There is that wiki one source with all the answers, again.

If you have a problem with the data, find your own. It was the first thing that popped up on Google and it covers the bases.

So, how do you feel about more nuclear power plants? Cost effective clean power.

I think nuclear fission will have to be a big part of the solution. It's ridiculous that the US has not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years.

Cover the country with windmills - clean, but not very cost effective.

I'm not a wind power fan (no pun intended), except for certain places with high winds. It will be a very small part of future power needs.

Solar power - clean but even more expensive and not very efficient.

As the technology improves, its contribution will rise. But it is not ready now.

America is the worlds largest greenhouse gas producer, but you need to look at it perspectively. America puts out 1/4 ofall the greenhouse gases, while it is 1/4 of the world economy. Seems like it is right where it should be.

The world is not where it should be. Every nation should be conserving more, and moving to sources that do not output so much greenhouse gas. That means improvements for everyone, especially the world's biggest source of those gases.

Major forced changes to reduce it might help way down the road, but during the change businesses will move to where thecost of doing business is less, ultimately ruining the economy before any significant change in the evironment comes about, if it happens at all.

That's why the world needs to move together. It's not an argument for doing nothing.

How much of your bottom line are you willing to sacrifice for a dream that may never come to happen believing a science that is far from perfect and may be total bs? 25%? 50%? 75%?

The chances that the climate scientists are wrong about this are not high. You keep hiding behind the uncertainty, but that uncertainty is small and getting smaller all the time, while the problem gets bigger. As far as sacrifices go, it is not clear that there will be significant sacrifices for most people, especially long term. Carbon taxes will cost us all some money, but if we're smart and reduce consumption as a result (and we will), it won't break anyone. Mitigating GW will buy time and save money.

I'm not touting a dream. I'm arguing for trying to deal with a potential nightmare. There will be dislocations because GW is happening, but if we can slow GW up a little, we may have time to deal with them with a lower loss of life and livelihood. And a sensible transition to a more energy-efficient economy can be jump-started. The ostrich approach does not seem very smart here.