Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Energy Independence, “Drill-Baby-Drill,” the Saudi Prince, and Fox News

Energy Independence, “Drill-Baby-Drill,” the Saudi Prince, and Fox News

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Ask a conservative what he thinks about alternative energy, and you’ll probably get a snort of derision. Oh sure, he’ll give you the song-and-dance that it’s good to have windmills and solar panels around, but they’ll never make a real dent in what we need – which is oil, and more of it…as if we can drill our way to energy independence. But if certain interests have their way, America will never be energy-independent.

First, let’s make the case that alternative energy is not only doable, but economically sensible:

Solar power:

• Today 2% of Germany’s power is supplied by solar (17% of German homes are solar-powered), and if the country follows current trends, it will be 20 percent by 2020. This is despite the fact that Germany is not exactly known as a mecca for sun-lovers. The energy utilities are required by law to purchase any excess energy that solar-powered homes make…which means that there are a lot of homes in Germany that are making a profit from solar power.

• Last year a solar cell was developed that was more efficient than is the current design of nuclear power plants. The efficiency of nuclear reactors is limited to around 33 percent, because water can be heated to only a certain temperature and only a certain amount of heat can be taken out of water. Boeing – yes, Boeing – hopes to introduce their high-efficiency C3MJ+ solar cells around the globe as early as January, 2011. The cells are able to convert a whopping 39.2% of sunlight into electricity.

Wind power:

• Currently, In 2010, power generated by wind comprised 15.4% of all electricity generated in Iowa.

Nuclear power:

• A new design for nuclear fuel rods (from solid to hollow tubes) has been shown to increase power output of pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants by 50%. This isn’t easily implemented as it sounds, for one of the major factors of the design of a PWR is to nearly eliminate – not just minimize, but to totally eliminate if possible – low-flow areas in the piping where radioactive particles (crud) may collect – and if the fuel rods are hollow, then that’s more flow-killing surface area that has to be considered. But the concept is proven, and all that remains is (ugh!) the engineering.

• Currently, 80% of electricity in France is generated by nuclear power.

Notice that I haven’t included hydroelectric dams (we’ve gone about as far as we can with those) and coal (“clean coal” is a myth). The jury’s still out on ethanol – it works, but at a serious environmental cost (water).

But the key is, if America really tried, we can be energy-independent. How? If all the different sources of alternative energy are used in concert, we will not need coal-fired plants. Furthermore, if we make hybrid and electric cars the norm rather than the exception, our need for oil from Islamic nations plummets – and possibly disappears. We will not in the foreseeable future ever be free from the need for oil, for it will always be needed for lubrication, for plastics, and for 1,001 other uses under the sun – but we can wean our nation off foreign oil.

BUT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Why? First off, America has some of the cheapest oil in all the developed world – and with the oil being so cheap, it’s difficult to get alternative energies off the ground. Second, Big Oil is one of the most powerful influences in American politics – see “Drill, baby, drill,” and in a close-to-party-line vote, Senate Republicans blocked the Democrats’ attempt to eliminate taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil despite the fact that Big Oil is raking in record profits while the average gallon of gas is close to four dollars! It should be noted that the Republicans were not happy with President Obama’s State of the Union address when he proposed taking those subsidies and using them to develop alternative energy. For all practical purposes, Big Oil owns the Republican party…but really, why is it that the Republicans – and Fox News – strive so hard to protect Big Oil? We’ll answer that one in a couple of minutes.

Now the OPEC nations must be amused when they see how hard the Republicans are striving to protect Big Oil. They know that China is now the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines (too bad we can’t use Big Oil’s taxpayer subsidies to open such plants in, say, Detroit), and they know that most of the first-world nations are beginning to really get a clue when it comes to alternative energy and energy efficiency – except for the United States. You see, in this interview on CNN, we were quite frankly told that we’re their cash cow:

Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal said Sunday that he wants oil prices to drop so that the United States and Europe don’t accelerate efforts to wean themselves off his country’s supply.

In an interview broadcast Sunday on “CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS,” the grandson of the founding king of modern Saudi Arabia said the oil price should be somewhere between $70 and $80 a barrel, rather than the current level of over $100 a barrel.

“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives, because, clearly, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives,” said Talal, who is listed by Forbes as the 26th richest man in the world.

So…who is Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal? He’s the second-largest shareholder of Fox News, where potential GOP presidential candidates like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have served as contributors, and which every potential GOP candidate must court in order to have a ghost of a chance of winning the GOP nomination.

And now you know the rest of the story!

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • http://totaliberal.blogspot.com/ totaliberal

    Sad but true… There are too many hidden ,and not so hidden, interests in keeping oil as the main energy supply worldwide.
    I don’t think the electric car is the perfect solution to lower oil dependency though, as we do not have enough clean energy sources to offset the increase in consumption its generalization would cause. We would end up burning more natural gas to compensate… I think its hydrogen-powered cars who will have a chance in doing so; but last time I checked Shell was buying hydrogen research start-ups.I suppose just to bury them until we run out of oil…
    The power of oil companies is so widespread that it would be naive to think they will easily allow alternative energies to take off.

    Didn’t know about Saudi Arabia being a stockholder in Fox News, that sheds some light…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    My compliments and gratitude to the editor – I saw a couple good changes – thanks!

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Obama’s energy policy:

    “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

    Democrat Senator blasts Obama’s de facto offshore drilling moratorium

    Cash-for-clunkers was a total wreck

    Coming soon: $5.00 per gallon gas

    Obama Energy Secretary wants higher gas prices

    Democrat Congressman: “Obama is completely uninformed about the oil and gas industry” … his proposals would increase “the nation’s dependence [on] energy from foreign sources.”

    A couple of additional points: Ending tax breaks for oil companies is, in effect, a tax increase. And tax increases that are aimed at “evil corporations” are pretty much always passed on to the consumer. So Obama’s plan will simply raise prices at the pump even higher.

    Also, Obama refuses to allow drilling in ANWR, a gigantic wasteland of lichens and tundra in northern Alaska. There is a shitload of oil up there, and only a tiny portion of ANWR needs to be opened up for exploration and development. Many thousands of jobs could be created practically overnight if Obama would allow drilling up there, and the people of Alaska support it.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Oh yeah, and Obama wants to develop BRAZIL’s offshore energy reserves, so that American consumers can buy it from them. How exactly does that reduce our dependency on foreign oil? It would seem to do the opposite.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    More:

    This PDF from the Energy Information Administration shows that solar power is much, much more expensive than coal or nuclear or geothermal or hydroelectric. Even coal power plants with expensive carbon capture and sequestration technology are much more cost-effective than solar power.

    Solar power plants also take up huge chunks of land: 6,000 to 12,000 acres for 1000 Megawatts. So where to build them? Well, the desert sounds like a good idea. Slight problem: The environmentalists who claim to be supportive of solar frequently sue to prevent it from actually being used. For instance, the Sierra Club sued to prevent a major solar energy project (Calico Solar Project) from being built in the Mojave Desert. This project could have supplied enough energy for nearly 200,000 homes, but unfortunately it might, maybe, possibly, harm the endangered Desert Tortoise. So it doesn’t look like the project will be approved.

    As former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once said: “They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere … I don’t know whether this is ironic or absurd, but, I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it.”

    That’s just one example, of course. There are others, and not all of them have to do with solar. So there is some hypocrisy among self-described “green” types who demand we stop using fossil fuels while also making sure that alternatives can’t get approved.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And there goes RJ with strawmen, obfuscations, and a gaping lack of understanding of what he’s talking about.

    1 – “Cap and Trade”. The aim of cap-and-trade was NOT “energy independence”, but the mitigation of anthropomorphic global warming. Of course you’re sure that 98% of the world’s climatologists are wrong and that your local right-wing evangelical preacher knows better, that it’s all some vast left-wing conspiracy.

    2 – bankrupting coal-powered plants. Again, this was NOT about energy independence, but about global warming…and we’re already seeing the worldwide effects of global warming…not that you’ll accept them, no matter how obvious they are to those who actually listen to scientists. Oh, wait – scientists have all been bribed by the Left to lie about it, right?

    3 – offshore drilling moratorium. Oh, I see – when Big Oil, through their own refusal to follow regulations (the government’s and their own), causes the biggest oil spill in American history, which causes oil spills across several states, costing those states untold billions in tourism and seafood industry dollars, it’s WRONG to tell the industry to stand down for a year so we can make sure there won’t be a SECOND mishap. Nah, who cares about the economies of the southern states – we must protect Big Oil! They’re not making enough profit! (never mind that they’re making record profits now)

    4 – Cash-for-Clunkers was a ‘total wreck’? Gee whiz, Car and Driver magazine said that they were at first skeptical of the program, “But the program’s been much more successful than anyone anticipated.” It seems that the nation’s car manufacturers would disagree with you too. But don’t let any of this stop you from believing the very worst about Obama, now, because he does nothing right and everything wrong…even when the hard data says otherwise….

    5 – $5/gallon gas. Ah. So…the speculators who caused the last spike in gas prices (which lasted much longer than this one) are not at all at fault this time, I suppose. Nah…just blame Obama – that makes it so much easier for you to put a name and a face to hate….

    6 – Obama secretary wants higher gas prices. Well, if you would actually READ your own reference, you’d find that Chu did not say that he WANTS higher gas prices, but that the simple rules of supply and demand ensure that we should EXPECT higher prices. Furthrmore, America has some of the cheapest gas among all first-world democracies…and if the Saudi prince has his way, it will STAY that way so that we can remain hooked on foreign oil! Did you not see that he said exactly that in my article???? He, like you, does NOT want to see America to develop alternative energies.

    So whose side are you on? The side of the Saudi prince who WANTS us to have “cheap” oil, who WANTS America to stay hooked on foreign oil by NOT developing alternative energy? Or the side of the Obama administration who wants us to develop alternative energy so that we CAN eventually become energy independent…just like other first-world democracies are doing right now????

    7 – Obama’s uninformed about gas and oil industry Ah. Dan Boren, the “Blue Dog Democrat. Here’s something that the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Politifact.com had to say about Rep. Boren. Even better, do you know what industry is his biggest campaign contributor? BIG OIL!!!! If you’ll check, Mr. Boren has been bought by Big Oil, since the oil industry PAC’s donated more than three times as much money to his campaign than any other PAC. Pay some guys enough and they’ll say anything you want them to say – just like the 2% of climatologists who deny global warming, most of whom are in the employ of – ahem! – Big Oil.

    Sooo…RJ – when you know what you’re talking about, please come back and let us know.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    RJ –

    Oh yeah, and Obama wants to develop BRAZIL’s offshore energy reserves, so that American consumers can buy it from them. How exactly does that reduce our dependency on foreign oil? It would seem to do the opposite.

    Is Brazil a big supporter of Islamic terrorists? No. Is Saudi Arabia? Yes.

    But don’t let that stop you from hating Obama, now….

  • Leroy

    “Drill baby drill” would have the (seemingly) paradoxical effect of increasing our dependency on foreign oil!

    “How can that be”, you might ask. “Shouldn’t it decrease our dependence by supplying more domestic oil to domestic markets?”

    Aye, there’s the rub! It doesn’t effectively go to domestic markets. In fact 80% will go to foreign markets. The net effect of the USA drilling more oil will only be 20% to the US and 80% to foreigners!

    In the Real World of oil economy, OIL IS FUNGIBLE! Remember that. Write it on a piece of paper and tape it to your gas cap so you read it every time you fill up. Being FUNGIBLE means that any barrel of oil is treated the same as any other barrel of oil (except for some small details of pricing associated with ‘sweetness’ and transportation). Therefore, a barrel mined in the USA is economically no different from a barrel mined in Brazil. All the oil goes into one big virtual pool of oil, and disbursements are made from there. The new oil we mine will go into that pool and lose it’s US origination identity. All the oil we buy and consume comes out of that big pool.

    The actual barrel of oil that we use will probably originate in the US or Canada, but that’s the consequence of purely economic and convenience factors, NOT geographic sovereignty. We do NOT get first shot at US mined oil, it might go anywhere, but, since oil is fungible, and foreigners consume 80% of ALL oil, it will probably go to foreigners.

    That’s the way the oil market works when you deal with the Big Boys instead of your dreams and fantasies.

    So it’s a bad deal on the face of it. After all, foreigners will (effectively) get 80% of the oil that we despoil our environment to mine.

    The crude oil market is an Economists classical Free Market which has a large number of suppliers, none of whom is big enough to dominate the market (you can write that on another scrap of paper).

    And since we in the USA produce such a small fraction of total world production (about 6%, IIRC) our generosity in contributing more “drill baby drill” oil into the international pool is insignificant, so increasing the Supply will have trivial effect on the Demand price. Foreigners will not thank us for our generosity and small domestic price drops will disappear into the market noise.

    But it gets worse! For now we are selling our valuable underground oil resources at TODAYS BARGAIN PRICES and depleting the reserves we will need in the future as prices increase and/or national security requirements demand. Bereft of our oil reserves we are easy prey for predatory foreign blackmailers! We have become MORE DEPENDENT on foreign oil!

    How did we get hornswoggled into such a ‘bad’ deal?

    We created it, that’s how! And we got here by shooting and invading, fighting wars, bribing foreigners, and even bribing Americans, including any number of US politicians. Because it works to our advantage. (And it can work to advantage of other peoples, too, just as David Ricardos Relative Economic Advantage predicted 200 years ago.)

    It will continue to work to our advantage as long as we do smart things, like consume Other Peoples cheap oil, instead of dumb things.

    “Drill baby Drill” is Dumb Baby Dumb.

    As for oil companies subsidies, just remember that International Capital is liquid: anyone can invest capital anywhere. That’s why oil companies ownership is 60% foreign investors: it’s a better deal for foreigners than Americans. Especially when foolish Americans are willing to subsidize oil companies with their tax money while 60% of the benefit goes to foreigners. What a great deal! For foreigners.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And RJ –

    As to renewable energy being more expensive than fossil fuels, you’re absolutely right! In the SHORT TERM – the next couple decades – it would be FAR cheaper to just drill, baby, drill! And the Saudi prince (who is the second-largest shareholder of Fox News) wants to keep it just that way!

    But which is more important? The short term of the next couple decades? Or the LONG term of the next few generations? Better yet, ask yourself why it is that China is now striving harder than anyone else in the world to develop renewable energy?

    1 – “Peak Oil”. I’m not sure if you realize this, but we do NOT have an infinite amount of oil on the planet. Is it better to just keep drilling until it’s almost gone, and THEN say to ourselves, “Hey! We gotta do something else!” Or is it better to develop and put into place the renewable energies NOW so we don’t have to panic THEN and watch our economy crumble? Hm?

    2 – America does NOT have enough oil to become energy-independent. As long as we keep slurping up oil wherever we can get it, we’ll be buying from the Middle East…JUST LIKE THE SAUDI PRINCE WANTS. And guess what part of the world most Islamic terrorists come from? And who finances them? Hm?

    3 – Using the same website you used, I found something interesting:

    About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasolinethat does not contain ethanol. Most of the retail gasoline now sold in the U.S. contains about 10% ethanol by volume. Under international agreement, CO2 from ethanol and other biofuels are not counted at the tailpipe, so burning a gallon of gasoline with 10% ethanol produces about 17.68 pounds of CO2.

    About 22.38 pounds of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of diesel fuel. It is possible to buy biodiesel fuel in some States. Burning a gallon of “B10” (diesel fuel containing 10% biodiesel by volume) results in emission of about 20 pounds of CO2.

    And here’s the chemistry behind why burning gasoline causes so much CO2.

    Now think about this REAL hard, RJ – there’s a HALF BILLION CARS on the road every day throughout the world…and I can personally tell you that in the third world, there’s no “emissions standards” like here in America. If each car uses a 15-gal. tank of gas a week – some do more, some less – that’s something like THREE-POINT-NINE BILLION TONS OF CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year. Do the math for yourself!

    But of course you think that anthropomorphic global warming is a myth, and no amount of hard data can make you think otherwise. Just keep on thinking to yourself that ‘drill-baby-drill’ is a lot better for America than weaning ourselves off the terrorist-funding – ahem, excuse me, the very nice people in the white turbans who are selling you that oil really cheap!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hm. 3.9 billion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere every year, just from cars. I need to write another article….

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Obama opposes drilling in ANWR. Obama has halted much drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. But Obama supports drilling in Brazil so that Americans can then buy that foreign oil from them.

    Republicans support drilling in ANWR. Republicans support ending the de facto moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And Republicans were appalled by Obama’s comments in Brazil.

    Glenn’s conclusion: Republicans want the US dependent on foreign oil! Some Saudi guy owns a small percentage of News Corp., and News Corp. owns Fox News, so that proves it!

    Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Glenn writes, somewhat hysterically: “Well, if you would actually READ your own reference, you’d find that Chu did not say that he WANTS higher gas prices…”

    What Chu is on record as actually saying: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

    Liberalism is a cognitive deficit.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And Republicans were appalled by Obama’s comments in Brazil.

    Republicans are “appalled” by Obama’s comments by default. It’s their job.

    Demonstrates nothing, proves nothing – just like most of your drive-by link dumps.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    As for “Global Warming/Global Climate Change,” there has not been significant warming in over a decade, despite rising emissions of carbon dioxide. See the BBC. You can engage in all the “appeal to authority” logical fallacies that you want, but this remains true.

    Another thing that remains true is that none of the projections of the “climate scientists” – who you apparently worship like modern-day Delphic oracles – predicted a decade-long pause in global warming. Which means the models they based their projections on are broken. Which means their premises were wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

    There’s no question that when you pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we have been doing over the last 150 years or so, there’s going to be an effect. It’s just that the effects predicted by the “experts” keep turning out wrong, and their claims continue to be shown as wildly exaggerated and alarmist. Take Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore’s Oscar-winning “documentary” that was so misleading and dishonest that it was thrown out of British public schools. And the “ClimateGate” emails scandal. And the numerous “flaws” in the IPCC report. And etc.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    On ANWR –

    If you’ll look at the numbers, ANWR – if fully developed and used ONLY for America (and it would NOT be, but instead sold on the open market), it would supply all of America’s needs…for about five hundred days.

    That’s it – not even two years…even given the FALSE perception that all the oil would be used for America. And then what?

    Read up on peak oil, willya? Unless you think that Earth does indeed have an infinite supply of oil….

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    What Chu is on record as actually saying: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

    You got a link to that actual interview, RJ, rather than just a blog that quotes from a Wall Street Journal article that quotes from the interview?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    BREAKING NEWS: Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, and Triton are also experiencing “global warming.” I demand Congressional hearings to get to the bottom of this, although I think we all know Big Oil is to blame…and stupid Americans with their gigantic SUVs.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    DD:

    Here ya go.

    Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

    “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    RJ –

    And ANY statistician will tell you that a one- or two-year change does NOT a trend make. One or two years out of an overall trend means little or nothing in the big picture!

    Here’s from a site that’s a bit more science-oriented than the BBC, dated 1/14/2011 (yours was from 2009):

    NASA’s announcement this year – that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record – made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?

    Not all that much, emphasizes James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. In the GISS analysis, for example, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 0.01°C (0.018 °F), a difference so small that the temperatures of these two years are indistinguishable, given the uncertainty of the calculation.

    Meanwhile, the third warmest year — 2009 — is so close to 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, with the maximum difference between the years being a mere 0.03°C, that all six years are virtually tied.

    Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. “Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.”

    Now YOUR source listed 1998 as the warmest year. The article continues on:

    One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses – from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office – a situation that can generate confusion.

    For example, while GISS previously ranked 2005 warmest, the Met Office listed 1998 warmest. The discrepancy helped fuel the misperception that findings from the three groups vary sharply or contain large amounts of uncertainty. It also fueled the misperception that global warming stopped in 1998.

    “In reality, nothing could be further from the truth,” said Hansen. Global temperatures have continued to rise steadily. “The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.

    It takes courage to admit when you’re wrong, RJ – I know, because I’ve publicly admitted error several times on BC – but the scientific evidence is clearly against global-warming deniers. The choice is up to you – do you stick with the people who hate Obama as much as you do? Or do you stick with the people with scientific fact on their side?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Okay, fine, I was wrong – Chu wants us to have higher gas prices like most of the rest of the world.

    Why? Because that’s one way to help wean us off foreign oil…which is what Chu said in so many words, isn’t it? As long as we have cheap oil, we will NEVER wean ourselves off the Saudi Arabian teat.

    And what did the Saudi prince say? He WANTS for oil prices to be low so that we will REMAIN addicted to Saudi oil…

    …and the terrorists rejoice!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    As for “Global Warming/Global Climate Change,” there has not been significant warming in over a decade

    Wrong.

    It’s just that the effects predicted by the “experts” keep turning out wrong

    Wrong.

    Take Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore’s Oscar-winning “documentary” that was so misleading and dishonest that it was thrown out of British public schools.

    Wrong.

    And the “ClimateGate” emails scandal.

    Wrong.

    And the numerous “flaws” in the IPCC report.

    Wrong.

    You wanna stop now, RJ, or keep the vacuous talking points coming?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    15:

    Glenn, no one has suggested that ANWR by itself would provide complete and total energy independence for the US. We haven’t suggested that because it’s not true. Nice straw man though.

    Here’s a thought: Drill in ANWR. Drill offshore again. Build more refineries. Build more nuclear power plants (that aren’t located on major fault lines). Tell the Sierra Club to go fuck themselves and build some solar power projects. Tell the Kennedys to go fuck themselves and build some wind farms (Google “Cape Wind”). Invest in alternative energy resources, including fanciful stuff like cold fusion. Invest in “clean coal” and liquid coal and oil shale research.

    And then maybe, hopefully, over time, we will become energy independent, and renewable alternative energy resources will replace fossil fuels.

    Deal?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    RJ (@ #18):

    No, that’s the WSJ piece that quotes from the interview. I’ve seen it.

    I’d like to read the interview itself.

    For some context.

    You know, that thing you wish didn’t exist.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    19:

    Glenn wrote: “And ANY statistician will tell you that a one- or two-year change does NOT a trend make.”

    Another excellent straw man, Glenn. I didn’t say a year or two trend. I said a decade or more.

    And incidentally, you alarmists like to cherry-pick your start and end dates when creating global warming graphs. If you start in the 1970s, then yeah, there was a lot of warming from the 70s to the late 90s. But there was a cooling trend for a few decades prior to the 70s (which is why the climate alarmists were screaming about “global cooling” back then).

    But if you start during the Medieval Warm Period, there has not been much, if any, warming since then. There was the Medieval Warm Period, then the “Little Ice Age,” and then the overall warming trend over the last couple of centuries.

    What caused the Medieval Warm Period? SUVs? Coal-powered plants? And why did it get cool again all on its own?

    Oh, and did you know that the planet is much cooler now that it has been over most of its history? In fact – you probably don’t know this – we are technically still in an Ice Age. Yup. Look it up. The more you know…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Pro-Tip: James Hansen is basically a discredited ideologue, not a dispassionate scientist. He was one of the kooks warning about “global cooling” 40 years ago. Then he moved on to freaking out about “global warming.” Now it’s “global climate change,” which is a meaningless phrase, since the climate is always changing. He’s a joke.

    BREAKING NEWS: Only 36% of American voters blame “global warming” primarily on human activity.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Okay, not banned in schools, sorry. But it contains numerous serious errors and is misleading:

    A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific “errors”.

    I saw the film. I was appalled at his dishonesty when he claimed that Antarctic ice cores showed a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the last 600,000 years or so. Well, yeah, there’s a “correlation” if you set the parameters of the graph a certain way, but there is no causation (which he strongly implied) because the CO2 increases lagged the temperature increases by hundreds of years. Straight-up dishonest misleading propaganda. And the “international community” gave him the Nobel Peace Prize for shit like that? For shame.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Doc, “Skeptical Science” isn’t a credible source. It’s a propaganda outlet. Try again.

    Here are some of the errors from the IPCC report.

    The ClimateGate emails scandal showed that dissent in the climate scientist community is punished. Journals were warned not to publish research that did not agree with the “consensus.” Almost as if that “consensus” is manufactured…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    23:

    Ah, leftists. When caught red-handed, they always demand more “context.”

    Pray tell, what more “context” do you want? The guy flat out stated that he wants higher gas prices in the US so that people will buy more energy efficient cars and live closer to work. You know, for conservation purposes. What part of that has you confused?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And incidentally, you alarmists like to cherry-pick your start and end dates when creating global warming graphs.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    But there was a cooling trend for a few decades prior to the 70s (which is why the climate alarmists were screaming about “global cooling” back then).

    No, they weren’t. That was a hysterical article in Newsweek reporting on a single study. Most papers published on the subject in the 1970s predicted warming.

    But if you start during the Medieval Warm Period, there has not been much, if any, warming since then. There was the Medieval Warm Period, then the “Little Ice Age,” and then the overall warming trend over the last couple of centuries.

    The climate doesn’t just change because it’s bored and wants something to do. Something forces it to change. Could be the sun. Could be volcanoes. Could be a meteor strike. Could be continental drift.

    Guess what’s forcing the current warming?

    Oh, and did you know that the planet is much cooler now that it has been over most of its history?

    We and the vast majority of currently extant species did not evolve on a hot Earth, and will be unlikely to survive on one.

    BREAKING NEWS: Only 36% of American voters blame “global warming” primarily on human activity.

    Oh, well, that settles it, then.

    [Jeez…]

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Doc, “Skeptical Science” isn’t a credible source. It’s a propaganda outlet. Try again.

    Ah, I see: when confronted with compelling but hostile evidence, discredit the source.

    Almost every page on that website links to numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers to support its case.

    Since you can’t possibly have read all of them in the few minutes it took you to respond to my comment, I’ll have to assume that, as usual, you’re full of it.

    From your Daily Telegraph link:

    “Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.”

    (In much the same way that a train timetable that has a few trains arriving five minutes earlier than they are actually scheduled to does not constitute evidence that trains do not exist.)

    Care to comment?

    Journals were warned not to publish research that did not agree with the “consensus.”

    Research that was flawed, would not have passed the peer review process as a result, and would damage the integrity of a journal that decided to publish it regardless.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The guy flat out stated that he wants higher gas prices in the US so that people will buy more energy efficient cars and live closer to work. You know, for conservation purposes. What part of that has you confused?

    Well, this is the point. That limited amount of context I interpret as Chu being pragmatic, whereas you think he’s being dogmatic. Call me crazy, but I reckon the complete interview might give us a clearer picture than your source, which is hearsay, and your original source, which is double hearsay.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The Seven Stages of Climate Change Denial:

    1. It’s not happening.
    2. Well, all right, it’s happening, but it’s natural.
    3. Well, all right, we’re causing it, but our impact is insignificant.
    4. Well, all right, it’s significant, but it’s beneficial.
    5. Well, all right, it does more harm than good, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
    6. Well, all right, there are things we can do about it, but they’ll be more costly than doing nothing.
    7. Screw the grandkids! I’m not giving up my Hummer and my oil stock portfolio!!!

  • Clavos

    I’m in stage 2 (I skipped stage 1) and unlikely to progress beyond it. I have yet to see a convincing reason to do so.

    The usual hurricane prediction came out yesterday, as it usually does, to mark the first day of hurricane season. It will be revised at least three times as the season progresses. This is due to the fact that they haven’t a clue what will will happen more than about two weeks out. No one does.

    Which makes me wonder why those idiots (Dr. Gray et alia) keep sticking their necks out and embarrassing themselves year after year — oh wait, isn’t that the definition of insanity?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I’m in stage 2 (I skipped stage 1) and unlikely to progress beyond it. I have yet to see a convincing reason to do so.

    I wish I shared your confidence. I just don’t think you’re looking in the right places.

    There’s nothing I’d like more than for RJ to be right on this. The implications if he’s wrong are very unpleasant.

    And he’s wronger than General Le Vicomte Jean-Marie-Wrongue de la Wrongue, who said on 9 May 1940, “No, the Germans will never invade France”, and added on 13 June, shortly before accidentally sprinkling arsenic on his morning baguette instead of powdered garlic, “Paris cannot fall”.

    The usual hurricane prediction came out yesterday, as it usually does, to mark the first day of hurricane season. It will be revised at least three times as the season progresses. This is due to the fact that they haven’t a clue what will will happen more than about two weeks out. No one does.

    No, but you’re talking about weather, Clav, not climate.

    It can’t be predicted with much precision (more than a few days out) exactly when and where a hurricane will hit, but it can be predicted with a high degree of certainty that hurricanes will form in the North Atlantic between June and November of any given year.

  • Clavos

    …it can be predicted with a high degree of certainty that hurricanes will form in the North Atlantic between June and November of any given year.

    True, Doc. But they never leave it at that, they always get into details which they can’t possibly predict that far out, and they are wrong every year as to number and intensity.

    And I do understand the difference between weather and climatology, probably better than most non-scientists. Their long range predictions (not forecasts) the ones that are invariably wrong? They are not meteorology, they are an attempt to predict what the climate will do in order to form those storms.

    And, as I said, they are wrong every year; wrong as to number and intensity (they don’t predict location; the format is always “X number of total storms, of which Y number will be named storms, and Z number will be severe,” and they are never right), they always have to “adjust” their predictions, most years as many as three times. Clowns, they are.

  • Clavos

    The rest of it is easy. Here’s one for you, bet I’m dead on with this one.

    There will be North Atlantic hurricanes during the 2012 hurricane season and probably in 2013 as well.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Ideology plays an outsize role in this debate always. People are not right or wrong because they are liberal or conservative. This is not a football game, where everything my side does is right and everything the opposing side does is wrong. But that’s how it gets treated by one of the participants on this thread.

    in contrast, Doc, you are a stunningly good debater, especially on this issue.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Please read comment #9. Remember the last time you and I discussed this, that we both thought that burning gasoline produces carbon monoxide, but not CO2? Well it turns out that in reality, burning a gallon of gasoline makes about 20 pounds of CO2 (I included a link that explains the chemistry behind that particular figure).

    So take a half-billion cars operating every single day, using an average of 15 gallons per week (which might be conservative)…and that gives you about 3.9 Billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year…just from cars. Of course this includes trucks, semis, military vehicles and the like.

    That’s not counting the emissions from aircraft, much less trains and ships and especially factories and power plants. Add on to all this the lower global vegetation biomass that we have due to farming and deforestation and city/road development…and how can you not accept that the spiking CO2 level is directly related to human activity?

    3.9 billion tons a year…just from cars/trucks/semis/military vehicles.

    Clavos, RJ will never agree with what all this obviously means…but I really think you can, and that you probably do. AGW is real.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Clavos –

    There’s nothing I’d like more than for RJ to be right on this. The implications if he’s wrong are very unpleasant.

    That quote is from Doc…and I strongly agree. I really, really wish that AGW was a hoax, that it was all a huge mistake or misunderstanding.

    But it isn’t.

    If AGW deniers are right but we still do everything the climatologists say we need to do, how badly would it hurt the world economy? Not much at all.

    But if AGW deniers are wrong but we do NOTHING that the climatologists say we need to do…then what will happen? Catastrophe – worldwide, economic and physical. And that’s not an exaggeration.

    That’s the risk, the bet that the AGW deniers are taking. They’re gone all in that AGW is wrong…and the world is literally the pot that’s on the table. If they’re right, no big deal…but if they’re wrong, as 98% of the climatologists say they are, what does the whole world lose?

  • Clavos

    in contrast, Doc, you are a stunningly good debater…

    He’s stunning, period.

    But not a climatologist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    So that means that what he says is wrong or cannot be trusted, even when it’s taken directly from the positions of 98% of the world’s climatologists?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    That surely is not what Clavos meant, since Clavos is not a climatologist either.

  • Clavos

    No Glenn, it means he’s not a climatologist.

    And that’s correct, handy, I’m not one either.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    He’s stunning, period.

    Why, thank you, Clav.

    But not a climatologist.

    I just play one on TV.

    Now on the subject of Dr Gray (the hurricane guy), he’s quite fascinating. He’s an AGW denier. Among his quotes on the subject is this gem, delivered apparently without a nuance of irony:

    “How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Clavos –

    I’d really like to hear your opinion of #38.

  • Clavos

    Glenn, I don’t have an opinion on #38, I don’t have enough information to form one, but I do have a question I hope you can answer: What is the proportion of 3.9 billion tons to the total mass of the earth’s atmosphere? Without some means of determining the magnitude of 3.9 billion tons vis-a-vis the entire mass of the atmosphere, it just a raw number with little significance.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Salon.com: We’ve got “enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.”

    “Two arguments for switching to renewable energy — the depletion of fossil fuels and national security — are no longer plausible.”

    “[I]f the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.”

    Salon.com, no doubt brought to you by Saudi princes and Big Oil.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Okay, Clavos –

    Here’s some more hard numbers. According to this site, the weight of earth’s atmosphere is 1.2E19 pounds…which equals 600 billion tons.

    Now, according to the United Nations Statistics Division site – which is made much easier to understand on the Wikipedia site where the data is reorganized in a more understandable format – the total global annual CO2 emissions (cars, jets, factories, construction, power plants, everything) is 29.3 billion tons.

    And this is as of 2007 – five years ago. The world’s emissions are higher now.

    Okay? What percentage of 600B is 29.3B? A hair under FIVE PERCENT. PER YEAR.

    Okay, Clavos? We’re adding a volume of CO2 equivalent to FIVE PERCENT of the atmosphere’s total weight! PER YEAR!

    You can do the numbers yourself – you see the links. Dig them out and see what you find. Frankly, I was shocked. I didn’t know it was this bad.

    So, Clavos – how long do you think it will take if we keep adding five percent of CO2 to the atmosphere for us to have a real problem? In ten years we will have added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to equal HALF of the weight of the atmosphere!

    So why won’t we choke to death? Because of the ability of vegetation and the ocean to absorb the CO2…but you know as well as I do that there is such a thing as a saturation point. The oceans are already becoming more acidic (which is directly attributable to the increase in atmospheric CO2)…and this will directly affect the ocean’s ability to sustain life as we know it. You also know that thanks to farming and civilization, we’ve significantly less total vegetation on land than we once did.

    Okay? It just makes me wonder – given the above data, how can you continue to deny AGW?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    RJ –

    Do you not know that we liberals really, truly wish you were right? We really, truly don’t want to see global warming. As reply #48 makes clear, our annual global CO2 emissions equal five percent of the total weight of the atmosphere.

    Five percent, every year.

    We really do wish you were right…because that would mean that everything’s going to be okay. But you’re not right, and our kids and their kids are going to be dealing with our refusal to mitigate global warming now.

    There comes a time, RJ, when one needs to ignore one’s hatred of one’s enemies…and that’s when one and one’s enemies face a major threat. This is such a time, RJ. It is time – at least when it comes to anthropomorphic global warming, or AGW – to set aside your hatred of the liberals, and work together with us to try to lessen the catastrophe that is coming. You can hate us on every other issue and that’s fine…but AGW won’t care who’s liberal and who’s conservative – it’s going to hurt each and every one of us, and our children and their children.

    Remember, RJ – five percent of the total weight of the earth’s atmosphere. Every. Single. Year.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    And incidentally, you alarmists like to cherry-pick your start and end dates when creating global warming graphs.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    – – –
    Not denying it then? Good.
    – – –

    But there was a cooling trend for a few decades prior to the 70s (which is why the climate alarmists were screaming about “global cooling” back then).

    No, they weren’t. That was a hysterical article in Newsweek reporting on a single study. Most papers published on the subject in the 1970s predicted warming.

    – – –
    Not quite.

    NASA Scientists [including a certain James Hansen] Predicted a New Ice Age in 1971

    Newsweek “Global Cooling” article from 1975

    TIME “Global Cooling” article from 1974
    – – –

    But if you start during the Medieval Warm Period, there has not been much, if any, warming since then. There was the Medieval Warm Period, then the “Little Ice Age,” and then the overall warming trend over the last couple of centuries.

    The climate doesn’t just change because it’s bored and wants something to do. Something forces it to change. Could be the sun. Could be volcanoes. Could be a meteor strike. Could be continental drift.

    Guess what’s forcing the current warming?

    – – –
    Oh, we can “guess” all day, but that’s exactly what it is. The science is not “settled” despite what Al Gore told you.

    The fact is, if the climate is constantly changing (and it is), and it was changing before the Industrial Revolution (and it was), then it’s absurd to suggest that the changes taking place at present are caused solely by human activity.
    – – –

    Oh, and did you know that the planet is much cooler now that it has been over most of its history?

    We and the vast majority of currently extant species did not evolve on a hot Earth, and will be unlikely to survive on one.

    – – –
    Right. 1 or 2 degrees difference over a century (which is a projection based on broken computer models) will kill everything. Gotcha.

    Little-known fact: Even if the global warming alarmists are correct, and even if their projections turn out to be true, and even if every government in the world takes their advice and implements a Kyoto-style system, the planet will still get warmer. Just very marginally less warmer than it would have gotten otherwise.

    But, totally. Let’s completely transform our way of life in order to lower our standard of living, let’s create a global regulatory regime that redistributes trillions of dollars in wealth, and let’s have full faith in broken computer models, so that, with any luck, the planet only warms 1.8 degrees over the next century instead of 2.0 degrees. Sounds like a plan!
    – – –

    BREAKING NEWS: Only 36% of American voters blame “global warming” primarily on human activity.

    Oh, well, that settles it, then.

    – – –
    The point is that it isn’t at all a “fringe” opinion for someone to be skeptical of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. It’s just that you leftists cannot tolerate dissent from the party line, even if the dissenters actually outnumber you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Please delete the previous two comments – the math is wrong.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    How much is getting absorbed by the oceans, plants and other carbon sinks?

    And one last question:

    Since you and I aren’t equipped to verify the information promulgated by the scientific community, how do we know it’s:

    A. Accurate?
    B. Real?
    C. Truthful?

    In everyday life I catch people lyiing to me (or making mistakes) on a daily basis. How do we know the scientists are giving us unimpeachable info?

    Weren’t all the scientists of his time in disagreement with Galileo? There was a consensus that was wrong. Why not now as well?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And from Michael Lind’s commentary on his Salon article that RJ links to:

    “in the course of being provocative I did not make it sufficiently clear that I was engaged in analysis, not advocacy. I made the prediction that, even in the presence of global warming, the countries of the world are unlikely to allow the vast stores of fossil fuels in the earth’s crust to lie there undisturbed, when technology is making many of them ever more accessible and cheaper than the renewable energy alternatives. For the record, I personally wish that greenhouse gas emissions would stop immediately, and I personally would prefer a world of harmonious international cooperation for all time. Neither of my personal preferences is going to be fulfilled and neither affects the accuracy of my analysis.”

    That dratted context again, Mr Elliott…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    30: The AGW propaganda from “Skeptical Science” is not compelling, and the website is not maintained by a climate scientist.

    You just Googled some stuff and posted links to the first website you saw in the search results. That’s all.

    “Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.”

    Riiight. Ideological crusaders caught peddling bogus data to the governments of the world want to reassure everyone that it’s really no big deal. Gotcha.

    Research that was flawed, would not have passed the peer review process as a result, and would damage the integrity of a journal that decided to publish it regardless.

    Not quite. More like “don’t you even consider publishing this guy’s skeptical research or else we will make sure that no one wants to publish anything in your journal ever again. We will work to discredit your journal if you publish this research that we don’t want you to publish.” That doesn’t sound like open and honest scientific inquiry to me. It sounds more like a forced “consensus” through intimidation.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Members of the cult of global warming really and truly believe in it like it’s a religion. Facts that run counter to their belief system are simply dismissed or ignored, and skeptics who speak up are shouted down as heretics.

    Tell me, Warmers, what piece(s) of evidence would dissuade you from your belief in AGW?

    Remember, in order for something to be considered real science, and not just a belief that you hold on faith, it must be falsifiable. So name something that you would consider credible evidence against your theory.

    The planet getting colder? The planet not significantly warming for an extended period of time, despite all the computer models? No? Anything?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Okay –

    Corrected math – something didn’t seem right, way out of whack. The iPhone’s scientific calculator couldn’t handle all the zeros…so it’s Apple’s fault, not mine. Honest!

    So I get to wear the stupid hat for a day for going off the deep end without checking my numbers.

    The weight of the atmosphere is 6 million billion tons (not 600 billion tons)…but the emissions are nearly 30 billion tons. That’s still adding 5PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Not only that, but as I stated above, the carbon sinks (vegetation and the oceans) get saturated and cannot absorb as much.

    You could say it works like compound interest in a bank…and while compound interest of money is a really nice thing, compound interest of PPMs of CO2 is not a good thing. And it’s only going to get worse.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Glenn wrote: “how can you not accept that the spiking CO2 level is directly related to human activity?”

    No one denies that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is directly related to human activity. At least I certainly don’t, and I didn’t see Clavos suggest that either.

    Yet another straw man. Yawn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    RJ –

    Read #49 – what you don’t realize is that we WANT you to be right. We honestly do. We would love to be totally, stupidly wrong about what’s coming in the next couple generations.

    But we’re not wrong. We wish we were.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The science is not “settled” despite what Al Gore told you.

    Unlike you, apparently, I don’t get my information from Al Gore. And science never is “settled”. It merely gets to the point where certain theories, like heliocentrism, evolution, gravity, relativity and AGW, amass such a body of evidence in support of them that to deny the validity of them is plainly and simply stupid.

    The fact is, if the climate is constantly changing (and it is), and it was changing before the Industrial Revolution (and it was), then it’s absurd to suggest that the changes taking place at present are caused solely by human activity.

    Nobody’s suggesting that. There are always multiple factors at play. But when climate changes dramatically there is a dominant forcing. And the only candidate that can adequately account for the forcing we see right now is human emissions of CO2.

    The AGW propaganda from “Skeptical Science” is not compelling

    Not to you. And continuing to call it propaganda doesn’t make it so, unless you can identify the specific characteristics of the site that make it propagandistic.

    Right. 1 or 2 degrees difference over a century (which is a projection based on broken computer models) will kill everything. Gotcha.

    Oh, I do beg your pardon. Thank you for pointing out that after a century all the warming will stop and everything will get back to normal. Gotcha.

    And the models are not “broken”.

    and the website is not maintained by a climate scientist.

    Again, he links to a plethora of research by climate scientists, very little if any of which you’ve bothered to look at, unless that’s what you’ve been doing for the last few hours, which I doubt.

    You just Googled some stuff and posted links to the first website you saw in the search results. That’s all.

    From your excellent vantage point, can you tell me if my middle finger looks as if it needs a manicure?

    Ideological crusaders caught peddling bogus data to the governments of the world want to reassure everyone that it’s really no big deal.

    It’s not bogus data. If you don’t like the IPCC report as a source, or Skeptical Science for that matter, look elsewhere. The information’s not hidden.

    That doesn’t sound like open and honest scientific inquiry to me. It sounds more like a forced “consensus” through intimidation.

    No, it was good scientists’ natural reaction to attempts to sneak sloppy science past the peer review process.

    At least eight separate inquiries concluded that the “Climategate” emails demonstrated no evidence whatsoever of scientific malpractice. Of course, since they reached that conclusion, the inquiry bodies – all eight of them – must by default have been in the pocket of liberal alarmists, right, RJ?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Members of the cult of global warming really and truly believe in it like it’s a religion. Facts that run counter to their belief system are simply dismissed or ignored, and skeptics who speak up are shouted down as heretics.

    RJ, how many religions do you know of whose members say things like, “You know, I honestly wish our God wasn’t the one true God, I really do. But the evidence is just too compelling that He is, sadly”?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    If AGW deniers are right but we still do everything the climatologists say we need to do, how badly would it hurt the world economy? Not much at all.

    ROTFL!

    Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

    From a scientist who believes in AGW:

    “[S]hort-term carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little.”

    The Copenhagen summit plan would have been “the most costly public policy ever enacted.”

    “[P]rominent climate economist Professor Richard Tol — who has been a contributing, lead, principal and convening author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s working groups — showed that achieving the target would require a high, global CO2 tax starting at around €45 per ton.”

    “Based on conventional estimates, this ambitious program would avert much of the damage of global warming, expected to be worth somewhere around €2 trillion a year by 2100. However, Tol concludes that a tax at this level could reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9% in 2100 — the equivalent of €27 trillion a year.”

    “[T]he cost could easily be 10 or 100 times higher.”

    “Some in Europe have suggested that rich countries pay off developing nations to ensure their participation in a carbon reduction agreement. Putting aside the point that this money could be much better spent, it is not clear that taxpayers in most developed countries are willing to transfer tens or even hundreds of billions of euros to the developing world, to projects of limited good.”

    “The price-tag is phenomenal — estimated at €53 billion for the solar panels installed between 2000-2010 — yet the maximum effect will be to postpone global warming by just one hour, at the end of this century. This incredibly expensive folly is an example of a policy that feels good but does nothing.”

    To Glenn, this is all chump change.

    But if AGW deniers are wrong but we do NOTHING that the climatologists say we need to do…then what will happen? Catastrophe – worldwide, economic and physical. And that’s not an exaggeration.

    No, not an exaggeration at all. LOL…

  • Jordan Richardson

    This again, RJ?

    You really are convinced that this is a “left” vs. “right” issue, aren’t you? The science doesn’t matter, the consensus doesn’t matter, nothing else matters to you because “skepticism” lines up with the side of the political aisle you’re on. You think climate change is a “leftist” issue, so you kneejerk oppose it as childishly as possible.

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I agree on the cost issues, though, especially considering how any changes will likely break down. The poorest will be saddled with doing the, while the biggest polluters will continue to get a free pass thanks to carbon trading scams.

    But the cost, the politics and the rhetoric have nothing to do with the science of climate change. They’re distractions from the major facts carefully placed by “skeptics” in these sorts of arguments as a way to move the spotlight away from the obvious.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    “Here’s some more hard numbers. According to this site, the weight of earth’s atmosphere is 1.2E19 pounds…which equals 600 billion tons.”

    This website says it’s 4.41 million billion tons. Rather large discrepancy there. I’ll bet your estimate is completely wrong.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Okay? What percentage of 600B is 29.3B? A hair under FIVE PERCENT. PER YEAR.

    Okay, Clavos? We’re adding a volume of CO2 equivalent to FIVE PERCENT of the atmosphere’s total weight! PER YEAR!

    NO WE’RE NOT! Carbon dioxide only makes up about 0.039% of the atmosphere. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!

    You’re great for comic relief though, Glenn. I’m so glad BC decided to put this on the Front Page…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    So, Clavos – how long do you think it will take if we keep adding five percent of CO2 to the atmosphere for us to have a real problem? In ten years we will have added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to equal HALF of the weight of the atmosphere!

    LMAO!

    Glenn, I think it’s time for a disclaimer that you’re not a climate scientist either. Or at least I certainly hope you’re not.

    So, Clavos, has Glenn been able to persuade you with his WELL-RESEARCHED FACTS about the coming END OF THE WORLD in which almost the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE turns into carbon dioxide NEXT WEEK?

  • Jordan Richardson

    The point isn’t how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere period; the point is how long it stays there, how much of it is permanent and concentrated.

    And concentrations of carbon dioxide are up, with no signs of dissipating as per normal levels.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    As reply #48 makes clear, our annual global CO2 emissions equal five percent of the total weight of the atmosphere.

    Five percent, every year.

    No, you’re right Glenn. I’m convinced now. I feel so ashamed for having been a “denier” for all these years. Thank you for hitting me over the head with those incredible facts and converting me.

    I will no longer a minion of Big Oil pumping out lies from my keyboard. I have at least heard the plaintive cry of Mother Earth in her death throes. All thanks to you.

    Thank you Glenn. Thank you.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Remember, RJ – five percent of the total weight of the earth’s atmosphere. Every. Single. Year.

    I will remember that, Glenn. I will never forget that you wrote that. Over. And. Over. Again.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    51:

    Glenn,

    Why do you want those comments deleted? Why not just apologize and issue a correction (like I did about the Al Gore “documentary”)? Why must your errors be sent down the memory hole?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    53:

    Utterly irrelevant, DD. He didn’t back away from any of the facts he presented in the article. His admission that he is a bit of a green kook despite the facts doesn’t change the facts.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Glenn,

    Why do you want those comments deleted? Why not just apologize and issue a correction

    He did. In comment # 56.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    The ClimateGate whitewash:

    “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann — the paleoclimatologist who came up with “the hockey stick” — would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for “lack of credible evidence”, it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT’s Richard Lindzen tells the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?” The report continues: “The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen’s statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.”) Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”

    [Quoting the “investigation’s” conclusions:]

    “This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”

    “Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…”

    “Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”

    In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    RJ –

    Nice to meet you, Jesus – I mean, you must be Jesus since you make no mistakes.

    And that’s why I posted the following:

    Corrected math – something didn’t seem right, way out of whack. The iPhone’s scientific calculator couldn’t handle all the zeros…so it’s Apple’s fault, not mine. Honest!

    So I get to wear the stupid hat for a day for going off the deep end without checking my numbers.

    You see, unlike YOU, when I am wrong I have NO PROBLEM admitting it. I was wrong NOT in the fact that AGW exists and is a major threat to all of us…I was only wrong in the DEGREE of the problem I described.

    Tell me, RJ – are the scientists making up the marked increase in ocean acidification (and its negative effects on life in the sea)? ARE THEY? And they know from the chemical changes that the acidification is directly attributable to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    You yourself admit that the billions of tons of CO2 we pump into the air must be having an effect – you just claim you don’t think it has that much of an effect.

    30 billion tons of CO2 we pump into the air every year…and the acidification of the oceans which is directly attributable to said CO2…

    …and you don’t think that’s a big deal.

    I’ve no problem admitting my mistakes, RJ. I’m only afraid of not being man enough to admit when I’m wrong when the preponderance of the evidence proves me wrong.

    What about you? Oh, I forgot – you’re never wrong, especially when the VAST majority of the world’s scientists tell you you’re wrong.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    76:

    Right. So, let me ask again: “Why do you want those comments deleted?”

    Incidentally, DD, I guess you have no reply to #62? Not surprised. Not at all.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    “You see, unlike YOU, when I am wrong I have NO PROBLEM admitting it”

    See comment #26. Then please issue another correction.

    “I was wrong NOT in the fact that AGW exists and is a major threat to all of us”

    That would be your clearly uninformed opinion.

    “I was only wrong in the DEGREE of the problem I described.”

    Yeah, you were just off by a little.

    Seriously, when you were writing your post, it didn’t seem odd to you that the weight of the atmosphere was going to, like, double in a couple of decades (based on your numbers)? It didn’t cross your mind that this was completely absurd?

    I frankly find it laughable that someone so clueless is lecturing everyone on how they NEED to listen to you and agree with you.

    “I’ve no problem admitting my mistakes, RJ.”

    Yeah, sure, after begging one of the editors to delete them.

    “the VAST majority of the world’s scientists tell you you’re wrong.”

    Science isn’t a democracy, and appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

    Tell you what, Glenn. Here’s a petition signed by 31,487 scientists, the vast majority of whom are no doubt more intelligent than you, and have a better understanding of the issue than you do. And they disagree with you.

    Does that prove you’re wrong? No. Again, science isn’t a democracy. Scientists don’t get to vote on the laws of physics.

    So quit with your “ZOMG 98% AGREE WITH ME, 2% AGREE WITH YOU, I’M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG, HURR DURR” bullshit.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Seriously, RJ. You do know the significance of a scientific consensus, yeah?

    You’ve been “appealing to authority” throughout this thread and discarding every bit of fact or “authority” you don’t agree with. Then you suggest that appeals to authority are logical fallacies, which would matter if we were only having a rhetorical discussion. We’re not. So yes, scientific authority damn sure matters and we, the great unwashed non-experts, can damn sure “appeal” to those authority figures to formulate the facts on which our arguments stand.

  • Jordan Richardson

    “ZOMG 98% AGREE WITH ME, 2% AGREE WITH YOU, I’M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG, HURR DURR”

    This argument makes infinitely more sense than anything you’ve cobbled together, although I must begrudgingly give you credit for your used car salesman approach: “What would it take for you not to believe in global warming today?”

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    82:

    Did you read the part right under that where I wrote:

    “Does that prove you’re wrong? No. Again, science isn’t a democracy.”

    Liberalism is a cognitive deficit.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Did you read the following comment or are you in such a rush to win an Internet argument that you skip over vital details like, say, explanations?

    I knew you wouldn’t get what I was driving at so I figured I’d better expound on it.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Jordan, you are a perfect example of why it’s a waste of time to discuss this topic with fact-averse Warmers.

    As I wrote in #55 (not #62; sorry, DD):

    Members of the cult of global warming really and truly believe in it like it’s a religion. Facts that run counter to their belief system are simply dismissed or ignored, and skeptics who speak up are shouted down as heretics.

    Tell me, Warmers, what piece(s) of evidence would dissuade you from your belief in AGW?

    Remember, in order for something to be considered real science, and not just a belief that you hold on faith, it must be falsifiable. So name something that you would consider credible evidence against your theory.

    *crickets*

  • Jordan Richardson

    Remember, in order for something to be considered real science, and not just a belief that you hold on faith, it must be falsifiable.

    Without chuckling or snorting to yourself, can you tell me how this rule came about? I’ve not seen it before. I’m familiar with the notion that scientific theory deals in quantifiable properties. It’s testable, in other words, and can be observed as such.

    But falsifiability? I’ve heard that discussed and debated in realms of philosophy of science. I know that Karl Popper was very clear in saying that not all scientific theories could be proven “false” through this method. I think you might be misunderstanding the concept as a whole, actually. Or I am. Not sure, but I’ll still side with the weight of the evidence when faced with philosophical theories.

    And believe it or not, that has nothing to do with my apparent “liberalism” or any other such bullshit you trot out.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    The late, great Michael Crichton:

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

    There was something of a “consensus” before Copernicus, too.

  • Jordan Richardson

    And by my question “how this rule came about,” I mean in determining if something is, as you say, “real” science. As opposed to what? Was Popper arguing that falsification was the criteria to establish what was real and what was “made up?”

    Or was there more to it?

    I suspect the latter, but I’ll let you fill in the gaps.

  • Jordan Richardson

    In science, consensus is irrelevant.

    To some degree this is true as scientific consensus isn’t part of scientific theory (neither is falsification, but hey who’s counting), but it is completely relevant when we’re tabulating the wealth of evidence in a particular field. Saying it “has nothing to do with science” is just a weird remark. It doesn’t prove anything, but it does point to a general agreement among a particular field’s scientists. It’s not unanimous; nobody’s trying to pawn it off as such either.

    Also, consensus changes over time with the introduction and study of new evidence. If the consensus on climate change shifts and we learn new things, terrific. But right now we’re being asked to err on the side of caution given the weight of the evidence. Some are refusing to do so, treating it all like a big sham because of political conditioning. This, to me, is far more dangerous than “acting as if” climate change were actually occurring.

    So when you weigh the potential risks, what works out better as a potential course of action? Do we sit here mocking climate change and dicking around over it or do we actually see what we can do about it and act on what we know right now? What makes the most sense to you?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Here’s something by historian of science Naomi Oreskes that kind of discusses consensus in the context of climate change a bit more.

    In part, she says:

    “The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    91:

    I answered that question earlier in the comments.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that everything the alarmists say is true. Then why not focus on pursuing carbon sequestration? Instead of just marginally reducing the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere (which is all the current proposals would do), carbon sequestration could actually remove some of it.

    Or, hell, even just a straight carbon tax? Why create some huge global regulatory scheme that will lead to hundreds of billions (or trillions) of dollars being transfered from the developed countries to the Third World?

    It’s fair to say that most of the people who support the Kyoto and Copenhagen proposals are politically to the left. And leftists have long sought global government and massive transfers of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. I suspect there is an ulterior motive at work.

    Greens are called “Watermelons” for a reason.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Ah, now someone is deleting comments. I wonder why…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Political ineptitude is a fucking given, RJ. But that doesn’t have shit all to do with the scientific reality we’re facing.

    The reason we don’t have the right answers is because we’re being run by a bunch of morons who’d rather put profit and political gain ahead of, oh, everything. Fuck it. That doesn’t mean shit other than business as usual.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I suspect there is an ulterior motive at work.

    There are always ulterior motives, even on your side. There are “good reasons” to deny climate change and “good reasons” to “agree” with it if the money’s good. And for a lot of these assclowns, it has been.

    Once more, though: that doesn’t mean the science is wrong. It means our approach to it blows goats.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    RJ: The reason some comments are being deleted is one of two reasons – they are spam or they are nothing but personal attacks. Which do you think it is?

    Christopher Rose
    Blogcritics Comments Editor

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    I’m done for the night, Jordan. Comments are mysteriously disappearing and I’m not going to participate any longer on a thread where my comments may end up down the memory hole.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    RJ –

    That would be your clearly uninformed opinion.

    Riiiight. 98% of the world’s climatologists agree on this…and I guess they’re all uninformed, too.

    And your website of 31,847 “scientists”? Read through the website, RJ – there is ZERO VERIFICATION of the identity or the qualifications of the signers!

    ZERO VERIFICATION.

    And this is your…proof.

    By the way, the “98% of the world’s climatologists” claim comes from this:

    William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). “Expert credibility in climate change”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

    You reference a website that has ZERO verification. I reference the National Academy of Sciences. Clearly, this will mean absolutely nothing to you.

  • Leroy

    22-RJ: When you say things like this you destroy your own credibility by showing that you know nothing about the oil business and that you have a fantasy idea of how the oil business works. If you were king maybe you’d break all the treaties and start all the wars necessary to make the world like your fantasy, but in the process you’d diminish the USA and perhaps destroy it.

    You say:

    “Drill in ANWR. Drill offshore again.”

    The USA doesn’t have any drilling equipment so we’d have to nationalize the oil companies and grab theirs. Then we’d have to unilaterally revoke the oil lease contracts we’ve signed, or start drilling in strategic oil reserves, which is guaranteed to weaken the USA in the long run.

    ” Build more refineries.” With what money? How would we recoup the investment? Do you think government owned refineries will be efficient? Or should we nationalize them?

    “Build more nuclear power plants (that aren’t located on major fault lines).” With what money?

    Etc., etc.

    Your ideas seem to be the radical impractical products of limited knowledge.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Tell me, Warmers, what piece(s) of evidence would dissuade you from your belief in AGW?

    Well, you would start by demonstrating scientifically that the emission of 30 billion tons of extra (note the stress on that word) CO2 annually has no significant effect.

    To do this, you would need to overturn the laws of physics and show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. This would involve proving that CO2 is an inefficient absorber of heat, contrary to what was thought to have been known for over 150 years.

    Encouraged by this Nobel-worthy piece of work, you might then turn your attention to proving that there is no atmospheric increase in the incidence of the distinctive isotope of carbon that denotes fossil fuels.

    For an encore, you could provide data showing that the following four predictions of what would happen were one to introduce a shitload of CO2 into an atmosphere like Earth’s were not coming to pass:

    a) Nighttime temperatures increasing at a faster rate than daytime temperatures;
    b) the stratosphere starting to cool because of the extra heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) instead of escaping to space;
    c) the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere increasing in altitude as the now warmer troposphere expands;
    d) the ionosphere diminishing in size.

    Off you go.

  • Cannonshop

    An atmospheric concentration as high as 5% (either by weight or volume) would be sufficient to cause immediate health effects on human beings-effectively, CO2 is a poisonous gas, it will kill you at high concentrations.

    Given that, adding 5% to the total volume of the atmosphere yearly? should’ve killed us all already-photosynthesis and the carbon-cycle would’ve collapsed under the load.

    So, the numbers of certain posters on this thread are flat bullshit.

    The other thing I’ll note here, is that unlike the German Nuclear Plant story posted earlier, this set of comments, while tossing numbers and predictions around higgly-piggly and helter-skelter, is far, far less technical a discussion, and far, far, more emotional in its nature…on both sides.

    Which serves neither to provide enlightenment, nor solutions.

    even theoretical solutions to Hypothetical Problems.

    Two things had better NOT be in doubt:

    1. The Climate is changing, we do not exist in a steady-state or static environment, nor in a zero-sum environment where all variables are either known, or accounted for.

    Get used to it, the climate’s going to change, it has throughout the earth’s history, sometimes more rapidly than others (Mammoths found in siberia flash-frozen with grass still in their mouths and stomachs provide a hypothetical example, though the “little ice age” and “Year without a Summer” are more recent examples.)

    2. Nobody has built a climate model that can model the existing climate without being altered by human input. The ratio of error is too broad, the fractional errors end up requiring “Tricking” the numbers (a polling derived practice developed by MARKETING majors) and fudging the data. This makes the BEST computer models nothing more than pretty displays of the backers’ personal preferences.

    This does NOT mean they’re wrong in their base Hypothesis. It just means that they can’t actually prove their assertions, or submit their methods to outsiders with competence. Climatology has devolved to the level of Cryptozoology, but with better funding and more respectability, especially since the assertions support causes popular in Academia since the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Summer”.

    If you don’t think Environmentalism is big-business, consider the massive investments of firms like Boeing, BP, and other major industrial and energy giants in alternative fuels, alternative energy, and ‘green’ marketable items, or you could consider the more “Grocery store” level example…

    Organic Produce. Grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, Pesticides, etc, a structurally inferior product, grown more cheaply (and dirtier-the only ‘organic’ fertilizer you can use is animal feces, aka manure, which also can’t be treated with any chemicals), and then sold at a massive mark-up over food products grown using more sophisticated (albeit less popular) means such as pesticides, fertilizers, and the like-usually at a massive profit since the volumes are relatively small, and often an inferior product at that, since it can’t be treated with preservatives or irradiated before being shipped to the store.

    It’s big, BIG business for retailers to put that “Organic” sticker on something that would normally not make the ‘cut’ as presentable for sale.

    That sticker means 20% to 30% more per-unit price, and because it’s “Environmentally Friendly” it WILL sell.

    Same thing here. there’s a lot of money to be made in scaring the shit out of people-anyone that watched the y2k scare or the Millenium Scare, or lived through or studied the Red Scares knows this-predictions of doom, whether personal or collective, are excellent marketing tools if the threat is sufficiently nebulous, and there’s just enough official sanction to give it credibility.

    Which is why questions of SCIENCE demand SKEPTICISM-esp. when the questions (and the answers advanced by advocates) involve massive impacts on the economies, political structures, or social structures of the societies involved.

    So far, the AGW people are LONG on pushing ONE “Solution” to Global warming-a solution even those in their own ranks have admitted is deeply unlikely to work- Carbon Trading/Carbon Taxes. Kinda short on other solutions, like how to keep that first-world economy that allows and enables their research and lifestyle to remain operational minus a source of energy with the same (or nearly the same) energy density, storability, portability, and reliability, of hydrocarbon fuels.

    Without an effective source of power near in efficiency across ALL of those requirements (at a cost that is not prohibitive, mind you), they have poorly articulated a potential problem, advocated massive changes, yet offered no functional solution to the problem thus articulated.

    Get it? A solar-cell with the power of a 350 V8 Engine is only worth it, if it costs roughly the same to produce (once infrastructure to produce it is in place) as that 350 V8. Windmills are stationary structures, they don’t have the portability, and really, metropolitan production of electricity isn’t the volume carbon-generator that the expanding third-world automobile market is.

    And it is expanding. look at the increased petrol demand of just the PRC (People’s Republic of China)-that’s not just official and military vees, that’s civilian cars in civilian hands, and they’re building more freeways and highways every year, India just a couple years ago introduced a car that is meant to cost less per-unit than most used cars do, and they’re motorizing as fast as they can in spite of traffic-hell environments in their major cities, other nations are following or will follow.

    Therefore, the core problem that needs to be solved isn’t punishing the industrialized west for being developed-pretty soon everyone that CAN, WILL BE. (well, maybe not the communist havens of North Korea or Cuba…)

    So…if you actually BELIEVE in the problem, it would do benefit to find researchers and small companies that are working on the problem, and invest in them-with YOUR OWN DOLLARS, and if you think the big-boys have the best chance, buy shares in Them, and when it comes time to vote your shares, make your desire that they continue their efforts known through your shareholder and proxy votes.

    The one thing you won’t get from government efforts, is a real solution-think about the “Space race” and understand that the technology on the Space Shuttle was mostly obselete before Columbia first lifted, or that as soon as we had landed on the moon, we stopped because “Space is the common heritage of all mankind”-therefore no profit motive in continuing outward beyond spectaculars to take pretty pictures.

    That could happen to energy efforts that get mired in the ‘altruism’ of politicians.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    We liberals – and 98% of all climatologists – really hope we’re wrong about AGW. We WANT you to be right on AGW.

    But think on this – if the Republicans cave and we actually do something about AGW…and we liberals and climatologists turn out to be wrong, what will be the price? Maybe some harm to the economy…but maybe not, since we’ll have greatly-improved efficiency.

    BUT if – as Republicans want – we do NOTHING, and even roll back some of the regulations as they want, but the liberals and climatologists turn out to be right, what happens? Gradual catastrophe on a worldwide scale.

    That’s the gamble that you and the Republicans are taking.

  • Leroy

    97-cannon is wrong. CO2 is NOT a poison, it is a suffocant. The only way it can kill you is by displacing all the oxygen in the local environment.

  • Leroy

    On second look, 97-cannon has so manyfactual errors and unwarranted conclusions as to render it not worth reading.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    You read it twice, though, Leroy! :-)

  • Leroy

    Be warned by my example.