[dluftdfreheit]

Lets be clear: Burning natural gas (CH4) still puts carbon into the atmosphere. It's true that natural gas put less "black carbon" and other things into the atmosphere. It's much more clean than coal. But it will still enhance the greenhouse effect that is warming the planet. It is still a fossil fuel.

[showerst]

If it's used as a drop-in replacement for dirtier sources, and doesn't stop any cleaner sources from being developed or used, isn't it a strict win?

Maybe switching to a somewhat cleaner source would slow down movement towards green sources, but it seems like using CH4 is an overall win given what it's a substitute for.

[toomuchtodo]

Coal->Natuaral Gas? Good.

Natural Gas being deployed instead of solar or wind? Bad.

Natural Gas being deployed along side solar and wind? Best case.

One day the price of natural gas is going to rise again and people are going to be stuck with combined cycle natgas generators that are too expensive to run.

[protomyth]

I wouldn't mind wind if we started protecting the birds. I'm fond of solar, but until wind power is less destructive, I don't see why we should deploy it anywhere but off the coasts.

[toomuchtodo]

Cats kill more birds every year than wind turbines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/u-s-eases-turbine-b...

[protomyth]

Cats don't kill eagles, hawks, and geese.

[dllthomas]

Citation needed.

[gd1]

Lets be clear: not everyone is convinced that putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is even a problem.

[afterburner]

97% of climate scientists agreeing not good enough for you?

[scarmig]

97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the cause of very significant changes in our global climate. They probably also agree that it's an economic and social problem (as do I!), but they have no privileged perspective on that aspect of things (beyond an acceptance of scientific reality, which is unfortunately rarer than one might hope).

[gd1]

100% of priests agree there is a god.

[Retric]

That's not actually true. There are plenty of atheist priests as it's a job just like any other. More to the point if you survey the worlds religions you don't actually find much consensus of any kind. Just ask a shinto priest how the world was created and compare that with the native Australia dream time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamtime Even more enlightening 'God' as a concept aka a supreme higher power does not even translate into every language.

PS: Restrict it to christian priests and you still don't really find consensus. "More than 80 per cent were happy with the idea that God the Father created the world." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1403106/One-third-of-...

[afterburner]

Existence of god is largely a question of belief and faith, not scientifically verifiable data, and I suspect nearly all priests would agree to that as well.

[davidw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[MrZongle2]

In 1543, 97% of learned men agreed that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Consensus alone means nothing.

[Retric]

The sun does revolve around the earth. Remember there are no privileged viewpoints in General relativity.

[afterburner]

Of course it doesn't, but how that consensus was reached is. New data indicating otherwise would eventually change minds in the scientific community, as it did then. But it starts with data, not belief, or political agendas.