxes.

You aren't being scientific in any form of the word. You're just sticking with what you believe, without taking anything else into consideration. You stick to your same arguement, even though its rather weak. Go do some REAL research, then get back to us.

Edit:

Since you just keep complaining about how much it would cost us to do this, I decided to show you how much we spend on oil every year.

The U.S. spends around 2 billion a day on getting oil from other countries. A DAY. Sometimes MORE. And that number will only continue climbing as oil becomes more expensive. The average household spends about $90 a week on gas. . .again, a number that will only keep on climbing. Not to mention the international problems oil snatching causes.

Using fossil fuels pollutes the air and water, harms plant and animal life and creates toxic waste... ALOT of it. Those are reasons in themselves to get rid of it. "Global warming" is just another addition on the list. The chemicals released into the air that we breathe should be enough of a reason for you to want to get rid of it. Annual US health costs from air pollution alone can be hundreds of billions of dollars. Imagine how high your health bills would be if you were one of the ones that needed alot of treatment from being exposed for too long to too much smog. Renewable sources have issues as well, but none of them are nearly as big as using fossil fuels.

Also, ALOT of money is going into companies having to regulate their emissions. If they were using renewable sources, this would not be necessary.

So maybe you should start thinking about how much oil costs you everyday. Then maybe the cost of renewable sources won't seem so outrageous to you. Using oil makes the world ugly. Ever seen an oil spill? Its disgusting.

Edited August 9, 2008 by jenhorror16

[danielost]

Global warming means destroy American economy. No one is demanding that the Chinese change their ways to cut pollution. Except in Beijing where the Olympics are.

[SQLserver]

Global warming means destroy American economy. No one is demanding that the Chinese change their ways to cut pollution. Except in Beijing where the Olympics are.

WRONG DANIEL!

In case you haven't noticed, THE ECONOMY IS ALREADY DESTROYED. IT IS ALREADY RUINED.

We are in TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT, our banks are SCREWED, and it is bad.

I cannot honestly believe this argument.

Why is spending 200 million EVERY DAY on the Iraq OK, when the same amount of money could have New York powered completely by alternative energy?

Just think:

If we were to stop the war for a year, just stop it completely, and pour all the money into alternative energy, within 1 year all of America could be powered by Solar, Hydro, and wind.

Sad. Isn't it? Humanity has serious problems.

[danielost]

WRONG DANIEL!

In case you haven't noticed, THE ECONOMY IS ALREADY DESTROYED. IT IS ALREADY RUINED.

We are in TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT, our banks are SCREWED, and it is bad.

I cannot honestly believe this argument.

Why is spending 200 million EVERY DAY on the Iraq OK, when the same amount of money could have New York powered completely by alternative energy?

Just think:

If we were to stop the war for a year, just stop it completely, and pour all the money into alternative energy, within 1 year all of America could be powered by Solar, Hydro, and wind.

Sad. Isn't it? Humanity has serious problems.

And yet the economy continues to grow. Our gross national product is more than the next 5 highest countries on the planet put together.

We also spend more money on oil in a month than we have on Iraq totally. Don't tell me about using the tax payers money better tell that to those idiots in washington. You know the ones, the ones that went home without doing a thing about the energy problem. Bush did something he opened up some areas that were put off limits by that other idiot clinton. Oil prices are dropping. 3.65 a gallon here two weeks ago it was 4+ a gallon.

Edited August 9, 2008 by danielost

[SQLserver]

And yet the economy continues to grow. Our gross national product is more than the next 5 highest countries on the planet put together.

Joking, right?

Look at GNP PER CAPITA. We come in 6th in the world.

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNBH2.html

And look at:

LOL.

We also spend more money on oil in a month than we have on Iraq totally.

BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SWITCHED TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY!

Don't tell me about using the tax payers money better tell that to those idiots in washington. You know the ones, the ones that went home without doing a thing about the energy problem.

Absolutely. I fully agree that 90% of Washington is incompetent. I'm just suggesting what SHOULD be done, not what they are going to do.

Oil prices are dropping. 3.65 a gallon here two weeks ago it was 4+ a gallon.

You don't understand, do you? Oil Prices are dropping because of pressure on OPEC.

In the long run, they will HAVE to go up.

And we have seen time after time that THE FREE MARKET SUCKS AT ENVIRONMENTALISM.

Corporations are insanely greedy. No businesses actually give a damn about the environment.

The ONLY way that anything will be stopped is for the government to spend billions of dollars contributing to alternative energy.

And that will ONLY possibly happen if Obama becomes president.

Again, I hope I made my point clear that at this point the ONLY way to quickly end Global warming is Socialism.

Cheers,

SQLServer

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Global warming means destroy American economy. No one is demanding that the Chinese change their ways to cut pollution. Except in Beijing where the Olympics are.

Goodness, why do people keep bringing up the Chinese. Read the thread THEY ARE TRYING TO SWITCH OVER. And NOT just in Beijing. China is aiming for being 50% dependent on renewable energy. Ok? Lets stop bringing up the Chinese for goodness sake, its already been established that they are jumping on the "greenie" bandwagon too. And no one is demanding them to do anything, they're choosing to do it because its the right thing to do. Maybe they argue with us because we're so hardheaded and shortsighted.

Oil will only keep getting expensive. If you really think that drilling for MORE oil will solve our problems, then you don't know the oil companies very well. THEY control the prices. Even Bill O'Reiley did a segment on it. If someone as conservative as him can doubt the oil industry, then you have to think something might be wrong. Plus, if you are willing to support drilling in places that SHOULD be protected, then thats just sad. We've already pushed enough species towards extinction as it is, no use pushing harder. . .especially for something that will be a short term gain. If its a gain at all.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Sweetsalem82103

[MasterPo]

This is all more proof that (unfortunately) it's young and inexperienced minds talking on the global warmer side. That's OK to an extent. You're supposed to be idealistic when you're young. But at some people the realities of the world and the undeniable truths of life will set in.

One of those realities and truths is that our economy goes up and down in cycles. Been that way for 100 years. Now we are in a down cycle. All natural. We can debate all day why it happened and it won't matter. The economic and business cycle has it's ups and downs.

I am old enough to say that I've lived through 4 full blown recessions. Each time the pundits and talking heads all declared this is the end of the U.S., that this was 1929 all over again and this time we won't recover because of this-or-that-blah-blah-blah. And all the newspapaers and TV news were interviewing peopel saying this is the worst it's been in X-years, how bad off they are, how the government must do something, more blah-blah-blah.

And you know what? We did recover. In a few years all was right again.

There are no guarantees in life. Who knows - maybe this time the are right! But I'm not taking bets on it.

But, now you toss in glober warmers and greenies closing businesses and industries, adding on HUGE taxes what you think that will do to job recovery and people's spending? Every $1.00 I pay in taxes is one dollar less that I put into the economy.

And as yet no one has shown me how many tens or hundreds of thousands of "new jobs" were created the past time sweeping new pollution mandates were enacted - because few were created. Regulation never creates jobs! (much less high paying ones)

[SQLserver]

Which is why high oil prices are a gift from god.

This is all more proof that (unfortunately) it's young and inexperienced minds talking on the global warmer side. That's OK to an extent.

Most likely because they are the ones who are going to have to deal with your problems.

But, now you toss in glober warmers and greenies closing businesses and industries, adding on HUGE taxes what you think that will do to job recovery and people's spending? Every $1.00 I pay in taxes is one dollar less that I put into the economy.

Wrong.

Actually, you are just so dead wrong it is funny.

A. The taxes are to make you switch. You aren't supposed to actually pay them.

B. Every 60$ an average person like you spends every WEEK on gas is $60 bucks less you put into the economy, $60 more to the rich oil companies.

C. Alternative energies are the future.

And as you will see, alternative energy is going to be the BEST thing that has happened to the economy in a LONG TIME.

Instead of vast sums of money going overseas to rich folks, money spent buying alternatives will go to American entrepreneurs, small businesses, and hence provide more jobs in science, math, and in general to Americans!

If it were up to me, every year we'd increase by 10% taxes on ALL fossil fuels sold or used anywhere in our country.

Within a few years, the economy would be booming, we would no longer be destroying the environment, and we'd be buying more American products.

Cheers,

SQLserver

[MasterPo]

Wrong.

Actually, you are just so dead wrong it is funny.

A. The taxes are to make you switch. You aren't supposed to actually pay them.

B. Every 60$ an average person like you spends every WEEK on gas is $60 bucks less you put into the economy, $60 more to the rich oil companies.

C. Alternative energies are the future.

Oh sir, I so pitty your ignorance (note: That is the correct us of the word) on how our nation and an economy works.

Taxes are NOT the controls a government is to use to manipulate the people. It has become that in America over the last 60-70 years. But no where in the Constitution or any writings of the Founding Fathers will you find that stated.

To your point B which shows your clear lack of economic understanding (and politcal leaning), where do you suppose those "rich oil companies" operate? In the economy!!!!

How many thousands of people work directly for oil companies in this country? How many thousands more have jobs because of secondary support of those companies? Everyone from the computer consultant to the corner coffee&newspaper guy. I am really flabergasted (and that doesn't happen often) at the sheer lack of economic understanding your statement shows. That paying a company for a vital product is removing money from the economy.

That THUD sound you just heard was Warren Buffet falling out of his chair at your comment!

Please try to understand - and more importantly have the courage to accept - that a business (any business) no matter size is not an isolated island. All business, even your "rich oil companies", buy products and services and hire people all of which makes the economy go around. Maybe not the way you would like it to go, but thankfully we live (so far) in a free market society.

BTW, do you have a pension or 401k? Your parents or grandparents? Guess who owns stock in the "rich oil companies"?

[BaneSilvermoon]

Excellent point!

I don't doubt that someday faaaaaar in the future there will be a bountiful non-petrolium based fuel source (that's assuming politics and PC-ism doesn't stop it). But we aren't there now. And, much contrary to what some are saying, we are very much NOT running out of oil for at least 200 years.

While I do agree with you here. I think the issue is that there are going to be obvious bodies who stand against this. (as you mentioned) And after all, it is asking for a change. With any change we do need an active push to get things rolling in that direction. I personally think both sides of these arguments are generally wrong and there's a middle ground that needs to be met, but that's going to be a very gradual change that occurs over a long period of time.

And we just might need the extremely vocal "save the earth!" crowd to keep societies minds on the subject. The question is whether they argue sensible points or not, because when you start to push something ridiculous you start to lose credibility and people stop listening.

And you can't argue that any individual should be FORCED to make the change. You put someone on the defensive immediately like that and your whole attempt at persuasion has just turned into an attack that they have no interest in listening to.

[Wickian]

While I do agree with you here. I think the issue is that there are going to be obvious bodies who stand against this. (as you mentioned) And after all, it is asking for a change. With any change we do need an active push to get things rolling in that direction. I personally think both sides of these arguments are generally wrong and there's a middle ground that needs to be met, but that's going to be a very gradual change that occurs over a long period of time.

And we just might need the extremely vocal "save the earth!" crowd to keep societies minds on the subject. The question is whether they argue sensible points or not, because when you start to push something ridiculous you start to lose credibility and people stop listening.

And you can't argue that any individual should be FORCED to make the change. You put someone on the defensive immediately like that and your whole attempt at persuasion has just turned into an attack that they have no interest in listening to.

I don't think any actions should be taken that would hurt our economy and make peoples quality of life worse. As for maybe needing that "save the Earth" crowd, I'll have to disagree. I refuse to believe that any long-term good can come from a community of doomsayers and fear-mongers. According to them we've crossed "the point of no return" 2 times now. The rational ones who have actually researched what they're supporting, and don't just blindly sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide, and still believe in it I'll listen to.

What I will agree with you on is that we should research and perfect the mass-production and deployment of artificial/renewable sources of fuels/energy while we still have the fossil fuels to use as a crutch. There is no denying we will run out eventually, and I hope we'll be ready for it when that happens.

[BaneSilvermoon]

But without people making such hype out of us "destroying our planet HUMANS ARE A PLAGUE" heh.... where was I.. uh.. ah! .. would it be a topic of discussion as much? And thereby would it be as likely to be addressed?

The point I'm getting at is this. The light bulb could have been created 50 years earlier (ok probably a bad example) or 50 years later if different scientist/inventors had been involved and those who in history DID get involved hadn't. What I'm getting at is this. When we DO reach the point were science has developed the perfect answer to the fuel problem. Could the people who got involved in it have decided to do so because of hype that spun off of doomsayers?

History could be significantly impacted if you could go back in time and remove a couple inventors here and there. What if the person who gets credited for hitting on new energy source gets involved in the first place because one of his greeny parents drilled his own interest in it as a child? Some of us grow up with very different beliefs than the set our parents would have chosen for us.

[MasterPo]

The point I'm getting at is this. The light bulb could have been created 50 years earlier (ok probably a bad example) or 50 years later if different scientist/inventors had been involved and those who in history DID get involved hadn't. What I'm getting at is this. When we DO reach the point were science has developed the perfect answer to the fuel problem. Could the people who got involved in it have decided to do so because of hype that spun off of doomsayers?

The light bulb is an excellent example of what I'm talking about!

The electric light bulb was invented to fulfill a need, towit: replace gas lights with safer and better lighting and for at least the same cost, if not cheaper.

None of the proposals for alternate fuels and technologies meet that same goal!

They are not just as good or better than petrolium based fuel (power, mileage, usability under a wide range of temps and conditions, etc).

They are not easier to manufacture.

They are not cheaper to manufacture or sell to Johnny Q. Public. In fact they are more expensive! (save for government subsidies helping)

Until such as substitute is invented (and I'm sure it will be someday) forcing change now just for the sake of change is far more harmful than good.

[Wickian]

But without people making such hype out of us "destroying our planet HUMANS ARE A PLAGUE" heh.... where was I.. uh.. ah! .. would it be a topic of discussion as much? And thereby would it be as likely to be addressed?

The point I'm getting at is this. The light bulb could have been created 50 years earlier (ok probably a bad example) or 50 years later if different scientist/inventors had been involved and those who in history DID get involved hadn't. What I'm getting at is this. When we DO reach the point were science has developed the perfect answer to the fuel problem. Could the people who got involved in it have decided to do so because of hype that spun off of doomsayers?

History could be significantly impacted if you could go back in time and remove a couple inventors here and there. What if the person who gets credited for hitting on new energy source gets involved in the first place because one of his greeny parents drilled his own interest in it as a child? Some of us grow up with very different beliefs than the set our parents would have chosen for us.

What I'm taking from your post is that there's a chance that said inventor may not create what we need unless the unfounded fear of imminent doom is out there for motivation to create whatever it is that may revolutionize our world.

That is actually a valid argument. I'm not a big fan of "the ends justify the means"(especially with something this big), but if in fact some person out there does indeed create the next "light bulb"(in terms of artificial/renewable energy) only out of the threat of being personally inconvenienced in the future, then I'll admit I was wrong.

On a similar note, did you know that they almost created a steam engine back in ancient Rome? That could have sparked an industrial revolution way back then, but what'shisname never put two and two together to build it out of his other inventions....

[MasterPo]

That is actually a valid argument. I'm not a big fan of "the ends justify the means"(especially with something this big), but if in fact some person out there does indeed create the next "light bulb"(in terms of artificial/renewable energy) only out of the threat of being personally inconvenienced in the future, then I'll admit I was wrong.

I cannot agree with you on that. Threat is never a positive motivation for advancement.

Edison created the light bulb for money. Yes, that "evil" green stuff. I'm sure he also thought of many benefits of an electric bulb vs. gas light which was in common us in his day. But his main motivation was profit. Pure and simple. He saw that if he could invent an alternative to the gas light that was just as good, better in some respects (like not causing fires!), and most importantly, just as cheap if not cheaper then he would make money from it.

The reason we don't have a good alternate power source is simple: There is no profit in it. Give someone a real profit motivation to discover or invent an new energy/fuel source and it will happen. Threaten them and it won't.

It's that simple.

[Wickian]

I cannot agree with you on that. Threat is never a positive motivation for advancement.

Edison created the light bulb for money. Yes, that "evil" green stuff. I'm sure he also thought of many benefits of an electric bulb vs. gas light which was in common us in his day. But his main motivation was profit. Pure and simple. He saw that if he could invent an alternative to the gas light that was just as good, better in some respects (like not causing fires!), and most importantly, just as cheap if not cheaper then he would make money from it.

The reason we don't have a good alternate power source is simple: There is no profit in it. Give someone a real profit motivation to discover or invent an new energy/fuel source and it will happen. Threaten them and it won't.

It's that simple.

The motivation to create a good outcome will most likely not be positive as you've said(although I personally look positively towards the prospect of getting rich

), but that doesn't mean positive still won't come even if the creator couldn't care less.

Also, as I said in my post above, I'll only admit that something good can come from fear-mongering if it actually happens. I can't rule out the possibility since there's a lot of different people in this world, but I'm doubtful that it will.

[BaneSilvermoon]

The light bulb is an excellent example of what I'm talking about!

The electric light bulb was invented to fulfill a need, towit: replace gas lights with safer and better lighting and for at least the same cost, if not cheaper.

None of the proposals for alternate fuels and technologies meet that same goal!

They are not just as good or better than petrolium based fuel (power, mileage, usability under a wide range of temps and conditions, etc).

They are not easier to manufacture.

They are not cheaper to manufacture or sell to Johnny Q. Public. In fact they are more expensive! (save for government subsidies helping)

Until such as substitute is invented (and I'm sure it will be someday) forcing change now just for the sake of change is far more harmful than good.

Well played sir

[Wickian]

Apparently the American Psychological Association is getting in on ways to change the public's mind on global warming.

We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not.

linky