As the Climate Change Clock Ticks Toward Copenhagen, Global Activists Take to the Streets

Most of your argument is economic. We shouldn't do anything because of the economy. So let's look at that, then. If climate change is caused by human interactions with the atmosphere, then what are the costs if we ignore it? Already small Pacific islands like the Maldives are being flooded. Alaskan coastal communities are losing their land and their livelihood. This is just the beginning. The vast majority of the US population is on the coastline. How are we going to protect that? We can build seawalls, which will be incredibly expensive to build and maintain. So, do something about it, spend trillions. Do nothing about it, spend trillions. Some choice.

But, if you don't want to think it is real, fine. Don't. Fact is, there are many other very good reasons to move away from a fossil fuel economy. Who has and controls the majority of oil in the world? OPEC. Most OPEC nations aren't fond of the US. Seems it makes sense to try to wean ourselves from that dependency. However, what do we turn to instead? We don't have anywhere near the reserves they have, and the days of cheap oil are over. And US oil fields are tapped out. Any new discoveries are deep, very expensive, and very difficult to tap into, and still not even close to the reserves of Saudi Arabia alone.

And the thing is, fossil fuels are already heavily subsidized by the tax payers. Who pays for the hidden cost of fossil fuels? Who pays for the Iraq and Afgan wars we have been entrenched in? Who pays for the environmental damages from drilling and spills? Who pays for the costs of health care for those with respiratory illnesses? It's not the oil companies, that's for sure. Factor in these hidden costs at the pump, and oil is no longer economically viable, and alternative energies now are far more competetive in the market. Let the market be free, if the free market is the answer, as many have argued. But in order for it to be truly free, the oil companies need to be held responsible for all the costs that go into its product.

So if you don't think climate change is caused by humans, fine. But realize it is unsustainable for our nation to be so dependent on foreign nations for our energy supply--this is a matter of national defense, plain and simple. And it is unsustainable to be so dependent on a resource that is only going to get more and more expensive to extract. What happens to the economy as energy prices increase? I'm sorry, the economic argument emphatically does not fly because either way, we pay.

What one-sided claim? i shared a reviewer's accurate assessment of science. It's the way science works--not one-sdied. Just true.

And what does my moniker have to do about anything? I'm hoping you are trying to be funny. In which case, to toss back some good-natured teasing in your direction, I have to ask who is more trustworthy--someone who's moniker hasn't changed in the time she has been posting to this site, or someone who changes theirs every two months? Touche, eh?

From one of the reviewers at Amazon:

"Everyone of course is entitled to his or her opinion. But nowadays, too many scientists also seem to feel qualified enough to present themselves as experts and arbiters on issues concerning climatology. No geologist, botanist, zoologist or archaeologist would accept a climatologist as a peer on scientific assessments in their respective fields. Yet, scientists from almost any field of study feel all of a sudden competent enough to write about the climate, as if to say "hey, this isn't rocket science, is it?!" Well, I'll let you in on a secret: it is. The reading public does not seem to bother though, as if to say "a scientist is a scientist is a scientist. What's the difference? Close enough." Yet who in their right mind would entrust an orthopedist or a dermatologist, let alone a biologist or zoologist, with their root canal treatment if they can have a dentist take care of it? I have never heard "close enough" from anybody in THIS context. Furthermore, to turn Michael Crichton's Einstein quote ("It only takes one scientist to refute me.") around: whose assessment would you rather trust when it comes to climate issues: one climatologist or ten geologists? Plimer's book falls exactly into this category: here is a geologist who may write convincingly about climate change. However, competence does not derive from conviction but from expertise. In this sense his book is just another opinion of a lay person with respect to climatology who shares his convictions with the reading public. But truth be told, he has spent his career building an expertise in a scientific field other than climatology."

Plenty of other reviewers show the science he presents is itself wanting.

From one of the reviewers at Amazon:

"Everyone of course is entitled to his or her opinion. But nowadays, too many scientists also seem to feel qualified enough to present themselves as experts and arbiters on issues concerning climatology. No geologist, botanist, zoologist or archaeologist would accept a climatologist as a peer on scientific assessments in their respective fields. Yet, scientists from almost any field of study feel all of a sudden competent enough to write about the climate, as if to say "hey, this isn't rocket science, is it?!" Well, I'll let you in on a secret: it is. The reading public does not seem to bother though, as if to say "a scientist is a scientist is a scientist. What's the difference? Close enough." Yet who in their right mind would entrust an orthopedist or a dermatologist, let alone a biologist or zoologist, with their root canal treatment if they can have a dentist take care of it? I have never heard "close enough" from anybody in THIS context. Furthermore, to turn Michael Crichton's Einstein quote ("It only takes one scientist to refute me.") around: whose assessment would you rather trust when it comes to climate issues: one climatologist or ten geologists? Plimer's book falls exactly into this category: here is a geologist who may write convincingly about climate change. However, competence does not derive from conviction but from expertise. In this sense his book is just another opinion of a lay person with respect to climatology who shares his convictions with the reading public. But truth be told, he has spent his career building an expertise in a scientific field other than climatology."

Plenty of other reviewers show the science he presents is itself wanting.

GLOBAL WARMING: AMERICAS PERILOUS FIGHT

You have heard a lot about 'global warming' lately and the causes of this warming. This movement to battle 'climate change' stands behind the assumption that: 1) the earth is warming and that it is unusual; and 2) that human activity, especially carbon emissions, is the sole or main cause behind this warming. Scientists agree that (co2) carbon dioxide, known as a greenhouse gas, traps heat inside an atmosphere, therefore, causing the average global temperature to rise. But those assumptions alone do not provide logical explanations of 'climate change' when you consider just some of the other elements that affect our planet.

What is in debate is the predominant causes of our apparent recent warming and more importantly, the cost of trying to slow down, or eliminate this warming, and if it is even possible to make a substantial difference. Please consider all the factors discussed in this article and do your own research to come to your own conclusion. Consider who benefits most from this movement, their actions, and the repercussions that will inevitably devastate the United States and its citizens if we allow our government, foreign and special interest groups, at break-neck speed, to enact their plan to combat "global warming".

Billions of years ago, our young planet's developing atmosphere consisted of mainly carbon dioxide. It is believed that when the first microscopic bacterium and fungi appeared, they, as do plants today, took in carbon dioxide, and as a byproduct, gave off oxygen. Over millions of years, this process developed our atmospheric levels of oxygen to the 21% that we enjoy today. If we maintain enough vegetation to offset our current co2 emissions, then we should be able to maintain co2 levels. But then again, that may be too simple, and would thus eliminate the grand opportunities provided to those who lobby for this multi-billion dollar industry to fight against 'global warming'.

Consider the fact that throughout earth's history, global temperatures rise and fall, just like a heart-rate monitor. Global warming and cooling is a natural process of our planet. It has been happening since our planet formed an atmosphere billions of years ago. Global temperature charts show that lows haven't been as substantial in the last 600,000 years. We are currently in an ice-age-the defining conditions of an ice-age being simply that ice be present on our planets surface (Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, glaciers, Greenland, etc.). Atmospheric composition does have an effect on global temperatures, but if the pollutants from human production, which started during the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800's, is the main cause, then why are temperatures cooler now than they have been centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

In recent times, we have not hit the high temperatures that existed in our planets not too distant past. Although I must say that huge amounts of melting freshwater causes changes in the salinity of our oceans, thus affecting currents in our oceans and local weather pattern, therefore giving logic to the cooling we have recently experienced. The question is, are the causes of this ice-melt due to co2 emissions alone, or could it be the many other elements affecting our planet internally and externally, man-made and natural.

Carbon emissions are a part of life. We are a carbon-based life-form and therefore emit carbon every time we breathe, sneeze, cough, speak, pass gas, etc. This is the same carbon dioxide that is being disputed for causing 'global warming'. The ratio of plants to carbon emissions is vital and probably the easiest, most efficient, and most economic form of atmospheric management concerning co2 emissions possible. Plant and save trees, for it's not a financially corrupt and destructive path toward fighting 'climate change' like some of their proposals seem to be.

Our sun goes through natural patterns of activity itself. It undergoes an 11-year cycle, with low and high activity, known as the solar minimum and solar maximum. This cycle dictates sunspot activity, and therefore the amount of energy that radiates from the sun, thus reaching earth. A NASA resource states that, "The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower". They go on to say, "2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days".

Did our politicians and companies we won't name here, bet on this trend, similar to playing the stock market? By the way in 1913, when this record low solar activity occurred, the Great Lakes experienced the worst winter storm on record with hurricane force winds, killing hundreds of people and destroying many ships while during the summer of that same year, North America's record high temperature was reached at 134 degrees in Death Valley.

Consider how our planet orbits the sun. It is not a static path. It fluctuates over long periods of time. The pattern changes from circular, where at any point on the perimeter is equidistant to the center; to an elliptical (oval) pattern, where different distances are attained depending on where you're at on that ellipse. The differing distances cause fluctuations in the amount of solar energy that our planet receives. Think of the seasons we experience, and the differing climatic changes, caused by a simple 22.5 degree tilt of our planet and its relation to the sun. These fluctuations in our orbital pattern alone can explain temperature differences.

Think of our magnetic field which salvages our protective atmosphere and keeps harmful solar radiation from raining down upon us. It is believed that the magnetic poles may be again switching positions-north to south, etc. This is weakening our magnetic field and has created a large gap of vulnerability over the Pacific Ocean. Water is an excellent source of heat storage, and this barrage of solar radiation may also be affecting oceanic temperatures, and therefore atmospheric temperatures. How about our depleted ozone layer?

The de-forestation, building, expansion, and the materials used in our constructions also make a difference on solar heat gain. Certain hardscapes and dark colors absorb and retain more heat than other materials and colors. This has encouraged talk within this current administration to paint rooftops and asphalt white for this very reason. Even though we know dark colors absorb and retain more heat, does this really sound like a logical solution. Well only if we use low VOC paint, right? What about the poor birds who may now freeze at the tops of frigid buildings? What about the increased icy conditions on the now chilly white asphalt roads causing accidents? What about the inefficiency and lack of home heat gain that some depend on in winter months? Well don't worry, I'm sure our government, certain politicians and corporations will come up with the answers at your expense. After all, the more problems we face, the more solutions we need, and therefore, the more tax money that will be abused for almost any reason other than to truly provide what majority of Americans want.

Going green and utilizing sustainability is an important responsibility that all humans on earth share. Providing production from renewable energy that causes no alterations to our atmosphere, earth, or water supply is obviously a great thing, and we should head toward that direction. But it's hard to swallow this push when it comes from politicians, ex-politicians, and corporations whose existence and/or substantial monetary or political gains may depend on the success of this movement. This makes us question their motivation and if they truly care about their cause, or is what drives them the benefits they will reap from its promulgation.

The inconvenient truth is that the changes our planet is undergoing are normal, and we will not be able to stop it. That is not to dismiss the fact that co2 emissions from production may also contribute to it, along with breathing, talking, etc. There has even been talk of taxing farmers because of the co2 emissions that their livestock emits, which inevitably will raise costs for US consumers.

This presidential administration wants to pass 'Cap and Trade' legislation which is a financially devastating joke. It taxes and caps the amount of co2 emissions companies can emit. Sounds great, right? Well, companies who want to emit more than their allowance can purchase rights to do so from other efficient companies who haven't reached their co2 limits. Who benefits from this? Our government, past and present politicians, and closely tied corporations. Who will suffer from this burdening tax-we the people. The utility companies are not going to eat that enormous cost, they can't, and they will pass it down to consumers. It is believed that your monthly utility bill may raise $100 to a few hundred more a month. Barack Obama himself said, ". . . under my plan of a 'Cap and Trade' system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket". But as long as were combating climate change, it's worth it, right? We may soon all be in the dark as most Americans would not be able to adjust to this exorbitant raise in rates.

At a time when we face economic collapse, soaring unemployment, and soon to be hyper-inflation, is this good move for the people of our country; or is it good for those who are pushing for it. Consider this hypothetical situation: a huge corporation puts all their financial chips on this green movement. Their stocks have plummeted, and only the acceptance of this movement can save their investment. Not to mention the hypothetical CEO of this company runs a major media outlet who gave the current president seemingly non-objective positive coverage during their campaign. This CEO also became an economic recovery advisor to the president and now resides on our Federal Reserve board. Wouldn't that be absolutely sickening if that were true? America, do your homework!

Why does our government seem so concerned about climate change when there is no definite proof that its main cause is from co2 emissions? Why aren't they as concerned with the true toxins and pollutants being dumped into our environment by some unscrupulous corporations? I'll tell you why. It's because there is no money or political payback involved in passing legislation that forces individual companies to clean up their messes. But if we quickly went to 'green' sustainable energy, the coffers would be limitless.

We do not have the equipment, logistics, or infrastructure to carry out this movement. Therefore, we would have to spend billions of dollars to create and accommodate energy of this type. American taxpayers, and the sovereignty of our nation will carry this burden, while certain politicians, companies, and contractors live lavishly as they spew tons of co2 from their private jets to attend yet another conference on 'climate change' speaking of how we can do more to better our planet, while India, China, Russia, etc. continue to emit co2. We help and encourage other nations to build nuclear facilities, but we have no plans to really implement this as a dominant source of our energy needs. Wake up America!

Keith Mathis
Concerned Citizen for our planet, economic future, and national sovereignty

GLOBAL WARMING: AMERICAS PERILOUS FIGHT

You have heard a lot about 'global warming' lately and the causes of this warming. This movement to battle 'climate change' stands behind the assumption that: 1) the earth is warming and that it is unusual; and 2) that human activity, especially carbon emissions, is the sole or main cause behind this warming. Scientists agree that (co2) carbon dioxide, known as a greenhouse gas, traps heat inside an atmosphere, therefore, causing the average global temperature to rise. But those assumptions alone do not provide logical explanations of 'climate change' when you consider just some of the other elements that affect our planet.

What is in debate is the predominant causes of our apparent recent warming and more importantly, the cost of trying to slow down, or eliminate this warming, and if it is even possible to make a substantial difference. Please consider all the factors discussed in this article and do your own research to come to your own conclusion. Consider who benefits most from this movement, their actions, and the repercussions that will inevitably devastate the United States and its citizens if we allow our government, foreign and special interest groups, at break-neck speed, to enact their plan to combat "global warming".

Billions of years ago, our young planet's developing atmosphere consisted of mainly carbon dioxide. It is believed that when the first microscopic bacterium and fungi appeared, they, as do plants today, took in carbon dioxide, and as a byproduct, gave off oxygen. Over millions of years, this process developed our atmospheric levels of oxygen to the 21% that we enjoy today. If we maintain enough vegetation to offset our current co2 emissions, then we should be able to maintain co2 levels. But then again, that may be too simple, and would thus eliminate the grand opportunities provided to those who lobby for this multi-billion dollar industry to fight against 'global warming'.

Consider the fact that throughout earth's history, global temperatures rise and fall, just like a heart-rate monitor. Global warming and cooling is a natural process of our planet. It has been happening since our planet formed an atmosphere billions of years ago. Global temperature charts show that lows haven't been as substantial in the last 600,000 years. We are currently in an ice-age-the defining conditions of an ice-age being simply that ice be present on our planets surface (Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, glaciers, Greenland, etc.). Atmospheric composition does have an effect on global temperatures, but if the pollutants from human production, which started during the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800's, is the main cause, then why are temperatures cooler now than they have been centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

In recent times, we have not hit the high temperatures that existed in our planets not too distant past. Although I must say that huge amounts of melting freshwater causes changes in the salinity of our oceans, thus affecting currents in our oceans and local weather pattern, therefore giving logic to the cooling we have recently experienced. The question is, are the causes of this ice-melt due to co2 emissions alone, or could it be the many other elements affecting our planet internally and externally, man-made and natural.

Carbon emissions are a part of life. We are a carbon-based life-form and therefore emit carbon every time we breathe, sneeze, cough, speak, pass gas, etc. This is the same carbon dioxide that is being disputed for causing 'global warming'. The ratio of plants to carbon emissions is vital and probably the easiest, most efficient, and most economic form of atmospheric management concerning co2 emissions possible. Plant and save trees, for it's not a financially corrupt and destructive path toward fighting 'climate change' like some of their proposals seem to be.

Our sun goes through natural patterns of activity itself. It undergoes an 11-year cycle, with low and high activity, known as the solar minimum and solar maximum. This cycle dictates sunspot activity, and therefore the amount of energy that radiates from the sun, thus reaching earth. A NASA resource states that, "The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower". They go on to say, "2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days".

Did our politicians and companies we won't name here, bet on this trend, similar to playing the stock market? By the way in 1913, when this record low solar activity occurred, the Great Lakes experienced the worst winter storm on record with hurricane force winds, killing hundreds of people and destroying many ships while during the summer of that same year, North America's record high temperature was reached at 134 degrees in Death Valley.

Consider how our planet orbits the sun. It is not a static path. It fluctuates over long periods of time. The pattern changes from circular, where at any point on the perimeter is equidistant to the center; to an elliptical (oval) pattern, where different distances are attained depending on where you're at on that ellipse. The differing distances cause fluctuations in the amount of solar energy that our planet receives. Think of the seasons we experience, and the differing climatic changes, caused by a simple 22.5 degree tilt of our planet and its relation to the sun. These fluctuations in our orbital pattern alone can explain temperature differences.

Think of our magnetic field which salvages our protective atmosphere and keeps harmful solar radiation from raining down upon us. It is believed that the magnetic poles may be again switching positions-north to south, etc. This is weakening our magnetic field and has created a large gap of vulnerability over the Pacific Ocean. Water is an excellent source of heat storage, and this barrage of solar radiation may also be affecting oceanic temperatures, and therefore atmospheric temperatures. How about our depleted ozone layer?

The de-forestation, building, expansion, and the materials used in our constructions also make a difference on solar heat gain. Certain hardscapes and dark colors absorb and retain more heat than other materials and colors. This has encouraged talk within this current administration to paint rooftops and asphalt white for this very reason. Even though we know dark colors absorb and retain more heat, does this really sound like a logical solution. Well only if we use low VOC paint, right? What about the poor birds who may now freeze at the tops of frigid buildings? What about the increased icy conditions on the now chilly white asphalt roads causing accidents? What about the inefficiency and lack of home heat gain that some depend on in winter months? Well don't worry, I'm sure our government, certain politicians and corporations will come up with the answers at your expense. After all, the more problems we face, the more solutions we need, and therefore, the more tax money that will be abused for almost any reason other than to truly provide what majority of Americans want.

Going green and utilizing sustainability is an important responsibility that all humans on earth share. Providing production from renewable energy that causes no alterations to our atmosphere, earth, or water supply is obviously a great thing, and we should head toward that direction. But it's hard to swallow this push when it comes from politicians, ex-politicians, and corporations whose existence and/or substantial monetary or political gains may depend on the success of this movement. This makes us question their motivation and if they truly care about their cause, or is what drives them the benefits they will reap from its promulgation.

The inconvenient truth is that the changes our planet is undergoing are normal, and we will not be able to stop it. That is not to dismiss the fact that co2 emissions from production may also contribute to it, along with breathing, talking, etc. There has even been talk of taxing farmers because of the co2 emissions that their livestock emits, which inevitably will raise costs for US consumers.

This presidential administration wants to pass 'Cap and Trade' legislation which is a financially devastating joke. It taxes and caps the amount of co2 emissions companies can emit. Sounds great, right? Well, companies who want to emit more than their allowance can purchase rights to do so from other efficient companies who haven't reached their co2 limits. Who benefits from this? Our government, past and present politicians, and closely tied corporations. Who will suffer from this burdening tax-we the people. The utility companies are not going to eat that enormous cost, they can't, and they will pass it down to consumers. It is believed that your monthly utility bill may raise $100 to a few hundred more a month. Barack Obama himself said, ". . . under my plan of a 'Cap and Trade' system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket". But as long as were combating climate change, it's worth it, right? We may soon all be in the dark as most Americans would not be able to adjust to this exorbitant raise in rates.

At a time when we face economic collapse, soaring unemployment, and soon to be hyper-inflation, is this good move for the people of our country; or is it good for those who are pushing for it. Consider this hypothetical situation: a huge corporation puts all their financial chips on this green movement. Their stocks have plummeted, and only the acceptance of this movement can save their investment. Not to mention the hypothetical CEO of this company runs a major media outlet who gave the current president seemingly non-objective positive coverage during their campaign. This CEO also became an economic recovery advisor to the president and now resides on our Federal Reserve board. Wouldn't that be absolutely sickening if that were true? America, do your homework!

Why does our government seem so concerned about climate change when there is no definite proof that its main cause is from co2 emissions? Why aren't they as concerned with the true toxins and pollutants being dumped into our environment by some unscrupulous corporations? I'll tell you why. It's because there is no money or political payback involved in passing legislation that forces individual companies to clean up their messes. But if we quickly went to 'green' sustainable energy, the coffers would be limitless.

We do not have the equipment, logistics, or infrastructure to carry out this movement. Therefore, we would have to spend billions of dollars to create and accommodate energy of this type. American taxpayers, and the sovereignty of our nation will carry this burden, while certain politicians, companies, and contractors live lavishly as they spew tons of co2 from their private jets to attend yet another conference on 'climate change' speaking of how we can do more to better our planet, while India, China, Russia, etc. continue to emit co2. We help and encourage other nations to build nuclear facilities, but we have no plans to really implement this as a dominant source of our energy needs. Wake up America!

Keith Mathis
Concerned Citizen for our planet, economic future, and national sovereignty

In writing an accurate and informative book about a scientific topic, it is just as important to be able to write clearly, to read with clear understanding through the available literature and present the topic clearly and put the evidence and arguments in perspective as is to be working in the field. In the end for science to translate into policy the body of scientific evidence must be persuasive and stand on its own and translate into an an argument non scientist decision makers can understand and defend.

Someone please try to refute this. I know it has elements of a conspiracy theory but the resulting civil conversation could only do us good.

were any of these reviewers climatologists? We can all have our opinion but this is too complicated for all but the most involved scientists in this field to have an understanding of this subject. At some point we have to trust the majority of scientists (in the same field of study).

Instead we tend to believe who we side with politically and spiritually.

To Jesdisciple,

Thank you for your unbiased approach to these topics. I am not a scientist or expert in this field. I am an average concerned citizen of the US. I am not claiming to have the answers, I just want other average people to consider and talk about these issues. So thank you.

I also love our planet, and going green is obviously a good move. I just ask you to consider and research the things I spoke of. Do you have any thoughts about this stuff Jesdisciple?

were any of these reviewers climatologists? We can all have our opinion but this is too complicated for all but the most involved scientists in this field to have an understanding of this subject. At some point we have to trust the majority of scientists (in the same field of study).

Instead we tend to believe who we side with politically and spiritually.

I'd be careful using millions and billions of years! The religious right of the political right only believes in a literal 7 days of creation. You'll loose half of your support by using those billions of years mumbo jumbo.

"I'd be careful using millions and billions of years!"

If he threw in a few polar bears he would have won a nobel prize.

Most of your argument is economic. We shouldn't do anything because of the economy. So let's look at that, then. If climate change is caused by human interactions with the atmosphere, then what are the costs if we ignore it? Already small Pacific islands like the Maldives are being flooded. Alaskan coastal communities are losing their land and their livelihood. This is just the beginning. The vast majority of the US population is on the coastline. How are we going to protect that? We can build seawalls, which will be incredibly expensive to build and maintain. So, do something about it, spend trillions. Do nothing about it, spend trillions. Some choice.

But, if you don't want to think it is real, fine. Don't. Fact is, there are many other very good reasons to move away from a fossil fuel economy. Who has and controls the majority of oil in the world? OPEC. Most OPEC nations aren't fond of the US. Seems it makes sense to try to wean ourselves from that dependency. However, what do we turn to instead? We don't have anywhere near the reserves they have, and the days of cheap oil are over. And US oil fields are tapped out. Any new discoveries are deep, very expensive, and very difficult to tap into, and still not even close to the reserves of Saudi Arabia alone.

And the thing is, fossil fuels are already heavily subsidized by the tax payers. Who pays for the hidden cost of fossil fuels? Who pays for the Iraq and Afgan wars we have been entrenched in? Who pays for the environmental damages from drilling and spills? Who pays for the costs of health care for those with respiratory illnesses? It's not the oil companies, that's for sure. Factor in these hidden costs at the pump, and oil is no longer economically viable, and alternative energies now are far more competetive in the market. Let the market be free, if the free market is the answer, as many have argued. But in order for it to be truly free, the oil companies need to be held responsible for all the costs that go into its product.

So if you don't think climate change is caused by humans, fine. But realize it is unsustainable for our nation to be so dependent on foreign nations for our energy supply--this is a matter of national defense, plain and simple. And it is unsustainable to be so dependent on a resource that is only going to get more and more expensive to extract. What happens to the economy as energy prices increase? I'm sorry, the economic argument emphatically does not fly because either way, we pay.

What one-sided claim? i shared a reviewer's accurate assessment of science. It's the way science works--not one-sdied. Just true.

And what does my moniker have to do about anything? I'm hoping you are trying to be funny. In which case, to toss back some good-natured teasing in your direction, I have to ask who is more trustworthy--someone who's moniker hasn't changed in the time she has been posting to this site, or someone who changes theirs every two months? Touche, eh?

I read quite a range of reviews.

Does someone need a hug.

o-o-o-o-o

(improper to add th x.s, sorry--afterall, you're married, right?)

I read quite a range of reviews.

Does someone need a hug.