Global Warming -- 'give me a break'

Recently I've been told the following:
"According to the current issue of Scientific American, hybrid cars doubled in sales last year and are expected to more than double again by 2010. The demand is there. It always has been. Detroit just refused to acknowledge it. They created their own demand. What's more, they predict greener hybrids to come out in the near future and in larger sized autos."

To me this sounds like good news.

I've also noted that recently, the Bush administration is raising the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards for light trucks and SUVs from the current 21.6 to 24 mpg in 2011. To me, this makes sense. Making this kind of change should be done gradually to allow manufacturers to adjust. And from an ABC news report I also heard that the auto makers actually welcome this, because they recognize a shift in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. So what's the problem?

I myself subscribe to the economic laws of supply and demand. Demand is shifting the curve to higher fuel economy, but why. That's not too difficult to glean, because the cost of fuel is increasing. It just follows. But if you believe the bulk of the so-called environmentalists (those that are the outspoken leaders, not those like me who cherish nature), they are not happy. They give the environment a bad name in my opinion. They want too much, and whine about it incessantly, and demand things that the economy cannot brunt. Their way would be the highway, for the economy that is. This is one of the less harsh examples of their rhetoric:

link

I'm all for attacking menaces to the environment. Proven menaces are air pollution, for instance. Burning of coal places so many particulates and sulfur in the atmosphere, which harms plants and animals. That's real pollution. What I'm not for is this fictitious invented crisis of global warming. A made up crisis based on inexact science and furthermore linked to man's creation of CO2: an even less obvious causation between CO2, man's contribution to CO2, and global warming.

How many people have died or are suffering from global warming? Zilch. But think of the recent headlines with respect to coal mines. Not only do coal miners die from coal mines, but the burning of coal has been proven to reduce the life span of people, and cause all kinds of health problems.

Now think about the real hypocrisy of these environmental leaders: They are against Nuclear Energy. Compare and contrast the deaths caused by this form to the burning of coal. There is no comparison. The latter is way worse. Yet if their conviction is that global warming is the ultimate dooms day, and that man is the major cause, then they should be all behind nuclear energy because there are virtually zero emissions of CO2 with this form of energy. And these days, the technology behind this form of energy generation are as safe as can be, with a track record of NO deaths in the U.S. Let us start to use logic rather than emotion in these debates.