I am impressed with your conclusion. We're pumping hundreds of times more CO2 in the air than all volcanous on the world combined. How can that be insignificant... the rate of increase of CO2 at the moment surpasses that of extinction events... I'm amazed that you don't appreciate such things. But hey, where does all that CO2 come from? From major extinction event volcano eruptions? Hey, I don't see any! Oh... but that are millions of power plants! Hah, maybe just maybe that could be the cause ???

Bigger question for you then: do you think the increase in CO2 will magically go down in the future? Do you think the exponential increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will suddenly drop to pre-industrial levels, even if we continue as we are?

I've already written that. Right now about 5% of energy is produced from nuclear, maybe less. That means 20x more nuclear plants everywhere on the world. Many countries don't have enough money to pay for good security, or their security personel are corrupt, increasing chances 100-fold that someone gets their hands on nuclear material. Some countries have dictators (maybe not now, but in the future) that could choose to abuse the might of nuclear power. I think the risk is just too big to go all nuclear.

And anyway... Germany is doing fine, it's a rich nation. It shows that one can invest in cleaner energy without ruining the economy (like you seem to think... you're all doom and gloom there).

Well anyway... I'm really outta this topic. You people are thinking too much in terms of economics, instead of in terms of a weighting of both economics AND risk. Or rather... not risk, but expected value which is: the risk times the potential for disaster. And nuclear plants end up waaaaay high on the risk/expected value scale.

More nonsensical rubbish to delegitamize your opponents opinion simply because they disagree with you.  

I disagree that it isn't an industry.  It is and it is an industry in which men and women have made billions.  

But that point aside, either this is a catastrophe in the making with a immediate timeline or it isn't.  Which is it?  Because it's sold as the former.  That's the reason for the need for these major worldwide solutions. 

And if that's the case "of the thorium variety" is silly.  You either solve the catastrophe or you don't.  It's called triage.  You don't worry about the patients foot when the alternative is that they die from blood loss. 

Did you see the latest complied data regarding this?  I believe it said over 70% of all scientists studying this all agree that climate change is happening, and humans are definitely the dominant cause at the moment.

This is why politics and science don't mix...

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, true.

CO2 is a contributor to the temperature of Earth, true.

CO2 will doom us all to a runaway greenhouse effect that destroys the planet, false.

There are a great many gaps between their claims and what we know to be true.  Many of them have already been gone over in this thread.  They discount or under-represent a great deal of warming caused by solar output, they falsified the temperature record to create our largely mythical industrial temperature rise, and they radically over-represent what is a minor, and already saturated greenhouse gas.  It's an agenda, nothing more.

That's funny.  Their idiotic surcharge is primarily affecting industry.  Industry takes time to move, it took a couple decades for it to leave the US when the morons over here screwed our corporate tax code and other regulations.  Despite powering through the recession, they've been kicking nuclear to the curb for a scant two years and have already taken a beating as a result.  .7% growth in 2012 wasn't doing fine, they managed 3% the year before.  They exempted a few of their major corporations, so those guys will stick around, but there's a major movement of production happening already.  When you add 50% to the amount of taxes being paid as an energy surcharge, it tends to drive them out of the country.

Ten years from now, should they stay the course, Germany will be Greece.  The only reason they aren't in a revolt over their green kick is because humanity is too fucking stupid to realize it.  They still think it's the recession from 2007 causing them problems, just like our idiots over here can't seem to grasp that it's our commie government piling up ten billion in additional regulation compliance costs every year.

You should actually look at the claims and check the information behind them.  They're pissing into the wind and claiming it's rain, none of the fools getting pissed on have bothered to check for clouds

Take the time to check the raw data of rural temperature stations, time stamps and all, against the original modifications the NOAA made for their first study.  Last time I checked you could still get the stuff, govt shutdown is blocking the sites right now though.  I checked tons of them, it was always the same result.  Of course, I'm not a climate scientist, so I probably just didn't understand the complexities behind mysteriously adding two degrees to station readings starting from seemingly arbitrary years.  I'm sure there was some strange reason they all started at different years too, but I'm not a climate scientist.  They smoothed out their additions in later versions for some reason, but I'm not a climate scientist so I can't understand the complexities behind that either.  I just thought it was hilarious.

Watts thought it was funny too, but he's not a climate scientist either, he's just a meteorologist.  Oh wait, neither is Hansen, he's a physicist...  Oh shit, I think I'm on to something here!  None of the climate scientists are climate scientists!  I guess they didn't understand either...

If the Corbett Report and Alex Jones are where you get your daily dose of "reality", we might as well be on different planets.

Cognitive dissonance when being confronted with evidence does make people do strange contortions in their efforts to maintain their belief system though. And yes, I will side with the evidence summarized from the IPCC report rather than some cool story about trawling through raw data from the weather in Muskogee some month.

This is why I also don't think homeopathy is effective for anything, that vaccines don't cause autism, and that evolution is a better explanation for how we got here than Creationism. It's because facts and evidence and scientific consensus actually carry weight with me more than a belief system when it comes to what is real. I'll be happy to change my stance if there is evidence to the contrary but the "evidence" against AGW is laughable.