[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

You have somewhat changed your tune there - you've gone from saying it's 'hard evidence' to 'a lot of suggestions add up'.

They may add up, but that doesn't make it hard evidence.

It is hard evidence.

Your disagreement with it was "if you accept their interpretation of things which are in no way hard/fast proof", but I didn't say it was *proof*, I said it was "evidence", which is a different matter.

You keep saying that, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That word is so imprecise.

"not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness"

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1

You are bringing in an unrelated point about it being impossible to predict local weather conditions and attempting to apply this to a global situation which does not deal in short term situations, but long term trends and thereby trying to dismiss the evidence we have for the latter.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Does anyone know much about this:

It would seem to answer all of the problems raised, as far as I can see? Or am I missing something?

The problem is that it takes energy to split hydrogen from oxygen and, until we get fusion working, you need to put more energy in than you get out.

That doesn't mean that it's not feasible, it would be better to produce any output of greenhouse gasses etc in one location (ie a power station) where they can be dealt with on a "bulk" basis, rather than on an "individual" (ie car by car) basis, but it will take time and money and at the moment there are too many vested interests (especially at the heart of the US Government!) for much to change.