I may be misinterpreting this due to the fact that this entire conversation is being done in text,
but if you are in fact being sarcastic and attempting to be insulting then...
F*** you! I live in the UK! of course I am not going to know much about american politics am I?!

If you are just making an apology for making assumptions then thats ok! I don't mean to start a flame war simply because of a misconception.

back on topic!

To the point about flooding. Wouldn't New York be flooded by global warming? I haven't been there so I honestly don't know?

Also, even if global warming is not enough of a threat to us, running out of oil is. It is stupid to think that oil is going to last forever. It would be more economic and better to change to renewable power-sources before we run out because that would lead to other problems.

Also about minimum 50MPG cars, that was a slight exadgeration, I meant banning cars like the hummer that do 15MPG. Then moving on slowly to more and more effecient cars.

And hydrogen power would benefit hugely from nuclear power. To make hydrogen you just pass electricity through water for a long amount of time. Nuclear power would allow for that to happen, but people cannot seem to understand that the technology behind nuclear power has changed since Chenobil (Sp?). It is a lot better now but still humanity won't accept it!

If you don't like someone arguing with you on an unfamiliar topic, don't bring it up in the topic starter.



The last time I checked, the Bush administration was for nuclear power. *
True, there is little risk of meltdown in the modern nuclear power industry, but, politically, there is no difference between actual danger and perceived danger. One can argue that nuclear power is pro-conservation (takes away some dependence on fossil fuels) and one could just as easily argue that nuclear power hurts the environment.
It's a tough issue. Arguments are inconsistent along party lines and politicians tread that water very carefully. I think it’s an issue most politicians just brush aside because no one wants to deal with their constituencies because of it.

Problem is, we can't stop it. It's going to happen eventually. We can slow it down by A)Reducing how much we add to it, and B)Developing technologies that effectivly act like a world wide air filter.

Theres lots of stuff we could do, or avoid doing, but sad thing is, until it's a law most people won't. And even then if it's not enforced people will still jsut regard it as a useless law that they don't need to follow.. Sadly, this problem will most likely jsut get worse and worse until finally people realize we have to do soemthing, and then its too late. People are pretty selfish by nature, and most won't want to give up their Hummers and other SUVs...

I didn't like it because of the *apparent* sarcastic nature of his ramark (it is only in the form of text so I am willing to accept that I am wrong if that was not intentional). Its not because of 'what' he said, its 'how' he said it (if that is how he said it).

Even if George is for nuclear power, is everyone else? Its the people that have this fear of progress most. Most people seem to think radioactive things glow in the dark, or that you get super-powers when exposed to radio-activity. Thats what I don't like.

Knock it off, people, right now. Dynamite, lay off the sarcasm, and spazzhands, you don't have to retaliate with "fuck you," even in censored form. If there's any more of this in here I shall let loose the hounds of warnings and bans.

ok. Im sorry.

back to reality.

What would be practically the easiest way of cutting back on pollution and oil consumption. That would not be held back by the constitution of miserly oil tycoons?

Actually there are only two real problems with nuclear power. The first is that the waste is pretty vicious, even with concrete and lead coffins it kills whatever aria it is placed in. secondly the plants produce a lot of thermal pollution, screwing with the local ecology and all that jazz. But the biggest problem is we have already used up 30% of the worlds fissable material, and that’s with only a few power plants, now what would happen if the entire world went nuclear.

My only statement about global warming is that this can't be determined, yet. Some "experts" say 30% of the gas that hurts the atmoshere comes from termites. Therefore, shall we kill all termites?

I don't think so, as long as ANY form of life exists, global warming will continue.

Now we can cut off excess waste we make, but still, global warming may continue.