I just can't buy that thousands upon thousands of scientists from every corner of the world are part of some liberal conspiracy to stir up panic about global warming.
I see no downside in reducing or even ending our dependence on fossil fuels. This should have been done years ago.
Then sell your car and quit taking any form of public transportation. Walk, or ride a bike. That will reduce dependance on Abiotic oil, which bubbles up all by itswelf all over the place, in the sea, on the land, polluting as nature intended it to, so using it instead will help keep the land and water clean.
Don't be a hypocrate, reducing oil consuption starts with you. Don't whine about it if YOU are still using it.
And it WILL have a huge downside. Our entire economy depends on oil, manufacturing, thousands of by products, pipes, plastics, medicines etc.
I will keep burning as much as i can, because I live in the country, walking is out of the question. I live in a cold climate, I need heat or I will freeze to death.
The whole world will NOT fit into your perspective of it from the balcony of your apartment in California where you have a tropical climate.
It's not a conspiracy so much as "group-think". Scientist & professors must get published in peer-reviewed journals. It's a treadmill that doesn't reward creative thinking so much as contributing a minor detail to an established line of research. If you question the basic underlying assumption of the research (fetal stem cells?) you may risk you career prospects.
Lets build hundreds and hundreds of nuclear plants. End the coal use and save it for gasification.
I see no downside in reducing or even ending our dependence on fossil fuels. This should have been done years ago.
---------------
The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation.
Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner.
In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more.
The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology.
Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power.
When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed.
Above quote was from http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Only those touting the global warming lines get money and microphones. Those who don't are shunned.
I see no downside in reducing or even ending our dependence on fossil fuels. This should have been done years ago.
Your inability to discern fact from fable is something I can't change. You deal in beliefs and feelings not logic.
Get out your bike and skates and you will be doing your part. Man's use of fossil fuels is goodness, not evil and ending our use of them isn't going to happen until there is a more efficient way to provide energy.
The downside is higher costs and less productivity and since you can't understand that, that puts you in the company of your fellow travelers, marx, lenin and hillary.