1. 

Interesting so you have never heard of solar power, hydro power, wind power, geothermal power, nuclear or hydrogen (as a car/vehicle fuel), deniers usual try to link this to "living like cavemen" so you have at least given it a little more technology. Also like most deniers you seem to think fossil fuel has some magic power to produce electricity which is actually what all the things you list, need.

The sad reality for deniers is, that it is better and more efficient technology, that can solve this not going back to the flintlock rifle. As I recall my history the Pilgrims had little idea how to survive in the Americas and would have died out if the Indians hadn't helped them, to me that sounds more like deniers, no idea and an unwillingness to change old habits, the Pilgrims realised their mistake in time, will deniers.

Wow, they don't let you out of the bunker much do they, we are only in the first stage of AGW, you talk of 0.5c as the rise but we have already had a rise of 0.8c and the minimum estimate for what we are likely to see by the end of the century is 2c (four times the figure you invent), but many scientists now think that this will be more, due to the delaying tactics of deniers and the effects their B.S. has had on action being taken. How much temperature rises is going to effect the level of change we will see and the speed they happen at it is now pretty certain we will see a rise of 1m in global sea level by the end of the century, this is seen as manageable but very expensive for the world economy, temp rise above 2c and the effect get worse then we are looking at up to 2m if temps rise by ~4c.

Such a rise would put a good portion of the Netherlands under water, they have spent 1000 years building coastal defenses and reclaiming land from the sea, work that would be undone in a matter of decades, even 1m would be pretty much the end for islands like the Maldives and Tuvalu (and quite a few others) many main land locations as well Bangladesh and Florida, the U.S. space program is based at Cape Canaveral, this site is just 3m above sea level.

A rise of 1m would effect just about every coastline in the world, deniers bleat about the cost of trying to stop AGW, the cost of a global rise in sea level of 1m would dwarf that, as well as direct flooding areas further inland would then also be affected by king tides and storm surge, areas that are currently beyond such events. There are many cities that now have occasional flooding when storms and high tides coincide (and they live with that) and the cost of repairs but raise sea level one meter and these become not rare events but regular events.

This sort of thing is already being seen in places like Tuvalu with the just 7in of a sea level rise we have had so far.

If you are human, then No energy if worse by several orders of magnatude.

If you care about humans then energy and having ready and low cost access to energy is of far greater concern. Of course if you pay attention, many on this site beleive humans are a plague on planet earth. Just so you know, plagues are meat to be eradicated. Any questions?

This a serious question, we are not talking about maintaining present levels of energy, the demand worldwide, for energy is rising exponentially.

Can we supply this need with solar and wind, NO WAY using simple business and cost analysis, we can see that the huge area of land needed, the large amount of maintenance required, the huge unreliability (the sun doesn't always shine or the wind blow) makes this unfeasible.

Mans progress depends on energy, we go forward with it, or backwards into the dark ages without it.

One of the few countries to realize this is China, they are investing heavily in building coal fired power stations, nuclear power plants, developing thorium reactors, and building coal to gasoline plants, while the western world quibbles about CO2.

in my opinion gobao warming is worse than no energy because alternate source of energy can be used to reduce global warming

this is a false premise. There is something stupid about using a gasoline car or SUV that waste 95% of its energy, or light bulbs that are more heaters than light emitters. Oil and Coal make energy, but energy can be made in many other ways. I'll leave it up to you to google that.

Thanks for the laugh. This is from your GW Bush impersonation for the stand up comedy night right?

To meet the proposed CO2 limits, we'll need to use less energy per person than did the Pilgrims. This means no air conditioners, no heaters, no cars, and no computers. Is this better or worse than the expected effects of a rise in temperature of 0.5 Deg C?

Global warming is occurring, no energy is impossible. So the worse one is the problem that actually exists

You forgot door number 3; clean energy, such as solar, wind and nuclear power. Then we will be able to keep our cars, air conditioners, heaters and computers.

That's just stupid, There are lots of ways of generating energy that don't burn fossil fuels.

Whatever blogs you read are lying to you.

EDIT: Don't you just love how Mike L plays along with the lie? Don't you people have any scruples at all?

Jeff Engr, another blatant liar.

No energy . Millions of people would die from heat and starvation . That's what some

environmental groups want.

No energy. Short of going nuke....which is not viewed favorably by many Hippy-types....there is currently no credible alternative. Wind and Solar have shown themselves to be unreliable and terribly expensive.....not to mention how they (windfarms especially) have ruined once beautiful countryside.

What the heck are you talking about? Do you live in a cave? Have you not noticed that technology is advanced?