Hydrogen fuel cells, also! I worked for an institute studying transportation in high school - I've driven electric cars, fuel cell cars, etc. I think we're eventually going to move to hydrogen once some of the technical issues are resolved. And the only thing coming out of the tailpipe is water.
Anyway, had written a huge response explaining all of my views on this, but it got deleted, so I'm just going to point to references and answer questions if people ask them on why I think they are relevant.
Hurricanes and Global Warming...contrary to the documentary, the website on the documentary, are Gore's acceptance speech:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Effect of the Kyoto Protocol (expensive, my point is whether such an expensive measure is worth it for the estimated resulting change in climate, even with US participation):
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
Also in combination with the above article, look at this estimate of climate change here. Specifically consider that the estimates from 1988-1998 climate change was overestimated by 300% over a period of 10 years, and that most current temperature projections on which global warming policy and media reports are based are projecting to 2050 or 2100, a period 5 to 10 times longer than the previous predictions. I have yet to see any evidence that our ability to predict via computer models has improved much in the past 10-15 years, so it calls into question the projections currently being supported, especially since the time interval is so much longer and the previous predictions were off by so so much:
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/rpt73.html
Thickening of Ross Ice Shelf:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science...is-thicker.htm
Urban Heat Island Effect (check the references on the wiki article if you're not ok with using wikipedia as your only reference):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Essentially, our best estimate of the effect of the urban heat effect is that the effect is very small (.05 degrees or so) - but its about the same as the effect of the kyoto protocol on global temperature by 2100 (.07 degrees), so it seems inconsistent to lobby for one and call the other insignificant.
Basically, my questions re: global warming are these:
1) Why would the projections we are making today be any more accurate than those made in the late 80's which grossly overestimated warming? If anyone can quantify how our computer models have changed in such a way that the data would now be more accurate, I'd love to see it...
2) Why are global statements being made (glaciers are melting WORLDWIDE, due to global warming) when those statements are not global (not all major ice structures and glaciers are melting, some are thickening, and the melting of some glaciers isn't believed to be related to global warming, but to other causes like deforestation...as is the case with Kilimanjaro, which is likely melting due to deforestation at the base.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14287
3) Why is more money not being sunk into viable alternate technologies? For example, storing atmospheric carbon in ocean bottoms, effectively capturing it and removing it from the global-warming equation.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...x?linkid=41349 Or research on viable alternative power sources (right now, we'd have to cover the entire state of nevada with solar panels to meet our electricity needs!).
I believe the globe is getting warmer. I know that computer models have overestimated warming in the past, and therefore have some doubts that current projections made by similar computer models are not overestimated as well. I believe that warming can be attributable to many factors including, but not limited to, greenhouse gases, deforestation, natural warming cycles, the urban heat island effect, and increased global population.
I also know that, currently, the technology to make a serious dent in US greenhouse gas emissions isn't viable, and that even if it was, no new technology solves one problem without creating others. Wind power, for example, can create electricity but has a tendency to behead birds in large numbers. Solar power is great, but requires such a large surface area that we'd have to cover entire states with solar panels. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest, most efficient out there, but has its own risks and was out of favor with environmentalists until very recently.
