Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

It is more likely than not that more people will die from famine and wars caused by restrictions made by the U.N. and environmentalists under the disguise of global warming and saving the planet.
Alternative fuel sources such as ethanol are a big boondoggle and a political scam. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it produces not to mention the fact that it pollutes the atmosphere more than gasoline. It also produces less BTU's per gallon than does Gasoline.

http://plus10.blogspot.com...

Nuclear Energy is out because environmentalists will not allow it to be used either because of the perceived dangers and what to do with the spent fuel. A disposal site has already been built but environmental politicians have prevented it from being utilized for the last 20 years
Arguments made against Yucca Mountain repository.

http://ag.state.nv.us...

No one in Govt will allow any form of storage and no alternative solutions are being made available to deal with nuclear waste because they all come with some form of risk no matter how small it may be. Environmentalists want a 100% guarantee or it can't be done period. So nuclear energy is a waste of everyone's time. When the current nuclear facilities become full of waste they are just shut down and abandoned as there is no place to store it as of yet and probably never will be.

Wind power and hydroelectric power can only help the communities that are within the area, it is worthless as an alternative fuel source for the world. Also all the cars will have to run on electricity in those communities for it to be self sustaining. And then you have to deal with all of the environmental factors involved with all the batteries in all of those cars which will make them so cost prohibitive no one will want them.

Coal, well forget that it pollutes the atmosphere can't use that anymore.

There are no viable cost effective alternative fuel sources in the short or long term. Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life.

http://www.stwr.net...

Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them. If you think the holocaust was bad just wait until Al gore, The U.N. The IPCC and all of the environmentalist who support these people and institutions inflict the world with their future for mankind.

"http://plus10.blogspot.com...;

A blog is not sufficient evidence, especially when it derives info from Wikipedia, another blog (Alternative Energy Blog), a biased coalition of taxpayers (Taxpayers for Common Sense), some link that doesn't lead anywhere (What you should be paying for ethanol calculator).

"http://www.stwr.net...;

Same for a "non-profit, privately funded, non-government and politically oriented organization [essentially, any self-sustained website/blog]".

"Wind power and hydroelectric power can only help the communities that are within the area, it is worthless as an alternative fuel source for the world."

It costs nothing to sustain, and can be just as efficient as burning fossil fuels.

"And then you have to deal with all of the environmental factors involved with all the batteries in all of those cars which will make them so cost prohibitive no one will want them."

What environmental factors? I would love a reason as to why these would be environmentally harmful. And what do you mean by "cost prohibitive"?

"Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life."

This doesn't help your argument, it hurts it. Just wanted to point that out.

"Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them. If you think the holocaust was bad just wait until Al gore, The U.N. The IPCC and all of the environmentalist who support these people and institutions inflict the world with their future for mankind."

Wind power, solar power, oxygen power, hydrogen power, hydro-electric power, and carbon power are all effective alternative energy sources. I also fail to see how food shortages can be caused by reducing carbon emissions. And I'm sure famine isn't as bad as a large-scale slaughtering of Jews.

What's more, only this last argument actually has anything to do with your debate. Your argument seems more about debunking this government scam then proving that taking action against global warming will kill people.

I await your rebuttal.

This is a peer reviewed report on the costs of producing ethanol using corn, switch grass and wood. It is also the most comprehensive report done so far. There are many reports out there that are used by the proponents of ethanol but most are not peer reviewed and leave out many aspects relating to the actual production and distribution of ethanol. Again this is a peer revived report by David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek. Both are peer reviewed scientists

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu...

This is a peer reviewed report on yucca mountain repository. It describes every aspect of the repository and a final conclusion statement made by the scientists who conducted the study. It is clearly stated that it passes all of their minimum requirements to store nuclear waste for ten thousand years. But goes on to say that more should be done to make it even safer and that more reviews are necessary even though it passes inspection. That means it will never get a license to operate as all of the other recommendations will never ever be able to be met. Scroll to page 63 for the conclusion and recommendation statement.

http://www.nea.fr...

This blog link will be all of the arguments that will prohibit it from ever being opened yet the repository has passed all of the requirements for theses arguments. I find this to be an acceptable link as I am only using it as an example for arguments against the repository, not as facts about the repository.

http://ag.state.nv.us...

As I stated before Nuclear Energy is a waste of everyone's time and money and effort. It will never be allowed on a large scale to provide power where it is needed. It is a very cheap and clean source of fuel but is made artificially cost prohibitive be endless regulation and protests and lawsuit injunctions that make it not even worth trying. Hydro and wind power are only useful to the surrounding area within a 100 or 200 mile radius. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with these energy sources. The initial start up cost is astronomical and third world countries will not invest in them and are unsuitable for the locations that most third world countries are situated.

All electric and hybrid battery cars: The battery life is only guaranteed for 8 years or 80,000 miles and that is prorated. It can cost anywhere from 3,000 to 7,000 dollars to replace the battery in one of these cars. I used car dealer information and I know you don't like them but forums and blogs about people who own or have owned ether type of these vehicles. I found no discrepancies between the dealer information and these blogs when it comes to the price of these batteries. These batteries are filled with the same hazardous acid that is in regular lead acid batteries but ten to 20 times as much. If these cars end up being massed produced there will be hundreds of thousands of these batteries sitting around and many people who would recycle them for metal content will just dump the acid on the ground to get at the metal to make a few bucks. You have to pay a mechanic to remove it and a disposal fee to get rid of it. Many people will not be willing to pay these fees and just dump the battery some where and sell the car as scrap. When these cars get older they will make their way over seas into the third world countries where the only thing people care about over there is having a job and feeding them selves, They will most assuredly drive these cars until they die and dump the battery acid and scrap the battery and car for metal content.

"Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life."

I don't believe any of the prediction made by global warming alarmists. But this statement proves a very important point. The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves. There is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace fossil fuels in the next 20 years. But the world is going to be flooded and the reaming land will be deserts by then. I use the movie An Inconvenient truth as my source for this coming calamity. It is an acceptable source as it won a Pulitzer Prize but is not peer reviewed. The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves. It is the Environmentalists goal to eliminate these things from the planet in 20 to 50 years or they say the planet is doomed and they must start now!! If they do this millions will die of starvation.
Whether or not I believe in global warring being caused by man or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is the environmentalists movement to eliminate fossil fuel consumption without having a cost effective alternative fuel source in place and a infrastructure to deliver it.
Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more. They are worthless as alternative fuel sources if fossil fuels are to be eliminated in the next 20 years if we are going to save this planet from the coming calamity predicted by the environmental movement. People are going to start dying by the millions if restrictions on fossil fuel production aren't lifted.

Besides ethanol, there are also successful hydrogen-powered and oxygen powered cars, and even solar-powered cars, that can fit the current infrastructure (road) system. They just need to be mass-produced.

Your argument against the use of nuclear energy and its links don't matter since I agree with you on that - nuclear energy isn't a good idea in my opinion. Since I never disagreed with you about it, we don't need to argue about it.

"All electric and hybrid battery cars..."

Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without?

Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there.

"Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more."

It will not take that long, and with the proper funding, it can happen. I've already stated that some alternative-energy cars are efficient and suited to the current infrastructure. And using hydroelectric power at major water bodies can provide enough energy for alot of places. Using wind power on the coast and in high places can provide energy for those places.

Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be "dying by the millions".

This sight is scientific fact about hydrogen and there is not a single scientist in the world that will even think of challenging it because it is a matter of the laws of nature and physics. Hydrogen will never be used as an alternative large scale fuel source. You are being fed a bunch of lies about Hydrogen and it's potential as an alternative fuel source. I defy anyone who reads this link to prove me wrong by proving the information in this report is incorrect.

http://mb-soft.com...

Hydrogen is an experiment, hydrogen is not a viable cost effective energy source and it will not be one in 5 10 or even 20 years.
The price for a car with a fuel cell is anywhere from $70,000 to $150,000 dollars depending on the size of the fuel tank for the hydrogen. They get anywhere from 60 to 250 miles to the tank full depending on whether or not you have a lead foot. I hope every one reads this link, it will be a real eye opener for those who think Hydrogen is a viable large scale fuel source. All of the funding in the world will never make hydrogen cost effective unless you can change mother nature and the laws of physics.

Oxygen power: I read up on this and there is some hope here, it makes fuel mileage increases possible but in no way can it be used without gasoline and it only works with and is designed for diesel and gasoline engines and does not reduce pollution.

http://ezinearticles.com...

"Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without?"

One would assume if one bought a hybrid or all electric car they would use it and therefore have to charge the battery when it ran low after being used. Ether way once you buy it, the warranty starts to tick, whether or not you use it is irrelevant.

Infrastructure: I was not referring to the roads that cars drive on. I was referring to the filling stations that would have to be built to deliver compressed gases such as hydrogen to the cars. If you refer back to my first link you will get an idea of the complexities involved with this and the inherent catastrophic dangers that go with compressed gases. Not to mention the astronomical costs that go with it.

"Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there."

First of all, your assumption that everyone is going to do the right thing and turn the batteries in instead of dumping the acid out and scraping it for the metal is quite naive. At my work place, we have three large air conditioners. Thieves have twice cut the condensing coils out of them risking jail time just to turn the metal in to make a few bucks. And then of course your assumption that govt is just going to pay for everything.

There are no solar powered commercially available cars or trucks or anything available for sale. Still decades away from that technology.

I have already explained hydro and wind power. What about the rest of the world that can't use this? I really don't think you understand anything about alternative fuel sources and how soon they will be available on a large scale. Your statement, "It wont take that long " is both mind boggling and without any source to back that statement up.

"Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be "dying by the millions"

Oh right, they will just pull some energy source out of their a##, they don't have anything to worry about. "With proper funding they will be OK.

My final point. I don't think you understand that you are being lied to about these dooms day predictions. Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence. Yet Al Gore, The fanatic environmentalists want to cut production of fossil fuels as the population grows and that will effect the poorest of the poor the worst. If you live in a third world country your outlook is pretty bad if they get their way. Millions will die.

Again it is constantly drilled into everyone's head daily that this planet is doomed if we don't cut the use of dramatically or completely eliminate fossil fuels in the next twenty years. The planet is doomed or you are being lied to and the greatest hoax on man kind is being played out before your very eyes. Unfortunately Millions will die under the disguise of saving the planet and I can assure you that this will happen if fossil fuel production is cut or eliminated without a viable fuel source to replace it. All the funding in the world will not make this possible in twenty years.

Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, "Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save":

"Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them."

Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules.

"The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves."

As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support.

"Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence."

It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050.