This is not The Haters Club You're Looking For discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
I've read this topic sentence too many times.
Arminius, you're confusing weather and climate, which are two different (though related) things. If the weather feedback loop you describe really did provide stable limits for the climate, we would never have had ice ages or other periods of global climate change in the past (ice ages and other similar phenomena are important arguing points for the anti-global-warming crowd, so you may want to be careful what you argue!).You do make an important point about global temperature stats being unreliable at best and unavailable at worst for periods before the 20th century. It's always important to consider uncertainty in data, which, although it doesn't prove anything, does allow for debate, discussion, and questioning.
And if you read the Marshall Institute piece, it is purporting to be science, not just reporting, by attempting to demonstrate a link between funding and outcome of the study. I do believe it is important to follow the funding stream, but as soon as mathematical assumptions are involved, I would like a jury of scientific peers to review it before it's presented to me, just as I would be facing a peer review board if I were to submit an article to a psychology journal for publication about the statistical relationship between, say, source of mental health coverage and outcome of treatment.
This is interesting (from Marshall): "Private sector funding of science is said to
be susceptible to producing biased results.
Public and foundation support for science may
result in similar behavior. The strong financial
ties between a limited group of public and
private funders and public policy organizations
and research universities documented here
provide a first step toward evaluating these
claims." I wonder who they think should be funding unbiased research?
Speaking of the importance of recognizing and being critical of the funding and other support for the research that comes to certain conclusions (as well as being critical of the biases of the researchers), that is my primary objection to the article cited by the Cato institute. Although, if you noticed, I did state that I thought the full scientific article itself might be worth reading. But the bit at the Cato website itself is just one guy talking about the lack of appreciation for his own research, taken from The American Spectator (like I said, it'd be like me citing Mother Jones--actually, more like linking to Greenpeace printing excerpts from a Mother Jones article--to make my argument; I'd be booed off the stage for selecting non-source-material from such a biased publication).
And I'm still not quite following the Al Gore-Google concerns. Yes, I get that Al Gore has a sh*t-ton of money. There's money on both sides of this debate. I'm concerned about research funded by Exxon. I'd probably also be concerned about research funded by, say, Greenpeace. But Al Gore isn't a researcher, he's a lecturer who presents others' research, and I still don't understand the concern about Google.
A friend of mine, to avoid the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' (and also in the interest of accurately describing the potential effects), calls it 'global weirding.' Which might explain snow in Portland in late April! :)
Here's a link to the Union of Concerned Scientists, kind of the antithesis to Sarah's OISM petition. http://www.ucsusa.org/Anyone who would like to take issue with the scientific integrity of pro-global-warming science and its proponents, you're welcome to give it a shot. I'll come up with more links later.
(The reason I have time for this stuff is because it's laundry day, Tracy!)
Just to add something else:I have heard four meteorologists comment on global warming. Two on television, one on the radio and one I asked on a radio talk show for his opinion.
Result: Three said they believe that the earth is not warming while one said it was.
Once more, I would like to point out the difference between meteorology and climatology. Small scale, large scale. It's like asking a quantum physicist about the impact of two planets crashing. Wrong kind of physics, on the wrong scale. For the record, the one meteorologist I know isn't a big fan of global warming issues either, probably because the large-scale unknowns would make his small-scale work a whole heckuva lot harder. But he is not a climatologist, and therefore not an expert in the field of climatology. I have an advanced degree in the social sciences, but as a psychologist, I'm really not qualified to seriously discuss the science of sociology. It's like that.Oh, and if I ever show up as an 'expert' on television, radio, or ESPECIALLY a talk-radio show (unlike talk-radio advice "doctors", I do actually have a doctorate degree), you are all welcome to take me out back and shoot me like a lame horse, because clearly I've irretrievably gone over the edge. And my opinion won't be worth a damn at that point.
And I genuinely don't care about anyone's opinion in the climate field. All I want are the facts, preferably in numbers, interpreted very lightly just to help me understand the terms.
(Armenius, while you've got the dictionary out, look up 'source material' too)
Nice thread...me likey! Thanks Sarah. I agree with the topic title - Al Gore is full of excrement when it comes to this subject. For once, I'd just like to see him debate someone. I won't hold my breath. Carbon credits just might be the biggest scam ever conceved. Stunning. CO2 makes up .03 of our atmosphere. Of that, human activity contributes just 3.2 percent. Do the math. There's a positive side to this whole thing. I get to wear a "My carbon footprint is bigger than yours" t-shirt while driving my SUV.
I would also agree with Arminus on the use of the term "denier". The science is still not settled on this issue - not by a long shot. Science demands skepticism where solid evidence is lacking. In this case "consensus" is just a form of tyranny to shout down the skeptics. Does anyone here remember the ice age scare of the 70's? The predictions that we'd completely run out of oil before the turn of the century? ...the population bomb? Manmade globular worming looks more like the Heaven's Gate cult than the product of real science.
The onus of proof is not on my shoulders Donna - it's on those who need to prove that man's current activity is having a significant impact. The argument has been proposed, and my position is that it has not been adequately demonstrated. However, if small inputs are having major rammifications, it should be easy to observe a correlation.
Manmade CO2, as a contributing factor to a perceived climate crises is a weak argument that has not been sufficiently demonstrated. I don't have to disprove that which has not been clearly established.
I'm currently working on a jar of champagne-apricot that was a gift. It doesn't imply a preference.
Yummers! Yes it's clear now: NB - easily distracted by food. Oh hey, chocolate!
This is too funny. Doesn't add anything to the argument, but you just gotta love the sweet irony. Money quote: "We're here to raise awareness of the problem, even though on a day like today you don't necessarily think of global warming,"
LOL. During a blizzard, I'm willing to bet one thinks of all kinds of warming.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmon...
I have been an environmentalist and conservationist my entire life. I follow in the footsteps of people like Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, and other visionaries who thought to preserve portions of the beautiful paradise we have been blessed with, for nothing other than it's own sake. I believe in the importance of Nature. I believe in not defiling our own nest. I cannot for the life of me understand why "conservatives" would not be as conservative about their natural resources as they are about their fiscals. Wealth comes from resources. If they are not managed wisely, there is nothing left to manage in the end.That being said.... I am beginning to HATE the popularization and commercialization of Environmentalism. I mean seriously... now the FOX Channel is touting itself as the "Green Channel" with it's little leaf emblam. Fucking hypocrites. I wanna see what their waste bins look like at the end of the day at Corporate. Fuck those guys. Just like every other commodity, Environmentalism is being packaged and sold to us. Like "Health" and "Beauty" and "Youth" and "Fitness" and "Thinness" and every other fucking thing they want to shove down our throats. For a price.
This environmental movement is reminding me more and more of Marin County. Where we do things not because they make sense, or actually accomplish something, but because they FEEL good to do. I can click a button on my computer that says "Yay Earth!" and feel like I have done my part for the planet.
Believe me... what it will take to off set climate change at this point is so radical that the only way it will come to pass is when the planet itself forces us to. Which is what will happen. And just like always... the planet will be fine... just like when the asteroids struck it and killed off the dinosaurs. It's humans who may go extinct... but geologically speaking... it's inevitable anyway, so.... let's fill the hot tub with lime jello, turn up the Heavy Metal music, and do lines off of a hookers ass while it all burns.
::::makes metal hands at Mimi::::\m/ \m/
OOOOooo. What a thread to read. Lots of brilliance going on.Now if I was on the rabid anti-Gore anti-climate change side of the fence here's what I'd say:
1. If there's climate warming, then why is it gonna be May 1 tomorrow morning and 39 degrees? (insert many guffaws and chortles)
2. We have nothing to do with it. It's that pesky sun activity.
I'm not on that side of the fence tho, but this is what is retorted whenever I get into discussions with my Rep friends.
Articles, statistics, can be skewed to whatever agenda you have. For me, it just makes sense that all this crap we put into this environment is bound to make a difference. If you think of the planet as a living breathing thing, we are poisoning it. I see the Ross Ice Shelf lossing a major part of itself. The glaciers in Europe are melting at an alarming rate. There is proof of all that. If we sit around twiddling our thumbs until we have proof, we are doomed. And I still have faith in mankind that I don't want to see that happen. Nor do I want to see the absolute poverty and despair that will overtake most of humanity with the consequences, for example poverty.
The trend toward warming started with the Industrial Revolution.
It's just common sense to do what we can, even if there's no proof. Surely it will help our living conditions, won't it? End of oil dependency far outreaches the fossil fuel aspect of greenhouse effect. A whole different Middle East. Russia no longer making territorial claims to the Arctic. Hey, less pollution! Healthier living.
However, some of the "answers" are BS. Why has it taken years for the ethanol alternative to be seen for what it is? It's a terrible solution yet it was pushed (because it was easy? Because "they" could give us that? Because it assuaged the farmer lobbies?) and finally our govt is all for it. Europe is already seeing the error of their ways. This ties into what Charissa was speaking about - it's cool to be pro-environment! Look at how many products are touting the "pure" "natural" branding.
Why oh why is not research into alternative energies a much bigger concern?
Right. Oil.
Well I could go on about how the oceans are a mess. Even our outer space is littered with garbage. We suffer for the loss of beauty in our surroundings. Every summer we go to the San Juan Islands where I can actually see the sky. We've been going there for 11 years, and last summer I couldn't get over how much junk was up there.
Thank you Ali! Where I live all I hear is "Al Gore is a hypocrite", people neglect to look at the big picture. Charissa I loved what you said and I love you attitude. You are so smart and sassy!
Thanks Jenn Jenn... xoxo:::hands her the crack pipe and shoves a hooker her way:::
Al Gore is a flaming hypocrite regardless of what the science is on global warming - manmade or otherwise. Carbon offests are a massive scam, 2nd only to the UN's Food For Oil swindle. In England, a fairly damning disclaimer must be read detailing the inaccuracies and falsehoods contained in An Inconvenient Truth. If Al Gore is to be taken seriously, he should stop pilfering footage from Hollywood and start actually debating his film. I won't hold my breath.
I have to admit, I'm not a fan of carbon offsets. Pollution + money = environmentalism? Just doesn't seem quite right.
I still don’t think the industrialized world has any measurable effect on the environment. If you look at the real numbers what we (industrialized nations) pump into the environment doesn’t really amount to much on a global scale. Just this week a Volcano in Chile has already spewed more “greenhouse” gasses into the atmosphere the industrialized world has in the last 10 years.Does this mean Nick thinks we should keep going as we are? Shit no. To maintain a technology just because it isn’t killing you is ridiculous. What it means is, open up the available domestic oil fields (Franklin Bluffs Alaska oil field is 4 times the size of the Prudhoe Bay field, and is only 1 of 7 such oil fields in the US, all “un-tapped”) and produce oil. Take the wind out of the sails of; middle eastern nations, China, and Russia. We don’t need it. But this doesn’t fit into the global economy plan does it?
This will buy the US and her allies’ time to develop clean abundant energy, at an economical price. Without resorting to the feared nuclear power. (Which I don’t really feel too great about. It is said to be clean but what to do with all the spent fuel?)
We will never (by never I mean the next 100years) rid ourselves of oil. Once we stop using it as an energy source we will use it for plastics, and someday we will replace steel with plastic for building materials. This has already started on small scale structures. The cars and plains of the not so distant future will be framed of plastic. We will be needing oil for a long time to come. Until our nano carbon technology can keep up with the demand of an advancing civilization. Right now we can only string 15 nano tube strains together… it will be a really long time before we see the end of the oil industry.
Bio-Fuels: A good concept, but ultimately a fundamentally flawed approach. I’m sure people have herd of the growing demand on food products. Bio-fuels are/would/continue to put more stress on that market. Agriculture in itself is an environmentally destructive practice. I am entertaining the idea of enclosed industrial complexes where bio-fuel crops are grown in hydroponic farms and in mass. A continuous out-put of corn/wheat grass/sugar beats whatever. That might work, but I still question if it would be able to keep up with demand.
I have been following the global warming cry since I read an article about a Senate investigatory meeting set up in the late 1980’s or very earlier 1990’s where AL Gore ( a ranking member of the committee) lambasted invited Coal company executives there to defend his charges. So now to my point, Dr Joseph D’ Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, paints a clear picture when he says that El Nino’s are the cause for snow, cold, flooding and hurricanes. He states that the next time an El Nino occurs that there will be a mad rush to blame the extreme weather related event following it on global warming.
He also points out that sensation sells. That is one reason why man-caused global warming gets so much publicity. It would be far less sensational if the earth warmed on its own.
I can add something Donald Trump has said. He said that people want to be part of momentum. Certainly man caused earth warming is the popular opinion of the day.
I also read that the earth has stopped warming since 1998. It has actually started to cool.
In addition, I found out that climatologists are being intimidated if they offer the opposite opinion.
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/st...
I would like to make a distinction before I get jumped on in public…. There is a difference between volcanic gasses, and volcanic particles.
The gasses vent almost non-stop from active volcanos. These gasses are greenhouse gasses.
Volcanic particles get blasted out all over the place during an eruption, which often mask and hide the effect of the gasses.
I had a moron send me a nasty private message saying the “little ice age” was caused by a series of volcanic eruptions. (Yeah no shit.) This particular moron is just the kind of person feeding the fire of all this hype. Folks there is always more then one piece to a puzzle; you can not put a death grip on one thing and scream that you can see the whole picture.
Couldn't agree more Nick. Our current energy tech is truly archaic. We've the technology and the resources to make great strides. The problem is too many people are getting fat off the current situation, and unfortunately they're making the rules. I just got back from a 6 hour layover in Salt Lake City, and had a nice chat with a guy who just got back from 2 months of seismology readings off the Franklin Bluffs - his next stop was Louisiana. We are most definitely getting screwed over.
I read a recent report that El Nino would be with us for the next 10 years and would bring with it those cool temperatures Arminius was talking about. After that we would feel the effects of global warning again. So, is that why on May 6, here in Seattle we all still have our heat on and still are wearing our winter clothes? I hate this!As for global warning or not, I've heard so many arguments for and against, each citing statistics and scientific reports that I don't really pay attention to it anymore. My feeling is that we have to be contributing to it even if it is also cyclical, and should be doing everything we can to clean up our act and our planet.
Small world, NB. There is so much oil at franklin bluffs it is seeping out of the ground in spots.
I'm still not convinced about drilling in Alaska. Tell me more. Wouldn't it ruin so much of the ec0-system there? Let's just get beyond oil, dammit!
I agree Lori; we need to get away from oil. But not today, maybe in 5 years, but not today. As far as drilling in Alaska… Despite popular belief we actually have the best environment record. We had one big mess up in Valdez, that wasn’t even the Alaska oil industry fault that was on Mobile’s side of the house. A small corrosion spill 2 years ago. The corrosion spill 2 years ago went un-noticed for a time because of the “seepage” oil is bubbling up out of the ground Beverly hillbilly style.Another miss-conception is that there are all these oil Derek towers like you see in the old b/w movies or even in the Beverly Hills movie. That just isn’t the case (here, I can’t speak for other oil operations this is the only one I have worked on) BP, Conoco Phillips don’t want to build more drill points, they simply want permission to drill “UNDER” ANWAR. Personally I think they should just leave ANWAR alone. The Franklin Bluffs Field is accessible. It is right along side existing infrastructure and would be really easy to get it to market. The Oil companies are all hot about ANWAR because if they get a green light they will save billions of dollars in tax right offs building the infrastructure to support the ANWAR drilling.
I'm not ready to write off biofuels just yet. I don't think labor-intensive, land-intensive food commodities like corn or soy is the ultimate way to go, partly because of the impact on the environment of farming them and partly because of the impact on the food supply. But the good news is that the technology for biofuels has gotten started and has gotten some attention and funding.Like any new technology, it's going to need to move beyond where it started. Somebody (Brazil? I hate it when I read magazines in a lobby somewhere, because I can't go back and reference what I read, but I'm pretty sure it was National Geographic) is making a lot of biofuel out of sugarcane. Grows fast, less land-intensive. Better yet, there is some work being done on non-food sources like bamboo, wood pulp, grasses.
It's a technology still in its awkward adolescence, having grown beyond its cute recycled-fryer-oil-biodiesel childhood, all pimply and gawky right now (and in dorky farmer-Joe overalls), but someday, if there can be continued investment in it, it will hopefully reach adulthood.
I can agree with that Lisa, but we need something for tomorrow. I think if you were to set up a hydroponics farm operation in the vacant warehouse districts of the SW suburbs of Chicago you could probably generate enough sugarcane to give a real boost to Biofuels. every state could set this up, how's that for local supply baby!
I lean to the man made enclosed hydro farms because they are an assembly line process. Producing a set amount of product each day everyday. We really don’t need the high quality product of the massive land based farms; Biofuels will work just as well as a speed grown plant. There is a set back to this. Power consumption. I suppose one could rig the flowing water to turn simple turbines to power the lighting. Maybe even solar power and burning off what is not good enough to sell on the market. I don’t know just spit balling here.
Donna, petroleum fuels power a lot more than transportation right now. And even if it were all transportation, people aren't going to stop going to see friends in other parts of the country even if everyone realizes they should get their apples from down the street (which works nicely for me, considering how close I am to the Hood River Valley and all their orchards...but might be less practical for folks in New Mexico...oh, and I'm not really going to be getting local citrus or coffee anytime soon, at least not until this global warming thing kicks into high gear). What I'd ultimately like to see is bio-jet-fuel. 'Cause I gotta be honest, I'm not sure I'm ready to fly in a hybrid-electric plane.And Nick, I totally agree that there ought to be other solutions now, but I don't want those other solutions taking a penny away from biofuels development. I just don't think that the imperfections in the biofuel production system right now should kill it. I think your enclosed hydrofarm idea is pretty awesome, as long as it can be done cleanly without too much extra waste...sometimes, like pig farming, making things more intensely productive makes them really, really dirty, but it probably doesn't have to be that way.
Oh, and wind. I heart wind. Whatever the immediate something is that gets us from here to a biofuels future, I'm hoping wind also plays a big part in that future. My uncle's got one turbine on his farm (this freakishly Christian-conservative-anti-abortion psycho is suddenly all about alternative energy, thanks to his corn, soybean, and wind farm...it's rather bizarre), and it powers a third of the small town he lives in. I can't even imagine what the field of turbines across from The Gorge amphitheatre in Washington produces.
Don’t you just love the global economy? It really is crap. We have a small state dairy here in Alaska…well we did until last summer when all the large corporate farms in the outside 48 under sold their product to venders in Alaska just long enough to put the dairies out of business then raised the prices back again. (This all happened behind closed doors, the consumer’s prices never changed) It really is in a community’s best interest to be able to support itself for a set period of time. (From a local source) What is going to happen when “the big one” hits Cali? That is a huge food market that is going to be cut off from the rest of the country. Not only that but cities as densely populated as southern Cali would start to starve themselves in less then a week. Massive humanitarian crisis there.
I'm all for locally sourced. It can be hard...I bought local squash and carrots to make squash soup, but I'll admit that I caved and bought a probably-made-in-china-of-lead-and-poison stick blender at Wal-Mart (back when I lived in a small town in which there was no Target) to blend the soup.I'm currently making burritos with locally made tofu, but to get fresh, locally made tortillas, the only place I've found is 25 miles away. Should I buy the national brand, or drive on the freeway in traffic?
Just a word about diversification; as an energy supply diversification means un-efficient. We need a stream line energy source that is universal and that can be used for everything. This is also the problem with Bio-fuels. There are some things it just won’t work for. Ultimately I would like to see the Fuel cells take off. It is the most expensive, but it has the most benefits as well, and it is a long term fix not a band-aid.
Is that hydrogen? Man, if we could get hydrogen to work affordably, we'd be set.
Yeah... I think we can see it mainstreamed in 5 years maybe, 10 tops. The great thing about it is it can be used for everything. Plains trains auto's power plants, there is no limit. I would really like to see more monies going to this, even though it has been well funded in the past, I think it needs more money, it is the only truly permanent, safe, clean option we have on the table today.
Outstanding discussion on energy policy folks. Rock solid. I hearby propose the Axis Mundi Think Tank for Energy Policy.
But then, this is The Haters Club so it would really have to be the We Hate Our Goddam Energy Policy Think Tank - a not for profit organization.
Eh it's all the same people anyway. I would actually dig a think tank group... that might cut into my acting a fool time here on goodreads. I am serious all day every day, and this is my only pressure release. Then again if you think it, I will ponder it too.
But no new hydropower. It's pretty disruptive to ecosystems. And to salmon, and anything that means less salmon I'm gonna call bad news. 'Cause mmmm....salmon.
LOL..Ali, you hate we're using coal? What the fack are we supposed to do? What have we got left to use? We can't explore, we can't drill, we can't develope. And who's fault is that? (hint....the mirror is over there) Oh..and I eat meat. All kinds...all animals. God made animals out of meat so I could enjoy their tasty flesh...and fat...and marrow. Yep... I eat it all and love it all. I've plucked the eyes out of trout and then bitten the cheek right out the face. Meat! Boo!
Meat is yummy. I'm all for meat. Especially if it's bacon.Coal isn't so yummy. Nor is oil. The idea, NB, is to move away from sources of energy that require us to dig them out of the ground and burn them. For the record, there actually are other sources of energy. In fact, all the energy we've got to work with comes from the sun. If we burn wood, it's solar energy converted to...uh...wood that we're burning. Coal and/or petroleum? Solar energy converted to plant (buried in the earth for a long time to become coal) (converted to dinosaur buried in the earth for a long time to become petroleum). Not very efficient. Biofuels? Sun converted to plant converted to oil.
Why not just go with solar? Or at least wind (sun converted to weather = energy). Or I live in a place where more than 50% of my energy comes from hydroelectric plants, and if I pay an extra dollar a month, my energy comes exclusively from hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear (not my favorite, but cleaner than coal), and nothing nonrenewable.
Even Nick, who works for Big Petroleum, promises we'll have cheap hydrogen fuel cells in a decade at the most.
So why do we need to drill? What can't we develop that actually hurts us, energy-wise? As far as I'm concerned, we're busy working on developing the things that are the future of energy. We just don't have the, um, freedom? (maybe we just don't have the time or we don't give a shit anymore) to continue to exploit the past. And if we're worried about job loss, there are plenty of opportunities developing the hydrogen fuel cell.
Oh yeah, and mmmm...salmon. Tomorrow would be a good day to drive down past the dams to find the Native American fish buses. Is it season yet in the Columbia?
OK..can I swear now? FOR FUCKING CRYIN' OUT LOUD does anyone really understand how our infrastructure works? WHY, WHY, WHY are we sooooo STUPID? Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Please, someone other than Nick demonstrate they understant why these cannot sustain our economy. Everyone here needs...I mean seriously needs to acquaint themselves with the reality of what it means to drive a world economy. But please....start small..start with your beginners electronic course. Here's a hint....it's something called "resistance". OMFG!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I've had this conversation with a nuclear engineer on a number of occasions, and I learned a shit-ton. Once energy is made, it all stores and/or transports the same. I don't see how resistance impacts transporting energy sourced one way more than energy sourced another way.
It is an issue that energy is ridiculously hard to store. But it's not any harder to store based on the source. Solar does have its weaknesses in that it's only available half the day or so, meaning it does have more need for storage.
Infrastructure is particularly relevant for biofuels. Unlike petroleum, there isn't a pipeline system in place, so it has to be driven in trucks wherever it needs to go. But infrastructure is something that gets built and maintained, not something that just magically appeared to support petroleum.
And, for the record, I really don't give a shit about the world economy. It's not a pretty picture of health right now, anyway (unless...wait a minute, NB, do you live in Dubai?), so it seems like kind of a silly system to keep propping up. But really, if "world economy" is the argument for continuing to rely primarily on fossil fuels, that's incredibly short-sighted. A) Fossil fuels are finite. So then what about the world economy? If we don't have a backup plan, it just entirely tanks, all apocalypse-like. B) As we've been discussing in this thread, fossil fuels could be a serious threat to humans continuing to thrive on this planet. No people, no world economy. Or, in a less catastrophic scenario, human damage to the environment does some serious damage to human viability even if it doesn't kill us off. Is oil company profit really going to be the biggest concern the world economy's got on its mind at that point?
Catastrophe or no catastrophe (but moreso if there's serious effects of a human-impact-caused catastrophe), I bet the drug and biomed companies overtake energy as a major driver of the world economy within 50 years.
LOL...so all energy transports the same? hee hee...wow. ummmmmmmmm OK. In fact yes it does...that, unfortunately is exactly the problem. Unless you're aware of a method of transporting energy that somehow circumevents the property of resistance; wind, solar and geothermal will never be grid-wide solutions. So, you don't care about the world economy? hmmmmmmm, interesting. You may find yourself somewhat outnumbered! Heh...and no I don't live in Dubai. I happen to live where we have functioning geothermal in addition to one of the largest wind driven energy fields in the US.
Fossil fuesl are finite...but by no means near exhaustion. In fact, we have yet to even approach the true potential that is available. The problem is pathetic rules that prevent us using state of the art tech to exploit this in an efficient manner.
Our current energy production is by no means an immediate threat to mankind. However, because it does drive the world economy (whether you like it or not) the politics that surround it does. The sooner we can separate ourselves from ME oil the better. This is an absolute necessity. We also need to simultaneously prepare viable energy alternatives which must include nuclear.
In the end...we are not so far apart are we? Funny that. As I've said before...we have the tech..we have the resources. We only need the balls to do what's necessary. Instead, we're more concerned with pursuing some false "Green
God" of energy production.
The oil in protected areas in Alaska could sustain the US, by itself with no other sources of energy, for four or five years. Sure, that's a ton of oil, but it's not a long-term solution. And that's the last big pocket of oil we've got, unless we start colonizing the rest of the world British-empire-style.I'm grudgingly resigned to nuclear, but if we go that route any more than we already have, where to store the waste is going to become a major driver of politics in this country. It's already a pretty major player in local politics in plenty of areas.
I'd like to point out that solar is pretty viable here in Portland, Oregon. The city government is working on getting all city operations off of fossil fuels, and they're doing a pretty good job, with solar being a decent part of the mix. If we can do it here, in a place known for overcast skies and rainy days, it's probably got some potential.
One of the bigger problems with wind is the NIMBY issue. If people would just shut the fuck up about how miserable and awful it would be if they could see a wind farm from their vacation properties, we could do some pretty impressive things with wind, especially offshore. The other big issue is how quickly wind can be expanded. If you wanted your very own wind turbine, at this point, you'd have to wait a few years, because the current capacity for manufacturing them is beyond maxed out. (Huh...anyone see a great opportunity for expanding into the...nah, probably doesn't count as the world economy. Probably just the regional economy.)
Doesn't Europe run far less on fossil fuel than we do? I know wind is a major player.Ironic that the people against NIMBY are the bigger fossil fuel players.
I feel the same about nuclear. I still don't trust it. Mistakes happen. And as you say, where to put the waste. Big arguments in WA over the waste from the nuclear plant that shut down years ago. Nobody wants it. I don't blame them.
From what I've heard, Alaska won't solve all our oil problems even for the 5 projected years - only a drop in the bucket.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
At the interview of Al Gore, they were talking about his global warming agenda in his house. The interviewer, maybe because of the grandeur of the house, stated that Gore made his riches from investing Google. This indicated that either he is not making money, or did not need the money, from his global warming agenda. As far as Google goes he would have had to buy 10000 shares to make one million dollars. He may have done but I thought it odd that they pointed it out. And I know that some people make millions in speaking fees.
I also did not quote science information from The Marshall Institute. I do not thnk there is a peer review in regards to publishing scientific funding.
And with regards to The CATO institute, the article used a test by is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a Canadian college professor. So you are kind of killing the messenger because you do not like the message.