that's right, on this note, what companies should we invest into right now?:-D
solar? wind? nuclear? all of those -a little bit?

__________________
Happy New Year to all! Virtual hugs!

I agree with all points, as much as you don't want to, you sound like a good republican..we all want clean environment, we all want to avoid catastrophes, it's not our fault environmentalists and some scientists have politicized the issue..and dems are embracing them because it's their favorite things for the government to do something - TAX!!
and nuclear is an important piece of the puzzle that would be a bridge before other alternatives become available and practical, but here is why I have lots of issues with wacko environmentalists and DEMS, they don't let us do it, and have dem politician in their pocket..

on investments:
wind & solar can't exist without subsidies right now, the efficiency is just not there.. maybe in 10-20 years they can complete, meanwhile if cap&trade passes they should be a good buy. In solar FSLR ( first solar ) is the company with the best technology.
Wind will not happen until our grid is totally re-done, which should happen anyway, but i don't see us having money to spend on it within 10 years or so.
Geothermal actually sounds cool and sexy, but i don't know who does it in scale.
Nuclear in US faces "not in my backyard" idiocy of the politicians.
But in any case, utilities like Con Edison are a good conservative investment and they have 5-6% yield.
With $ staging a major come back high yield $ stocks could be big winners

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

First Solar is expensive (what is it now, $150/share?) -- if I had that money, I'd have bought Apple instead. I had some Evergreen Solar shares -- they did not go up at all. Bad investment.
Are there Canadian companies that make CANDU (Canadian nuclear reactors)?

There is not one serious researcher that denies that fact that men havehad an affect on our climate, the question is only how much..
This is not true. No serious non-politicized scientist supports such an arrogant notion. Man is too insignificant to significantly affect Earth's climate.
Which researchers are not politicized ? Those who have ethics and integrity. Obviously, those at East Anglia Institute, NASA, Boulder are not among them.

Which researchers are not politicized ? Those who have ethics and integrity.
I see it clearly now: ethics and integrity are defining characteristics of non-politicized researchers. Thus, the non-politicized researchers are the ones who have ethics and integrity! It is so simple!
So, which researchers at Boulder are non-ethical: NIST, University of Colorado or both? And why?

Thorium as the next nuclear fuel!
***********.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

So, which researchers at Boulder are non-ethical: NIST, University of Colorado or both? And why?
Tom Wigley of the Boulder Atmospheric Research Center is the one without ethics and integrity.

problem with citing credible sources is that they are mostly by subscription..
but you do agree that the IPCC exacerates the claim..your modest estimate of 10-20% chance is a far cry from their 90%..
and your position on Obama refusal to investigate the scandal behind the e-mails??

good article, will study it more when i have time, but i like this:
The computer climate models upon which “human-caused global warming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable.

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу