You are a scam artist to the end, aren't you? Iceland uses less oil because they use geo-thermal because they are located on a volcanic island. You kind of have to consider the geological activity of the country to make a comparison. Your main beef is not with oil but with CO2. How much CO2 do these volcanos release that they are using to heat their homes? How could the US adopt such a plan when the overwelming majority of the population does not live near such geological activity. You like to go around making blanket statements without bothering to study or understand the details of the situation. Why are you bringing up efficiency? The MMGW cultist are not recommending increases in efficiency to combat the scam of MMGW, they are recommending increases in taxes to make it too expensive to use energy.
Good point -- it's too bad that the United States doesn't have any geothermal potential. If only there were a place in the United States which sat on a fault line... too bad there isn't. Also, Iceland has high technology which the US doesn't have access to. Like, ummm, fish drying. (Okay, I keed!) Not that much compared to cars. Ever since (if I remember correctly) Reagan stated that volcanoes were responsible for more CO2 than man, many studies have been done on this area (all of which found that he was diametrically wrong.) Additionally CO2 from volcanoes is background CO2, and would be released anyway. Another good point. Power can't be transported or imported. Ever. Okay, I'm being sarcastic. Yes, the US imports a great deal of power, even from Canada. Actually, none of cap and trade are "taxes" as I understand it. Plus, you're wrong in that clearly these "cultists" are demanding higher CAFE standards, higher standards for appliances, higher standards for lightbulbs, etc. And in the case of lightbulbs this is already paying dividends with the new incandescent research.
You're swimming against the tide on this one -- there's little doubt that there will be new agreements (and that Kyoto will finally be ratified in the US). And, according to many Republicans, the economy will collapse and we will forage in the streets for food.
Where to begin? Nobody said the US did not have any geothermal potential but you can't can't compare Iceland which is an entire country which sits on several volcanos to the US which has a large portion of its population living nowhere near volcanic activity. Thats a fraud. What is the difference between CO2 released by man or a volcano? Nothing. Heat does not discriminate. This is the second time I have seen you make such a bizarre claim. Heat does not care where the CO2 came from. Please elaborate on your claim that it does. Yes, geothermal power cannot be transported long distances. What don't you understand about that? Cap and trade is all tax. What do you think it is? You can continue to lie all you want, and some boneheads may buy it, but the majority don't. The MMGW cult has failed to provide any proof on the matter.
I don't think the word "fraud" means what you think it means. Here's a geothermal map of the US showing that pretty much the entire west has access to geothermal: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html Well, apart from the fact that geothermal power doesn't release CO2... ummm... what was your question? Every kind of power can be transported long distances. In fact, the entire US is served by three grids: "North America is actually covered by four regional grids (three of which serve the U.S.). The largest is the Eastern Interconnection, an extensive complex of transmission lines that stretches from Halifax to New Orleans, with substations that step down the high-voltage electricity to lower levels so that it can be distributed locally along smaller wires. West of the Rockies is the Western Interconnection, from British Columbia to San Diego and a small slice of Mexico." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=giving-the-power-grid-some-backbone A market priced commodity. What constitutes sufficient "proof" -- and please be specific.
Well why don't we start with a model that correctly predicts sequel temperature trends when data from a historical point in time is inputted. This model will show rises and declines in temperature as historical temperature records show. The model must be able to account for both positive and negative feedback systems and fundamentally explain those systems. So why don't we start with an explanation of why we see ice core temperature spike to +2 and then always spike back down. I have asked you this before Dave and you have never been able to answer it. From what I have heard of most IPCC models is that almost any values can be inputted and it shows is continuous rise in temperature regardless.
Models aren't "proof." They're models. Please try again. "Proof" would be something like proving that CO2 molecules absorb IR in two ways. This has already been shown. No one can answer that question with any certainty given that you're asking about hundreds of thousands of years ago. False. Firstly, the models (and there are many) are not created by the IPCC (although the IPCC uses some). Secondly you can even download the models and see for yourself. If you start with the current set of conditions, yes temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 that the atmosphere has already absorbed. Here's one -- download and enjoy: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
So the entire west has access to geothermal. What about the central and eastern parts? You are comparing a country that has 100% access to geothermal to the US. A completely bogus and dishonest comparison. So Volcanos don't release CO2? Well now that is news. The word fraud comes to mind. Can all power really be transported efficiently? The loss on electrical lines is 7.2%. Its a market priced commodity sold by the US government. If the US government is the end recipent of the funds, so how can you classify it as anything other than a tax. What constitutes "proof"? I don't know, you are the know it all. Why don't you look the word up?
The only thing that proves is what you said, that CO2 absorbs IR. It doesn't prove that increasing CO2 always leads to increased temperatures. Climate change is a complex system that involves more than one variable. This is why the models are created; to combine the many different systems and factors and then predict climate change. Is this concept really that hard to understand for you? Then tell me all the possible scenarios that would cause this effect and we can discuss their feasibility and how these conditions relate to our present climate. So you are admitting we are doomed regardless of what we do. Why even bother trying to reduce CO2 output then?