Greenpeace is for flamers...

I just watched an ABC News video on Yahoo! that directly linked the Iowa floods and global warming, stating that carbon emissions "can directly affect you, your home, your life"(not direct quote) . Even the White House issued a statement, contrary to its usual rhetoric, linking climate change and the increased rainfall. They showed a nuclear power plant beside flooding fields. Point #1: Nuclear power will actually decrease the amount of man-made carbon in the atmosphere. This stable and constant power supply creates 3% of the air pollution that natural gas refineries push out, according to Wired. Air and solar are NOT constant. The nuclear fuel is a different story. Point #2: The temperature of the oceans dropped 1 degree in 2007. Granted, I remember my source being an article I read in the paper, but I believe it was Fahrenheit. The oceans take longer to warm or cool than does the Earth's surface, which can also be affected by a multitude of factors, such as eruptions and El Nino. This temp. change was recorded by a NASA laser-weather satellite, which is more accurate than politicians. Point #3: If "global warming" is actually a threat, then why is it being presented as theater? For instance, An Inconvenient Truth was untruthful in a few aspects: that Katrina's devastation (being a dismal Category 2) is not to blame for the destruction of N.O., and that the oceans aren't going to rise out of nowhere and swamp coastal cities (according to the E-Team, "A 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology by a NASA scientist concludes that there is a net loss of ice that will result in higher sea levels. But the loss is occurring slowly: 0.05 millimeters on average per year.At that rate, it will take a millennium for the oceans to rise 5 centimeters (roughly 2 inches) and 20,000 years to rise a full meter."), and so forth. This is just another way for eco-fanatics to finally muscle their way into American politics through shifting public consensus by bombarding the media with "statistics", computer models, and celebrity opinions. And who is going to pay for this? Those people who are being sold the idea. The tax that was attempted in the House to cut carbon emissions was estimated to cost each taxpayer approximately $3,200. It never succeeded, but the talks are that it will be recirculated next year, pending the outcome of the fall election. I feel that we are casting our opinions before the facts are even in. I could blog on for days about the subject, but you probably quit reading this anyways by this point. Sorry for wasting your time with this massive paragraph...