[samtheman]

So fossil fuels aren't so bad after all. As the Beav would say: "Who would have thunk?"

[kidd]

What a lot of BS.

The article makes no mention of the levels of dissolved methane in the water.

The article makes no mention of the fact that reservoirs are motionless bodies of water and are stratified. Methane produced from plant decay would stay near the bottom of the lake. Turbine water is drawn from a source that is elevated well above the reservoir bottom.

[Mr. K]

If they can power a nuclear sub with a small reactor, why cant we have a small one in every town

[finnman69]

The enviroweenies dont like damns because it hurts the fishies.

[SaltyJoe]

The issue earth worshiping types have against humanity is that we try to better our condition and remain masters of creation. There is no argument for any particular form of energy over another. Among the godless, the hatred is for mankind, ourselves.

[Carry_Okie]

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.

Pathetic reasoning on the face of it. The carbon released from dams comes from organic material that would have otherwise rotted on land and emitted the same amount of carbon.

It is no accident that we get crap like this out of the IPCC seeing as the tax-exempt, "charitable" foundations of petrochemical wealth fund most environmental NGOs. They want us to use more gas and then tax us on it to subsidize their investments abroad.

[TChris]

Bwahahahaha! It seems these envirowhackos will not rest until all of mankind is living in cold, dark caves and eating plants.

[VadeRetro]

There is nothing you can do without harming the environment. Yeah! Go ahead and kill yourself! Release your trapped carbon and methane and other noxious stuff! Can't even die without polluting, can you?

You have no right to exist!

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Outland]

More crap from New "Scientist".

According to CDIAC, methane's effect on "global warming" is 23 times that of CO2, not 21 (this is referred to as "Global Warming Potential" or GWP). However, we notice that the article says nothing about the current atmospheric concentration of methane, which is a measly 1852 Parts Per Billion (PPB). That's only 0.0001852% of the atmosphere!

By comparison, CO2 concentrations are about 375 PPM, or 0.0375% of the atmosphere. Since GWP is a comparison based on an equivalent mass of CO2, we see that the atomic mass of methane is 16.04 where CO2 is 44.0, roughly 2.743 times more than methane. What does that mean?

If I got my math right, it means that current methane levels have to rise to 0.00447% (over 24 times the current level) to reach CO2's current measly potential.

Do we clearly see how the "Warmiacs" are trying to scare the public? But that's not all. NASA reported in November of 2003 that methane levels have flat-lined over the previous 4 years. No rise in levels. The article also does not mention that methane only lasts 10 years or less in the atmosphere before hydrogen radicals break it down into CO2 and water vapor.

So where's the threat?

C'mon, you pseudoscience green freaks! You haven't scared me yet. Show me the real science to back your BS claims!

[o_zarkman44]

Life in general is a bad thing for the environment.
Especially Human life.
What a crock!
I hope that idiot don't get his water from one of them bad boy reseviors or I would call him a hypocrite!