Hey, all:

Yeah, it's me, again. This time, there are 3 huge errors I see on this page. One, the reference to thin-film PV is completely out-of-place. Suggesting future, unrealized, undistributed technologies for an immediate problem started 160+ years ago is just stunning. A far better lead-off solution is to suggest installing silicon-based PV panels on several 100 million roofs globally, and crushing several 100 million private automobiles globally--more contemporaneous, sensible, effective, and doable than any future tech idea. It also brings home the problem far more directly.

Two, Carbon Carbon Carbon needs to be in the first paragraph.

Three, fossil fuels fossil fuels fossil fuels needs to be in the first paragraph.

~5.5 Gigatons of Carbon from fossil fuels globally per year released into the atmosphere currently, AND increasing, from anthropogenic causes is the problem. No other source need be discussed since everything else is background or part of the normal biospheric Carbon cycle. One of the favorite chants of the naysayers is 'methane from cows'--so what--you naysayers' shit don't stink?

I realize this is a new site, and I will actually add substance instead of just quacking, and no one can do it all. I will develop more patience and beg the same of the other users.

David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! 2300 9 Aug 2008 CDT

Good comments. Feel free to add your thoughts and make changes to the article.

The thin film reference is in the context of the need for immediate solutions rather than waiting for such new tech; the priority of research into promising tech like this could be mentioned; however, I would agree that it could be de-emphasized, maybe moved lower in the page.

Feel free to be bold! The history of the page is preserved, so we can easily negotiate later over what to change, merge, keep or delete. --Chriswaterguy 03:12, 10 August 2008 (PDT)