What is being done in the name of Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming right now is a tragedy. People have gone insane with this. Why in the world do we think that raising gasoline prices to $5 a gallon is a good idea? People are going to starve, in fact they are starving already and AGW hysteria is a major culprit.

Biofuels are a sad joke. They are not going to solve any problems. Biofuels were what we ran on before we had fossil fuels. You know, a horse plowing a field that ran on grains for food? That's biofuel powered production.

Ethanol gets 1.34 BTU's (british thermal units, a measure of energy) for every 1 BTU burned up making it. Oil easily averages 100 BTU's per 1 BTU needed to produce it. That means that ethanol has 100 times less energy than oil, which means it is incredibly expensive and inefficient.

So what does our government do? Subsidize the production of ethanol from corn to the tune of billions of tax dollars and make corn so expensive that food prices are shooting up. And it solves exactly zero problems with energy.

Not only that, but now that this biofuel craze has hit, rainforests are being felled to grow biofuel sources like sugar beets and corn, and so much third world acreage is being switched over that there are food riots. There were riots over cooking oil a few months back and now riots over rice prices are starting to happen, one in Haiti this week.

Food prices have doubled and even tripled, and a lot of that has happened in the last few months. Anyone who is out there telling you that fixing global warming "doesn't have to cost a lot" is selling you a bill of goods. It has already had enormous costs and they are going up fast.

$4 a gallon gas and food prices that are being driven up by increased energy and transportation costs are really hurting Americans, and you can multiply that times a hundred in the third world. It is the people at the bottom who always get hurt the most by this stuff.

Even Paul Krugman, well known left wing economist and New York Times opinion columnist, had this to say in reference to corn ethanol: "You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states".

Why are we doing this to ourselves? Have we been really really bad people that God has to punish, so we will jump in first and do it ourselves?

I don't trust the environmentalists who are promoting this. These are the same people who went into the third world and banned DDT resulting in literally millions of deaths from malaria. They take zero responsibility for it now. DDT turned out to be a far less toxic substance than the alarmists at the time claimed.

What it does do is make some birds shells thinner, and therefore if enough DDT is in the environment then we would lose some birds. Are millions of human deaths is worth that? If Republicans had promoted this with equal results it would be listed as one of the great humanitarian crimes of history, instead most people don't even know about it.

The biggest problem with the AGW debate is that the climate and statistical models that are used to prove it are so complicated that even most Ph.D's in meteorology don't understand it. That means that I don't understand it, you don't understand it, Al Gore does not understand it, nor do about 99.9% of the people preaching about it understand it. Yet we all have to make decisions, momentous and incredibly important decisions, about what to do about it. So we do what we always do in these instances, we evaluate the credibility of the people who do say they know.

Two of the major figures who started all this are James Hanson of NASA, and Michael Mann, lead author of early United Nations IPCC reports. Hanson of NASA is the chief alarmist on AGW, who would not even allow other scientists to peer review the statistical methods used to adjust all the temperature data until very recently. This is the raw data that proves the temperatures have gone up. And his hording of his methodology is completely contrary to science. Strike one.

Then Hanson's fellow alarmist Michael Mann came up with the famous "hockey stick" graph used by Al Gore in his movie to demonstrate that rising carbon dioxide levels have led to enormous temperature increases since the industrial revolution. Then it was discovered that no matter what numbers you put into the formula used to create it, you got a hockey stick graph. Oops. Strike two.

And what was Mann‚s excuse? Oh, we are not statisticians. It doesn't matter because temperatures are going up anyway. What? What??? Excuse me, your whole theory is based on statistics, which you wouldn't show other scientists for peer review, and now you say you are not statisticians?? Strike three and you are out of the game. Leave the damn stadium losers, your propaganda is literally killing people. How can anyone trust them?

People, whatever your beliefs, and that is all they are at this point because it is an entirely unproven theory, whatever your beliefs are about AGW the fact remains that we have no other replacement fuel. The whole industrial revolution was started and grew due to fossil fuels and if we don't have a replacement then we are going to return to the economy we had before fossil fuels.

Except, except, except ... we do have one good source. But the environmentalists wont let us use it, nuclear fuel. To me that is another indication of why I can‚' take them seriously. If they were really that worried about AGW, they would be out promoting this. Isn‚'t that better than world wide poverty and starvation?

There is an arrogant elitism here that is ironically a mirror image of what they are constantly accusing Republicans of, insensitivity to the poor. Well, I will tell you, Exxon Corporation has done far more to bring people out of poverty than all the AGW alarmists rolled into one.