Comments on: These five ideas will either fix global warming or break the planet Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: beofaction Tue, 28 Apr 2015 04:38:33 +0000 What? Really?

By: stephenweber Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:26:46 +0000 Not to race to conclusions about the importance of the political game here, but you missed the obvious one. Nuclear Winter. That was the bread and butter of fear and nighttime horror stories since much of the time since the 1940’s. And that was always accepted as a fact, that is, that humans can devastatingly change the Earth..

By: Illini Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:58:12 +0000 Humans produce less than 4% of carbon dioxide. The rest is produced naturally. CO2 is increasing at 1.3 parts per million per YEAR.
It takes humans 22 years to increase greenhouse gas concentration 1%.
Total greenhouse gas concentration is around 15,500 with water vapor accounting for 15,000 ppmv.
Water vapor is 7 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The Global Warming Scam has not slowed down Barack Obama, Al Gore, United Nations functionaries, researchers, Earth Day extremists, or “scholars.’
All continue to fly and drive far in excess of the little people they try to command and control.

By: michaelryan Sun, 26 Apr 2015 14:55:44 +0000 whether you agree or disagree.. the sad fact is nothing can or will be done about the problem.

there are 7 billion folks out there trying to survive. Soon to be 9 billion. Each will do what is best for them. Drive to work, heat their home, use plastic products, eat food, drink water…

They will survive and contribute to the problem of ocean pollution, water scarcity, burning carbon, etc etc… or they will join the rebel groups that are just starting to show up around the world.. When poverty hits, when resources get scarce, when the middle class collapses – pitchforks will be replaced with AK47’s and we will have Africa/ISIS all over the place…

By: Randy549 Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:37:57 +0000 For those who believe that human-produced CO2 is the proximate cause of global warming, the most practical solution is to increase use of nuclear power, which produces no CO2 emissions. Eventually the environmentalists will be faced with a stark choice: Live on 2% of their former income as the article indicates, or come to their senses and embrace nuclear. I’m sure some would choose the 2% option.

By: BBERDUDE Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:06:09 +0000 The translation of every “DO SOMETHING” panic-monger argument is,


‘Clearly, climate change is a crisis. Its a disaster about to happen. When? To whom? What scale? well, that’s hard to say. But its a *crisis* nevertheless. Exactly the kind of crisis that, oh, should cost taxpayers a few billion a year. Why not? Do you want to be one of the ‘do nothings’? I hope not.’

its all a charade, endlessly repeated, to justify throwing money around and imposing regulations that the same anti-capitalist envirosocialists have had on their wishlist since long before “Global Warming” even existed in the public consciousness.

Call me back when they have a new scam to peddle.

By: dirkgielen Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:17:18 +0000 Over the past 2 years I was in pursue of my thought for 100% fumes neutralizing, electrical filters for oil in oil based vehicles. What a machine can do, hey. With theoretic success, as in reasons for optimism.
I also defined other global warming effects leads and solutions.
My blog where I published my ideas is a 15 min. read, the filters are the bottom post.
I try to get my message to the people, so far I failed. Hope this ok here. ; I’m almost prepared.

By: 1776_Minded Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:01:36 +0000 You might have more comments, if you actually allowed comments.

By: 1776_Minded Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:49:52 +0000 Hmmm. Wondering why I bothered to sign-up to Reuters when none of my comments get posted. This is my 3rd in the last 6 hours, yet the previous two have not been posted. While others in the same time frame have been.

By: JimVan Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:17:47 +0000 “Climate change” is now a politicized term and this article impertinently suggests that fast action and lots of money is needed right away. As detailed in “The Future We Want,” the outcome document with 283 demands from the Rio+20 summit, the struggle is between some of those who now control many people and their resources against a competing group that also wants to control other people and their resources. They’re two sides of the same coin when the real political divide is between those who want to control and power against those who have no such desire and want to be left alone as long as they’re harming no one.

Every scheme mentioned is ludicrous when planting trees is the way to go along with technical improvements in the development of cleaner energy and more efficient use of energy. This article is disingenuous when we’re at a point where mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases already added to our atmosphere since 1880 (correlated with temperature that has risen 0.85 degree Celsius) is more important and more effective than the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions by 98% — a job for the 22nd Century while we can only do our best with what we know and can use. Small scale nuclear reactors can eliminate fossil fuel use five to ten times faster than solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources and should be seriously considered.