Would any climate change skeptics agree that clean energy and conservation is a good thing?

Nobody is going to say that they're against solar and wind power. What 'skeptics' will say is that we shouldn't fund these alternative energy sources, we should just let the 'free market' sort it all out. In the end, the vast majority of global warming 'skeptics' are 'skeptical' because they oppose the solution to the problem, which involves government action (generally speaking, a price on carbon emissions). They tend to be basically libertarian in that they want the government to do as little as possible. That includes subsidizing alternative energy sources.

Of course there are major problems with that way of thinking. The first is that fossil fuels (and nuclear power) also get massive amounts of subsidies. The second problem is that new technologies are almost always more expensive than long-established technologies, which benefit from the economies of scale and advancements in research and development.

Burning coal is cheap because it's heavily subsidized, it's dirty and we don't pay for the full environmental cost of burning it, and it's a technology that's been around for over a century. If we just expect solar and wind and other renewables to compete with coal on their own in the so-called "free market", it will take a very long time for them to become widely-used, because most of the time people will choose the cheap source of energy.

The other issue is that renewable energy is beneficial for public health. Even if you deny man-made global warming, energy sources like wind and solar also provide clean air, clean water, and are powered by a virtually unlimited fuel source. Thus these renewable energy sources should be subsidized to increase their implementation for the general public good.

So ultimately the question is not whether you think solar and wind energy are a good thing, but rather whether you're willing to subsidize them to some degree. Most 'skeptics' are not, but they should be.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between guiding people to the better alternatives instead of pushing them there and then punishing the groups that are actually trying to clean up the environment while letting the Nations that care only about expanding their economies continue to have double digit year over year increases in all pollutants.

Finally, I can remember when mountain-top removal for coal production was changed so that the coal companies had to re-landscape when they were done. I also work with people who have been recently to both China and India and you could not pay them enough money to live there because of the pollution in these two Nations.

I mean, open your eyes, it is the environmentalists that are stopping both solar plants and wind farms stating destruction of the environment. You can't tell us to move to more Earth friendly power then tell us that we can't build them.

Clean energy and conservation are great. We did have an alternative clean energy source developed in the 1950's. Unfortunately its usage was first seen in ending World War II and now people equate nuclear energy with something bad. Nuclear energy has little of the problems climate change pushers worry about. No smoke, no burning of anything, no "carbon footprints'' or anything of that nature. And yes, we would reuse spent fuel rods, not bury them as some dumb politicians would have us do.

There are problems with many alternative energy sources. The manufacture of solar collectors leaves toxic industrial waste, wind farms are useless and they get turned off every so often. Seems to me that defeats the purpose. And the manufacture of batteries for electric cars needs a metal that brilliantly is only available in China and other politically unstable countries. Or countries of questionable alliance with the US.

As with solar and wind, power generation is dependent on weather. It's not always windy. And some parts of the North see cloudy days for weeks on end.

Climate difference is only one limitation amongst many. Taking those in combination, I see it as just like the Second World War. When the danger to the survival of the British persons used to be critical ample, a coalition executive used to be shaped and there have been no usual elections. Similarly, governments generally impose martial regulation if an emergency comparable to a wooded area hearth or different common crisis is a adequate danger. This will ultimately have got to occur. However, it's going to traditionally be too past due, persons will believe it is whatever just like the imposition of a NWO after which we will be able to all die in terrible pain. In reality, that'll traditionally occur besides given that of the disastrous dumbing down of the schooling procedure.

Yes it is a good thing if it is cheap like hydro electricity. Dams have been pumping out cheap energy for decades now. But solar nuclear and wind are a huge waste of money. And the wind generally doesn't blow when it is really hot or really cold and electricity demand is at a peak. We need to rely more on coal because it creates jobs in America, is cheap and very reliable.

I believe the theory of climate change has somehow morphed into a type of green cult. Make no mistake this cult is evil for they want to make us all poor by taking away our heat, transport, air conditioning, industry and modern agriculture.

Call it bad science, bad economics or what ever you want. I call it like I see it and I see an evil cult. These folks don't want to just destroy themselves like Jim Jones did in Jones-town they aim to destroy all humanity so the earth can become some kind of human free paradise. Does that sound like a cult to you?

I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming, and I fully support alternative, clean energy options. however, It is still important to maintain a sense of skepticism and caution in that realm, as well. For instance, bio-fuels made from corn or other edible grain products are responsible for driving up food prices, while never delivering a promising fuel alternative - people were far too eager to jump on that wagon, because the average person does not know about the logistics of such issues, and does not take time to analyze long-term issues - we, generally speaking, demand instant gratification without having to work for it. Wind power is not very efficient for mass use because there are very few areas that have proper wind supplies for long enough periods to make any difference. Even with only 17% max efficiency, solar power is a good solution when used in locally appropriate areas (American Southwest, for instance, which as over 300 days of sunshine a year), however, storage and transportation technology for mass usage is very poor. Thusly, solar should be used on a local level (installed on the roof of a house). However, the technology is still very expensive (it takes about 30 years to break even on a good solar power investment for your house), so until price becomes low enough for mass use, it will never become a viable alternative.

People (including both advocates and skeptics of anthropogenic global warming) have a bad habit of supporting only one thing or the other, and disregarding everything in-between, when the fact is that the most efficient solution is a comprehensive solution that takes everything into account, which will also have the smallest ecological footprint in the long run. Even more, issues must be considered on a case-by-case basis, as everything cannot be solved with one broad solution-for instance, solar power would be a complete waste of time, energy and money in Seattle or Portland

furthermore, proponents of anthropogenic global warming, particularly the most radical and political groups such as Green Peace et al., have a nasty habit of never providing a rational solution to the issue.

To paraphrase a Roman politician, "Criticize by creation, not by finding fault."

I, for one, care nothing for the opinion of someone who cannot propose an alternative to that which they criticize - even then, they are still obligated to provide the evidence that it is a worthwhile alternative. (Nor do I care for the opinion of radical narcissists who toss around ad-hominems and non sequiturs, while using an avatar name of "Evidence based Reality" - there is no room for such people in this kind of debate)

Clean energy at what price? A fuel source no one can afford wouldn't help anyone. Some would like to put solar panels on all roofs of building. How many trees would be cut down to keep the solar panels from being shaded?

I do believe cleaner and more efficient energy is good. I do not believe that a governmental takeover (or an international takeover) of the industry is good. Just like the rest of the leftism, while there are some legitimate issues to be addressed, the "cure" is worse than the problem, and is not meant to cure hte problem at all, but only to advance a larger and more insidious agenda.

solar-yes

wind-yes but only in areas where bird and bat death will be at a minimum.

coal-yes

petroleum from oil sands-yes

And add

nuclear-yes

tidal power-yes

dams/hydro-yes

other-yes

Basically we should develop all form of energy. The world demand will be to high for any one type to be dominant.

But we should not be taxed or forced into any type of energy. Let the market forces work it out.

I do believe cleaner technologies are fantastic.

I just don't believe in this "carbon footprint" scam and the greedy criminals trying to declare it "unlawful" (Verbatim Cap & Trade Legislation) to reside in your own home, if it is not up to their "energy standards". The free market usually wins anyway. People want more energy efficient homes to save on heating bills. There is no reason for more mandates so the government can raise taxes and confiscate private property.