Replying to the two previous posts:
First, both were well said and enlightening. I apologize for being so glib at the outset. While I admit to being a climate change skeptic in a sense, which is to say I'm neither a denier or a skeptic of climate change in general, but I tend to have a less alarmist POV than the doomsday prognosticators. There's a reason for this and I'll make it brief. I'm old enough to have lived thru two previous scares regarding climatology. First, when I was very young, elementary school age, the coming of another ice-age was a virtual certainty, and by the calculations at the time, said ice-age would long since have occurred by now and wiped us out as a species. This was not some crackpot philosophy mind you, but pretty much standard science and curriculum when I was a child.
Anyhow, when it became apparent that the ice-age prognostications were greatly exaggerated, there was a brief respite from doomsday scenarios attributed to the climate ... and then came "global warming", the new climatology threat to mankind as a whole, mostly due to the hole in the ozone layer we were creating, which began the practice of recycling. Yes, I was there at the outset and actually remember when "recycling" was not even in the lexicon, much less practiced. But the dire predictions of global warming wiping us all out, AND WHEN, has long since passed and low & behold, we're still here.
Then, once again there was a brief respite from the climatology doomsday scenarios, until the phrase "climate change" was dropped on us like an atom-bomb. I also can't help but notice, as a stickler for language, how the first two doomsday scenarios were far more direct, thus more easily refuted or at least noticeable when it wasn't happening as rapidly as predicted, whereas "climate change" is more ambiguous, elusive and all-encompassing.
So, having lived thru the first two false alarms, and I repeat, according to the predictions at the time we should all be dead by now, well, I am naturally skeptical of the prognostications of a third such doomsday scenario, but they learned that language matters and its to their advantage to use a more ambiguous and elusive term.
THAT SAID, I repeat, while I may be naturally skeptical due to my own life's experiences, that does not make me an outright denier. Certainly I account for the possibility that THIS TIME the most dire predictions can be true.
So I am willing to indulge different forms of energy. HOWEVER there are two prerequisites for me and they are non-negotiable. First, it must be affordable for the poor and working classes, not just the middle class, upper middle class and wealthy. They can endure the financial burden however expensive, the poor and working classes cannot. They'll just wind-up freezing in the winter and dropping dead from heart attacks and heat exhaustion in the summer, perhaps even homeless because they can't pay their bills.
Second, the technology must be reliably sufficient regardless of the weather conditions.
So long as these new forms of energy meet those two criteria, skeptic or not, deal me in.
However if they fail to meet those two criteria, I will oppose any such transitions. Instead I will support drilling for our own oil, becoming energy independent, and keeping the prices under control (affordable to everyone).
Lastly, just adding a little levity to the discussion ...