Great post Julia!!

All CFL all the time here. I don't ride a bike. I do rollerblade on some Fridays and walk quite far around the city somewhat regularly. The rest of the time it's the NYC subway.

Has everyone started to kill their vampires? Remember, 5% of the U.S. electric usage is vampire power. That means that we burn 5% of our electricity just to have the TV ready for us when we click the remote to avoid getting off our fat asses.

Try this folks, plug the TV, DVD, cable box, and stereo into a power strip. Turn it on when you're using it. Leave it off the rest of the time. How many clocks does one room need?

Then, plug your cable or DSL modem and WiFi transmitter into another power strip. Turn them on only when in use too.

And remember, we don't need to cool to 68 degrees in summer and heat to 78 in winter. Reverse those numbers for some really big savings.

My wife and I have reduced our electric usage over 16% with no change in lifestyle. The alleged suffering is a complete myth.

Also, until we're driving electric cars powered by renewable energy, buy a terrapass or other carbon offset device for your car. They've got 'em for air travel too.

http://terrapass.com/

Feel free to check out other providers, of course. I like terrapass 'cause their easy and do a reasonable job documenting their offsets.

Its time to THINK for crying out loud. If the UN cared so much why are they not FORCING honesty about FREE ENERGY. Not only would this rid us of vehicle pollution but its a less dangerous source of electricity to humans & the environment.
The UN wont do anything positive because it has a plan (with the globals) to price everyone off their land.
Every expense they can dream up brings you closer to being homeless.
The biggest hurdle most have to come to terms with is, that mad people are running the show. BUT who is madder...We provide them with the finance so they are comfortable while they destroy life for the average person. WE hand our power over to them & dont DEMAND checks & balances & we just accept the lies they dump on us. Think I'm joking do your homework. What will you say to the future generations????
Sorry Kids I just drank in what I was told & made no effort to check if they were lying.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus global warming. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.

Doctor of what Percy?

Here's the real peer-reviewed article on your subject.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Yours is presumably the message brought to you by Exxon/Mobil.

Scott, when you can't deal with the facts, attack the messenger. Look at all the articles yourself.

Sorry Doc,

I did look at them. One is a freaking blog post. The other is a peer reviewed scientific article.

Check these two links for yourself. One is a link to the results from google's scholarly research search engine for your article. Of course, it comes up null. The other is the link to the peer reviewed scientific article by Oreskes.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Michael+Asher%22+half+scientists+global+warming&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

So, believe a blog post message paid for by Exxon/Mobil or believe a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal. Your choice.

Remember though, when someone hands you a glass of Kool-Aid, if it smells like almonds, don't drink it.

Oh and one more bit Doc,

Here's the link to the senate propaganda site that reposted the blog post that you reference.

http://tinyurl.com/ynoggu

Now, take a good hard look at the name of the publication to which the actual report will be submitted, "Energy and Environment". So, if you have half a brain, you might ask whether this is a true science publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment

So, again, don't drink the almond flavored kool-aid.

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

OK Doc, we agree that neither is a climate scientist. But, Oreskes did get her work published in a peer-reviewed journal. Schulte isn't even trying to because his data is probably complete crap.

Remember too, a history professor is an expert on doing scholarly research. A medical doctor is not.

You are correct though that neither is a climate scientist.

So, try your own search on scholar.google.com and listen to the climate scientists about climate science and the medical doctors about medicine. Both fields are far too specialized for anyone to be good and current in one and also be good and current in the other. The days of the "renaissance person" are long since over.

Scott, I think that at this time we will agree that this issue is controversial. Even those who are in the "Al Gore" camp, too many continue to live the life of Al, and not to walk the talk. That is one reason that I do not take them seriously. Human nature is very short sighted. I believe in clean air passionately for health reasons. Trying to raise the fuel economy MPG is near to impossible due to the Democrats supporting the domestic auto industry and auto unions. Look at all the Sierra club members who drive Suvs and pick up trucks. When I point out their hypocrisy, they want to run me out of town, just like they did to Jesus when he pointed out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders(I don't have such a big ego to equate myself to Jesus).

Doc, there is nothing controversial about climate change. It is extremely well documented. All apparent controversy is manufactured by large corporate interests. You're really buying into exactly the message Exxon/Mobil is selling. You've bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Are there hypocrites on both sides? Of course there are; there are humans on both sides. Does that mean that each and every one of us should not do all we can to alleviate the current catastrophe? Hell no!!

Doc, you really are deluding yourself about there being any controversy at all on this issue. Could the vast majority of climate scientists on the planet be wrong? Yes. Are you willing to bet the life of our species on that hope? Apparently you are.

I remember under President Clinton, the Senate voted 95-0 against a Kyoto type of agreement. The Democratic Senators were concerned about jobs over the health of the workers. Too many Democratic Senators opposed the increase in Cafe standards due to the domestic auto industry and the auto unions. The Democratic elected reps talk the talk, but then they don't deliver.(Just like in the 06 election and the Iraq war they said one thing and voted another way.) They are hypocrites. Nothing will be done as long as it does not make economic sense and cost jobs.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol.The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification because he knew that it would not pass.

Forget government doing anything. It is up to each individual to walk the talk, such as not buying SUVs, trucks, and mini-vans and so forth.

Doc, I do everything I can. My electric usage is down over 16% year over year. And, I spread the word.

You're correct that neither party has done enough. However, the Dems are at least making the right noises. The Reps are only worsening the problem at breakneck speed.

Kucinich has the best answers. I would love it if he won and kept to his word. I will continue to vote on the environment first and all other issues only as a tie-breaker.

I also send plenty of emails to my elected officials encouraging them to take all possible actions to reduce global warming and address other environmental concerns. I suggest you do likewise.

Scott,I agree with you on Kucinich. I sent him some money.