pedro2 wrote:
If wind, water, solar and geo thermal were all better , wouldn't we be using them more ??
Are they better economically ? NO.
Better maintenance wise ? No .
A better payback job wise ? No
We get more bang from our buck with petroleum and natural gases.
My question on the 97% of scientists that are in agreement ... What KIND of scientists are these people ?
2nd question .... Are they getting paid and , if so , by who ?
As was stated earlier , If I went to college and spent 200k to learn about the climate , only to find that there wasn't much work in that field , UNLESS , I could secure a grant that would study and secure a FAVORABLE result for the people funding my project , I would have wasted 200k .
Who is watching the watchers ??
Back to the original question..... HOW MUCH IS MAN TO BLAME ( or praise ) ?
In answer to the first question, "wouldn't we be using them more?", we would, but th massive resistance from the gas, coal and related industries has slowed down and or blocked the intruduction of competing industries and technologies that have been around for over a half of a century.
As far as the next three questions, "economically?", yes, it's cheaper to produce and use because of the virtually unlimited resources, which means less profit margin to the opposing industries. Also, many people with solar panels actually sell electricity back to the power companies. "Maintenance wise?", probably about the same, we won't know exactly because the primary industries have been blocking it for decades. "Job wise?", possibly the same, maybe more. It would create millions of manufacturing, installation and maintenance jobs as well as research jobs. When the gas, oil and coal resources dry up, and someday they will, more sooner than later, those jobs will dry up right with it, that is, if global warming hasn't already caused mass extinctions, which are already underway for some species.
How much is man to blame? 97% of scientists say entirely. Praise? There is no praising destructive greed.