1. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #28011 by misterpost on March 27, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Every word a misrepresentation of the theory he claims to "disprove".
What a load.

2. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25468 by misterpost on March 13, 2007 at 1:15 pm

tomjlawson said: It's seems ironic that our new power solutions should rely on nature when nature is causing us to change. We don't know what the weather will be like in fifty days, let alone fifty years, so why assume that windmills and solar panels are going to be of much use? What if the clouds block the sun for a hundred years? What if we lose the wind for months at a time?

I would think if these were valid arguments, then some climatologist would have pointed them out by now.
Imagine it: Unending cloud cover over the entire surface of the earth? The winds stopping completely? On a planet that's getting hotter?

These processes are driven by solar heat, so if global warming really does occur, what we'll have on balance is more of this energy to tap, at least somewhere on the planet.

It's possible that some places will become cloudier, and some lose all their wind (I think the latter is less likely). But others will get more wind, and some places might receive more sunlight than ever. And electrical power is easy to export- you string some high voltage lines & you're go for a hundred miles. Surely there's wind within a hundred miles of anywhere.

What were the other "better solutions" we have out there? As far as I am aware, the next best thing for energy supply is nuclear, which not everyone thinks is "better" than carbon fuels (I do). Or was the "better solution" you had in mind reducing our per-capita consumption?

I think this (reduction) is a really terrific idea, but there will continue to be a lot of political resistance to that until something unimaginably bad happens to change people's (mostly USAians') minds about their energy use.