Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Here's what I don't get. Gas prices are at 26 year highs in the U.S. It literally costs thousands of dollars a year to drive an SUV in the city. Heating oil costs are through the roof, natural gas prices are no picnic either, and electricity is far less cheap than it was even seven years ago.
Shouldn't people love the idea of alternative energy sources? Right now the fossil fuel economy is giving it to consumers hard, and the economic impact of that (usually a lagging indicator, as I understand it) will only be felt in months to come. To those that claim that reducing carbon emissions is bound to result in a global economic catastrophe--are you so sure that the same catastrophe won't result from staying the course? I'm no economist, but current conditions sure don't seem sustainable to my untrained eye.
|
I would be thrilled if there were such available alternative energy sources for a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, alternative energy is still outlandishly expensive. Until the cost comes down, people will "choose" fossil fuels every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
We've had this discussion numerous times on this board--and it does somewhat boggle my mind that there are still people who think that global warming skepticism is as legitimate scientifically as the thousands of scientists who are producing sound research that illustrates our impact on global warming very clearly.
|
Here is the rub, and here is where I have issues with the alarmists. Global warming "projections" are based on flawed computer models that are totally incapable of accurately predicting the long term effects of greenhouse gases on the environment. Climatology is a science that is still in its infancy, and until the methods and models improve; until scientific consensus becomes something that is based on tangible evidence as opposed to computer generated speculation, surely there is always room for legitimate skepticism in the face of excessive alarmism.