Hot and Cold

[LOWRIDER4UNATL]

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX! 

[TrickyEmu]

Gosh, It's getting tired with all the climate change deniers. Completely ridiculous how they choose to ignore all scientific facts because it would mean that their beloved big industry would have to invest in green technology. Completely ridiculous.

[wubs23]

the flaw is that they dont talk about the people losing their jobs due to this new energy.

the people in coal energy etc. would then take up these jobs, so no new jobs would be created, or they would be fired, which in total doesnt do anything for the economy.

so, stupid idea.

[deskset24]

To Dvader64909: Go fucking kill yourselves and each other, you worthless subhuman religionists who believe in make-believe shit like "god". THAT is the FIRST step to help the environment. Then kill all who vote for Republicans and Democrats, and all CEOs who make over $70K/year. The world should belong ONLY to environmentalist and animal rights soldiers.

[Dvader64909]

save the planet go kill yourself!That's what wrong with you enviromentalist you guys pray to mother earth while you should being pray to Father GOD!

[TravellerHere]

Bloody Russians and their hackers!

Now what?

[danchad79]

check out/search 'climate chains'

on youtube.

It is a compelling take on the cap and trade scam

[ThinkAltruistic]

There is no reason to "trade" CO2 Emissions.

There are already reasonable laws and regulations on the books that limit the parts per million of thousands of true pollutants.

Why create a trading system?? Set a reasonable level based on good available technology, and require this as part of any new construction. The purpose of the trading system is so that the rich can benefit from its very creation. Wake up fellow environmentalists!

[boeingace1618]

i think America is the only fucking country in the world that thinks global warming is a plot set up by the government to steal peoples money, fuking idiots!

Go look up the facts u dumb asses

[LittleMissScooter]

So right

[ValorUnlimited]

I'm getting to that part. This portion is from an article written by G. Jeffery Taylor, Hawaii institute of geophysics and planetology.

Mars appears to have at least two distinct mantle reservoirs, and probably others. The table below summarizes the properties of the two distinct reservoirs tapped by magmas that created the shergottites.

There's a table here that I can't post onto here but the elements as they appear on the periodic table infer a drop in hardness in the mantle...

[ValorUnlimited]

...to the point of paste-like substances. There are subsurface jackets of silicates that create channels of mobile gases and probably flowing rock in these chambers that would allow for a formation and eventual release of methane formed by geological conditions.

[Gormanmod]

....Ok, then why can't there be useful life-forming materials in those underground areas?

Where there is heat and water, there is life. Why can't this be true with Mars?

[ValorUnlimited]

If there's subsurface liquid water there is life. But there's no evidence of that. Only trace amounts of ice on the surface.

Venus does not have water. Nor does it have a strong magnetic field. And let me be perfectly clear with you when I say that no life exists on or near Venus.

If 581 has too thick of an atmosphere there won't be life. It it has NO atmosphere which is much more likely, there won't be life. Two BIG things to consider before you load up a space capsule and head out the door.

[ValorUnlimited]

By the way, I looked at the ITER you mentioned. It appears they've made some progress with the design. Admittedly, I don't know enough about fusion theory to speculate how far it is away from this point, but the ITER itself is only a transitional step into developing fusion energy. When an actual reactor prototype is assembled, then I'll say it's 40 years out.

[Gormanmod]

20 years. Technology is just going too fast to even allow 40 years for something. Necessity is the mother of invention. China or the US will perfect what France has done.

Also, the oceans of 581 C and/or D would be like Earth's oceans in ancient times. We are talking about billions year old planets. And the closer you get to the sun, the bigger and hotter cores get, so probability is that it is very well protected, not to mention their spin rotation around the sun would probably help alot.

[Gormanmod]

Besides that, Earth had no 02 in it's oceans until plant life. Life was originally chemically based on the sea floor and chemical pools on the surface. 02 is on;y needed later for more advanced life. A planet could be all trees and still have lots of oil after billions of years.

Mars has lots against it's core reactivating. A slow rotation around the sun, pretty cold, and lots of other stuff. A plant close to a star with fast rotation would have a lot forcing core rotation, such as 581 C & D

[ValorUnlimited]

Not true. Earth had dissolved oxygen in its oceans for millions of years before life arose. Lava vents beneath ammonia and other compounds in liquid seas bubbled to the surface and formed the atmosphere you and I breathe today.

And just because a core is inactive doesn't mean it's geologically dead. As I've just stated.

581 would only have core rotation if its core were solid and its mantle were liquid, which we don't know.

And we don't know if it has oceans because...

[Gormanmod]

That would only account for a couple percentages of o2. Most came from photosynthetic organisms.

[ValorUnlimited]

It would account for the creation of all life.

[Gormanmod]

nope. The oxygen chemically would be from light on the surface, but Life started in the darker areas and chemical pools, where 02 was simply absorbed into other chemicals.

[ValorUnlimited]

...once again. We don't know if it has an atmosphere. We don't know if the atmosphere is too dense with carbon dioxide to produce life. We don't know if it has a magnetic field...

etc etc etc...

Repeating myself.

[Gormanmod]

Indirect observation.

We don't know if a molecule is really a little tiny eyeball of some deity to look everywhere. What we do know is through other methods.

We know the rate of exposure to it's sun from the type and distance. We know it rotates and it very likely tidal locked, meaning lots of activity chemically and geologically. We also know this means some parts are cold and some hot. We also know this creates caves and safe houses for life to form in this bath of chemicals....

[ValorUnlimited]

I'm sorry, but if you're gonna go philosophical and existential on me, then I think this discussion is rapidly coming to a close. Dissolved oxygen bubbled to the surface from volcanic activity and dispersed into ammonia-rich pools. These pools would recede and surge with the tides and eventually, the right combination of dissolved oxygen got trapped in a stagnant pool of water out of which the first bacteria arose.

[Gormanmod]

Well I really don;t know how you're getting this. The first life forms were not bacteria or cells. They were capsuled chemicals that, through chemical evolution, developed into cells.

A youtube profile called potholer54 has a whole series very well done about it.

[Gormanmod]

....These capsuled chemicals were all done on the sea floor.

Never on the surface.

These protocells developed into more specialized chemical concoctions. If energy could be acquired from the sun, then it would help and be more successful. And chemicals from volcanic vents would help too. But all this does not require 02 alone. it requires CO2 and other things holding O2. Not free O2 in the sea.

[ValorUnlimited]

Oh and much of the conclusions you're drawing in the second paragraph are not accurate. Rotation does not mean geological activity. Periods of hot and cold do not mean stable temperatures. Composition of the planet can give us a clearer picture, but we don't know that.

[Gormanmod]

No no. What I'm saying is that a planet rotating around it's star might have some influence to it's internal parts rotating with it. After all, if you rotate a thing on the surface of a sea, it eventually begins creating a cyclone. It's a pulling affect.

And it isn't periods, it's permanent hot and cold on each side of the planet in tidal lock, which is known to create tiny areas of stable temperatures in between.

Not conclusion, just logic. It's how we predicted (accurately) how mars would be

[Gormanmod]

... And as to 581 D, we know it has water because all planets in the solar system except for a few have water in some form. Water is simply a common thing. And the law of probability dictates that if something is common here, it is more than likely common elsewhere.

It's like when you take a cup of seawater, there WILL be at least a certain probability of a certain percentage of heavy water there. This is the same with a cup from Asia or a cup from Africa. Space is the same.

[ValorUnlimited]

Your cup of water analogy is also flawed for several reasons. One, the magnetic field of a planet determines the amount of radiation that penetrates the planets crust. Too much would kill any living organism on or below the surface.

Two, dissolved oxygen in the oceans supports the life here. If there's no Diss-O2 in the body of water, guess what. Your "new species" is a crystalline structure.

[ValorUnlimited]

Yeah. We don't know if 581 D has water. We don't. That's faulty. Just because water is "abundant" in the universe doesn't mean that it exists on 581 D.

[Gormanmod]

The same argument could be used for other items. We know Galaxies exist in the visible universe, but we do not know about the rest of the universe. We don't know if a black hole exists because we've never seen it. Could just be a vacuum cleaner of Zeus.

So we do things like indirect observation pattern recognition, and probability based off of observable fact.

That's how science works. Europe's so confident that it's their target for the Darwin mission and others. I trust they are right.

[ValorUnlimited]

Taken directly from an article written by Craig Feudenrich PhD:

Surrounding Earth's core is a thick layer of soft rock called the mantle. What do we mean by soft? Well, if the outer core is liquid, then the mantle is a paste, like toothpaste. The mantle is less dense than the core (which explains why it rests above the core). It's made of iron and magnesium silicates, and it stretches about 1,800 miles thick... The mantle is the source of lava that spews and trickles from volcanoes.

[ValorUnlimited]

Like Earth, the mantle of Mars (shown as brown in the figure) is probably made of thick silicates; however, it's much smaller at 800 to 1,100 miles (1,300 to 1,800 kilometers) thick. There must have been convective currents that rose up in the mantle at one time. These currents would account for the formation of the crustal upwarps, such as the Tharsis region, the Martian volcanoes and the fractures that formed Valles Marineris.

[Gormanmod]

Mars is known to be dead for a while. In fact, if you look at Google mars, you can even see that the canyons from long gone water are carving the lave fields of the largest volcanoes. The grand canyon took 40 million years to form. That gigantic thing on Mars must have been there even longer at least, not taking less gravity pulling water down into affect.

points to the possibility of no core activity for at least 40 million yrs.Without an active core to regenerate heat, how does the heat stay?

[ValorUnlimited]

Simple. Iron is an amazing conductor of heat energy, silicates are amazing insulators. The heat travels through the Martian subsurface through the iron oxidized particles. Once the thermal radiation penetrates deep enough, say, a large subsurface deposit of iron or Yb, the surface silicates prevent it from escaping. If this happens continuously, a thermal jacket of heated iron silicates forms around the deposit. And voila, geologic activity.

[Gormanmod]

That's Earth, not Mars.

[ValorUnlimited]

You need to know if it has an atmosphere, which we don't, if it has a magnetic field, which we don't, and if it has a stable upper crust, which we don't.

[canadiceconstruction]

Oil consumption can be greatly reduced by implementing solar and wind energy. Electrification of the automobile is a $7.5 trillion industry. Supplying enough solar and wind energy to move these EV's the first 40 miles each day is a $5 trillion industry. What could these 2 industries do for our economy?

[CutThroughComms]

So sad. Anyone who's taken a basic Economics 101 class should be able to see through this. Just because you SAY it will spur the economy doesn't mean it will.

"A law that encourages investment to move from one sector of the economy to another—especially when rational self-interested market actors didnt do it on their own—cannot possibly cause growth. Laws that generate a new scarce resource for businesses (in this case carbon emissions) cannot have positive effects on an economy."

[tainoaz]

Every argument you use to 'challenge' a this wonderful New Paradigm that can take us in a positive, healthy direction can be used to quash your own resistance to Change. Exploiting the energy resources mindlessly is just Moronic, Selfish and makes no sense from a; legacy, moral, scientific....

Please remember that to see 'The Light' you must abstain from the "NeoCON Kool Aid' for at least 90 days for the indoctrination to start giving way to REALITY and FACTS.

[bflatkitty]

Economics 102 and 103

Says clean domestic power is healthy and cool and cost positive. Or you can listen to Bushwakos who just vaporized five trillion clams into the atmosphere.

* poof *

[ValorUnlimited]

It all boils down to attitude. The problem is not that renewable energy isn't marketable, it's that we're SAYING it's not. And the people that are saying it's not are doing so loudly. There's lots of wind... and lots of sunlight...and thanks to icecap recession, lots of flowing water. Renewable energy is not a scarce resource...

Fossil fuels are.

[Gormanmod]

Then expand into it, do not flat out cut one half and go the other. Specialized animals die first.

[ValorUnlimited]

The problem is, we have an addiction to fossil fuels because they're cheaply processed and at little monetary cost, but a heavy environmental cost.

But there's no bottleneck that comes when all the ice age plant fuel is used up. It's a brick wall. That would be a more devastating consequence than REALIZING the problem now and correcting it.

[Gormanmod]

Are you sure about that? Humanity has to learn some lessons. going through the complete end of fossile fules will be a vital lesson.

Even so, you cannot avoid damaging the environment. Hydrogen puts water vapor in the air (worse than CO2). Electric creates poisoning batteries. You're really against the wall when it comes to this. There is no way to fix the problem without destroying the environment. The only solution is to leave. Go and seek fossil fuels and helium and hydrogen elsewhere.

[ValorUnlimited]

Heh. It wouldn't be a "lesson". It would be the collapse of modern society, actually. LoL.

Hydroelectric power creates no byproducts, nor does wind power, so I'm -really- not against the wall in this. Oh. And there aren't any fossil fuels elsewhere. At least not in our solar system. Hah! No plants.

Sustainable energy is a possibility. My electricity supplier actually operates below the new energy cap, so it'll be one of the companies to benefit from this new policy.

[Gormanmod]

Actually Natural Gases and organic Gases have already been found on Mars and Titan. And a few others. There is more than one way to create oil. While some fossil fuels are produced by dead things, deeper down (I think), they are made by tectonic forces.

And The Water System can only take so much. if there's too much water in it, it just doesn't take any more. AKA, flood.

[ValorUnlimited]

Oh. And water vapor may be more dense than CO2 gas, but the water cycle is MUCH more rapid than the carbon cycle, and doesn't rely on plants to keep it balanced!

[Gormanmod]

...2

Also in part of my love of the environment, I do not want my forests being ravaged by gigantic fans and dams.

There are today only 3 known ways to clean energy with no negative whatsoever: Helium Nuclear, Hydrogen Fusions, and antimatter.

Luckily we have fossil fuels to fuel our progress to there. It will only be about a decade or two when we get these items in mass production. Fossil Fuels won't go out by then. There's enough for 1 more century... just about. Then we're screwed.

[ValorUnlimited]

2... Nuclear power produces nuclear waste which we still know nothing about how to dispose of, rather than pack barrels of it in water or sand forever and forget about it. Fusion energy is still 3/4 of a century away and anti-matter as a form of energy only exists in science fiction.

Plus...forests being...ravaged? have you ever been to a hydroelectric plant...? Ever seen a wind turbine. How are they "ravaged" by wind and solar?

[Gormanmod]

Wind especially has to have cleared out areas. Farmers already have that land. forests are all that remains.

Helium nuclear is unique in that there is 0 waste produced. It's the future.

Fussion power is about 20 years away. France already built an experiental one.

antimatter is not science fiction. It is just not worth it. yet.

Mars has leaking methane. methane only comes from geo activity or life. Mars is geologically dead....

[ValorUnlimited]

Evolution from crystalline structure to an organism is a very tricky thing. Considering that we know nothing more than its relative distance from the red dwarf star, and its approximate mass, we can't even come close.

Antimatter does yes theoretically exist...but we can't created it for more than a fraction of a second, let alone theorized on how to use it in a reaction that would produce energy.

And Mars is not geologically dead. It's siesmically dead, but there is subsurface activity present

[ValorUnlimited]

Fusion, as an EFFECTIVE power source, and you can quote me on it. "You will not see it in your lifetime." And your children may not either. We have only scratched the surface on fusion reactions, and aren't even close to understanding how to stabilize and perpetuate fusion indefinitely. These prototypes you refer to, are the size of a small US state and produce 1/1000th the thermal energy of a standard space heater.

[Gormanmod]

Actually the prototype fusions reactor in France is the size of a normal Power plant or stadium.

If they could build massive solar collectors in space, they could beam the energy down to these experimental chambers and thus provide enough energy for it, or they could be power plants themselves.

I believe Mars is geologically dead. It's core is rock solid, and there are no tectonic plates, as there is nothing to float on....

[ValorUnlimited]

"The observations support the idea that the north polar ice cap is geologically active and relatively young, at about 4 million years."

NASA's reconnaisance orbiter report data. May 2008.

"The mantle is the source of lava that spews and trickles from volcanoes."

How Mars Works website.

The formation of silicate lava is hot enough to form any gases ejected from the crust.

[Gormanmod]

I do not understand because where is the magma coming from? Mars has a basically solid core.

As the APS Xray shows, Mars is solid, with some few areas of magma deep in the core. The rest is solid. Without a rotating liquid core, volcanic activity cannot occur. some kind of meteor or other thing might have caused it. besides that, there is no tectonic plate movement to allow pressure built up of gases.

[ValorUnlimited]

Regardless of the state of the core, Mars is still being bombarded with solar radiation that isn't all being rebounded up into space. Not to mention, it's absorbing thermal energy from constant bombardments on its surface from collisions with meteorites. There are pockets of thermal energy shifting beneath Mars' surface, resulting in layers of superheated rock which are more like...toothpaste than solid rock. When enough mineral deposits accumulate in one area the silicates heat the metals...

[ValorUnlimited]

causing lava.

Mars is not geologically dead.

Furthermore, wavelengths of light are only used to determined the general integrity of the planet's orbit pattern, not the composition of its atmosphere, otherwise that information would already be available. 581 MAY be dead. It MAY be just a hunk of rock. There's currently no way for us to know. Just because temperatures are ideal for water to exist of which distance from its sun is only one of many factors, doesn't mean it does exist...

[Gormanmod]

But we do know water is extremely common in our own solar system, and that it is known to be on 581 D. Why couldn't it also be on C?

Also, light can be used to know what the makeup of something is. And it is very easy to do.

As to Mars, constant bombardment does not generate that much heat because it obviously only takes small hits, and not daily, just a lot. Heat must go from hot to cold. The planet is extremely cold. Heat does not stay that long.

And the mantle is rock, not toothpaste-like

[Gormanmod]

Hell, D seems better now that I read mor about it. But C still seems good enough.

Maybe both? Who knows. But the fact remains that, going back to the original topic at hand, we are going to the moon for resources within 20 years. We will be able to go faster than light within the century (assuming continental unions grow and nations keep an interest in the riches of space), and we will not ever be done using oil. It is simply too valuable. It will just be produced less so here.

[ValorUnlimited]

For the last time, because I seem to be repeating myself, there is no current evidence of water on 581.

Nuff said.

All we have is its relative distance from its sun, but we don't know what its atmosphere is comprised of, what its tectonic situation is, or several hundred other factors that would affect there being microbial life present.

It could be like Venus, or Ceres. Is that not clear to you?

We aren't going to the moon for resources, we're doing it to establish a longterm refueling...

[Gormanmod]

...3 You have to get to knowing that one way is not the only way to life. We know that chemicals form certain unique properties at certain ranges, and that this can be in safe conditions. Corot 7b would be an even better location. A planet which only has water, rock, and heat is ideal, even in the gaseous phase. Such a world with such gravitational affects causes caves that can be safe for life to occur. As organic materials fall from space and collect, life could easily form, safe from danger.

[ValorUnlimited]

Corot 7b has more issues than 581. Because it's surface temperature is so high due to its proximity to its sun there is a likelihood that its temperature variation is a bit more extreme than 581, which also plays a factor in life's viability.

Also it's roughly 100 times further from us than 581. Not even your star trek engine endorsed by some "random physicists" could reach that distance in a few lifetimes.

[Gormanmod]

Star trek is a joke. I have nothing like it. Completely different. Again, if you want to read it, simply ask, do not insult.

And the point is that it probably has caves. A world with lots of vapor and gases, with massive tidal forces near the sun, will likely have caves. And caves can be totally alien to the surface. A world so small and so hot is very likely to have caves.

Forget not that Earth's life began on a world bombarded by rocks and with violent conditions.

[ValorUnlimited]

...point for Mars missions.

Furthermore Mars is not geologically dead. It doesn't matter if you don't understand how it isn't dead. It's not. The evidence is there you just have to do research. It is possible that the "biological" emissions are created by geologic instabilities in subsurface silicate lava jackets.

[Gormanmod]

But what you showed me as a source contradicts the discoveries of other people. Who's right? Is mars dead or alive? It has no active tectonic plates, yet you tell me it can build up pressure? From what? The pebbles in the sky pulling it insignificantly? There's nothing doing the pulling to make shifts other than the wind.

[Gormanmod]

You are also being a little too conservative in your analysis on 581. Most of the materials you are talking about are easily created in heat and ocean floors. And most of the resources needed come directly from space. We know they form on their own in labs. A planet older than earth can't have caves?

We already know the temperature range, it has to have water somewhere.

There's simply too much evidence to not allow life.

[Gormanmod]

...Even on Venus you could have life. The pressure is so high and hot that life could remain on the upper atmosphere, surfing on the gaseous sea.

Also, antimatter cannot be produced because of the energy needed. But going back to massive solar items, these would collect energy, but you're bound to lose some along the way. Transferring this energy into magnets that are so powerful they can create antimatter, and you gain the losses from the matter itself.

I'm telling you. Next 50 years.

[Gormanmod]

...And getting there isn't even hard. Once these massive orbital solar panels are in place and the ability to create fusion and antimatter are simplified, you can travel through space to find other things.

Space travel is easy. Even I could give you designs for such an engine. Ask and I'll PM you it.

The problem is not technology. It is money. All the technology exists. We simply are too busy trying to put it in the wrong places.

[ValorUnlimited]

I don't want you to tell me how to build a fictional spaceship engine. I want you to tell me how you know this planet, which I can assure you is nothing more than a dark spot near a light spot in the hubble's main observation lens, is WORTH speeding up hundreds of years worth of research and years of space travel to visit, because Venus fits the same characteristics of that planet. We do NOT know the temperature range based on its distance from its sun.

[Gormanmod]

As to 581, it's called observing the spectrum. We look at the light from the planet, separate it, and we can tell what is there.

And the engine is not fictional nor fake. I showed it to a physicist in training who said it has a future, and most of the scientific people I ask say it can work, but because of monetary needs, it is impossible today.

The fact is that we do know a lot more than you think. It is very likly 581 has water up in the dense atmosphere, allowing compounds to form.

[Gormanmod]

...3 Even then, we will still need fossil fuels in the post-oil fueled world. Plastic industries cannot exist without it. The laws of probability dictate that there is at least 1 planet within a radius of some 20 light years that has life. This probability is based off the fact that several worlds in sol already can support specialized life forms from Earth. And we know that there is at least one other habitable world within 4 light years (I believe) from Earth. Probability dictates alien life

[ValorUnlimited]

There are already enough polymers in the world to support our needs. Post-consumer plastics that are 100% recycled are definitely the way to go.

Which laws of probability...?

You must have misread the article. The planet which they found (I'm assuming Gilese 581 C meets one of MANY criteria for sustaining life. Distance from its sun. Other than that they have no idea what the surface conditions are on that planet's surface, or what it's atmosphere is like.

[ValorUnlimited]

Organic gases haven't been found on Mars, gasses that COULD have been made by geological phenomena OR biological phenomena are present, but we won't know for sure until we visit either. Regardless, these gasses you refer to are not the kind you would dump into your tank. They're too rudimentary to refine either. They're just inert materials. You're close but I don't think you grasp the important details of your arguments. Dig a little deeper. You're on to something but you're just not there yet.

[ValorUnlimited]

Oh...and by the way... on that planet you mention, a year is thirteen days and you'd weigh twice as much there as you do here. Probably not a viable alternative to life on Earth. I'd prefer to keep the one we have.

[Gormanmod]

Pressure + water + heat + close proximity to a large planet and star almost guarantees complex organic matter. Organic compounds are common in space. the planet is older than Earth. If it has no life, it's a miracle.

[ValorUnlimited]

Uh...nope. There's more to it than that. The planet has to have a substantial magnetic field to develop an atmosphere, generated by magma circulation, there has to exist certain other elements in abundance to form basic amino acid chains. There can't be too much ammonia or carbon dioxide, like there is on Venus which would make it too hot and acidic to sustain life. and there can't exist too much siesmic activity, which would destabilize the planet's upper crust to name a few.

[Gormanmod]

The future for oil might be methane producing bacteria used + chemical processing. that should make gas enough.

Fact Is China and the US are going to the moon, and they want energy. The future, for this century, is moon mining.

[ValorUnlimited]

Now you're talking about the Helium 3 rush that was all the rage about 5-7 years ago, which could have theoretically been used for fusion power, but unfortunately was scrapped as a total pipe dream some weeks after the Discovery channel unfortunately advertised that it would be a valuable resource.

It isn't.

Moon rocks are comprised of 28 ppm Helium 4 and .01 ppm of Helium 3. It would take us several centuries to mine the amount needed for ONE proposed fusion reactor. So the idea is bunk.

[boeingace1618]

man oh man this topic is becoming just like religion. people just face it, global warming is a REAL threat, it is occurring right now. stop trying to convince the scientific community that it isn't, you will fail.

go gore!

[AlexMadsen87]

The IPCC is a collection of approx.2500 politicians and scientists (who are funded by a large part of taxpayer money to prove that CO2 is the cause ) who are pushed by the mass corporate media. THEY SAY THERE IS NO DEBATE!

yeah right

[AlexMadsen87]

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth". ~ Petition signed by 31000 scientists against IPCC!!!

[boeingace1618]

dude are you retarded, go check you information because all you got is bullshit.

[ShylosHouse]

Regardless of carbon dioxide's role in global warming (aside from the fact that many scientists are hired by oil & coal companies to discredit it), a change in energy sources would reduce smog, acid rain, mercury run-off into water supplies that poison seafood, & reduce our dependence on a fuel source mostly foreign-owned & in limited supply (& hence very expensive) or one that creates radioactive waste we must dump in paved holes in the ground (nuclear).

[PlanktonBouy]

Did you see that economy pig just offer itself up at 0:21 and let him stick it straight in it's back? The dirty swine!

[ShylosHouse]

CHANGING OVER from nuclear or coal costs money, hence the gov. using the tax money to cover costs. Subsidize green companies=lower prices. For solar in particular, low upkeep & an abundant sources make it cheaper in the long run. Coal is more expensive because there is less of it.

Mass production also drops prices; that's how big companies can sell for less & why electric cars with similar range, mileage, & cheaper fuel & service costs are more expensive than gas cars: lack of mass production.

[exDeathex]

Sad but true hey

[capitalist4life]

What "carbon pollution loophole" are they talking about?

How can CO2 taxation create jobs? It's just taxing billions of dollars out of the economy (destroying jobs) and using the money to create new government jobs.

[ShylosHouse]

Good question.

An investment in wind power produces nearly 4 times as many jobs as the same investment in coal power. An investment in solar PV power produces almost twice as many jobs, and building retrofits: more than 7 times as many jobs as coal power. These jobs are in construction companies & energy companies, not government ones.

Renewable energy uses our most abundant domestic energy sources, meaning we wont be dependent on fuels with unpredictable price spikes & overseas drilling jobs.

[capitalist4life]

The reason people don't buy wind power or solar power is because they are more expensive. If people are spending more money on electricity, that is less money they have to spend on employees.

Also, Wouldn't these jobs be funded by the government? How else would they be created?

[boeingace1618]

THANK YOU!! for understanding

[Eragmus]

awesome ad!!

[chrisaclark]

i agree with arnali33. stop pumping money into a broken system. put the money into creating a new and better system that focuses on renewable energy. this has only good things that will come out of it - cleaner environment, more jobs for americans, and fewer national security concerns as we will no longer be fighting for oil in the Middle East and South America. If we don't do this now, the rest of the world will & we'll be seriously left behind, and our economy will suffer accordingly.

[capitalist4life]

How can putting tax money into renewable energy research create jobs? Every job that the government provides, it has to take the equivalent amount of money from the economy. It just shifts a job from the people to the government.

[sergey444]

wow the level of propaganda is is. huge.

[JayR70417]

nice, that's a simpler way of putting it!

[arnali33]

The EArth can heal itself from its own warming... Lets focus on lowering pollution and creating environments that harbor sustainable life. Nuclear.. BAD.. Coal.. BAD. GAS... BAD... H20... GOOD... Sun... GOOD. The Economy will fix itself, lets focus more on what are the new strategies for money making in this new economic climate and stop FIXING THINGS that aren't supposed to be FIXED! Stimulus..BAD... Demand for new Technologies. GOOD

Don't expose and rape Loop Holes... Create a new System

[tim4day]

Yahhh rhetoric, speeches, bla bla bla , more rhetoric. But wait lets look at the real number one cause of global warming, we should get rid of the most eval chemical out there the one chemical that when heat activated causes up to 90% of global warming

[tim4day]

thats right its water  H2O do the research you lemmings

[honeyipodgirl]

very good i hope everyone watches this send it to all ppl u know!

[christmas254]

THINK GREEN Who need these Monster houses 90% TAX 1st house over 2 million dollars and 2nd House over 1/2 million dollars and every house after

[YouFoundHim]

everyone should look up how effecient wind and solar power is and then look up nuclear power, and then look up the effect co2 has on the weather... al gore is just a politician not a scientist

[UWrosesdawg]

Put that price on carbon and lets get to work!

[josewaycoolerthanu]

its so simple!!!

[saladcream]

haha awesome :D

[GibboIsBack]

Yeah, what the hell are we waiting for!?

[Iceprincess213539]

yeah,

the pollies want to wait for christmas lol

[Iceprincess213539]

5 mins ago this vid was upside down:(

[TheAssailant6661]

Let's get to work!

[ekuwa69]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[rustyflavors]

Great spot