Yes, I am familiar with “garbage island”. Pollution problems are local, and amenable to correction. If you have a sewer running into a lake and polluting the water, you can deal with that specific problem. Some problems are more difficult, but they are not insurmountable. Read Bjorn Lomborg’s two books, keeping in mind that he is a statistician, not a climate scientist. He simply accepts the IPCC figures on global warming.

At present, there is no viable alternate source of energy. None. Wind energy requires a constant back-up of coal or gas-fired electricity, because the wind blows only intermittently, and blows at the right speed only intermittently.

At present 45% of our electric power comes from coal-fired power plants. We have enough coal to last for over 300 years. Clean coal is quite possible, but Obama has said that he is going to bankrupt the coal-fired industry so that coal power will become so expensive that we will turn to alternate energy. This just plain doesn’t make sense, but it is a demand from environmental activists who have backed him. There is serious doubt that wind power will ever be a significant source of power, and the same goes for solar. There are innovations in both fields, but an attempt to force a “switch” to “clean alternatives” by shutting down our present power supply borders on insanity. This is what they are doing in Britain, and they may be killing off the old and the poor in the process. The world is cooling, and far more people die from cold than from heat. More than one person has called this “committing national suicide”. As I keep saying, don’t take my word for it. Do your homework.

Have you heard of garbage island?

I recommend the book “Climate Confusion” by Roy W. Spencer highly. He is an important scientist with a PhD in Meteorology whose observational research is at the leading edge of climate science. The book is very clear on what we know and what we don’t know, and very accessible. Easy reading and quite enjoyable.

Two consequences we do know: more hurricanes and a higher sea level. Those aren’t things to be taken lightly.

Besides, I’d rather take action and be wrong than the alternative.

If we reduce our “footprint” enough to affect the CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have to reduce our economy and lifestyle to that of Haiti or an even poorer economy. But the earth has been much warmer in the past, and there have been much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past without ill effects. In fact the warmer periods — the Medieval Warm Period was the finest weather known to man. It has also been much colder in the past — the Dark Ages, the Little Ice Age.

If you destroy a job in the coal industry, and gain a job building solar panels, there has been no increase in jobs. Look up Bastiat’s “Broken Windows” theory.

Pet rocks and mood rings were big fads very briefly, but probably never made it onto the economy destroying list.

I’m not a scientist, but I am a good reader.

Wouldn’t that goal create jobs and save the average person money?

If scientists don’t KNOW exactly what our weather is doing then how is it you do?

Also, pet rocks and mood rings DO ruin the economy since money is ultimately worth whatever you buy with it.

Are you aware that the global temperature has decreased dramatically over the last 10 years, and that last year was the coldest year on record since 1900? Are you aware that the United States reduced emissions of so-called “greenhouse” gasses in all of the past 8 years by far more than any nation in Europe?

Are you aware that throughout history carbon dioxide increases have always come after global warming, and not before?

Are you aware that the computer models upon which EVERY single global warming claim is based have been proven, in peer review studies to be so completely flawed that they cant even accurately predict our current known climate conditions? let alone the future?

Are you aware that water vapor (aka clouds) accounts for approximately 98% of all so-called “greenhouse” gasses, and scientists dont even take it into consideration in their computer models because they dont know how to?

Are you aware that the scientists pushing global warming, assuming for the sake of argument that all their theories were true, are completely unable to say that the climate wouldnt compensate for increases in greenhouse gasses by itself?

So, yes, it is very serious business. Liberals are once again threatening millions of very real people because of their beliefs in false gods.

And by the way, carbon DI-oxide is the supposed “greenhouse gas”, and even then it is only a trace gas, and makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere. Of that humans only are responsible for approximately 0.3% of the 0.03%. And yes, our cars emit Carbon dioxide, but you are also emitting it right now. And plants eat it.

And while cars also emit carbon MON-oxide, as you mentioned, it is not an active “greenhouse” gas because A) its only a trace, trace, trace gas which makes up a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the atmosphere that CO2 makes up and
B) It doesnt remain in the atmosphere long, it reacts with other gasses and dissipates.

So yes, like pet rocks, mood rings, the Ice Age scare of the 1970′s, the DDT hyteria, the ALAR scare, and so much else that liberals believe, “global warming” is a fad. And a very dangerous one.

This isn’t a topic to be taken lightly and comparing the possibility of global warming to mood rings and pet rocks is absurd.

\*two cents*/