Like Lemmings to the Sea - Will President Bush join in the chorus of dead-end energy proposals?

National Review Online ^ | April 16, 2008 | Roy Spencer

[neverdem]

---

---

April 16, 2008, 9:30 a.m.

Like Lemmings to the Sea
Will President Bush join in the chorus of dead-end energy proposals?

By Roy Spencer

Today’s announcement by President Bush on strategies to limit global warming has yet to come, but unless he is ready to unveil a new and miraculous source of energy that produces no carbon dioxide, one can only assume that he will simply be adding his voice to the many other lemmings who are calling for a mass migration to the nearest cliff from which we can all jump.

The fact is that there is simply nothing we can do — short of shutting down the global economy — that will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Prosperity requires access to abundant, affordable energy.  Thus, any mandated limits or taxes meant to slow the use of fossil fuels will limit prosperity as well, period.

The current wave of political pandering to public misperceptions about where our energy comes from would be funny if it weren’t so deadly serious. There is simply no way to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions as long as increasing numbers of people around the world desire to make a better life for themselves and their families. 

While the developed countries take for granted conveniences like heating, air conditioning, refrigerated food, and the freedom to travel, our politicians continue to feed the myth that we have any realistic alternatives to carbon-based fuels. With the possible exception of a very slow (several decade) transition from coal-fired power plants to nuclear ones, there are simply no other options that will make any measurable difference for future global temperatures.

Unfortunately, many businesses, including a few energy companies, are now joining in the fray. The illusion of “going green” as a way to Save the Earth might be a good marketing strategy, but it only reinforces the urban legend that Al Gore started in his movie by claiming that we can fix the global warming problem by buying compact fluorescent light bulbs, hybrid cars, and turning off the light when we leave the room.

These supposed solutions might make us feel better about ourselves, but the assumption that they will have an impact on global energy use is like assuming one plus one can equal one million. Yes, it is “doing something” about the problem, but it is doing something insignificant.

And all of this assumes that mankind is the primary cause of global warming anyway. You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.

Instead, since Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like “pollutant.”

As the mass hysteria calling for an end to carbon dioxide production has accelerated, ethanol has arisen as the new messiah of radical environmentalism, promising to assuage our guilty enviro-consciences when we choose to starve more of the world’s poor.

Now is the time for the people to speak up. We need leaders who will tell us to stop running toward the edge of the cliff. That cliff is fast approaching, and unless someone has the courage to stand up for the rights of humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the momentum we have generated due to our irrational fears will cause us all to topple into the sea.

— Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.
— Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala.

[massgopguy]

I remember Rush reading a story on “Utopium”.

[stockpirate]

Tha answer is yes he will.

[neverdem]

Utopium for the Utopians, perfect!

[SatinDoll]

“The fastest method to repeal a bad or obnoxious law is its stringent application.” President Theodore Roosevelt.

Shine the light of truth on the subject of CO2, and then watch it shrivel to zero importance, my freinds.

[DoughtyOne]

While I do find some things to agree with this writer about, it seems that there are two sides to this green thing, and folks are drawn to the extremes of both sides like moths to light, and this guy is no different.

Greenies are idiots.

Those who claim that no benefit is to be gained by owning a hybrid are also idiots. Those who scoff at the benefits of wind, solar, or other complimentary energy savers are also idiots.

I happen to believe that nuclear power plants would be a great first move towards energy independence. That doesn’t convince me that it’s wrong to save energy in an assortment of other ways.

I realize this will get both sides mad at me, but Jeez folks, I’m tired of coming to the forum to see folks trash every single idea except burning more oil.

For the record, I don’t think car emissions are ruining the planet. I think providing funding to terrorists and the sympathizers of terrorists will.

We need to use a wise critical eye no doubt, but I’d like to see some suggestions instead of a constant stream of critcism for every idea that could cut even a few percent of the demand we have for oil.

[quant5]

This guy saying nuke energy and other alternatives being decades away is bullcrap. The goal of the Bush Admin was to replace 5% of our energy supply with ethanol. We did that with our agriculture and the writer is correct to assume we should stop using our corn crop from here.

Biodiesal, is not decades away, but indeed it does take several years for farms to spring up and add to the supply, although this is occuring rapidly. All regulations should be lifted on drilling our own supply. If I wasn’t in consumer healthcare (also a necessity item) then I would have bought a huge soybean farm or the land/equipment/help.

Regulations should be eased to allow private companies to build nuke plants with the new pebble design, which has reduced chance of a meltdown to 1 in BILLION. Plus, the amount of nuclear waste has been reduced from pounds per month to kilograms. Easy enough to find ways to gather the total aggregate and launch the waste towards the sun. Solar is becoming big using sun powerered steam turbines. Hydrogen cars already exist. The Honda hydrogen vehicle can be leased next year for $600 a month but only several thousand vehicles exist. No doubt, the cost will come down, way down as time progresses and not decades away. Wind, tidal and river powered turbines emit almost zero emissions and are now economical compared to $70 oil never mind $114 dollar oil. Same with oil shale. What is needed now is investment dollars as government subsidies which by the way would create millions of jobs and as we eventually become an exporter, create trillions in wealth to pay things like healthcare and SS (in other words, pay for the promises made to the baby boomers).

Now here is the real problem: What is lacking is the political will to subsidize more of the effective alternative energy sources and drill domestically. Why? The real reason is not global warming. The real reason is politicians being lobbied by big oil and envriowhackos (same thing these days). With inside information at there fingertips, these politicians invest in big oil.

Google the Siberian Flats. 700,000 times the amount of carbon was emitted as is current in our atmosphere now to create a 9 degree increase in the atmosphere which indeed caused global calamity. But this happened over MILLIONS of years. So to hear that our tempature will rise 9 degrees because of manmade carbon in 40 years is beyond ABSURD.

Want to see the country be energy independent? Create a law that says no U.S. politician or family member can invest in energy while in office and two years afterwards. Then and only then will you see the U.S. become energy independent. When will this occur? When citizens demand heads on pikes and that day is not too far away as individuals and companies go bankrupt on bad fiscal (Socialism) and energy policies (greed).

[sand88]

Greenies are idiots.

I used to think that. Now, I truly believe they are evil to their core. I pray that every human being pushing this AGW lie will burn for an eternity in the bottom rungs of Hell.

The ultimate result of doing what the evil left wants is the outright destruction of our civilization. This will inevitably result is war and civil war around the world. I pray the Warriors of the world will visit the ultimate justice on these AGW freaks.

[quant5]

Well said DoughtyOne, I always like your straight forward insights.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[DoughtyOne]

I do think there is a core that is pure evil. We agree there. There are also a lot of pie-eyed college age itiots doint what’s cool for mother earth. Gak.

[SoothingDave]

Plus, the amount of nuclear waste has been reduced from pounds per month to kilograms.

Care to rephrase that? 1kg = 2.2 lb

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Quant5. I appreciate it.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes Mr. Spencer, our president has succumbed to the prevalent disease in Washington: Necrotizing Brain Rot.

[sand88]

This guy saying nuke energy and other alternatives being decades away is bullcrap.

Thank you for an informative posting. I believe that Mr. Spencer was factoring in a 20+ year delay caused by the environuts and govt regulators :) If government got out of the way, there would be a quick solution.

[Thickman]

I agree with you mostly, DoughtyOne, with a couple of exceptions . . .

“Greenies are idiots.”

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Those who claim that no benefit is to be gained by owning a hybrid are also idiots. Those who scoff at the benefits of wind, solar, or other complimentary energy savers are also idiots.

BENEFITS, YES. ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, NO. AT LEAST NOT WITHOUT TAX INCENTIVES. HYBRIDS DON’T DELIVER ENOUGH FUEL SAVINGS TO OFFSET THE INCREASED COST OF THOSE VEHICLES VS. COMBUSTION ENGINE MODELS. JUST COMPARE THE COST OWNERSHIP OF A FORD FOCUS VS. A TOYOTA PRIUS - YOU DON’T GET YOUR MONEY BACK IN GAS SAVINGS WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDED COST AND MAINTENANCE.

I happen to believe that nuclear power plants would be a great first move towards energy independence. That doesn’t convince me that it’s wrong to save energy in an assortment of other ways.

AGREED. GOOD LUCK GETTING THAT PAST THE GREENIES THOUGH.

I realize this will get both sides mad at me, but Jeez folks, I’m tired of coming to the forum to see folks trash every single idea except burning more oil.

AGREED, BUT THEY NEED TO BE VIABLE IDEAS. AFTERALL, OIL IS PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE NOW, IT’S RELATIVELY CHEAP AND ABUNDANT (IF THE GREENIES WOULD JUST LET US TAP IT).

For the record, I don’t think car emissions are ruining the planet. I think providing funding to terrorists and the sympathizers of terrorists will.

AGREED. LET’S PUMP AMERICAN OIL - WE HAVE ENOUGH TO LAST 1,000 YEARS (THAT’S PLENTY OF TIME FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPLANT THE OIL ECONOMY MANY TIMES OVER).

We need to use a wise critical eye no doubt, but I’d like to see some suggestions instead of a constant stream of critcism for every idea that could cut even a few percent of the demand we have for oil.

I’M ALL FOR ELECTRIC CARS BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS IF YOU WANT THEM TO BECOME THE STANDARD BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE THAT CAN PRODUCE THAT MUCH ELECTRICITY AT THIS TIME.

I’M ALL FOR SOLAR IMPLIMENTATION. THE TECHNOLOGIES ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEING COST-EFFECTIVE WITHOUT GOV’T SUBSIDIES, BUT SOLAR ALONE WON’T CUT IT.

I’M EXCITE ABOUT THE NEW HONDA CAR THAT RUNS ON HYDROGEN EXCEPT THAT IT EMITS THE MOST PERVASIVE AND EFFECTIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR). . . . HAD TO GET ONE JOKE IN HERE.

[RightWhale]

there is simply nothing we can do

There is much to do. First, join the conversation, get a seat at the table. Get some real scientists in there and give Hansen the boot. The USA needs to not only join in but dominate. This cannot be done by doing nothing since the rest of the world except Russia, China, India and other productive economies are already in line at the World Court to sue the USA for whatever scam with whatever controlling legal authority they can come up with.

[Chameleon]

Roy Spencer may be a lot of things, but he certainly isn’t an idiot, and he is a bonafide expert’s expert on this topic...Indeed, he is the one responsible for the best satellite data sets available that measure global temperature.

I’m all for decreasing our need for foreign oil...But anyone who thinks we’ll get there through conservation is being totally unrealistic. We have tons of coal, and coal could easily power our future power plants (cheaper than nuclear) and be liquified to run in our cars. Problem is, coal releases CO2.

If the goal is to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy, coal is the obvious answer - except for that it is the boogeyman of global warming.

Spncer’s point isn’t that energy conservation is bad. His point is that it will have no measurable imapct on the global CO2 released, and thus global warming. This isn’t idiocy - it is just realism....Just as it is realist to assert that energy conservation by itself will have little impact on our need for foreign oil.

I’m all for energy conservation.

But I’m also well aware that half the world lives without modern conveniences like electricity, refrigerators, air conditioning, heater, cars, telephones, etc.

100 years ago, nobody had these luxuries.

On current trajectories, 100 years from now, everyone will have them.

The idea that we’re going to prevent people in developing countries from entering the energy age because of environmental concerns is laughable.

The global warming solutions all require raising the price of energy - thus making it less affordable, and restricting progress in the developing world. That proponents of more expensive energy can say with a straight face that they want to raise energy prices to benefit the world’s poor is truly astounding.

Whether and how much CO2 heats up the planet is an experiement that will be run regardless of the futile schemes beurocrats invent to try to regulate global supply and demand of energy.

[Realism]

You must also believe that things such as indoor water, sanitary sewers and treatment plants, landfills, water treatment systems are also the work of evil doers. Is your world round or do you insist that it is flat?

[penowa]

"The fact is that there is simply nothing we can do — short of shutting down the global economy — that will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Prosperity requires access to abundant, affordable energy."

CO2 has nothing to do with anything. The purpose is NOT to shut down the global economy, just the economy of the U.S. Our own gov't has placed a stranglehold on OUR abundant affordable energy. Meanwhile, China, Russia, Cuba, M.E., S.A., etc. have no plans to shut down their attempts to secure the energy they need to grow. All that remains to be seen is whether or not with the assistance of our own gov't the rest of the world can bring us to our knees and destroy us without ending up in as bad or worse shape than we're going to be.

Gonna be a lot of long cold winters in our future.

[rightinthemiddle]

I believe most people here are common-sense conservationists. I am a strong conservationist. I also conserve energy when it’s logical.

The “green” movement is out of control and we can’t afford to give in to them. It’s hurting our economy and eventually, our way of life.

They want their insanity to sound reasonable. That’s how they do everything.

[Matchett-PI]

Here’s the latest attempt to misrepresent what Roy Spencer has said on the matter:

Compare what he said:

Roy W. Spencer1 Contact Information
(1) The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35805, USA
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y4116185812q1653/

Received: 22 October 2007 Revised: 8 February 2008 Accepted: 15 February 2008 Published online: 19 March 2008

Abstract Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth gives a variety of unusually biased interpretations of the state of climate science and global warming theory. These cover a wide range of natural events and processes which could potentially be impacted by global warming, but which the movie misrepresents as clear examples of the human influence on climate.

A few examples include the mixing up of cause and effect in his graphical portrayal of temperature and carbon dioxide variations over hundreds of thousands of years; the repeated depiction of ice calving from glaciers as a sign of global warming; the implication that Hurricane Katrina was the fault of humans; and the particularly extreme view that the Greenland ice sheet will melt, flooding coastal cities worldwide.

Ultimately, all of these are related to the widespread perception that scientists have uniquely tied global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

The real inconvenient truth is that science has no idea how much of recent warming is natural versus the result of human activities.” Email: roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu

*
With what they said he said:

Scientists debate the accuracy of Al Gore’s documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
Posted On: April 14, 2008 - 4:44pm
http://www.sciencecodex.com/scientists_debate_the_accuracy_of_al_gores_documentary_an_inconvenient_truth

There is no question that Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful example of how scientific knowledge can be communicated to a lay audience. What is up for debate is whether it accurately presents the scientific argument that global warming is caused by human activities. Climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film’s claims in articles just published online in Springer’s journal, GeoJournal.
http://www.springer-sbm.com/index.php?id=291&backPID=132&L=0&tx_tnc_news=4335&cHash=da1112f39b

An Inconvenient Truth is about Al Gore’s campaign to educate citizens about global warming and inspire them to take action. The papers in GeoJournal agree that it does an excellent job of raising public awareness of man-made global warming and explains why increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to warming. They also agree that its main weakness is that it tries to use individual extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, to prove the existence of global warming.

In the first opinion piece (1), Eric Steig from Washington University states that the film gets the fundamental science right. The minor factual errors do not undermine the main message of the film, which explains the theory that increasing carbon dioxide causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere.

John Nielsen-Gammon from Texas A&M University also agrees that the main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence (2). He comments that unfortunately, it neglects all information that can be gained from computer models, and instead relies entirely on past and current observational evidence. This increases the film’s emotional impact but weakens the scientific argument.

David Legates from the University of Delaware addresses assertions about trends in precipitation, floods, droughts and storms in particular (3). He concludes that there are significant errors in the film, owing to alarmism and exaggeration, which give a false impression of both the current state of climate change and that the science is settled.

In another paper (4), Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama in Huntsville also discredits the scientific validity of the documentary. In his view, the film’s main omission is that while humans are almost certainly responsible for global warming, there are other natural causes of climate variability which the film does not address. In his opinion, the “real inconvenient truth is that science has no idea how much of recent warming is natural versus the result of human activities”. http://www.springerlink.com/content/y4116185812q1653/

After providing a succinct summary of the state of climate change science (5), Gerald North from Texas A&M University concludes the debate by stating that although there are some inaccuracies and exaggerations in the film, on the whole it represents mainstream scientific views on global warming.

Steven Quiring, also from Texas A&M University and author of the issue’s introduction (6), comes to the conclusion that whether scientists like it or not, An Inconvenient Truth has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report.

References

(1) Steig EJ (2008). Another look at An Inconvenient Truth. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9130-3)

(2) Nielsen-Gammon JW (2008). An Inconvenient Truth: the scientific argument. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9126-z)

(3) Legates DR (2008). An Inconvenient Truth: a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9125-0)

(4) Spencer RW (2008). An Inconvenient Truth: blurring the lines between science and science fiction. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9129-9)

(5) North GR (2008). An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-9127-y

(6) Quiring SM (2008). Science and Hollywood: a discussion of the scientific accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9128-x)

*
One comment:

Vince - April 14, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

“The discussion uses several terms that all mean most of these individuals live or die off of resources that promote the psudo science (read ‘bad’ science) used by individuals involved in the ‘man-made’ global warming discussions.

Their statements are all couched in verbiage that allows them to affirm or deny what ever was just said.

e.g.

“Gerald North … concludes the debate by stating that although there are some inaccuracies and exaggerations in the film, on the whole it represents mainstream scientific views on global warming.”

Mainstream - meaning those living off grants (not the generally retired or individually funded who all generally agree global warming - if it exists, is not man made or caused.)

Living or dying off of grants, means that their lips sync the chorus of the funding. In fact, if they don’t, they are rapidly with out fundings, invitations, free lunches etc.

Reading how much snow/ record low temps/ and often data that is inconvenient to ‘AlGores’ diatribe (yes, I believe the only inconvenient truth, is his ability to get such tripe in the media - which has less veracity than he).

The whole of world climate, does not reflect the 3 out of the last 10 years. It totals out at all of the last 4+ Billion.

In those years, included are sun hot and sun very hot years (and temps in between). Included are times when the oceans were higher or lower than now, because of land mass movement (techtonic plates shuttling about raising the Himalayan gulch to its current level) and times when Antarctica was a tropic.

When Antarctica was tropical, man did not exist, as we know ‘man’ now. But, by theories propounded by ‘man-made global warming and AlGore, that was mankind’s fault, since MANKIND is the only cause of Global Warming.

Do I doubt? Yes.

Does the media/funding driven ’scientist’ cause me to question their findings?

Until they take a definitive stand, staking their reputations with no quibbling words to save their necks, I whole heartedly doubt them.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe we should find good and reasonable developments to all our current ways of living. Mercury laden pig tailed fluorescent light bulbs, starvation causing ethonol and other get solved quick schemes aside, the current ideas and answers are all loaded guns aimed towards our heads. Frozen Menthonol, Shale oil, even certain forms of atomic energy pose more realistic near terms answers, rather than raising the cost of food (to starve the masses with over priced corn, soy, mean and poultry) just to produce ‘environmentally correct’ alcohol fuels that cost as much energy to make as they save? while using up our water resources (note why Georgia ran out of water this year) and raising the cost of food?

For that conference to have had any weight in credibility, real antagonists to the issue, and real discussion of causal relationships to the source of warming, and results of current solutions needed to be presented.

It is amazing Hillary was not there dodging snipers…

(sorry, that was almost uncalled for).

I am a doubter of man-made global warming. I am not a scientist. I have read too much, and seen too many of the fallacies of all the ‘pro man-mades’ to come close to believing any of them.

I have read enough of the ‘anti man-mades’ to be filled with cause to question… both sides.

That means neither side ‘wins’.

But, the man-mades have an agenda. That gives all that they say a very deep tarnish.”

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2008/04/14/scientists-debate-the-accuracy-of-al-gores-documentary-an-inconvenient-truth/

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with you mostly, DoughtyOne, with a couple of exceptions . . .  Oh I can't believe this!!!  ;-)

“Greenies are idiots.”

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT  Oh man, I can't argue with that.

Those who claim that no benefit is to be gained by owning a hybrid are also idiots. Those who scoff at the benefits of wind, solar, or other complimentary energy savers are also idiots.

BENEFITS, YES. ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, NO. AT LEAST NOT WITHOUT TAX INCENTIVES. HYBRIDS DON’T DELIVER ENOUGH FUEL SAVINGS TO OFFSET THE INCREASED COST OF THOSE VEHICLES VS. COMBUSTION ENGINE MODELS.  That's more like it.

I don't actually disagree with your premise here.  Let me explain where I am coming from.  I wouldn't make the arguement that big financial savings are going to result from hybrids.  Where a person can find a vehicle that meets their needs and gets equal or better mileage, I'm all for them buying that vehicle.  I wanted to purchase a nicely furnished four wheel drive SUV that got better mileage than the Mountaineer I would have bought if I hadn't opted to purchase the Mariner.  I knew I would pay a bit more than for the gas/only version.  I am happy with my choice.

When I drive distance on the freeway I get up to 32 mpg.  Around town it's more like 28 mpg.  Our other vehicle, an older Mountaineer gets something like 14 to 17 mpg.  I will probably never get my money back on the Mountaineer. 

I will tell you that one eason I made the choice was because I wanted to purchase within my desired grouping, an SUV, and still reduce my consumption of gasoline.  I don't want to harp on it, but as a Conservative I wanted to contribute to making us less dependent on Middle-Eastern oil, and I was willing to pay a premium to accomplish that.  I fill up less often.  I put less gas in the vehicle when I do, about five gallons less.  Recouping extra expense or not, if you think it doesn't feel good not to buy that additional five gallons each fill-up at $3.75 per gallon, you're wrong.  I get a kick out of it.  My vehicle is not a plug in model BTW.

JUST COMPARE THE COST OWNERSHIP OF A FORD FOCUS VS. A TOYOTA PRIUS - YOU DON’T GET YOUR MONEY BACK IN GAS SAVINGS WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDED COST AND MAINTENANCE.  For some reason the Prius doesn't appeal to me at all.  I know a lot of people think they are great.  My wife and I developed an appreciation for SUVs years back.  We have been driving them for about ten years now.  We both drive freeway traffic, and prefer to see over the cars ahead, so we have some inkling when problems are developing up there.

I happen to believe that nuclear power plants would be a great first move towards energy independence. That doesn’t convince me that it’s wrong to save energy in an assortment of other ways.

AGREED. GOOD LUCK GETTING THAT PAST THE GREENIES THOUGH.   I think the greenies are about to get a swift kick in the pants on this issue, as the nuclear industry ramps up the number of facilities around the nation.  If they try to block them, they're going to come off looking like idiots.  I think the American public has had long enough to realize that France is getting something like 70% of it's energy needs met with nuclear power plants.  And they haven't had problems.  Jane Fonda and Jack Lemon aside, I don't think there will be that much of a problem.

I realize this will get both sides mad at me, but Jeez folks, I’m tired of coming to the forum to see folks trash every single idea except burning more oil.

AGREED, BUT THEY NEED TO BE VIABLE IDEAS. AFTER ALL, OIL IS PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE NOW, IT’S RELATIVELY CHEAP AND ABUNDANT (IF THE GREENIES WOULD JUST LET US TAP IT).  I'm not against tapping it, it's just that we are going to have to do this sooner or later.  It's time we did it and got it over with.  At least that's the way I see it.  As for viable/good ideas, I grudgingly agree.  I was holding out for wasteful/terrible ideas, but it looks like I'm going to have to compromise.

For the record, I don’t think car emissions are ruining the planet. I think providing funding to terrorists and the sympathizers of terrorists will.

AGREED. LET’S PUMP AMERICAN OIL - WE HAVE ENOUGH TO LAST 1,000 YEARS (THAT’S PLENTY OF TIME FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPLANT THE OIL ECONOMY MANY TIMES OVER).  The estimates I have seen regarding our own resources, don't impress me with regard to long term solutions.  While I do think it makes sense to utilize expanded drilling in the short term, I would personally like to see us headed toward weening ourselves off oil in the next decade, at least as it relates to cars and energy production.  What oil was left, and I think there would be considerable oil left, could be used for plastics and other manufacturing purposes.

We need to use a wise critical eye no doubt, but I’d like to see some suggestions instead of a constant stream of critcism for every idea that could cut even a few percent of the demand we have for oil.

I’M ALL FOR ELECTRIC CARS BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS IF YOU WANT THEM TO BECOME THE STANDARD BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE THAT CAN PRODUCE THAT MUCH ELECTRICITY AT THIS TIME.  I'm not convinced we have to convert 100% of our cars to gas/free systems.  I would like to see something like at least 50% of our vehicles be gas free.  The others could be more refined hybrids that recharge batteries as they drive.  I don't think be too long before we can devise ways to build chaper hybids that get even 40 or 50 miles per gallon.  If we convert 50% of our vehicels to electric or hydrogen and the rest are some form of advanced design that get vastly superior mileage, we'll have gone a long way toward doing what we need to.

I do want to make it clear.  I think it's time to get into nucear energy in a big way.

I’M ALL FOR SOLAR IMPLIMENTATION. THE TECHNOLOGIES ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEING COST-EFFECTIVE WITHOUT GOV’T SUBSIDIES, BUT SOLAR ALONE WON’T CUT IT.  I agree.  My premise is that if it reduces our dependence on oil, it's good.  I'm not looking to promote solar as a 62% solution by any means.  If solar could give us 12%, wind could give us 7%, alternative design vehicles 25%, electric cars another 25%, we get closer to the goal.  I believe that the nuclear option could help with hydrogen production AND desalinization, a big boon for the nation as water becomes more of a commodity in short supply.  I would even urge that coastal nuclear power plant designs take some of these ideas into consideration as we ramp up in that direction.

Here's one more thing I think folks are going to hate, and I might not disagree in total with their objections, but here goes anyway.  I would like to see some studies done by reasoned people that would determine a cost effective way to make homes energy self-sufficient.  If something like $5 thousand dollars in equipment could be added to the home up front, that could pay for itself in say five years, our nation could put the brakes on new demands for energy at the household level.  This, in my opinion, is where you begin to realize massive energy savings.

I would also like to see the government provide retrofitting funds to homeowners, that could be deducted from tax returns over the next five to ten years.  I wouldn't have a problem with there being a reasoned interest rate applied to this.  Energy savings could help homeowners pay for this too.  These ideas would also relieve pressure on the energy grids around our nation.

I’M EXCITE ABOUT THE NEW HONDA CAR THAT RUNS ON HYDROGEN EXCEPT THAT IT EMITS THE MOST PERVASIVE AND EFFECTIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR). . . . HAD TO GET ONE JOKE IN HERE.   And here I thought we were finally going to agree on something. ;-)

I don't want to see government be the soluiton to these problems with subsidies.  If small loans could help, and be repaid, I'm all for it.

I am stridently supportive of a Manhattan level project to get us energy independent by the 2013 to 2016 time frame.

Thanks for the comments.

[quant5]

Indeed, you/writer may be right about the twenty year delay due to government :) Here’s the rub, the government won’t be able to get away with the global warming spin in light of the fact of a failing U.S. economy. When real action was in sight to become energy independent in 1980, the Opec lowered it price. This cannot occur this time meaning investors will have staying power. Will the investors have enough liquidity to get the job done on there own? Well that’s a good question I don’t know the answer to.

[HAL9000]

I realize this will get both sides mad at me, but Jeez folks, I’m tired of coming to the forum to see folks trash every single idea except burning more oil.

When you get both side mad at you, you're probably doing something right.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[DoughtyOne]

Could be Hal. Let’s hope so. Good to see your pseudonym around this afternoon.

[antisocial]

“What is needed now is investment dollars as government subsidies which by the way would create millions of jobs and as we eventually become an exporter, create trillions in wealth to pay things like healthcare and SS (in other words, pay for the promises made to the baby boomers).”

Is that you Al?

[sand88]

You must also believe that things such as indoor water, sanitary sewers and treatment plants, landfills, water treatment systems are also the work of evil doers. Is your world round or do you insist that it is flat?

What an utterly stupid and needlessly insulting post on your part. Wow aren't you smart! You make no sense. The entire thrust of this article revolves around the acceptance of AGW and solutions. Any rational person would easily conclude I was responding to those "Greenies" who are believing this AGW fraud.

[Realism]

Any rational person would easily conclude I was responding to those "Greenies" who are believing this AGW fraud.

Remember Y2K? Well I was one who stood up and said what a crock. Then the new computers and equipment began rolling in the door at a large expense to the company which suddenly didn't seem to matter because this was a globull emergency with catastrophic consequences. At that point I quickly bit my tongue realizing that even though it may be a scam it opened a door to many upgrades and technological improvements for our company. Think of it as if something may actually get accomplished, otherwise they would be feeding needless pork barrel projects.

[sand88]

Think of it as if something may actually get accomplished, otherwise they would be feeding needless pork barrel projects.

you make some interesting points. However, this movement seems more powerful and determined to bring out Socialism under the guise of fighting AGW. This entire "crisis' is purely a result of government busybodies. Have a good day.

[quant5]

Did I say to use global warming schemes like carbon credits to create wealth/investment opportunities and jobs? No? Then think before you speak, it’s a good habit that will probably allow you to create a lot more wealth and prosperity for yourself nevermind making more friends.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[Just A Nobody]

BTTT

Decent discussion on this farce we call gloBULL warming.