Additional Details
4 months ago
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...4 months ago
uh...yeah Zach , we don%26#039;t make policy decisions based on the Big Bang theory. Also, there is a lot of math that can back up that theory , not the case with AGW.4 months ago
donflect , while i find your answer both eloquent and intelligent , i have found two flaws in your logic.1. I understand policy making is inherent with uncertainties but... when making those decisions based on science ( which does not happen often ) the bar must be raised and that science MUST come with proof . Example : Earth crossing Asteroids , will we spend the $$$ to build a defense system to stop them from hitting without fully understanding the aprox time frame in which they might strike us.... well i don%26#039;t see that happening so the answer is no. Same idea.
2. The transition from fossil fuels to other forms of energy will happen in time. The worst thing to do is force it too soon through the mighty inefficiency of government. Oil is here to stay for now , that is a fact. Bottom line : it is ridiculous for government to force a change in using light bulbs when you are free to use as much energy from the grid as you want or can afford.
4 months ago
Hey Dana... I guess you haven%26#039;t noticed ...but...AGW is a bad theory because it is supported with NO evidence . I love how everyone keeps using gravity and space as equals to AGW in the idea of being theory. One more time people.....THOSE THEORIES CAN BE BACKED UP WITH MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE....AGW CAN ONLY BE BACKED UP WITH THEORY UPON THEORY .... IT%26#039;S BAD SCIENCE.... WHEN DID WE START MAKING POLICY DECISION ON GRAVITATIONAL FORCES THEORY????Events like these catch them off guard, and then they have to make changes in their predictions in order to save their reputations. That just shows how poor our understanding of the earth%26#039;s climate is.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/clim...
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/060720...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...
A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security
We are being misled about what is possible with alternative energy. We give it miniscule subsidies, compared with oil, especially, and conventional power, in general.
%26quot;There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind. From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren%26#039;t at 1 pecent yet. Why? Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can%26#039;t use wind, can%26#039;t use solar, what about the intermittency. If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there. If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time. That can be your electricity `battery.%26#039;%26quot;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...
Denmark gets 20% of it%26#039;s energy from wind.
Here%26#039;s one proposal that would power the whole country on affordable solar power, spending less in public money than we have spent building the high speed information highway in America, and over about the same 35 year time span.
Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...
%26quot;Abu Dhabi is not content to just sell you the oil that fuels your SUV; now its going to sell you sunshine to keep your lights on and power your electric car when the internal combustion engine goes the way of the buggy whip. Masdar, the oil-rich emirate’s $15 billion renewable energy venture, and Spanish technology company Sener on Wednesday announced a joint venture called Torresol Energy to build large-scale solar power plants in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States.%26quot;
What they have their eyes on, is the very same American southwest deserts, where the authors of the Scientific American proposal are suggesting Americans build solar power plants.
%26quot;The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while offering only tepid support for green technology. It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain.%26quot;
from Green Wombat
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/
We give over ten times as much in subsidies to the oil industry, as we do for solar, wind, geothermal etc combined.
And what you hear in the media is how solar needs subsidies, as if that was some strike against it. It%26#039;s disinformation.
%26quot;The global warming is a hoax believers don%26#039;t understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions.%26quot;
gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...
posted by LeeAnnG
%26quot;Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn%26#039;t what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW%26quot;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...
%26quot;honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation.%26quot;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...
Compares IPCC projections to actuall observations.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.
%26quot;A handful of %26quot;contrarian%26quot; scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists%26#039; conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there.%26quot;
%26quot;There%26#039;s a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton%26#039;s second law of dynamics%26quot;.
Dr. James Baker - NOAA
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings. http://www.setamericafree.org/saf_hidden...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...
Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...