Mike's Comments

How do you global warming alarmists explain the past peaks and valleys of CO2 levels over the last milliniums? Why has the earth been cooling over the last decade if increasing CO2 causes warming? Could it be the solar output? In a few years when the solar storms have peaked again and there is warming weather trends you will have forgotten how cold it was the previous years. I don't ever recall hearing how the earth's past warm trends, when there was no ice on the earth, was destroying the earth. However, when the earth was a giant ice cube 600 millions years ago, we know that life was quite difficult.

You radical wacko's just can't understand that climate changes all on it's own. Always has and always will, with or without human activity. Even if man does contribute to global warming, you can't understand that nature will correct itself and is much more powerful than anything man can do. You seem hell bent on trying to maintain the earth as it is now. Since alot of you are Mother Earth worshippers, you should be happy to let nature deal with man by letting it reduce the population back down to a billion people.

You also refuse to accept the idea that the biggest advocates of global warming are the people who profit by it. This Cap and Trade will make many billionaires while taxing the middle class once again and also will benefit the third world countries at the expense of the West.

I'm all for clean energy but it doesn't have to come at he expense of the world's economy. There obviously are alot of profiteers out there with the attitude of George Soros. Make as much money as you can without any regards to the rest of the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing axed out of the F-22 were additional jets above and beyond the already over 100 jets they committed to. The military brass didn't want any more of the F-22 because they are saving the money to buy the upcoming F-35 Joint Strike fighter which is much cheaper.

As far as our animal factories not being natural, they are not. They are better for the enviroment as far as methane production goes. Grain fed cattle produce less methane than a roughage(grass) diet. This is proven without a doubt. The bacteria in the rumen needed to break down the roughage diet produces more methane. Otherwise, the cattle in most other parts of the world which are dependent completely on roughage create more ghg's than the North American grain fed cattle. Yes, there is still a lot of methane coming from the piles of manure or the lagoons but not as much as there could be. I don't know about chickens and pigs methane production.

I would like to know the sources of the data saying that 50% of the CO2 is produced by farm animals. Even if that is true, than wouldn't that be good? Animal CO2 should have a carbon nuetral footprint. In Eons past when man wasn't much of an influence on the earth, there must have been much greater numbers of animals on the land than there are today. They didn't hurt the enviroment than did they? Animals are natural and the nature is as close to perfect as you get right??? All this makes me believe even more that this CO2 pollution is a scare tactic for the Gaia worshippers.

For sure someone is lying. I just hope that the truth comes out before the next elections. Being a conservative and listening to alot of talk radio, I must admit I'm real sick of hearing only negative towards the Obama administration and what all he is doing wrong but no republican counter plans. For sure, there is not yet any sign of the two parties working together for the benefit on the country which means they all should be thrown out of office.

There is a solution to world hunger now, using the Cap and Trade logic. All the fat people in the world will be taxed and the money given to some guy in Africa to not eat. That way he can save money until he CAN eat and then this "fat people tax" will be given to the next starving person... and this cycle will continue until there is no longer world hunger. I think Al Gore will make his next 100 million off this logic.

It doesn't make any sense to stop the assembly of these components. They have to be assembled somewhere or nobody is going to buy them. Why not at their own plant with there own work force in the USA? Maybe because BP doesn't really care about the US because it is British Petroleum.

Go Hydro Go!!! But first you'll have to do something with the enviromentalists because a minnow might lose his way. I would imagine it is easier to build a nuclear plant than it would be to build a dam across a river. Never the less, I'm all for hydro because I live near several on the Missouri River and can see the great benefits they have for the recreationalists and fish. As far as the poor minnow,,,remember that over 99% of the species that ever were on this earth became without the interference of humans. I have never lost sleep knowing that the saber tooth tiger isn't free to roam or the DoDo bird isn't here any longer.

Wouldn't it be great if the poor countries of Central America could get on the band wagon and produce ethanol from sugar cane or from excess wood?Their climate is similiar to Brazil's isn't it? Wouldn't it be great if they could get some of the energy wealth that is now going to the Mideast?

The only problem I see with this is that Russia and the US would soon be competing for those countries' loyalty because they would soon have enough money to start buying military equipment. And of course, the drug lords would get their fingers in it.

What a world we could have if everyone would look out for each other instead of themselves.

The ethanol industry lobbied for the subsidies because without the tax credit for the oil companies, the oil companies would refuse to blend it into their fuels. How else would the ethanol get into the system. This is why it is important to pass legislation for all new cars to be flex fueled vehicles. It will give consumers a CHOICE of what fuel they want to burn. With blender pumps across the nation, you can bypass the oil companies "blending monopoly".

Hopefully the govt will get out of the subsidies of all energies, including oil, and let economics decide who rules. Ethanol subsidies for the most part go to the blenders( terminals and oil companies) and not to the "brewers". Even if the energy ratio is 1-1, it is better than imported oil because of obvious reasons. I don't believe cellosic ethanol is a long term answer because of the commercial fertilizers it will take to replace the depleted soil nutrients. Wind and preferrably solar are better answers but until then, quit bashing ethanol as it is a step in the right direction. National security and energy independence go hand in hand and need to be everyones goal.

Obviously, wind, solar and nuclear are the long term solutions for enviromental clean electricity which will run all the cars someday. They are all technologies that are well developed and efficient. The govt should be encouraging or giving grants to these production facilities instead of all the other sources of biofuels. If these biofuel facilties can compete by themselves...fine...let them bridge the gap while we get away from foreign oil. Otherwise, let's stop govt funding of an obsolete tool and work on the future. I hear all the promising ideas of algea/biodiesel. Why haven't I heard of plans of building a 100 million gallon/year facility yet?

There already is a cellulosic ethanol plant in Upton, Wyoming using wood as its feed stock. I have read that after 6 years in developement and following a pilot plant, the commercial plant was put on line in early 2008.

I would imagine that we are in the infant stage of battery manufacturing and much more production is to come. I think Natalie is correct and we need to see the batteries in cars as multipurpose.

Why don't we hear more news on "Thermal Depolymerization" plants. Supposedly they produce a light oil ideal for diesel fuel.