Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Geothermal Energy

I'll just go right ahead and say it: man-made Global Warming is a scam.

Al Gore et al., can bluster until they're red in the face about the so-called consensus on man-made global warming, but two point immediately come to mind:

1) Consensus is irrelevant when it comes to facts. Something is either factually correct or it isn't, and no amount of consensus will change that.

2) Claiming consensus on an issue when their clearly isn't is simply an attempt to shut down discussion.

I casually pay attention to this issue, being a somewhat scientific/technical person. There isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a seemingly credible article attempting to explain how CO2 and temperature increases are unrelated or how solar activity is a much, much more likely culprit than my SUV. People that write these articles or agree with their points are called "deniers", with all the anti-Holocaust baggage that comes with that word. It's a dirty game, and unfortunately the scammers are winning at the moment. I guess the fact that global temperatures haven't statistically increased in the last decade is being ignored as an "inconvenient truth."

I'll continue to follow this debate, but in my mind it's clear that man-made global warming is a scam being foisted upon the world. By who and why are very interesting questions.

There are a million articles on the internet dealing with global warming so I won't bother to list any of them here. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

So where does nuclear and geothermal energy fit into this?

I seems clear to me that eventually the planet will move from an oil-based economy to an electricity-based economy. So what are the "best" sources for this energy? In my opinion nuclear is the best option, possibly followed by geothermal energy.

The nuclear reactors of today are much, much safer than the reactors of 30 years ago. The US gets something like 25% of it's electricity from nuclear sources while France gets something like 75%. For once in my life I'll admit that the French are right about something. Moving to nuclear energy and an electric-based economy would also have the benefit of de-funding the governments and the terrorists they support who are attempting to destroy us and greatly alter our way of life.

Geothermal energy has enormous potential. One article I read claims that the availability of geothermal energy is "130,000 times America's current yearly consumption of energy."

That's a lot of energy just sitting in the ground as heat. Of course it's still an emerging technology and could take decades to develop and deploy, but it sure beats paying money to people who want to kill you.

Future Topics

Just a quick brain-dump of things I want to talk about in the future:

x - Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Geothermal Energy
x - Cooking and Cooking Shows
Personal Finances & Dave Ramsey
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and D&D Miniatures
2008 Presidential Election
Swimming Lessons
The Fair Tax
Hate in America
US Police and Prosecutors

Hmmm, that's probably enough for now.

"Good" Civil Rights vs. "Bad" Civil Rights

Yes, I know I'm late to the party with this one. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently considering whether to uphold or overturn Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns.

The Justices appear prepared to admit that the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant an individual right as opposed to a collective, State's right. What's not so clear is what they'll do about the handgun ban.

It just boggles my mind that it has taken this long for a case like this to reach the Supreme Court.

Of course the 2nd Amendment details a private, individual right. I don't understand the gun-grabbers who try and claim otherwise. One common argument is that the 2nd is a collective right, that merely grants each State the ability to form a National Guard. If this was indeed the case then the 2nd would be the only one of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to the government as opposed to granting it to the people. This argument is completely retarded in my own humble opinion.

Of course the NRA, et al, are being vilified by all the usual suspects.

So why is the ACLU "good" when it defends a certain part of the Constitution and yet the NRA is "bad" when it defends a different part of the Constitution?