# What's all this talk about "Global Warming?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859 "2009-12-03T16:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/81 "2009-12-04T05:37:20Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Easy understand clips and best of all, he shows you where to check for more information. [/QUOTE] I’ll check em out…and thanks for the links. Just to clarify my first point (i.e., ‘That’s true, but (and correct me if I’m wrong here), CO2 is not among the most potent of the GHG’s…in fact, it’s far down the list. No?’), I’m not saying CO2 isn’t a GHG…I’m saying that there are much more potent GHG out there, and, unless I’m mistaken, CO2 isn’t one of the more powerful GHG. Is this not true (I really don’t know)? -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/82 "2009-12-04T06:02:12Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’ll check em out…and thanks for the links. > > Just to clarify my first point (i.e., ‘That’s true, but (and correct me if I’m wrong here), CO2 is not among the most potent of the GHG’s…in fact, it’s far down the list. No?’), I’m not saying CO2 isn’t a GHG…I’m saying that there are much more potent GHG out there, and, unless I’m mistaken, CO2 isn’t one of the more powerful GHG. Is this not true (I really don’t know)? > > -XT The word you need to check, before going further, is feedback: > **[RealClimate: Water Vapour Feedback Rétroaction de la vapeur d’eau](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/water-vapour-feedback/)** > > RealClimate: Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further.... > [@](#): > > Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further. It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure (the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This process is known as the water vapour feedback. One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO2 is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO2 in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years. Water vapour is believed to account for the bulk of the greenhouse effect, however CO2 accumulates more readily. > **[Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm)** > > \Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming. CO2 affects not only the troposphere where water vapor is located: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/LAtD9aZYXAs/maxresdefault.jpg "Water Vapor and Climate") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/83 "2009-12-04T06:08:51Z")
Well, that’s why I wanted to be corrected if I was wrong. I thought methane, water vapor, NO and a few others were more powerful GHG than CO2. Thanks again for the links. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/84 "2009-12-04T07:59:56Z")
> [@SkepticalScience](#): > > What the science says… > > Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet is steadily accumulating heat. There is direct empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Umm… no. All that does is show a correlation. And it does not show that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the warming we have seen. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/85 "2009-12-04T08:22:08Z")
True enough. Feathers, aqueous habitat, and a curiously humorous honking vocalization may _suggest_ “duck”, but… ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/86 "2009-12-04T11:08:39Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Umm… no. All that does is show a correlation. And it does not show that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the warming we have seen. Ummm … no. That’s a direct measurement of the energy being absorbed by CO2. See this part: > [@](#): > > Satellite measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. There are quite literally, no major atmospheric components that absorb at those wavelengths besides CO2. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/87 "2009-12-04T11:52:39Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Umm… no. All that does is show a correlation. And it does not show that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the warming we have seen. What are the alternative mechanisms? I’ve seen several proposed (solar radiation, etc.) but each of them (except for anthropogenic CO2 emissions) has been shown not to be the cause. What else is left? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/88 "2009-12-04T12:39:23Z")
You know, if I were a climatology researcher, and I came across proof that AGW didn’t exist… I’d go to, say, Exxon with that proof. And then retire to someplace like the French Riviera, 'cause I’d suddenly find myself a \*lot \*richer than your average climatology researcher. Strange that all of those climate scientists who are burying the proof against AGW haven’t thought of doing this, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/89 "2009-12-04T13:13:18Z")
The funny thing is – if funny is the right word – is that the fundamentals are fairly, well, fundamental. That’s why it’s kind of easy to distinguish between political denial and an earnest lack of knowledge (the most important kind). We’re talking fifth grade basic (isn’t there a game or reality show about that?), not requiring anything beyond an elementary school science fair. Take a jar of CO2. Measure its temperature. Pass a bunch of light through it. Measure its temperature. Pass a bunch of infrared radiation (heat) through it. Measure its temperature. Graph it on posterboard and be sure to use lots of colored pencils and glitter. Make sure to spell “Greenhouse Effect” correctly. The next step is for the advanced fifth graders, average sixth graders, and maybe the slower seventh graders. Go look up complex systems. Learn about identifying key variables. Look what happens when you change a key variable. Easy to predict? Nope. Well, there’s one thing that can be predicted. If you correctly identified a key variable, and you’ve changed it by a non-trivial amount, the model – generally the entire model – is different from the original. We’ve non-trivially changed the composition of the atmosphere. We’re continuing to do so. As the developing world industrializes in a business as usual path, we’re going dwarf current changes to the atmosphere. The additional CO2 (and other GHGs) is adding energy to the climate. The climate is a complex system. That energy is having/going to have repercussions. There’s a lot of debate about what those changes will be. Will it be by X or Y degrees overall? Will it lead to this or that effect (and what will those effects lead to)? But to deny all the basic science, or to deny that if China and India develop along western pathways (that’s a _lot_ of cars and a _lot_ of energy use) the added energy into the system won’t lead to a sharper change, is merely disingenuous political poppycock. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/90 "2009-12-04T14:31:15Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > What are the alternative mechanisms? I’ve seen several proposed (solar radiation, etc.) but each of them (except for anthropogenic CO2 emissions) has been shown not to be the cause. > > What else is left? The same one that is causing us to recover from 1 mile thick glaciers that covered much of North America 100,000 yrs ago? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/91 "2009-12-04T14:39:25Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The same one that is causing us to recover from 1 mile thick glaciers that covered much of North America 100,000 yrs ago? You mean the one that happened over the course of 100,000 years, instead of as quickly as it appears to be happening now? ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/92 "2009-12-04T16:10:35Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The same one that is causing us to recover from 1 mile thick glaciers that covered much of North America 100,000 yrs ago? You don’t really need a mechanism for warming, what you need is a mechanism for not warming. Where is the energy that CO2 absorbs going, if not to heat? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/93 "2009-12-04T16:23:54Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The same one that is causing us to recover from 1 mile thick glaciers that covered much of North America 100,000 yrs ago? > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... > [@](#): > > The penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the “Eemian”) also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears that temperatures (at least summer temperatures) were slightly warmer than today (by about 1 to 2°C), **but for reasons that are well known - the changes in the Earth’s orbit.** The point has been that the current warming we are experiencing can not be explained by that orbital forcing. > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/94 "2009-12-04T16:50:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, but you are ignoring the history of how we came to the current consensus, here is a hint: > > \*\*Most scientists up to the 1960’s were wrong regarding the effects of the CO2 gas and others. > \*\* > > [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > > Compared to Plate Theory, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, etc etc, it would be if now we had a movement to discredit the evidence to all those subjects \*\*after \*\*most scientists got to see how wrong they were. I am glad that we achieved the current scientific consensus through huge corporate grants to compliant outsiders, hypocritically impugning the motives of the establishment, piously invoking galileo, and pointing out several key incorrect pieces of data out of several billion correct ones that caused the entire denialist structure to come crashing down. After all, if it hadn’t been for that spectacular use of the scientific method, we wouldn’t currently have a one world socialist in the white house, right? There is no better way to scientifically prove a theory than political games, after all. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/95 "2009-12-04T17:47:56Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > You mean the one that happened over the course of 100,000 years, instead of as quickly as it appears to be happening now? So you think the melting of mile thick glaciers over much of North America is of the same magnitude as retreat of the glaciers today? And I was wrong about the timeline, the last glacial period ended only 18,000 years ago. Despite my postings, I think AGW is likely occurring. I just don’t like how it has been popularized. The truth is that the earth has gone through a number of cycles and we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Even without the increased CO2 levels we would be in a warming period now. The change in orbit and tilt were not recent enough to account for the Little Ice Age and the current recovery. I also think it is highly politicized, with the anti-business crowd gleeful that they have a scientific rational to cut back on what they see as rampant consumerism. Personally I think the economic crisis is more important to conquer than CO2 reduction, because until we have a stable economy we will not have the resources to address the problem. I think the right tack is to make an argument like this: we think the preponderance of the evidence is that increased CO2 production is exacerbating climate change. Many of the changes we need to make, like solar, wind, and nuclear power coupled with conservation of our energy use are consistent with our selfish motives to reduce the amount of money we send overseas to people that wish us harm. Also, the United States, with a relatively low population density is in a better position than most countries to make use of solar and wind power. Spending money to accelerate our development of new technology now will pay back in the long term so it is a wise investment that will help address our balance of trade and deficit problems while creating new jobs right now. So, in addition to helping address global warming an investment now in alternative energy sources is in the interest of our national security, economy, and quality of life. The glee that many on the left show for cutting back on consumption is tainting the debate, making it a cultural clash between liberals and conservatives. Instead of scaring people that we will take their pickup trucks away and replace them with midget cars, we should leverage conservatives fear of the outside world and the economic collapse. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/96 "2009-12-04T17:55:06Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > So you think the melting of mile thick glaciers over much of North America is of the same magnitude as retreat of the glaciers today? And I was wrong about the timeline, the last glacial period ended only 18,000 years ago. Missed by that much again: > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... > [@](#): > > What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the Earth’s orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today’s temperatures. We also now know from both data and “astronomical” (or “Milankovitch”) theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all. > > I\*\*n summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. > \*\* ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/97 "2009-12-04T18:08:14Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The truth is that the earth has gone through a number of cycles and we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Even without the increased CO2 levels we would be in a warming period now. The change in orbit and tilt were not recent enough to account for the Little Ice Age and the current recovery. Other forcings were responsible for that, unfortunately they also are not showing as the main forcing leading the warming of today. > **[Are we heading into a new Ice Age?](https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm)** > > The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels. > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > The radiative forcing from CO2 increases greatly outstrips the forcing from solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels. > > Russian scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts that around 2040, the sun will cool down to Maunder Minimum levels (Abdussamatov 2005). This was a period in the 17th Century with almost no sunspots for 70 years, coinciding with the Little Ice Age. Could a cooling sun overrule anthropogenic global warming? > [@](#): > > What if the sun did go through another Maunder Minimum? > > However unlikely and difficult to predict, imagine for the sake of argument that the sun does go through another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth’s climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007). > > In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. And that’s not including the extra CO2 to be added to the atmosphere in upcoming decades. In other words, the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/98 "2009-12-04T18:20:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > True enough. Feathers, aqueous habitat, and a curiously humorous honking vocalization may _suggest_ “duck”, but… Most ducks I’ve seen quack. Gooses honk. But don’t worry, I’m sure just because you turned your own analogy against your position without realizing it doesn’t damage your position in anyway. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/99 "2009-12-04T18:24:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, that’s why I wanted to be corrected if I was wrong. I thought methane, water vapor, NO and a few others were more powerful GHG than CO2. Thanks again for the links. > > -XT Sure, there are lots of gases that are more powerful GHGs than CO2. But we aren’t dumping nearly as much of those into the atmosphere. Plus, it’s a lot easier to prevent methane and NO emissions than CO2 emissions. Methane and NO are byproducts of some industrial and/or agricultural practices, but when you burn fossil fuels CO2 is an inevitable end product. You can tweak rice paddy farming or a cattle feedlot to produce less methane, but you can’t tweak a coal plant to produce less coal except by burning less coal. But the trouble is that there is very little prospect for burning less coal. And even if there was, we’ve already dumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, so stopping emissions entirely would be great, but wouldn’t prevent the already dumped CO2 from increasing warming. What I don’t understand it the “We’re warming, but only a portion of that warming is due to human activity” argument. I suppose it’s supposed to be an rebuttal against the “repent sinners!” argument. “Humans are bad, therefore we should destroy all industry so we suffer, because we deserve it.” But since there’s no chance of that sort of thing happening, because we aren’t going to return to a pre-industrial state, there’s no point in arguing against doing so. Thing is, many of the things we can do to reduce CO2 emissions are good things to do even if they had no climate effects. Like, reducing waste. Reducing pollution. Insulation on homes, less reliance on foreign oil sources, more efficient cars, more efficient appliances, more efficient lighting, more efficient everything. It used to be assumed that there was a direct correspondence between increased energy use and increased economic output. But that hasn’t been the case. In the US, energy use hasn’t increased much in the last decades, yet our GDP has continued to rise. And of course, only modest reductions in CO2 emissions are going to occur. And modest reductions in emissions won’t prevent the expected warming, just make it slightly less intense. So we’re going to have warming no matter what we do, and we’re going to have to learn to live with it. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859/100 "2009-12-04T18:34:04Z")
I’m all for reducing CO2…that’s why I’m a big nuclear power advocate. My own curiosity concerns some of the people who are saying the most dire things about CO2, and yet are rabid anti-nuclear types, or at least they seemingly don’t want to factor in nuclear to any great extent. For my part, if there was a program to begin building up the US’s nuclear power industry, I’d be all for it. I’d be all for building extra nuclear plants for electric or fuel cell vehicles too, and even incentives to make developing (and buying) those vehicles more attractive…and all this, whether AGW pans out or not. I don’t see that happening, and I don’t see the magic pony technologies being ready for prime time any time soon (not on the scales we are talking about to replace coal or oil), so I think we are going to have to live with whatever effects happen. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-all-this-talk-about-global-warming/519859.md?page=6)