Reply #22: Typical right wing tactic, an ad hominem smear (ha, over a URL name!).

[BlueEyedSon]

Why "doomsday"?

Partly for shock value, partly it's my ironic sense of humor (not to mention that all the good domain names are already taken). Primarily, the word reflects an abrupt change generally not for the better. Many doomsday-type events have occurred, usually with localized effects. If you survived a major earthquake, volcano eruption or perhaps Chernobyl, I'm sure the experience was quite doomsday-esqe. What these events have in common was their unpredictability and as such they would have been difficult to prevent or mitigate.

OTOH, I will deal with your issues.

Please substantiate your claim that there exist technically feasible, reasonable cost "other sources" of energy. Hope (and/or wishful thinking) is not a plan.

Describe to the best of your knowledge the historical and or fossil records of climate change as abrupt as the one we are seeing now (which is coincident with increased human-produced CO2 concentrations).

There are mass starvations now, you ought to open a newspaper.

While there are better environmental regulations than in the 60's. they are fast being rolled back by the Bush admin. While the RATE of despoiling of the environment has decreased (and locally some hot spots are much cleaner now), the environment is overall more polluted and more CONSISTENTLY polluted. There are no "pristine" places left at all anymore.

As far as dying in a terrorist attack, the odds are much higher of dying of a whole lot of other things, yet there is hardly any mania around smoking, drunk driving, cancers (an other common diseases), handgun accidents, etc.

IIRC, Bush has articulated his desire for tactical nukes. Maybe it's just a bluff to our enemies (potential and otherwise), but based on his willingness to use bunker busters and shock and awe tactics, why would it not be reasonable to assume he wouldn't deploy small nukes if he had them?