Our planet: we know what to do: why the hell aren't we doing it?!

The only answer remains is to amputate.

In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.

What's going on?

"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.

He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.

From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic — manmade — global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

"As a physicist, putting CO2 into the air is good enough for me. It's the physics that convinces me," said veteran Cambridge University researcher Liz Morris. But she said work must go on to refine climate data and computer climate models, "to convince the deeply reluctant organizers of this world."

The reluctance to rein in carbon emissions revealed itself early on.

In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland's buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science.

By 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen could appear before a U.S. Senate committee and warn that global warming had begun, a dramatic announcement later confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a new, U.N.-sponsored network of hundreds of international scientists.

But when Hansen was called back to testify in 1989, the White House of President George H.W. Bush edited this government scientist's remarks to water down his conclusions, and Hansen declined to appear.

That was the year U.S. oil and coal interests formed the Global Climate Coalition to combat efforts to shift economies away from their products. Britain's Royal Society and other researchers later determined that oil giant Exxon disbursed millions of dollars annually to think tanks and a handful of supposed experts to sow doubt about the facts.

In 1997, two years after the IPCC declared the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," the world's nations gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to try to do something about it. The naysayers were there as well.

"The statement that we'll have continued warming with an increase in CO2 is opinion, not fact," oil executive William F. O'Keefe of the Global Climate Coalition insisted to reporters in Kyoto.

The late Bert Bolin, then IPCC chief, despaired.

"I'm not really surprised at the political reaction," the Swedish climatologist told The Associated Press. "I am surprised at the way some of the scientific findings have been rejected in an unscientific manner."

In fact, a document emerged years later showing that the industry coalition's own scientific team had quietly advised it that the basic science of global warming was indisputable.

Kyoto's final agreement called for limited rollbacks in greenhouse emissions. The United States didn't even join in that. And by 2000, the CO2 built up in the atmosphere to 369 parts per million — just 4 ppm less than Broecker predicted — compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.

Global temperatures rose as well, by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F) in the 20th century. And the mercury just kept rising. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.

Satellite and other monitoring, meanwhile, found nights were warming faster than days, and winters more than summers, and the upper atmosphere was cooling while the lower atmosphere warmed — all clear signals greenhouse warming was at work, not some other factor.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

From the Rockies to the Himalayas, glaciers are shrinking, sending ever more water into the world's seas. Because of accelerated melt in Greenland and elsewhere, the eight-nation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program projects ocean levels will rise 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, threatening coastlines everywhere.

"We are scared, really and truly," diplomat Laurence Edwards, from the Pacific's Marshall Islands, told the AP before the 1997 Kyoto meeting.

Today in his low-lying home islands, rising seas have washed away shoreline graveyards, saltwater has invaded wells, and islanders desperately seek aid to build a seawall to shield their capital.

The oceans are turning more acidic, too, from absorbing excess carbon dioxide. Acidifying seas will harm plankton, shellfish and other marine life up the food chain. Biologists fear the world's coral reefs, home to much ocean life and already damaged from warmer waters, will largely disappear in this century.

The greatest fears may focus on "feedbacks" in the Arctic, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

The Arctic Ocean's summer ice cap has shrunk by half and is expected to essentially vanish by 2030 or 2040, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Sept. 15. Ashore, meanwhile, the Arctic tundra's permafrost is thawing and releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

These changes will feed on themselves: Released methane leads to warmer skies, which will release more methane. Ice-free Arctic waters absorb more of the sun's heat than do reflective ice and snow, and so melt will beget melt. The frozen Arctic is a controller of Northern Hemisphere climate; an unfrozen one could upend age-old weather patterns across continents.

In the face of years of scientific findings and growing impacts, the doubters persist. They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well. They focus on minor mistakes in thousands of pages of peer-reviewed studies to claim all is wrong. And they carom from one explanation to another for today's warming Earth: jet contrails, sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles.

"Ninety-eight percent of the world's climate scientists say it's for real, and yet you still have deniers," observed former U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who chaired the House's science committee.

Christiana Figueres, Costa Rican head of the U.N.'s post-Kyoto climate negotiations, finds it "very, very perplexing, this apparent allergy that there is in the United States. Why?"

The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change."

In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural identity in the 'angry' parts of the United States."

"Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism."

An in-depth study of a decade of Gallup polling finds statistical backing for that analysis.

On the question of whether they believed the effects of global warming were already happening, the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering "yes" plummeted from almost 50 percent in 2007-2008 to 30 percent or less in 2010, while liberals and Democrats remained at 70 percent or more, according to the study in this spring's Sociological Quarterly.

A Pew Research Center poll last October found a similar left-right gap.

The drop-off coincided with the election of Democrat Barack Obama as president and the Democratic effort in Congress, ultimately futile, to impose government caps on industrial greenhouse emissions.

Boehlert, the veteran Republican congressman, noted that "high-profile people with an 'R' after their name, like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, are saying it's all fiction. Pooh-poohing the science of climate change feeds into their basic narrative that all government is bad."

The quarterly study's authors, Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State University and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State, suggested climate had joined abortion and other explosive, intractable issues as a mainstay of America's hardening left-right gap.

"The culture wars have thus taken on a new dimension," they wrote.

Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds."

In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history — the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation — when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached.

"This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"

Even Wally Broecker's jest — that deniers could blame God — may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.

http://news.yahoo.com/american-allergy-global-warming-why-171043981.html

Good work. As has been noted by others MANY TIMES climate is always changing so, at any given time it will be going Up & Down. HOWEVER, we've entered a danger zone that is very apparent => when the water occupying the MAJORITY of our planet heats up OVERMUCH it causes an Evaporation Spike.

That's when a new era began, the era of the Climate Pendulum.

This is really Bad News because it has happened immediately ahead of the 11-year solar increase commencing. We're riding a pendulum like Pecos Bill rode a tornado. So, what's the answer to a tornado ride?

Well, wisdom says you would counter a tornado with another tornado. My 1ST car engine creates a natural tornado every time the piston comes up. Much as I like that one my last one doesn't even use compressed air, so it's a faster build and deployment.

The other part of this is the increasing solar. What's the answer to a solar ride? Well, wisdom says you would counter solar with solar...

Wisdom appears to have joined Elvis (left the building).

This Evaporation Spike ~moisture being a greenhouse gas~ was bad on top of bad as it triggered enough warming to begin an increased permafrost and ocean bed release of more methane, another awesome-bad greenhouse gas.

The planet has gone from Evaporation Spike to Methane Spike to Climate Pendulum Spike. Bang. Bang. Bang. Enter Solar Spike 2012. The Solar Spike will increase the Evaporation/Methane/Pendulum action.

We're riding a runaway train. The engineer is slumped over the controls of a massive cardiac arrest. Anyone thinking differently is engaging in illusionary avoidance of facts in evidence.

Dr. McNally shows his ignorance when he forecasts its too late => if he bases that conclusion on a lack of technologies that do not burn "fossil fuels". This just goes to show how a man, any man, EVEN A SCIENTIST MAN, can demonstrate an entire table full of lined-up dominoes that are based on today's technologies, when in fact those technologies have been already made obsolete.

And this other projection about solar flare energy eruption storms taking out all of our transportation, that too is wrong. It is right only if we continue using combustion engines that are electrically-fired ignition systems. Those types of engine systems have been obsoleted since 2003 by engines firing on Physics Fuel, aka "Imitation Energy".

Physics Laws operating without need of an electrical system. Staying on the Crude Oil umbilical cord has made humanity vulnerable to these solar flare disruptions... which is very ironic since it was George Walker Bush who paid people to shout down my engine systems since 2003 because he decided they were a Disruptive Technology.

Well Duh, yes they were, and they were a needed disruption that would have protected our transportation systems so they would keep running.

Way ta go Bush. You're our man. Bush cant do it. Nobody can.

Touchdown Bush!

the loaded dice is a very helpful metaphor, but it may be confusing. So here is another explanation:

Is climate change the culprit?
So, is climate change to blame? The short answer is no, but the longer answer is more complicated. There is a well-known analogy between weather regimes and rolling a dice. Imagine you have a loaded dice that comes up with a six more often than it should, then imagine you roll the dice and it comes up six.

Now ask yourself, did you get that six because the dice is loaded or would it have come up anyway? By loading the dice you have changed the statistics of how it behaves over many rolls - if you roll it 1000 times and get a six on 500 of those rolls, you know that's because the dice is loaded but you can't attribute any individual six to that fact.

That's the equivalent of the question about climate change - by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere we are effectively loading the dice, so that the statistics of climate are changed. But it does not make sense to ask if any given weather regime occurred because of climate change. Persistent weather regimes such as the examples above are, thankfully, fairly rare, but they are not unprecedented and they might well have happened anyway.

To begin to answer the climate change question properly, we have to look at the numbers of these events over several decades. Of course, we'd rather not wait for several decades to see if the occurrence of certain weather regimes is changing, so we look at hundreds of years of simulated weather data from climate models. Here, however, there is still much uncertainty.

Climate models are starting to show some agreement that the jet streams will shift slightly closer to the poles in response to increases in greenhouse gases, but there is still considerable disagreement between different models.

This discrepancy will only be reduced through steady improvement in our understanding and modelling of climate. The future is particularly uncertain for regions like Europe, whose climate is so strongly influenced by the jet stream - because Europe lies at the boundary between maritime and continental climate zones it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds.

So can we really say nothing about whether events like these will become more common? One thing we can say is that even if the statistics of weather regimes do not change, we may feel the impact of some of them more strongly.

In particular, if the background temperature is a few degrees higher than it is now, settled weather regimes in the summer will lead to more intense heatwaves and droughts than they do now.

To stretch the dice analogy a bit further, this is like having a larger bet on the outcome of our throw, so we're hit harder when the dice don't go our way.

https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/climate-change-adaptation/articles/-/blogs/260829...

A video by Michio Kaku projects much the same thing you just wrote, coming from a much higher leap in solar heat next year, 2012 than they thought was in the cards.

The dice appear to be going to 15.

On the other hand, if the planet had one incredibly cold winter going into 2012, with lots of renewed snow accumulations and restored polar icecaps, 2012 might not be as bad as Mr. Kaku projects. I'm not a big fan of his anyway. However, then there's 2013 after having taken out the snow from this winter. At that point you'd really have a problem.

But Kaku also said the increased radiation is VERY LIKELY going to take out satellite communications, TV's and everything else. So even if we did pull 2012 out of the fire we'd still be living suddenly without electronics, which would reduce most people now addicted to using them to the mental level of Hiroshima survivors who walked around totally useless, dazed.

My latest solar engine if it was put to assemblyline production could drive awesome sized air conditioner systems from solar alone. They could be cranking out in another month or so. They're very simple. They use solar to produce massive amounts of steam and steam generators are blower-driven.

I don't see how it would get done. No one's working to help. We are as Clint Eastwood's pursuer said "You're all alone, Wales". And I foresee lots of wailing. It's what we get for treasuring "freedom" so highly we stopped talking to each other, much less working shoulder to shoulder.

We fight alone, we shall die also alone.

It would make for a good race, the best kind => a race to the death. Personally I take particular delight in the idea of using solar to defeat solar.

It's a juicy meatball.

If you recall about 6 months ago or so there was a thread here that showed General Electric's new hybrid that combined Solar with Wind. They're already all peopled up & all monied up to jump on it.

They would be producing much more power with the one I can show them. In fact just last week I went to their website poking around to see who to contact but their site was so big... I wasn't feeling well with my heart racing and all.

But they are all geared up, greased up, in place.

Yeah, magnetic storms, that was the one.

That was a very hard-hitting Kaku video. He kind of bothers me the way he smiles when he talks about people being killed and half of Japan being wasted. I guess it's a nervous facial muscle thing. He gets all ecstatic over space travel we're gonna do this, and we're gonna do that, yeah, WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. HE SMILES THEN TOO.

Encasement with cement would have also kept in the heat. The meltdown would've continued, perhaps even speeded up. If they could have pumped up colder water from ocean depths might have been more helpful.

One big mistake people keep making is they want single answers. Just like IceKat keeps doing, attacking a single issue, others want single answers. The problem is this is a multi-faceted problem demanding multi-faceted answers.

Unlike your usual football game where one quarterback is throwing one ball you need the quarterback throwing multiple balls to many receivers. Otherwise known as a wide-angle torpedo spread.

... which wide-angle torpedo attack with multiple answers would also be creating millions of jobs btw if anybody out there still gives a flying leap.

Good Point, I concede my previous response should be taken as conversation than as a supported discussion. However, in the interview Dr. Kaku was extremely adamant that water would not work, and it is curious that in the follow up, he said that the sea water worked. I don't think its a credibility issue, the sea water perhaps is the best way to deal with it. But it does get me to wonder what differences there were between Fukushima and Chernobyl, that Japan absolutely had no other choice but to use sea water and disposal that radioactive water back into the ocean.

They were under the gun, everyone screaming DO SOMETHING. Like with doctors, you go to a GP they give ya pills, go to a chiropractor he stretches ya around and so on. They're close to water...

And unbeknownst to "us out here" apparently they had a multiple core situation so they didn't have the luxury of time that perhaps gave the Chernobyl some extra time to toss around alternative ideas.

Freud might say the reason they built so close to the oceans in the first place was because somewhere deep inside they knew they had built a world class powderkeg. Their animal brain ordered them to put it where it could be hosed down.

My steam engine based on Ezekiel 1 v 16's "wheel-within-a-wheel" design can replace nuclear power.

Don' let the door hit you on the A&& on your way out.

American" thinker, does that include South America (Bolivia, Venezula), Mexico, or how about that liberal bastion known as Canada, and don't forget the island of Haiti and Cuba.
Thats what "American" means right....

seriously, get out...."

first, I love how in one paragraph, they argue about waste of $630k for a solar panals, but then use a $634 million dollar stadium, that’s right 6, zeros, which are not shown as opposed to three which are shown. (BTW as the article noted 60% of the stadium was supported by tax payer money to support a puke NFL League that is the most wealthiest league in the U.S, so they can create more minimum wage jobs to serve beer).But I love the visual manipulation, because it really does sum up the articles attempts to smear the topic. Lets be fair it is a puke site, so report the news how you want. The question is rather the reader will recognize what it is.

1. Does the reader recognize that solar panel industry is affected by cheap labor of china as is all other industries. And since solar panels in the U.S. are mostly sold in Europe, their recession has had a direct affect on the sales.

2. I love the hit job on the heirs. She is 434 on forbes list as opposed to the Koch brothers who together rank as #2 of the wealthiest people in the world. Comparing the two is like comparing an avocado to a fast food chicken dinner. They are both rich in calories, but one of them will kill slowly and in a grueling fashion known as diabetes or just of a heart attack. And their political influence, well if that were the case, ask the EPA how much influence green movement has on policy as opposed to big Oil.

3. However, this is a very positive article, if true, the gang of 4 means 4 wealth people are beginning to wake up to the green ideas. And if the article is true it means they have been able to successfully promote green ideas.

Very Good Stuff.

Thank you so much. With perseverence and hope the truth will win out.

and I think the more one refines the arguments, like what can be done on boards like this one, the more likely the accurate word will get out

consider this, there was an article out on Yahoo about Climate change, and it does a good job at presenting the case, but what is more encouraging is this:
1. it has remained in the Yahoo 10 popular articles for over 2 days.
2. There are over 4,000 comments, which is just above small, but the comments are now evenly split. As I tend to watch public boards, to get a feel of how the public is looking at issues, that is encouraging, from my experience.

Jane, keep up the good work.

http://news.yahoo.com/american-allergy-global-warming-why-171043981.html

CO2 does not trap heat even though it's a blanket? Hmm.

The planet spins in and out of sunlight where it gets heated, but as the planet spins on into darkness the heat is being held in longer, so that as it spins through sunlight again it starts the day out being hotter than it would have been with less CO2 blanket.

Thanks! I understand better now.

Hopefully no one will grasp that you just equated this interactive REAL-TIME planet to a water bottle sitting on the kitchen floor [in a controlled environment].

Why do you keep entertaining this groupie here? Are you just toying? This was one of the most idiotic analogies I have ever seen. Firstly, no mention of how big the bottle is, how much water is in the bottle (nor the fact that water is H2O not CO2 which has a different molecular structure to begin with which makes this whole thing moot), if it was added to as is being done with the atmosphere, how thick the blanket is (because the atmosphere around this planet is much thinner than people think) because in a perfect world the amount of natural CO2 molecules in the atmosphere work to keep a temperate climate, absorbing, releasing, absorbing releasing, etc. However, the part of this stupid analogy he left out was that we are now overloading the atmosphere with these CO2 molecules which then as a whole are absorbing and radiating much more heat than is natural to keep the climate temperate. Put CO2 in that bottle and apply a radiative forcing on it and and sooner or later that blanket will be hotter. And here I think some people even though they are trolls have some semblance of logic only to find they prove themselves how lacking they are. What is this? Grade school? It's embarrassing.

Does this make any sense to anyone?
Maybe some uneducated people might get confused by this and end up thinking there's some science behind it (there isn't) but I'm sorry Jan, this is sheer made-up BS.

"However, the part of this stupid analogy he left out was that we are now overloading the atmosphere with these CO2 molecules which then as a whole are absorbing and radiating much more heat than is natural to keep the climate temperate. "

Sure, which is why the earth burned to a cinder centuries ago when CO2 concentrations were so much higher than they are today... oh wait... it didn't!

"CO2 traps heat" - is not settled science. It is often written that way for ease and because of sloppy attitudes, but rest assured, CO2 does not trap heat, is not responsible for the climate you're experiencing now (it is a consequence of the warming, not a cause of it) and even if the natural (and the smaller man-made portion) concentrations of CO2 continue to rise, your planet will not burn up.

People know the difference between science and green-propaganda funded by fake charities and extremists' groups, and politics. At some point in the near future you're going to have to look for a new victim to persecute, because CO2 will be vindicated of all the false claims by the people you follow. I was going to say "by people like you" there, but you have no original thoughts on this or any other subject, all you seem to do is spam-post anti-science articles, unsourced videos, and blog rantings from well known extremists.
Enjoy your climate Jan, it's the best you could have hoped for.

OK. I'll wait patiently for the results of the water bottle filled with CO2. Sometimes, Jan, these science experiments take millenia.

And when it's concluded we all know IceKat won. oops, I mean IceKat's macro-trained computer he left behind that kept posting the same stuff over & over. hehehe

EONS AGO when I took science in school we were shown artist drawings that the planet once was a volatile cinder during its formative time.

Looks like we could be headed into Formative Earth II, and you can't stay it isn't. But you probably will. You have such great answers.

Amen.

gravity you are on a roll, but to be fair to the brit, he/she is finally taking a position that can be critiqued without hiding behind misleading charts, and its much better than the hacky scientists who supposedly dispute climate change, but never produce a study for peer review. You know Kat, those peer critiques that if independently agreed upon builds a consensus.

again sir, present the study and not the theory, that proves your point

I drove the poor man to drink, from a water bottle!!!

"Sure, which is why the earth burned to a cinder centuries ago when CO2 concentrations were so much higher than they are today... oh wait... it didn't!"

That is the second time, that I recall, you mentioned this without proof, though the previous time it was a conditional "if" statement, and I assumed it was a rant.

Please this is interesting, what specific time period are you refering to?

No. There's a problem. Taking that much kelp out of the oceans would lower ocean water levels. That's unacceptable. It eliminates the Ocean Rise Threat.

Another problem also. Less ocean surface would lower evaporation, and that would lower moisture levels in the air, a known greenhouse gas. OK. BRING IN THE WRECKING BALLS. THANK YEW.

Go pander your wares and your compost bin theology elsewhere. We here in the Current Community are too smart for your tricks.

I am curious, I do not claim to be a scientist, but what futuregen is saying at least sounds interesting, but you seem to dismiss it out of hand, why? is there something wrong with the general theory? I await your response, thanks.

Well, once in a great while I give people what I sense they need from me. People here know I'm an inventor of several zero-pollution engine systems so if I kick him in the can he'll get the impression I fear him succeeding. I don't, but it was what he needed. To the degree I piled sand bags in his way he can know his is an excellent idea. If he's as smart as we both think he is he already knew this...

"I am Curious" or

Gullible

I've never called myself a scientist either. But 9 years ago, since I had never before taken an IQ test, I found a very hard one on the Internet. It gave me their highest ranking as a "Philosopher-Thinker".

And said I should be running a world corporation. After 9 years of inventing ~plus repairing from the 12 years of poisoning the doctors did me from 1990-2002~ I've roughly doubled my ability.

But I'm not in danger of running a world corporation so it's quite a useless designation, at the time being. As it stands right now September 24 2011 the majority of already-entrenched world corporations can't tolerate better solutions. They've taken Hill 42 and intend on holding it forever.

A car engine combining steam+air for a tornadic ZERO POLLUTION EXPLOSION (and zero exhaust fumes) blows their mind.

And wallets; so you'll all have to continue filling the doctor clinics and hospital wards begging for medical assistance for the time being.

They do so all love your money.

The hundreds of thousands of people who fell under the spell of Nazi ideology, had plenty of passion, it was reason and critical thinking they lacked, please consider that.

And yet they are not mutually exclusive, nor is this Nazi Germany. Please consider that.

I AM NO NAZI. But that too is a classic denier tactic. It is an accusation spewed at climate scientists by one pop eyed denier fraud all of the time. Typical of someone with only talking points and longwinded theatrical responses used to shield their true ignorance.

WTF??? Please consider that.

WHO THE HELL IS SAYING YOU ARE A NAZI? not me, this is at least the 2nd time you have slapped me in the face for no sane reason, if I say good day, you say fuck you!!!!! if I say I disagree With your pseudo-scientific nonsense, you say, YOUR A DENIER!!!! Christ, I think you have issues, other then a complete Identification subjugation complex with Al Gore.

"The hundreds of thousands of people who fell under the spell of Nazi ideology, had plenty of passion,"

Your comment. If you don't want YOUR comments to be construed in a certain way don't make them and then feign fake outrage at being questioned about them. Your obvious disdain for me because I support Al Gore and the fact that you were shown for the phony you are on this topic isn't fooling me. You are only here to bait and the only pseudo -science is the BS magic act you spam here. Now If you'll excuse me I don't have anymore time to go back and forth with you in some board game.

" slapped me in the face for no sane reason"

So let me get this straight, to point out close mindedness you had nothing better to come up with than a Nazi reference. If that is the thought that clutters your sub-conscious, how sane are you?

Any time a molecule vibrates faster it's getting hotter all by itself... so there's a possibility HOWEVER SLIGHT that there's a double-heating effect going on here.

It shouldn't because if it did it would come very close to producing more energy than it had absorbed. However, it could be doing something else too.

The incoming infrared could be a higher frequency needed for travel through Space and the CO2 could be doing a frequency change, then passing it on a hotter energy on down to the planet.

Both still in the infrared range. In such an alchemy the CO2 would be using some of the incoming infrared energy as a Power Source to do the step-down conversion.

Kind of like what a telephone pole transformer does. We could be looking at a molecule-size transformer. If true it might could be very useful somehow.

Or the teenager gives the keys back willingly.

Along with the million dollars a month salaries. Vintage automobiles. 16 cylinder $1.5 million Bugatti. Pools filled with rising Hollywood starlets who play tennis in the buff.

Uh-huh. Cold day in Hell too.

Palin has fallen on the field of battle. Bachmann lost her mind on the field of battle. Hillary is owned by the man always has been, so now she is a has been a worn-out old rug by 2016.

Ya got one shot left in that shooter => http://current.com/community/93457926_elizabeth-warren-puts-the-kibosh-on-gops-c...

oh shit, that's hillarious

Appreciate that very much and know there are. We need to get them speaking out.

Thanks, Kenny. That's what this site is for, the "viewers" speaking truth to power. Just like you do. ;-)

And we need our community to get more involved with the video comments, this is our chance to change Media into what really counts. Thanks Jan! :)

I luv the accent

I didn't even realize I had one. Must be the New Yorker in me. ;-)

The problem is that by the time they get around to seeing it is "lucrative" for them to be hypocrites to the point it will make a notable difference, the tipping point will already be reached. The Earth isn't going to wait for them to get their act together. By the looks of the PPM in the atmosphere, by 2020 we are going to indeed be in serious trouble if we don't start doing something drastic now.

http://co2now.org/

That's why I think we need initiatives/goals set by government to mandate moving to sustainable energy.

One opportunity just passed with curving pollution with changes to the clean air act. These polluting companies have billions in cash on the balance sheets yet they have no incentive to put this money anywhere.

Now they will have incentive to invest and make even more money long term. No matter what their environmental philosophy.

You honestly think there are no "conservatives" from those sites here? Sockpuppetting, lurking, reading every bit of information here? This is their target's site you know. You know they are here for all of their attacks on him. I am reaching more "conservatives" by putting this here than I would over on any of the sites labelled "conservative." And besides, people on most of those sites prove that their political hate overrides sanity, reason, rationality and caring for anything but themselves... so in essence they are actually the antithesis to a traditional Teddy Roosevelt conservative who can be reasoned with and who actually does have the capacity to understand the science and not be blinded by ideology. I know there are still some out here. Unfortunately, their party was also hijacked by fascists who are even too blinded to understand that when I and others talk about this and the need to preserve this planet for future generations that includes their grandchildren too. This shouldn't be partisan at all. This is about all of us.

If I may add, the current flag waves here not newsmax or the drudge report, yahoo or even Huffington post. This is where people of like mind rant, and are hopefully inspired. The ironic part is how cynicism pollutes the mind of the so-called skeptic, causing them to be uncompromisingly negative. Their thoughts, their ego, is so polluted with cynicism, they can't open up their mind to knowledge that is being shared. In effect it is impossible for them to contemplate the facts, because their ego is tied to their beliefs.

Are you insinuating that I'm being negative. If so, I would clarify by saying jans vid wasn't news to me, nor am in need of being "inspired". Could be a little more clear in your wording perhaps?

I know there are conservatives here doing exactly as you propose, it's quite evident and quickly apprehended by anyone who is observant. But that's exactly what they want you to do imo, that is (stay divided and keep to your own), limiting your potential impact and ensuring polarization is kept intact.

take it for whatever you like, but to address you directly, what you mean to say, your big bad and brave here, but go to a puke site. Right, what is implied by your comment is frankly you were offended, so rather than discuss the idea, you offered an indirect threat. Meaning this liberal won’t act that way, if I introduced you to my con-friends. I just simply argued, when in roman do what the romans do. People have a right to rant and congregate with those people who agree with them. Do you have a problem with that?

No sir, that is what it did to you, but you never had an open mind to begin with. To this I say though if you don't like how the house is kept, get out.

I can't be responsible for your distortions, no matter how much you might think you can speak for me. So much open mindedness and tolerance here, makes me proud.The love and serenity is overwhelming me. How much do I owe you for this psychic reading of yours?

"It's ironic that we create pollution talking about preventing pollution, and at the same time we do it on a forum where most are in agreement about the topic at hand, when she should be saying this on a conservative forum where minds "

Do you deny you wrote the above comment?

What could you have possibly meant. I guess its tea leaves I must consult to know. Not really, that was a threat, and under the breath threat.

Once you were made aware of it, you of course tempered the threat with a follow up response,

"But that's exactly what they want you to do imo, that is (stay divided and keep to your own), limiting your potential impact and ensuring polarization is kept intact."

Because you are the good guy. You are level headed. Or is it your just judgemental?

I don't need a crystal ball to tell you this, your future conduct on this board will dictate which of the above statements is true.

By the way you didn't answer the question: People have a right to rant and congregate with those people who agree with them. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, I'm a judgemental big hypocrite loser, and I'm dictatorial and your Mr. Perfect. I am whatever you say I am. You Might let Jan speak for herself. I never said people don't have the right to rant. I beg forgiveness for me blustering ways, and causing you to condescend to answer me. At least I stimulated my prefrontal cortex though(: Good day sir, cheerio.