New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[CajunRed]

This is TOTALLY out of hand.

http://www.providencejournal.com/opi...rve-punishment

[Just1More]

We import 25% of the oil we use domestically, how does lowering that % hurt the US strategically, militarily and economically? Maybe I'm dense but it seems pretty straight forward that if we can power our country on LA crude, 'Merican sunshine and Freedom wind, we would be in good shape globally.

We can become energy independent, via a completely different strategy, that would not include reductions in fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas production. Man made climate change by the greenhouse gas effect, if as catastrophic as touted, is a sufficient argument, without adding the energy independence argument. We need to get the climate science right.

Understand, I would love a world of clean energy and chemistry. Our goal should be to use resources wisely and not destroy the planet. This isn't the first time planetary destruction was placed on a disparate group of scientists, and some really odd conclusions were drawn. When there are consequences with either direction the conclusions lead you, you do not give premature answers. And that is what has happened.

[Just1More]

As far as the science et al, I hope you are right and most of the scientific community is wrong. I certainly appreciate the discourse.
Maybe we can meet up in 20 years and see where we are. I'll pick up a couple of bottles that should be fantastic by then.

I've enjoyed the discourse as well. I am not saying the scientific community is "wrong". I'm saying the definitive conclusions being drawn are premature. I'm saying the science of climate is complex, and the divisions of expertise do not lend to a single group of scientists called "climate scientists" giving the kind of definitive arguments I've heard. Even this notion that 97% of the scientists agree. Agree on what? How is the question framed to "all of the scientists involved"? 97% of that 97% of scientists are single subject experts contributing to the climate science studies.

The ignorant people in all of this are not those that demand better answers. It's those that defer to "the scientists have said... so therefore X must be true". There are 20 substantial questions surrounding this monumental subject. I have no appreciation for the vague short answers being given to the public... and acted upon by politicians. I do blame science for failing to prevent premature conclusions and actions being taken. And the fact that I've heard a scientist state that "there are no consequences to reducing the carbon footprint... only benefits... and massive consequences if we do not... and the US needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil... it matters not if we are wrong about the severity of manmade climate change and greenhouse gases... it just isn't good... let's do something about it." That is pretty bothersome to me to hear that kind of non scientific opinion out of a scientist.

PS You better just go ahead and crack those bottles of wine and live like there's no tomorrow. Science has also concluded that even curbing manmade greenhouse gases at this point it useless... we are doomed.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Whenever a scientist disagrees with the conclusions and offers different ones the global warming group says who sponsors his research instead of what is wrong with his research and conclusion. Surely if his conclusions and research are defective they should challenge that.

To say government sponsored research is devoid of bias is ludicrous. You don't get government money long to find everything is OK.

I do not know the answer but if my home was on fire I would call 911 and get a water hose. Our government is fine with our house getting help from the local fire department, but the burning condo across the alley creating a danger to all can be handled with a water hose.

The US and Europe have to cut back, get taxed, but third world and China the biggest industrial power in the world can go hog wild full throttle. Does that sound like the world believes the oceans are getting ready to boil out the co2 and turn us into Venus?

[Ragin4U]

I would prefer the ignorant to trust the professionals rather than a celebrity or an opinion based of political affiliation or where and how their income is derived. I liken the "debate" on climate science to the "debate" on vaccines. By all means, inquire, educate yourself and ask questions. That's what an intelligent populace does. What an intelligent populace does not do is allow their representatives to throw snowballs on the Senate floor to "prove" that global warming isnt happening or, when asked a question, go to the "I am not a scientist" cop-out.
CE-China has increased use of renewables, especially non-biomass, drastically.

[CajunNation]

I would prefer the ignorant to trust the professionals rather than a celebrity or an opinion based of political affiliation or where and how their income is derived. I liken the "debate" on climate science to the "debate" on vaccines. By all means, inquire, educate yourself and ask questions. That's what an intelligent populace does. What an intelligent populace does not do is allow their representatives to throw snowballs on the Senate floor to "prove" that global warming isnt happening or, when asked a question, go to the "I am not a scientist" cop-out.
CE-China has increased use of renewables, especially non-biomass, drastically.

It's funny.

I liken the man-made global warming/climate change believers to the people who believe vaccines are causing autism crowd.

[Ragin4U]

I think that is called a paradox.

[CajunRed]

When all the believers give up THEIR use of oil...and I mean all of it...then I'll give up mine.

[Ragin4U]

When all the believers give up THEIR use of oil...and I mean all of it...then I'll give up mine.

I wonder if you would have been one of the bishops who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Or maybe one of the clerics that beat Rhazes. Or one of the doctors who scoffed at Lister. History is replete with small minds attempting to suppress science because of fear.

[CajunEXPRESS]

I would prefer the ignorant to trust the professionals rather than a celebrity or an opinion based of political affiliation or where and how their income is derived. I liken the "debate" on climate science to the "debate" on vaccines. By all means, inquire, educate yourself and ask questions. That's what an intelligent populace does. What an intelligent populace does not do is allow their representatives to throw snowballs on the Senate floor to "prove" that global warming isnt happening or, when asked a question, go to the "I am not a scientist" cop-out.
CE-China has increased use of renewables, especially non-biomass, drastically.

China is the biggest polluter in the world with hundreds of new yet dirty coal plants. I'm sure they're doing politically correct things and showcasing them.

[Turbine]

I wonder if you would have been one of the bishops who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Or maybe one of the clerics that beat Rhazes. Or one of the doctors who scoffed at Lister. History is replete with small minds attempting to suppress science because of fear.

Back then many assumed the source of the Bishops refute was the Bible.

Unfortunately at the time the masses were not allowed to read the Bible for themselves and as time unfolded it seems those Bishops weren't either.

[CajunRed]

I wonder if you would have been one of the bishops who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Or maybe one of the clerics that beat Rhazes. Or one of the doctors who scoffed at Lister. History is replete with small minds attempting to suppress science because of fear.

I have kept this civil...and never called you a "small mind". I guess I was wrong for being polite. Evidently, you are no different than all the others like you who are more than willing to preach and tell others what THEY should do. Well...instead of TELLING me, I am asking you and all the other "large minds" to SHOW me. Stop using oil in all its forms...then I will follow and do the same.