Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am

I think the whole AGW thing is nothing more than a scam run by socialists to obtain power so they can rule the population. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that human activity is influencing the global temperature. If anyone out there has it, I would love to see it.

Comment from mswhmtns
March 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am

I believe a clean energy future is entirely possible. I think the only thing standing in the way is the private interests of corporate America in the areas of oil, automobiles, land development and other things I am not even aware of. Other countries, especially those in the northern european area, are light years ahead of us.
The maufacture of alternative energy products could create who knows how many jobs for all the thousands of Americans out of work. In northern NH, where I live, it would mean the revitalization of the economy to have a factory that would build what is needed for solar, wind and other natural sources of power. It is a disgrace that America has not moved forward in any meaningful way at present to establish alternative energy in a big way.

Comment from M. Falcione
March 20th, 2008 at 9:56 am

Americans have done too much damage to the earth already. Unless we implement very strict clean air solutions, many animal species will die and the earth as we know it will be a swamp land. Steve C. really needs to read documents other than the republican rags he obviously subscribes to.

Comment from shelanderson
March 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am

I am very excited about the possibility of an energy revolution, especially if it is coupled with a massive employment and training campaign in this time of economic meltdown. Though I know it goes against current social values, I also believe that this needs to be connected to a reduction in population (especially in rich countries) and a reduction in consumption. The notion of continued growth cannot be sustained by our earth.

Comment from Ken Brodeur
March 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am

Yes, the oil industry has had its hay-day, it is time to change our energy consuming ways. Human nature indicates that if change is an effort, you get a no show. Make it fun and the whole world will be watching. The 60's was a revolutionary time in America, music lead the way. We, at Ranchita Rocks, a non-profit benefit concert, to keep the pristine view of the last great wilderness in California from high tension power lines criss-crossing the area are helping to lead the way. We do not seek confrontation, but solutions to our world-wide energy problems. Thru an annual three-day music festival, we promote alternative power solutions, close up and personal. Solar power, wind power, bio-diesel, water conservation (important in Desert areas), Green Business', local and small business, all creating the example, the Agora for the 21st to share ideas, coming together to help like a Amish barn raising! So if you know people that like music, want to help or volunteer in anyway and are in Southern California go to http://www.ranchitarocks.org
I sense that too many of us, the people seeking solutions and answers to our worlds modern problems, are too often venting and ranting on the internet bloggs. This is good for therapy but only the beginning of change, next step is action, like minded people need to meet and organize for the next great economic change in the World! Rock On!
Our website should be updated in a few days for the event for this year. One more point, I do not care if you believe in "global warming" or not, fact is, we are polluting this planet, our home, and it is time to clean up the garbage!

Comment from dib (D.I.Benton)
March 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am

I have a way to stop golbal warning; but couldn't find anyone interested in it. I suspect the hidden adgenda is to use global warming as a threat to get polution reduced. It might be easier if folks would just be honest about this…

Comment from Donna Plutschuck
March 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am

I think everyone has to do their part, regardless of how small they think it is. Yes, we need solar and wind farms, but we also have to learn to turn off lights and equipment not being used, recycle, drive less, buy smaller and more efficient cars, etc. Some people are very self-centered, but eventually the peer pressure will get to them.

Comment from Sol Cohen
March 20th, 2008 at 10:22 am

Any solution must not be at the expense of anything related to food. The present emphasis on biofuels means that we are converting food into fuel to feed our dependence on the automobile while billions starve and the price of grains and everything dependent on them is rising, linearly at first and geometrically in the future.

Comment from Peter E. Martin
March 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am

Virtually the entire scientific community is now in agreement that the Earth is warming, rapidly, and that human activity is the primary cause. There are always nay- sayers, regardless of the subject, however, in this case most of those folks are not even trained scientists.

Being the first economy to build a green power industry would put America back in the economic race creating whole new industries with many thousands of jobs.

Even if humans were not the primary cause of global warming, at some point fossil carbon fuel will become increasingly more expensive as we pass peak oil so, those who are not dependent upon fossil fuels will be in the cat bird seat.

Comment from Melissa Jordan
March 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am

I believe clean energy without eating up all our agricultural land is possible if it comes in the form of solar energy. However, even solar energy requires pollution to create solar panels, so in that regard it is not entirely clean. I think the answer lies in making every utility, every building, every appliance self-reliant energy wise. Energy should be part of our thinking at every level of building, remodeling, and manufacturing.

Comment from Michael Paull
March 20th, 2008 at 10:28 am

One significant problem at hand, is affecting change against the political tide of naysayers who don't believe that global warming is even real (or contributed to by us). Many among their ranks are aware that the vast majority of scientists on the IPCC panel believe we are affecting climate change daily, but they turn their noses up at such conclusions, simply because none of these scientists are taking extra time out of their busy schedule to walk up to folks like Mr. Cunningham, and drop the data directly in their laps. It's so much work to go and look up the published data released by those in consesus, or even confirm the majority factor by one's own active investigation. But the fact is, it's a whole lot easier and more entertaining to simply turn on Fox News, and have THEM give you their own conclusions while basking in your recliner.

Comment from frieda
March 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am

Hit the corporations in the pocket where they feel the most pain. And don"t pass that on to the cosumer as we always suffer due to the higher up! There are many groups in the small communities that have pulled their own weight and are cmmitted to the quality of our enviorment.

Comment from Larry Landherr
March 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am

As long as Congress and the presidency are for sale to the highest bidder, the coal and oil industry will own our government and clean energy legislation will never happen. Put a significant excess profits tax on the oil and coal industries and use the money to buy down the national debt. Then you can use other taxpayer funds to subsidize clean energy technologies until they are cost competitive. At that point the problem with take care of itself.

Comment from valcougar
March 20th, 2008 at 11:00 am

Humans are habitual creatures. We know what we like and what we don't like and that's all that matters. What we generally don't like is others telling us we "have" to change. Or that what we consider to be a happy life may be actually be damaging the world around us. There in lies the problem with trying to change the affect of global warming. Humans are too stubborn to realize the damage they infer on anything outside their narrow scope of the world. They would rather turn a death ear and blame anything else for what transpires around them that incurs negativity. This attitude has been going for centuries. The other problem is humans are greedy. Look at the way we treat agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and forests (not to mention the appalling way we treat wildlife). It has nothing to do with livelihood, it has everything to do with who makes the most money. Having more money means being able to tell everyone else that you're better than them. Until humans realize we cannot eat, drink, breathe or live on money alone will the end of global warming truley be achievable. It has to be a worldly effort, not just a select few that realize the impact we have on the world and actually want change.

Comment from Robb
March 20th, 2008 at 11:12 am

We can absolutely change the world for the better by embracing green energy policies. If we were pumping billions of dollars into advancement of green energy policies instead of into a greed-based war in Iraq, the world would be a cleaner, safer place to live. Development of new, green energy technologies in the US would curb our dependence on polluting fossil fuels; it would create new industrial and technological opportunities with thousands of new employment opportunities; it would restore us to having one of the most enviable standards of living in the world; we would, again, be leading the world toward peace and prosperity. Our leaders, in Washington DC, must be given a mandate to stop leading us into destruction.

Comment from Betty C.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am

Yes we can make a big difference. Several of my friends and I have already begun to try to make a difference. We buy at resale shops. We give all our discards to charity. We recycle anything we can at home. We reuse it someway. We exchange plants to keep them from landfills. We mulch our trash when we can. We turn off our electricity and heat as soon as possible. We wear warmer clothes in winter. We don't waste water. We save rain water to water plants. We don't buy as much food so there is no waste. We reuse bags to keep them from land fields. It has made a big difference in our budget. We use vinegar and soda to clean. We make fertilizer for our plants from environmental safe products. We buy organic from local markets. We buy USA made products. We buy foreign products only when it is necessary and when we cannot find it made in USA. All the things we do is better for our health and it saves money as well as the environment.

Comment from Leovaldo
March 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

It is not only possible, it is the only thing we can do to save ourselves. While we may not make it, at least we will have tried. This is Evolution at work. It may be a new circumstance, but such things have happened before and will continue to happen. I cannot have a premature death at 84 so why should I worry. On the contrary, I am very pleased people are being put to the test again with an escape that is good for all other life. Up to now, man has been a plague on the earth. Evolution is at a crossroads and who knows which way it will go.

Comment from Cindy
March 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

We need to shift the majority of production of electricity from a central power plant to the top of roofs on homes and businesses. It is irresponsible not to incorporate this into the building process. Nanosolar Inc. has manufactured solar to sell for 1$ a watt, in one of the most expensive parts of the country ( Silicon Valley, Ca.),not China, and can still make a profit. This is extremely coast effective.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html
http://www.nanosolar.com/

Wright your Gov. official about this.
This is what we need to creat jobs in the US.

Comment from Thomas Clell Smith
March 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

not untill the hungry are feed and gread is gone will the earth stand a chance. Why do be blame Americia for every thing that happens to this earth the Americians are not the only gready people in the world.

Comment from Charles Weber, Hendersonville, NC
March 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

An answer to a question we have not been asking is; "We should not be using our carbon fuels for so trivial a purpose as to merely generate heat and therefore electricity or transportation in a world where every week the sun beams down enough energy on the state of Arizona alone to supply the whole world with non transportation energy during that time". Those fuels should be devoted to chemical stock and aviation. Burning carbon is akin to burning furniture to keep warm. Oil will probably run out in another hundred years or so and practical coal probably in another two or three hundred or so. What do we have planned for the remaining million years this nation is scheduled to survive? Our constant drum beat about not being dependent on foreign oil is 180 degrees off. If we were really greedy we would use foreign oil as much as possible. If a major war should loom after our oil runs out we will be left high and dry, and maybe defeated.
But if our oil policy seems foolish, our atomic fuel policy must seem like insanity by comparison. At least the carbon will still be on the surface of the earth, extremely expensive to turn into chemicals, but not impossible. Uranium once burned will be gone forever. Our progeny will curse us if they come across a very valuable use for uranium and it is gone. If that purpose were to be the only practical way to get rid of a meteor scheduled to destroy the earth, for instance, they will be cursing us with their dying breath. They will look back on our problems with those jerks in Afghanistan with fond nostalgia.
It is often said that we can not tap the sun’s energy without further expensive research. This is not so. We already know how to make linear parabolic mirrors and numerous effective ways to make heat generated vapor engines. The only thing stopping us is oil and coal selling for, probably, a third of what it would cost to manufacture it out of carbon dioxide.

Comment from Eric West
March 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

What we are doing now is buying time. There is no such thing as "sustainabilty" unless we change our social and economic paradigms. We must reduce our population and our consumption and change from a "growth" to "service" economy. We must stop manufacturing automobiles for everyone and start using mass transit. We have a finite earth. When we have used up it's resources, we will be back in the stone age. Downsizing is our one option.

Comment from Gerry Wolff
March 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

In the DESERTEC scenario, less than 1% of the world's hot deserts can, using concentrating solar power (CSP), generate as much electricity as the world is using, it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity for 3000 km or more via highly-efficient HVDC transmission lines, and 90% of the world's population lives within 2700 km of a hot desert.

Further information about concentrating solar power (CSP) and the 'DESERTEC' concept developed by the TREC international network of scientists and engineers may be found at:

http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/

and

http://www.desertec.org/

Comment from Linda
March 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

"I think the whole AGW thing is nothing more than a scam run by socialists to obtain power so they can rule the population. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that human activity is influencing the global temperature. If anyone out there has it, I would love to see it."

Steve Cunningham, what unreality are YOU living in? There is PLENTY of evidence that human activity is impacting the planet's temperature, it's just that YOU apparently choose to IGNORE all of it just because you choose not to believe it. How can humanity possibly be doing all the nasty things it's been doing for decades upon decades and NOT have an adverse impact. It's absolutely impossible!

What first opened my eyes to the reality of climate change was when I saw an episode of "Scientific American Frontiers" on PBS about the melting of Alaska's permafrost. Permafrost melting? WHOA! Most definitely an eyeopener! I've got to be optimistic, though. Yes, I do believe it's possible for Planet Earth to have a clean future, but it's going to take serious efforts on the part of Earth's inhabitants. We all need to work together. (I know, I know. That sounds SO hokey, but it's true.) Solar power, wind power, and my personal favorite — hydrogen-powered cars. (Imagine! A car that emits only water vapor? How terrific is THAT!?) They're ALL good. I've also got another idea, I wonder if it would be possible to make ALL consumer-goods packaging biodegradable. Just a thought.

Comment from Scott Kruse
March 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Double efficiency and you double profit and cut cost by one-half. Efficiency, led by the Rocky Mountain Institute, is the way to go. Our year round residence utility costs since 1989, are less than $30 per month. It is always more cost effective to hold onto what you already have vs. "go get more." I retrofitted our home (built in 1980) – so it is quiet and comfortable year round, while surrounding homes pay $400 to $800 per month.

We need to decrease human population growth and emphasize efficiency and sustainability. The current mantra is growth, greed and others be damned. We need to invest in infrastructure – light and high speed rail, energy efficient homes, businesses, schools and churches. Human-scaled communities suitable for walking and bicycles.

Comment from adrian bourne
March 20th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

well i think that we as people of the Earth are forty years too late.Eric west views are right-we must downsize – its time for americans as individuals to see the damage done by co-operative america- you need a revolution in thinking as great as Thomas Payne- "The rights of Man- but up dated to 2008.Moreover, you need a new president that can think, that is articulate and we be strong.

Comment from Steve Brown
March 20th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

The "green" power rush we're experiencing currently in the California deserts is nothing more than a rush for the green of cashing in on the popularity of environmentally correct electrical production. In the process of trying to be environmentally correct, plans have been made to literally destroy hundreds of miles of (up to now) pristine and beautiful desert lands, including at least one BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern, a privately owned preserve, and other desert wildlands.
Why so many environmental organizations support badly planned solar and wind projects that use 1950s era transmission technology, instead of pushing for more locally-based, small power generation webs, is a matter for speculation. In the case of at least two major national environmental groups, there is some evidence that indicates they are financially benefiting from this move. Are we now entering the era where those who are supposed to be defending our environment for future generations now sell it out behind our backs?
We'll see…..

Comment from Gary Balluck
March 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

We at Light Emitting Designs are very surprised at the lack of knowledge that the end consumer has in regards to using Led lamps and the amount of savings that could be involved is unbeliveable. Technology is here now to give the consumers and commercial trades the light output they need and the cosmetic looks of the lamps. What also is now coming on board is the solar led fixtures that also can save on the energy.

Comment from Norma J F Harrison
March 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

There cannot be justice, Earth or people health, in capitalist society. Capitalism is a constant crime, not victimless. Earth and all suffer by it. By its laws/treaties and guns, its imperialism that enforces it, we are broken and ruined, raped and tortured.

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

To quote Linda;
"Steve Cunningham, what unreality are YOU living in? There is PLENTY of evidence that human activity is impacting the planet’s temperature, it’s just that YOU apparently choose to IGNORE all of it just because you choose not to believe it. How can humanity possibly be doing all the nasty things it’s been doing for decades upon decades and NOT have an adverse impact. It’s absolutely impossible!"

If there is plenty of evidence then why did you not cite any? Just because someone 'says so' isn't evidence.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

We already have technology available that will drastically reduce greenhouse gases. For example, Honda right now produces the Clarity, which is powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology. The problem is that (1) It costs $600 a month for a lease placing out of the reach of most consumers AND (2) Hydrogen fueling stations are only available in certain areas of Southern California. As a result, this vehicle is only available to a few well-heeled citizens in Southern California.

Similarly, we now have the technology to install hardware that can enable houses to be powered indefinitely with a minimal supply of outside electricity. The problem again is that this technology is also prohibitively expensive for many consumers.

The government needs to step in and drive the change from fossil to renewable energy. Honda should be offered funding to build Clarity factories in the US and to sell the Clarity and other similar models at between 1/2 and 1/3 the current price. Other companies should be offered funding for either an extensive research and development program or to buy the technology from Honda. The existing tax breaks for Clean vehicles should be greatly increased.

Financial incentives should also be provided to producers and consumers of thermal energy devices. Ramping up the production and purchase of products employing existing technology is the best way to ensure that Clean tech gets used by everyone and as soon as possible.

Another idea would be an African Marshall Plan. I know we are in a bad economy, but we were also in a tough economy in 1947. The key is to have Marshall Plan funds used to buy US made sustainable growth goods. We can in this way jumpstart Africa's development into the global market with sustainable growth while at the same time pumping billions of dollars into the US economy and into green tech r & d.

Comment from Thad L
March 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

The Earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of flees. Money, gold and diamonds will be real useful then. People suck.

Comment from Thad L
March 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Yeah Steve C., it's called an "Inconvenient Truth". Now go drive you Hummer to the Blockbuster and pick it up after dropping your consumer kids off at the mall. Jackass.

Comment from DeEtta
March 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Well i think that Global Warming is the biggest crisis in the world today…
Kids especially are not aware they dont talk about it enough in school, and if they do talk about it, everyone thinks it is just a joke…
Im young and after high school I plan to study the Earth when I go to college.
For the people who think Global Warming is just a joke…
They need to think twice…
If people are not causing this then what is???
If you think people are not causing Global warming maybe you should go do your research…

Comment from John H. Robson
March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

WHAT THE GULF STREAM TURBINE SYSTEM CAN DO

A huge potential source of renewable energy is contained in moving water of the Gulf Stream that is driven by the eastward rotation of the Earth. US Patents 6,531,788 and 7,291,936 are for a self-supporting submersible power plant that, if placed in the Gulf Stream’s central axis off the coast of South Florida, could generate a huge amount of steady, low-cost electric power.

What would you say if I told you about an invention for producing a steady supply of electricity that would consume no fuel, produce no carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions, would be both silent and invisible, would cause no harm to marine animals, would make it possible to produce “free” hydrogen at distant locations, would be virtually impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis, would be immune from terrorist attacks, would require almost no maintenance, could be submerged and raised to the surface by a remote means, would be unaffected by marine fauna and flora, would require no site preparation or leasing of sites, would require capital investments per kilowatt of generating capacity no greater than those required for wind farms and modern coal-fired plants, would – if properly placed – operate at capacity factors comparable to many fossil fuel plants and three-times higher than those of most wind turbines – all while producing its steady power with virtually no operating costs?

Most of the sources of renewable energy are inherently intermittent. This invention – if placed in large numbers in the Gulf Stream off the coast of South Florida – can generate huge amounts of steady, low cost electricity. The costs of that power can be as low as .9 of a cent per-kilowatt-hour during the amortization period (see the tables at http://wdstudio.net/gulfstreamturbine/profits.htm ). After the amortization period ends, those costs would drop to virtually zero.

The decline in the production of North American natural gas and world oil – combined with the very real threat of catastrophic global warming – have created an urgent need for mankind to switch from fossil fuels to those energy sources that are sustainable and non-polluting. The installation of large numbers of Gulf Stream Turbines would be a major step toward reducing the potential horrific economic and social problems that the depletion of oil and gas can produce. The first section of the Gulf Stream Turbine’s website, at http://www.gulfstreamturbine.com, presents little known facts that should convince any rational person that we are heading for oil and natural gas shortages far worse than our government’s Energy Information Administration has projected, that the energy crisis is truly dire, and that we must act now.

To get further information, go to http://www.gulfstreamturbine.com.

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Hmm, let's see. I don't have a Hummer. I don't have kids. I do have a sports car that helps me burn as much gasoline on the weekends as I can stand. Inconvenient Truth has many inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
There is one that you should all be concerned about. When Vice President Al Gore shows the two graphs of temperature and co2 levels, he doesn't tell you that the co2 levels lag the temperature graph by about 800 yrs. That's right! CO2 doesn't control temperature, temperature controls CO2!

Comment from 33renee
March 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Anybody here born before 1960? Was anyone in college in the late 1960's-early 1970's when the "head shops" were all around college towns? There were lots of posters available in those days and one of my favorites was the one that looked a little like a cartoon. There was a man's head speaking toward Earth saying: "Earth, This is God. I'm giving you 24 hours to clear out. I have new tenants coming in."
This time I think he means it. If human beings are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve life on this planet, not only will smaller species die off, but we will be unable to survive here either. Very few probes have been sent to Venus because the few that did found a completely toxic planet. I hope that does not happen here.

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Please define clean energy? No emissions, alright.. this will also mean no more firewood, are you ready for that?? Lets ban firewood, charcoal and street smokers… Otherwise, we will not be fair to coal fired powerplants that has spent billions on pollution controls. Our chimneys and stove pipes are still untouched by EPA…Oh you just thought firewood smell good? Well it generates a lot of soot and fly ash like coal and it gets really deep in your lungs.. Sure you still want firewood? We have cords to sell to you…

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

No, I am not playing devil's advocate. I am just talking plainly straight to you all green dreamers!! It is a fact and it will stay a fact forever until you all tear down your chimneys and stovepipes… They are relics of the Industrial Age if not Prehistoric Age….. Firewood, my ass!!

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Gumby—Did we have a problem with greenhouse gas emissions for thousands of years when everyone relied on wood fires for energy? No. The problem is with the burning of fossil fuels and clean coal is a myth.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Steve C.–You can try to dismiss Al Gore, but what do you do about the overwhelming majority of scientists who say you are wrong?

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

—————
Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Steve C.–You can try to dismiss Al Gore, but what do you do about the overwhelming majority of scientists who say you are wrong?
———————

I say "show me your evidence human activity has anything to do with a global average temperature". If all you can do is rely on a "consensus", then you demonstrate no intellectual ability to discuss the topic.

Comment from Lillian Nordin
March 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I just finished reading, Earth, the Sequel. I was informed, entertained at times, amazed and energized by the array of innovative solutions that are being researched to fight global climate change. It gave me hope for the future. Thank you to the authors and Environmental Defense.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Steve—There is a consensus that the world is not flat. No intelligent person needs to be shown that. Similarly there is a consensus, an overwhlming consensus actually, of scientists who agree that global warming is a reality.

There is disagreement about how big a problem climate change is and about what, if anything, we should do about it. But, Steve, the world is not flat and global warming is a reality.

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

————————
Steve—There is a consensus that the world is not flat. No intelligent person needs to be shown that. Similarly there is a consensus, an overwhlming consensus actually, of scientists who agree that global warming is a reality.
————————
And yet you still can't come up with the evidence.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to disparage anyone who can come up with alternative sources of energy, as long as it is better than what we already have. And there are some obvious flakes posting here as well, that just live in their own world, and that's ok. But it isn't ok to perpetuate a fraud that human activity alters the earth's average and/or mean temperature. I want an intellectual debate, and that requires evidence. None of which I have yet to see and no one else has seen, either.

Comment from Dave Ewoldt
March 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Growing the economy on a planet that is beyond carrying capacity is to become an accomplice in a murder/suicide pact of unfathomable proportions — killing the earth, killing ourselves.

Staying competitive increases our speed on the path to the collapse of civilization, and this would be the good news. We legitimize and strengthen the corporate/capitalist growth model by going along with its premises and enhancing its stranglehold on life and our own well-being.

A future economy, in order to be sustainable, must be based on steady-state economics, which emerges from the natural systems principles that create and support sustainable ecosystems. This economy _will_ use renewable energy and clean, zero-waste production technologies, but it won't be producing toxic plastic trinkets to be used as salves for the wounds of empire, or to enrich corporate coffers. It will not be dependent on the mindset that sees economic growth as the only means to achieve prosperity and well-being, which is the mindset that sees the Earth as a endless supply of resources and a bottomless pit for waste.

Protecting the Earth and life is more important than protecting the economy, which is nothing but an abstraction anyway. People don't require jobs, they desire right livelihood and acceptance as responsibly contributing members of their community.

Comment from Marilynn Block
March 20th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

The oil companies and the Illuminatti are suppressing advanced technology, like water powered engine, for 20 years already. Greed, power, control of masses.

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Why don't you read what SCIENTISTS have to say about
it? Start with http://www.ipcc.ch/ Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. That should take you quite a
while to read since the number of pages is rather large.
You can find all kinds of garbage on the web. Finding
truth is harder. I suggest you get a degree in science. In
the mean time, here are some better web pages than what
you have been reading:

http://www.ornl.gov/
ORNLReview/rev26-34/
text/coalmain.html

http://www.realclimate.org

http://www.sciam.com/

http://www.astrobio.net/news

http://www.geosociety.org/

http://environment.newscientist.com/

Nature isn't just the final authority on truth, Nature is the
Only authority. There are zero human authorities.
Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is only
one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what Nature's
vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments. Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments are the only source of truth. [To be public, it
has to be visible to other people in the room. What goes
on inside one person's head isn't public unless it can be
seen on an X-ray or another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific
experiments and a simple absolute lack
of faith in everything else.
Science is a PROCESS, not a religion.

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Saulpauls
I am not talking about CO2 and the global warming issue. I am talking about YOUR LUNGS that should come first above of all.. That is what EPA really stands for.. Al Gore is just a offshoot of the environmental movement. The purpose of enviroment movement is to improve people quality of life as we breath air free of street level air pollution. Water and land is other issues that are important as well.. Now I am just trying to define clean energy.. Co2 is not exactly a dirty gas as it is a common gas in our atmosphere. I am talking about soot and particulates that is still growing in our general understanding and awareness.. It is interesting enough to mention firewood and charcoal and listening to newfound puzzlement and astonishment on behalf of the general public.. It is a serious health issue.. Yes, firewood and charcoal is bad for your lungs and more… like cancer, possibly mental diseases, etc… You are too quick to jump the gun, relax.. Firewood and charcoal is bad…

Comment from Ray Evans
March 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Scientists who do not believe we are responsible for global warming are in a small minority. We were warned about the results of CO2 emissions in the 1890s. Lyndon Johnson warned about CO2 emissions in the late 60s. What did we do? Nothing.

For the GW naysayers, I'll say this. Saying there is no evidence is dependent on a world view, not consensus science. There are plenty of people who deny evolution today and that too is a world view that is not based on the best scientific evidence available.

Usually, the only GW refutation I have seen is the fact that the world warmed before humans existed and that somehow translates into the belief that humans cannot be responsible for warming today. That would get a grade of F- in any elementary logic course. Following are more arguments that are just as silly.

Statement: There were forest fires for millions of years before humans existed.
Conclusion: Humans can't possibly be responsible for any forest fires.

Statement: Species went extinct for millions of years before humans existed.
Conclusion: Humans can't possibly be responsible for species extinctions.

Statement: The ozone layer varied for millions of years before humans existed and is known to vary due to volcanic eruptions. Pinatubo is a case in point.
Conclusion: Human generated CFCs can't possibly be responsible for ozone layer depletion.

Statement: Ocean beaches were fouled for millions of years before humans existed due to "natural" causes.
Conclusion: Humans cannot possibly be responsible for beach foulings and closings.

etc. etc.

Comment from Ray Evans
March 20th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

For Dave Ewoldt.

Very well said and agreed on all points.

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I use propane cylinders for camping, grilling ( not really good because of airborne droplet meat grease, bad!), not firewood anymore, ever forever again.. I wouldnt never chop wood ever again except in state of emergencies like wars,severe shortages of fossil fuels, etc.. I am considering tearing down my chimney at home as it is a waste of space and I can use the wall it occupies… to put a chair or shelves or a door… Chimneys are the relics of Medieval Times or Prehistoric Age… why on earth are we still burning firewood for heaven's sake?? We are not aware yet about the horrors of the "smell good" firewood smoke belching out of our chimneys and stove pipes.. I dont think it smells good anymore as I become aware now… Ugh!! Wake up, modern time cavemen!!

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Why is nobody talking about firewood? We are still not willing to give up firewood and its dirty smoke?? If we still dont give up firewood, then we might as well as not giving up coal!! We are just offshooting our toilets! Aim carefully..

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

EVERYBODY LISTEN!!!!
NO MORE FIREWOOD, OK????

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Ray, you can make all the arguments you want, but they are no substitute for evidence. It isn't my responsibility to prove AGW isn't true. It is up to you to prove it IS true. And without evidence you will find that impossible.
I would love for someone to call me on it and show some evidence. Please call me on it!

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

It is kind of an oxymoron to curl up reading a book about green movement by a blaring fireplace !!! Firewood pollute the most by the far.. We should be giving trophies to firewood dealers as the world's most polluting energy dealers !!!

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

When I mention firewood, everyone disappears like hypocritical cockroaches..

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Steve–The beauty of a consensus is that its not up to me to prove it correct—anymore than I have to prove that the world is flat. No, the burden is on you to prove the consensus wrong. You can try to do that on this blog or, better yet, convince all those scientists that their consensus is wrong. Either way, the ball is in your court.

Comment from gumby
March 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Firewood, next? Anyone disagreeing?? Guess everybody agrees with me. Ok , good! will check in again shortly…

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Gumby–Give me stats. How many people need medical attention each year due to woodsmoke? Of course, we know that woodsmoke isn't changing the earth's average temperature as greenhouse gases are. Woodsmoke won't lead to natural disasters, the swamping of coastal areas, and the extinction of species. It is small potatoes by comparison.

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Albert Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc, etc, were all in the minority at one time and bucked the "consensus". But they all had one thing in common; they were right!
You would do well to stay away from the consensus argument because it can too easily change. That is why I want to stick with the evidence and not simply hide behind a bunch of people, some scientists, some not, who simply "says so". Science does not rule by decree. Science goes by the evidence, and the evidence says that CO2 levels are not climate drivers. It simply does not influence the global average/mean temperature. And unless you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, my statements will stand.
Still waiting for that evidence. Got some?

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Yeah, Steve, those fellas all had to prove the consensus wrong. You have yet to do so. If you can, hey someone will invite you to Oslo, you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams, there will be pigeons crapping on statues of you all over the world, and the woman of your dreams will bear you all the children you want!!! If not, well, your argument is just, well, irrelevant. Sorry, Steve.

Comment from Dave McArthur
March 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

In answer to your question: yes, we can transition from the Cheap Oil/Gas Age to what I call the Great Solar-Electric Age. However to accomplish the transition successfully we will need to enjoy a much greater level of science.

First it is useful to know that global warming is a healthy process in which the cooling of the planet is balanced by the warming of the planet i.e. the net temperature remains unchanged. We need to understand that warming is different to warming up which involves a net change of temperature. Knowledge of this fundamental of thermodynamics is essential for living in harmony with our universe.

Second it is helpful to understand that carbon trading is profoundly flawed and retains all the dangerous psychological mechanisms that have brought humanity to the point of being close to self-destruction. “The market” can never put a value on carbon – or human life for that matter. Only we can do this and we can do it by voting for carbon taxes in the ballot boxes and by putting a high value on carbon in each our daily decisions of how we use carbon.

Third it is helpful to understand that it is not the amount of energy we use but whether our use of a resource conserves the flows and balances of energy that sustain humanity. For instance, if we lift our eyes from the ground where they are fixated at present and look to the skies we will find a vast solar potential that we can incorporate into our legislation, building codes and general life styles.
A corollary to this is that it does not matter how much carbon we use but rather that we use our carbon potential in sustainable ways. For instance we may in future use carbon structures on scale to store information rather than gut the earth of rare minerals at great cost as we do now.

Fourth many people now share Marshal McLuhan’s insights that “the medium is the message” and that we live in a “global village”. Now is the time to understand that the vehicle is its infrastructure and certain types of vehicles such as cars (combustion and electric) have a great capacity to destroy our village.

Fifth, and most vital, it essential that we conserve the fullest potential of our most vital symbols for they are what enables civilisation to exist at all. More at
http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/Sustainability%20Principle/Symbol%20definitions.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/2aqqnc

Comment from David Carp
March 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

[When going through my old personal papers, I found some rough notes I had scribbled in the early 1970s about an idea for a school for training people to deal with the needs of the coming 21st century. I was amazed to see how relevant these ideas are to the problems we now face over thirty years later. However, at the time that I wrote it I was optimistic about the future of our civilization. I am now 72 years old. The unfortunate events that have transpired at the opening of the new century have triggered a setback that will make realization of this dream almost impossible in the forseeable future, certainly not during my lifetime. Here is my sketch, word-for-word, exactly as I wrote it originally.]

Green University

An institution established for the purpose of repairing ecological damage, restoration of balance and developing leadership to cope with the emergence of a new world order beginning in the 21st century. To be based at Fort Ord, with research facilities located at various former military bases.

Projects:

Population reduction & control
Global geographic survey in terms of regional life support capacity, climate, soil, rainfall, solar days
Pollution control
Waste disposal — toxic chemicals & nuclear
Reforestation & climate control, desert reclamation
Restoration of habitats
Curtailment of biological extinctions of species & re-creation of already extinct species from surviving DNA remnants
Research in addiction prevention & reversal
The dynamics of world power struggle — prevention of war, aggression & destruction
Phase-out of fossil and nuclear fuel use
Development of solar & other non-polluting, renewable energy sources. Reduction of energy need through more efficient designs
Regeneration of ozone layer
Cleansing of oceans & atmosphere
Prevention of acid rain — reversal of acidity of lakes
Soil renewal
Elimination of pest damage to crops without chemical poisons
Non-toxic pest control (rats, flies, mosquitos)
Cheap, simple seawater desalinization
Cheap, clean, quiet, safe mass transit
Development of a unified world economy
Elimination of trade barriers & universal currency
Inexpensive, comfortable, safe, attractive housing for all
Development of prevention & cures for diseases
Development of a better healthcare delivery system for all
Improved meteorological forecasting
Earthquake & flood prediction

(Products of all research may later be applied to colonization of new areas in other parts of the universe)

Comment from kendra
March 20th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

I think that it is entirly possible to stop global warming. We can do this by carpooling, tunring of lights, taking out plugs in the walls, and to recycle. If we can all work together we can over come global warming.

Comment from Ray Evans
March 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Steve

In the final analysis, consensus is all we have since there is no absolute proof of anything and it appears that's what you want. I can't prove that trolls don't exist and nobody can prove that there are no WMDs in Iraq. We can't prove that a God didn't create the world yesterday complete with human memories but the evidence suggests otherwise. Strongly.

When 90% of the world's atmospheric scientists have concluded that we are responsible for GW and keep producing evidence for that conclusion, that's the best anyone can do and in spite of arguments to the contrary, believing it is the most prudent course of action, monetary gains or losses notwithstanding. But ignoring it while waiting for an impossible standard of proof can kill us all.

Comment from Thad L
March 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

When the water rises and the Cities empty, be ready to shoot them and eat them.

Comment from Lisa Curley
March 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

I think the government should have spent the economic stimulus money by investing in new energy technologies, rather than on individuals, many of whom will just send it to China (by way of any chain store you choose). I think it is an insult to Americans that our government does not significantly support innovators in the quest for energy independence. It is a failure of leadership. I just hope they wake up and smell the "green" that leadership in energy independence will generate. Just imagine what we could do with the $5.2 billion every WEEK that is currently being shipped overseas for oil.

We are Americans. We are innovators. We can and should demonstrate leadership in new technology, before the rest of the planet leaves us behind.

Comment from Jackie R.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Overpopulation is a very serious problem that we don't seem to want to address. The more people there are, the more our problems are compounded. And as countries like China and India become more affluent they tend to want to emulate our bad habits of overconsuming and being freely wasteful.

On climate change – 18% of global warming is caused by animal agriculture, yet environmental groups tend to ignore that fact. If they were really serious about addressing the issue of reducing global warming they would urge their members to reduce or eliminate animals and animal products from their diet.

Comment from drotterman
March 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

http://www.pewclimate.org/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html
http://www.istl.org/01-fall/internet.html

All good sources for the science of global warming-easily available with a GOOGLE.

You can find the opposite arguments at:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532016.html

The controversy over the lack of temperature rise as predicted by the Global Warming models is explained by these studies:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040420233456data_trunc_sys.shtm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-darkening-earth

In other words, you can't discuss "Global Warming" without a discussion of "Solar Dimming."

My question to Steve Cunningham is: How can we continue to de-forest at the present rate, and reduce plankton levels in the ocean, exponentially increase our population and burn in two hundred years all the oil that took 200 million to sequester, and not think that there will be a severe consequence both socially and environmentally?

Oh, and Betty C-you go girl.

drotterman

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Jackie R—Actually many environmentalists are also vegetarians for just that reason. As for me, I want a hybrid car, my wife thinks we should just go vegan. But then she eats meat sometimes as well.

Comment from wanchese
March 20th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Clean(sustainable) energy always has and always will be possible. Indeed it is mandatory. The question is how painful will the return to a sustainable lifestyle be. The longer mankind procrastinates the more painful it will for our children. A test of intelligence as a means of species survival?

Comment from Rachel
March 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

We should set an example of being less wasteful so that other nations will see the benefits of such a lifestyle. If they still choose to overconsume at least we'll be doing our part to conserve resources.

Comment from RIchard
March 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Access to the tools of sustainability and energy autonomy are whats most important. What are the uses of solar panels, wind turbines and compressed earth block machines if they are only available at high cost to the rich or upper middle class? Instead of waiting for a price break (10 years), we need to invest our time and research into open-source engineering research so that there is a public knowledge base for constructing simple things like solar collectors with boundary layer turbines and giving people the means to Community Supported Machining using mutlimachines and XYZ tables to fabricate from scratch what they need, and to repair what they need. Work has already begun but so little attention is being paid because those folks who seek to profit from the energy crisis would rather not have those voices be heard. However Open Source Design is growing as a movement, and is one of the most important aspects of Environmental Justice right now. Heres to an empowered global community!

Comment from RIchard
March 20th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

hey gumby— i hesitate to agree

firewood used the way it is now, i agree, is useless and pollutive. whats the point of using a fireplace (not very efficient) and still having central heating on?

However, i will argue that wood stoves are phenomenal sources of heat. My friend has a cordwood yurt that he lives in and he heats it over some of the harshest winters in the region with a log or two in his wood stove. it keeps it so warm that if he adds more wood it turns into a sauna. I also have friends whose grandparents out in the country are still using woodstoves instead of central heating, and instead of going broke, having your gas turned off and dying from the cold (as happens to the elderly these days with energy costs) they are sitting by toasty with a stove theyve used for decades.

also, wood gassifiers are a phenomenal source of energy. you should look into biomass gassification, its been used for a little while know and has proven an amazing energy source.

Comment from Concerned Citizen
March 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

All this talk about clean energy, don't do this, do this, get rid of this, invest in that…well, that's all fine and everything, but has anyone thought about population control? Please, think for just a minute! The earth is finite; it only has a certain amount of land. The majority of our resources are finite as well. If we continue to breed and breed and use up the resources and land, all the clean energy won't help if there's just nothing left!

How will we grow food when there are so many people that there is no room for farms?

How will we generate that clean energy when there are so many people that there is no room for wind/solar farms?

How will we have clean water when there are so many people that the waste they generate exceeds our ability to sanitize or get rid of it?

Everyone atttacks the big corporations, oil companies, etc. And, of course, they are at fault in their own way.

But what about all the ways we are influenced to breed? 1. Sex saturates our media (and of course, children can come of that if you're not careful.)
2. The government fights abortion (basically forcing women to breed even if they don't want to/can't afford to)
3. One word. Welfare. You get paid extra for each child you have. Do you think that encourages breeding? No, of course not! /end sarcasm/
4. Toymakers push baby dolls & toys that make little girls think being a parent is fun and easy.
5. Fertility clinics make a fortune off people who, for some reason, are desperate to breed and fill up the planet. They should stop being so selfish (that's right, they're being selfish!) and try adopting an existing child that needs a family instead of adding to the population burden.
6. ANYONE with a functional reproductive system can breed… Criminals, terrorists, bigots/racists, greedy CEO's. Do you think children raised with that kind of background are going to be any hope for the future or be supportive of peace? Not without serious early intervention!

Yes, war, disease, famine, natural disasters, crime, etc. do kill people, but more people are born than die each year (http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_time.htm).

So in summary, what I'm saying is, not only should we focus on cleaning up the environment, we need to also become aware of the dangers of overpopulation.

Comment from GDK
March 20th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Poor Steve C just won't look up the evidence and wants the world to come this door with it. I've more important things to do..like figuring how to finance better insulating windows (a major source of waste heat and CO2 from fossil fuel burning from my house as it is from everyone's). I'm hoping my car which has fairly good mileage will last until a really clean fuel one comes along and meanwhile I'm learning how to drive less, while having more fun. I've seen more than enough evidence and just pray my grandchild doesn't have to suffer because selfish lazy folks won't do their part.

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

I've looked at the evidence, such as it is. The IPCC provides no link whatsoever that human activity is influencing global temperatures. If it's in there, I would like to see it. Please point it out.

You guys are passing the buck. I'm trying to get YOU to look it up, but based on the posts I've read, so far, you are refusing to do so. I don't want you to take MY word for it, or anyone else's word either, for or against! If someone tells you AGW is real, then verify it before you believe it!

About my original post, I think some of the environmentalists are worse than socialists. Some of the posts on here are advocating population control! Do you people actually read what you write? Do you listen to yourselves?!

And by the way, since I've found no evidence of AGW, then it must therefore be false. Unless someone can SHOW me where I'm instead of simply dismissing the idea. You should all be much more open-minded than that!

Comment from saulpaulus
March 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Steve C—It's not our obligation to prove something that is all but universally accepted in the scientific community. it's your obligation to disprove it. If you are that confident, go for it. You could become world-famous, they'll name countries after you, there may even be some tribes that will worship you. On the other hand, if you cannot, why are you wasting our time and yours?

Comment from Mitchell Leckner
March 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Hi Steve Cunningham,

Well, you want proof. Start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
Do some research and you will find more proof than you can handle.
You say you don't believe in Global Warming (Climate Change) but it is clear that you have not even tried to find real proof because there is so, so, so much out there!

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

I never said the climate wasn't changing, only that humans are not responsible. But you guys need to figure it out yourselves. But teach by example before you ask anyone else to sacrifice, even if it involves populations control.

The IPCC report has no link between human activity and global temps.

Comment from Dave Ewoldt
March 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm

to Steve Cunningham,

You'd think that after over 20 years of participating in various online forums, I'd know better than responding to trolls, but… what the heck.

In your original post you repeated one of the most debunked misinterpretations of data in the anthropogenic global warming denier/delayer's arsenal (I won't dignify you with the label skeptic, as those are rational people who willingly examine evidence to come to conclusions). See realclimate.org for details, but the claim that atmospheric CO2 increases don't cause warming, and further that it lags warming by hundreds of years is false, untrue, made up hookum.

Have a nice day, and I hope your check from the Heritage Institute doesn't bounce.

Comment from Ecco28
March 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

It's true that clean energy is a big opportunity for getting it right and creating new jobs and industry. But it's easy to get sidetracked, such as agrofuels. Agrofuels like ethanol are not the answer — they stress land use and drive up prices of food staples in developing countries. The only real answer is solar.

Comment from jumbelas
March 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Global Warming is acquiring the dogmatism of a religion. People that doubt its assertions are denounced like Holocaust deniers. In fact, more than one writer has drawn that analogy. I think the evidence that global warming is not only not caused by humans, but that it may presage a catastrophic episode of global COOLING is accumulating. A group of NASA scientists recently issued a press release in which they claimed that the current episode of global warming has been caused by the Sun, and that global temperatures are already beginning to fall. This, they say, is characteristic of a "solar minimum," or relatively short period of low global temperatures. The last solar minimum, as far as I know, was from around 1790 to 1830, and it had serious, negative effects on global civilization. During that period, both the Thames in London and the Potomac in Washington D.C. froze to a depth of several feet in winter and didn't thaw completely during the summer. To this day, one of those years, I think it is 1805, is referred to as "eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death" in New England. Crops failed all over the world, and there were serious food riots. In France, the harvests were so bad that the French government was overthrown in the French Revolution. Napoleon's army froze to death in Russia.

If the earth is, in fact, moving into a solar minimum while most people are convinced that the opposite is happening, we may be setting ourselves up for a dangerous situation. Since it is thought we humans evolved in the African tropics, warmth is more congenial to us than severe cold, and it is certainly more congenial to the food we eat! If there were serious food riots when the earth's population was around one billion, what will happen now that there are more than 6 billion of us? At the very least, we should be preparing ourselves for a variety of scenarios, rather than "putting all our eggs in one basket," so to speak.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 21st, 2008 at 12:03 am

Steve—We've figured it out. i read my daughter bedtime stories…don't need any read to me. The world is not flat and humans do contribute to global warming.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am

Jumbelas—Please spare me your bedtime stories too. I am sure that FOX News, the NY Post, and other similar intellectual titans might make such comparisons. When a theory is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community by all but a handful of kranks amd oil company shills, intelligent folks yend to accept it. Now drink your milk and off to bed with you.

Comment from RIchard
March 21st, 2008 at 12:24 am

before you respond to this steve c character, read this article: http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/enablers/

steve: i hear exxon has been offering 100,000 dollars to anyone with evidence against anthropogenic climate change. since you seem so sure of it, why not take them up on the offer? I'm sure your evidence abounds.

Comment from rleeh2001
March 21st, 2008 at 12:55 am

Unfortunately most people think that Global Warming is Man's fault, very little is man's fault, most is the Creator's reason, all the ice on planet earth is being melted intentionally, it will be used to put back the Firmament in Heaven, spoken of in the Bible, the firmament was two layers of ice at different altitudes out in our space to prevent the radiation from the sun wouldn't harm physical beings.
They were melted in a war many eons ago, and that is what was at the north and south pole, and all the Glaciers around the world, when that water is put back, as our firmament the ocean levels will not rise and flood our cities.
Our Government has hidden all the technology from us since the sixties, that would do away with the use of all fossil fuels, all our electrical needs, to clean up our planet, and our waters, but it has been hidden from us for greed, it is technology came from off worlder's, UFO or ET's.
The Spiritual Hierarchy says that our Government is using global warming to scare us, you know we are controlled by fear, our church's our governments use fear to control the population.

Comment from Richard
March 21st, 2008 at 1:09 am

Heres the thing for all of us: Whether you choose to accept the realities of human influenced (anthropogenic) climate change or not, we are facing issues of resource scarcity and overproduction and a lack of access to basic necessities all over. Considering the capacities we have as a civilization this is frankly embarrassing. We have a lot of problems to deal with, and juggling carbon credits and buying a prius and compact fluorescents will not be enough. Recycling wont even be enough.
We have to drastically change the way we live our lives. Our culture, our economic and political systems will all have to change. This is a great time to bring all these things back into our own hands, and take the reigns of our civilization, again, for once. This will be a great time to reshape the way we think about things such as lived (public and private) space, human agency, reciprocity, ecology, and human rights. Livability is a term that is being used more and more, and it is a fundamental right.
POPULATION CONTROL HAPPENS EASILY THROUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION AND CULTURAL MORES. In europe there are no laws against large families, its just looked at as outmoded, unfeasible, etc. Many couples marry or cohabitate without ever having children. This allows them to keep their birth rates at below sustaining which will result in a smaller next generation. As this happens in europe, here in the U.S. state gov'ts are passing laws to positively sanction abstinence only education, and studies show that this causes more teen pregnancies and higher population rates. We are actually going through a slight population boom. And if you turn on a tv, look at a magazine or go to any number of websites, there will be tons of pro-marriage, pro-baby making propaganda. It is time to reverse this trend as it will only serve to compromise us in the future.
HOWEVER, contrary to popular beleif, it is not impossible to sustain large populations with current technology. Hell, there were multi-million inhabitant cities in china hundreds of years ago… no cars, electricity…
Permaculture is a great tool for sustaining large populations in small areas.
Localization is key. Statisticians, Demographers, Geographers, Ecologists and Economists all agree that in the coming decades it will be vital for us to localize our economies as much as possible. To grow and share our own local food (CSAs), using solar dehydrators, root cellars, greenhouses, canning and winter cover crops to get through the colder months. If we told our ancestors that we depended, every day, on food from across the world, they would think we were insane.
CSMs (community supported manufacturing) will give communities locally supported and resource dependend manufacturing capability, harkening back to a time when people made sturdy, long lasting furniture (or with CSMS, electronics, clothes, tools, kitchenware, machines, even vehicles) that could be passed down through the generations and was made by someone your grandfather knew. Same for many products, local production = less planned/perceived obsolescence, simpler maintenance and repair, local resource accountability, distributive and situational use of products, NO OVERPRODUCTION or price fixing there.

And for Steve C, the careful anti-socialist, i am espousing no political or economic doctrines here. This is a great time to experiment with both new and old systems and see what works best in different situations. Myself, I prefer neither capitalism or communism. There are new systems and organizations on the workbenches that your pundits won't hear about until they've rendered our current one outmoded. So before you go pointing McCarythian fingers about, take into consideration what system your talking about, and its efficacy in comparison to other possibilities.

There is a wealth of knowledge, ideas, and frameworks out there to utilize to make a better future for our progeny (future generations). Don't make the shameful decision of inaction or little action when your agency was most important. And dont let yourself be limited by the options the media and large institutions feed you.
SO:
SUSTAINABILITY, LIVABILITY, AUTONOMY, JUSTICE… DEMAND IT!!!
a better world is possible and on the way. just join the fight!

Comment from Kathy
March 21st, 2008 at 7:12 am

I think the comments by Steve C. prove my belief that it will take a major global catastrophie to force us to change, similar to the scenario depicted in the Day After Tomorrow. Because greed & power maintain control over the planet, the bottom line for the biggest destroyers of our planet is $$$. If going green somehow makes $$$ then things might change, although this seems unlikely since green endeavors are by nature based on power and wealth distribution.I just hope our children will be able to cope with the mess we are leaving to them.

Comment from Dan Combs
March 21st, 2008 at 7:26 am

Can we grow the economy with clean energy? Sure, for awhile. But WRONG QUESTION. Was it Garrett Hardin who said "Only fools and economists believe that infinite growth on a finite sphere is possible." As long as the 'environmental community' remains as wedded to economic growth as are the 'captains of industry', we will continue to plunder the planet, drive species to extinction, exhaust resources and generally make a mess of our nest. We need to expand our thinking and shrink the economy!

Comment from Steve Cunningham
March 21st, 2008 at 7:44 am

Here are some articles for you all to chew on. I won't hold my breath that any of you will read them, but at least you will be afforded an opportunity to see information that does not adhere to your orthodoxy. I think you people are intellectually lazy and afraid to question any of your beliefs. I found four links on the web from a quick search. I could find many more, but spend too much time doing it and I would be spoon-feeding you mental midgets and enabling you.

So read them if you think you are open-minded, but I suspect you are not:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/REMARKS+OF+JOHN+COLEMAN+FINAL6c.pdf
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/archibald2007.pdf
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Comment from Rachel
March 21st, 2008 at 8:54 am

I think this is a chance for all people to save the Earth. It's not only climate change it's animals too. We are at the edge. We must stand up healthy kepping Earth balanced.

Comment from Lisa Curley
March 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am

Steve,

To continue to act as though we couldn't be contributors to exacerbating global warming is like taking a gun that has five bullets in the chamber and waving it around at the world, saying "Don't worry, when I pull the trigger, I'm pretty sure you'll get the one empty chamber." Please do not play games with my children's future. To refuse to even look at the evidence (which is too extensive to list here) just so you can continue living in comforatable denial is selfish. To continue the status quo is to engage in an extremely dangerous experiment. If "wait and see" and you are wrong, then by the time you realize it, it is already too late. On the other hand, if we live in a more planet-friendly way, and curb greenhouse gas emissions, and it turns out you were right, then we still have the benefit of renewable energy and sustainable practices. I do not see a down side to making the right choices, but a huge down-side to making the wrong ones.

The truth is that even if 90% of highly educated scientists are wrong (unlikely), we still need energy alternatives. Our nation holds 2% of the world’s oil supply, but we supply 8% of the world’s oil. That means we are supplying a disproportionate percentage of world oil compared with our supply, and will be among the first to run out. Most experts agree that world oil has peaked or will peak in the next few years. Our nation’s oil peaked around 1970. (Congressman Bartlett’s review of the document, “Robert L. Hirsch’s ‘Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management)

Food for Thought: In the US, we use up to 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce one calorie of food. If oil is depleted, what will that do to our food supply?

Furthermore, Steve, it is the nature of science to try to DISprove theories. So, try as the scientists might, they have not been able to disprove AGW. So, look at the whole evidence, and good luck trying to disprove the data. Also, if you are in the DC area, there is a good museum that has a wonderful lot of information on global warming and ALL of its causes. Much data is there and you can do your own research, should you be interestsed. It is called the Marian Koshland Museum of Science.

Comment from Lisa Curley
March 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am

Oops, I was referring to the 90% degree of certainty among scientists, not 90% of scientists.

Comment from w.boune
March 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pm

As to whether or not global heating is a fact or not, well it is a moot point.

We are heading towards extreme resource depletion. Pollution of the air and water continue to mount. I you like a declining economy based on depleting resources that pollute and destroy ecosystems you are pretty much all alone at this point. The high point of relative working class income was 1973, the same year that we reach peak oil for domestic production.

We have made a commitment to doing our responsible part since the early 1970's when we decided to not place our new home of the electrical grid. Living off-grid relying on PC based solar energy in storage batteries, inverted for 120v use. Our household has enjoyed a pretty normal electrical lifestyle, with some serious energy conservation measures, with little in the way utility costs (after the initial investment). We have put our money where our mouths are!

We now plan to install a sizable investment during the next four years to allow enough energy to drive plug-in hybrids (which get an average 100 mpg or more)and eventually fully electric vehicles. Over time we will discover our energy costs will be negligible while those strapped to the corporate energy wheel will find themselves in a deepening economic morass.

Make a personal commitment to your own energy independence, start with serious energy conservation and when you are ready invest in renewable energy and transportation, at home and in the marketplace. As more people commit to a clean and green future with renewable, sustainable energy, it will accelerate, and a renewed, sustainable, clean and green economy will develop and our standards of living will go way up as the earth heals.

Join the clean and green movement today! If the people lead, the leaders will follow!

Comment from w.boune
March 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm

A correction to my prior comment, we bought our property in the late 1970's, built without grid energy in the early 1980's, our system evolved as the technology did. I misspoke (misstyped).

Do your part, at any level, eat organic, become a vegetarian etc., grow evolve and plan for the future.

Comment from Daniella
March 21st, 2008 at 7:26 pm

In response to Mr. Steve C,
It really doesn't matter whether or not human actions contribute to global warming. What it all comes down to is that polluting the environment, especially when it is unnecessary, is wrong and has harmful side effects on everyone. No one likes breathing pollution, no one likes suffering from asthma, and no one likes getting sick from their polluted water. It is only the responsible thing to do to respect the environment, regardless of global warming and what is causing it.

Comment from JEC
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 am

Global warming is real. But its causes–therefore its solutions–are more complex than most people seem to realize. We tend to think Earth's climate will always be optimal for human civilization if we just take good care of it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. When we put emotion and politics aside and take a rational look at our planet's history, we see a different picture.

Ice and sediment cores show that over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times. The changes are caused by variations in Earth's orbit. Each cycle lasts about 100,000 years with an ice age typically taking up 90,000 of those years, and a global warming effect, the other 10,000 years.

Many natural phenomena significantly effect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth's biomass, for example. While politicians and activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning, no one seems to mention that the breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of rice, for example, actually do more harm than does the driving of SUV's.

According to the Journal of Quaternary Science, over the last 8,000 years cattle farming and rice crop cultivation alone have nearly doubled the quantity of methane in the atmosphere. At the same time, deforestation has increased the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Both methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gasses that trap the sun's heat. Contrary to the claims of a few high profile politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists, some of our human activities in fact create a cooling effect.

The release of aerosols and particulates actually blocks out sunlight and generates light-reflecting coud layers, especially over densely populated and highly industrialized regions where pollution is loosely, if at all, regulated.

The bottom line here is that there are dozens of physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to both heating and cooling the planet. When any one of these factors gets out of balance with the others, Earth is at risk of losing its optimal climate for human civilization. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious. But to suggest that we can stop global warming simply by cutting back on fossil fuel combustion and altering our industrial processes is naive at best. If we ignore one or more of certain mechanisms that contribute to either global warming or cooling, our attempted solution could actually make matters worse.

Scientifically speaking this intricate balance, designed specifically for humanity's benefit, is no accident. The amazing fine tuning observed in all these complex processes gives us a clear picture of a Creator who exquisitely prepared a place for humans to live in and to launch–at least for awhile–a global high-tech civilization.

Comment from w.boune
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm

JEC,

I must ask, what are you proposing, we do nothing, we do more? I am curious as to what your meaning was in this regard?

I recently viewed a program on UCTV (Dish), where a scientist member of the California energy commission, provided different scenarios of energy production from various sources from now through 2040. 1. Going on like we do now, as if there was no tomorrow, using more and more petroleum and coal to supply our needs, as if it will be available. 2 A half step approach were we supply our needs with 50% renewable energy sources. 3. A state in which we produce 65% from solar 30% from wind and the rest from the current antiquated and diminishing carbon based sources.

The first model illustrates green house gases shooting upward at an ever greater rate, off the graph. The second model illustrates a curve which continues more sharply at first and then gradually tapering off, markedly higher yet still on the chart. The third green scenario shows the initial spiking then a leveling off and then a lowering of greenhouse gases. The modeling suggest that the oceans and forest can absorb and process the excess carbon over a 40 year period of time. The choices we make today effect the planet for 40 years.

There are working technological means of dealing with methane production, by converting waste into energy. Better yet, with the potential for huge population growth it would be best if we all became vegetarians. I have not eaten meat since 1972, now a healthy 58. We strive to use no chemicals in our households, food and gardens.

I believe we must all take personal responsibility and action in the way we live our lives, the goods we consume the pollution we create and the energy we provide and how responsibly we use that energy.

I feel it is best to ascribe to a belief that we do have a profound effect on the world around us and that our actions do count, down to the smallest detail. By making the best choices now we can improve our personal economics as well as that of our country and the world far into the future.

If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Comment from svetlik22
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm

i did a quick read of the book "Earth; the Sequel",the other day at a Barnes & Noble store. The book is nothing more than paraphrasing big business and media propaganda.
I hear so many people following this line expecting corporate cartels to pitch in and make this work. Big business put us in to this mess by suppressing any new invention in the past 100 years that even remotely would interfere with their profit making machines from oil and autos and electricity. They would do this by buying the inventors patents and shelving them into obscurity. When they couldn't buy them out, they threatened them and their families with harm, and in some cases an obstinate inventor would be eliminated. So those of you who have any mechanical expertise better roll up your sleeves and find a way yourself, and the rest should help fund their research. Don't look for big business to solve anything if it doesn't offer a huge dividend. The case for biofuels is poor. Anyone who does a little research knows that the energy it takes to create the biofuel from any kind of crop far outweighs the benefits you save from burning it. It is a lose-lose situation. Solar is expensive to say the least and also high end prodution/energy consuming/carbon polluting proposition. Wind is viable but to a limited extent…you need wind on a constant basis. So as i was leafing through this book I found not one word about HYDROGEN. Not the kind that auto companies are making feeble attempts to market in the form of volatile compressed containers beneath autos. Another labor and material intensive infrastructure that is totally controlled by them, to fix prices, delivery systems, making vehicles, etc.etc. Coal…. I was shocked to see coal in this book as even a remote possibility. We've all seen pictures of the strip mining and terrain destruction. That won't stop even if they use clean burning coal. There exists in this and other countries a "cottage economy" of inventors, engineers, and garage enthusiasts developing hydrogen units to power vehicles using simple electrolysis. Inexpensive,low maintenence, zero polluton (water is the only by-product). Others have created units to use this hydrogen gas to use in welding, heating water and will soon be used for space heating and cooling. But who am I but another garage enthusiast building my hydrogen units to power my cars, saving 50% on gas & pollution. Hey, it's a start. Instead of intellectually blogging about the problem, start googleing "Hydrogen" for answers. You will be amazed at what's going on. Hydrogen IS the answer to our energy problem.

Comment from Dawn Grabemeyer
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Global warming is multicausal and will take a portfolio of activities to address it. Our culture tends to look for one big solution to a problem. We need t educate citizens about adding up a variety of efforts. Otherwize we will believe we cannot do much and will just wait for the "big rescue." I don't think we can do anything like that this time.

Dawn

Comment from Ray Evans
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Re: Hydrogen power

I was a believer in hydrogen power but now I have doubts.
Some might be interested in reading this article on the problems with H power entitled:

Savior of Humanity or an Economic Black Hole?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-03-12.html

Comment from saulpaulus
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Svetlik and Dawm are both partly correct. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars are an important part of the answer, but there is no one answer—no one silver bullet technology that will solve the problem.

What is needed is for government—and especially the US government—to become actively engaged in developing proven technologies and bringing them to market.

Fuel cell vehicles are currently available—but only in SoCal. With active government intervention, most people could be driving them in a generation. The government can't force people to stop eating meat, but it can use subsidies to encourage meat producers to grow fewer beef cattle, pigs, and chickens. the government can't force people to use geothermal energy instead of fuel oil to run their homes, but it can use taxes and subsidies to encourage people to convert.

Comment from J.C.Smith
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 am

Sorry Folks,

20 – 30 years ago OK, but NOW we are too late!
I hope,(for the sake of all) I am wrong.

James

Comment from JEC
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 am

We can't stop global warming as this article speaks about:

Global warming is real. But its causes–therefore its solutions–are more complex than most people seem to realize. We tend to think Earth's climate will always be optimal for human civilization if we just take good care of it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. When we put emotion and politics aside and take a rational look at our planet's history, we see a different picture.

Ice and sediment cores show that over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times. The changes are caused by variations in Earth's orbit. Each cycle lasts about 100,000 years with an ice age typically taking up 90,000 of those years, and a global warming effect, the other 10,000 years.

Many natural phenomena significantly effect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth's biomass, for example. While politicians and activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning, no one seems to mention that the breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of rice, for example, actually do more harm than does the driving of SUV's.

According to the Journal of Quaternary Science, over the last 8,000 years cattle farming and rice crop cultivation alone have nearly doubled the quantity of methane in the atmosphere. At the same time, deforestation has increased the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Both methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gasses that trap the sun's heat. Contrary to the claims of a few high profile politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists, some of our human activities in fact create a cooling effect.

The release of aerosols and particulates actually blocks out sunlight and generates light-reflecting coud layers, especially over densely populated and highly industrialized regions where pollution is loosely, if at all, regulated.

The bottom line here is that there are dozens of physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to both heating and cooling the planet. When any one of these factors gets out of balance with the others, Earth is at risk of losing its optimal climate for human civilization. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious. But to suggest that we can stop global warming simply by cutting back on fossil fuel combustion and altering our industrial processes is naive at best. If we ignore one or more of certain mechanisms that contribute to either global warming or cooling, our attempted solution could actually make matters worse.

Scientifically speaking this intricate balance, designed specifically for humanity's benefit, is no accident. The amazing fine tuning observed in all these complex processes gives us a clear picture of a Creator who exquisitely prepared a place for humans to live in and to launch–at least for awhile–a global high-tech civilization.

Comment from w.boune
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm

In response to svetlik22 comments,

According to the California Energy Commission information it is projected that it will about 20 years before conversion to hydrogen will make real energy efficiency sense, at that point it will probably replace batteries as the balancing mechanism to be used with wind and solar, to store excess energy produced at peaks to supply energy when production is down

Right now batteries are our best bet, for the interim. Check out altairnano http://www.altairnano.com/markets_energy_systems.html, highly efficient, clean batteries that do not have the problems associated with other batteries.

California is in a unique position, as is Arizona and New Mexico, in that these states get the best solarization rates of all the nation. Most other states have good potential for solar energy, it will just take larger installations.WE can wait for the future potential for hydrogen or we can go for it with what er have now, which will foster much more development as money flows in the right direction, towards renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

Hydrogen currently takes nearly as much energy to produce as it supplies. As is true with alcohol. Bacteria based bio-fuels make more sense, in that this is about 90+ efficient in production, they would be carbon balanced but still pollute the air. Electric cars or plug-in hybrid vehicle are the answer for the short run, 20-30 years.

Only wind and solar produce far more energy during their lifetimes than needed to produce the original equipment. The payoff time to replace the energy used in production is about two years, the warranty on solar PV panels is generally 25, ours have been in operation for 28 years with little signs of degradation, conservative experts expect they will operate with reasonable efficiency for 50 – 100 years. The useful life for wind is much less but they are more efficient in energy production for that life span.

In response to JEC

You just repeated what you said before, what do you propose, nothing?

To all

I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and invest in, first conservation, then personal energy independence. We have cut back on all of the consumer stuff for years, we use the most efficient appliances, computers, TV (one only, LCD that uses 48 Watts), heating, available, have invested in solar energy, grow our own food, reduce our travel to the extreme, no vacations, little entertainment etc. We have instead made personal choices to give up all of that to make for a more sustainable future in which we can enjoy it all the best life has to offer, without over burdening planetary resource.

If the [people lead, the leaders will follow!

Comment from saulpaulus
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm

The US govt needs to lead. The California estimate is no doubt predicated on the US govt's current uninvolved state. An activist US govt could have fuel cell vehicles, which we already know how to manufacture, available and affordable in 5-10 years at most.

BTW, just saw this on my NPR email:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025&sc=nl&cc=es-20080323

Comment from w.boune
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Dear saulpautus,

Respectfully, the fuel cell may not be the biggest problem, it would be availability of Hydrogen, the fuel cell was invented in the mid 1800's, hydrogen is in very short supply, and takes nearly as much energy to produce as it supplies, in effect hydrogen is a very inefficient battery,
for all intensive purposes. I once thought that hydrogen was the answer, until I thought it through.

Batteries and electric cars are ready to go right now with much more in the very near future, one just needs to invest in production of solar and wind to provide clean and cheap, after the pay off period, renewable energy.

http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/

We need to break from the antiquated concept of the meed for a liquid or gaseous fuel, electric cars are the best solution. Hybrid plug in cars are the interim solution. Every American car manufacturer should be getting up to speed, but they are slow to respond, thinking they can market what they want to build, instead of building what the market will demand.

Again, I have been living with free solar energy, after the investment, for over twenty years.

Join in, go green save money and the planet! As carbon fuels continue to diminish their costs will prove renewable energy to be the best of the best when it comes to solutions.

Invest personally in your clean and green future!

Is anybody listening, or want to debate, or is this just a forum from which to vent?

Comment from saulpaulus
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Solar and wind will never provide enough of themselves. Geothermal seems more promising to me. Once you spend the up front money to extract the energy, with very little outside electricity to power the hardware, you have more than enough to provide for household energy needs with enough left over to power your car.

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 24th, 2008 at 1:10 am

To all AGW deniers:
7 March 2008
The global cooling mole
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=536
By John Fleck http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/ and William
Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling
canard – "How can we believe climate scientists about global
warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was
imminent?" – must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-
mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down
the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of
us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he
quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in
his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing
anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of
what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time.
But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points
aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is
needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age,
it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they
thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-
politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other
hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then
the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic
Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond
the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at
the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time
human time scales. The results are currently in press at the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice
has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended
version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting
in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different
from what you see today. There was far less integration among the
various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote
sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in
their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in
the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between
1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you
believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were
doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any
changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping
its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does,
this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful
discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying
back in the 1970s.
31 Responses to “The global cooling mole”

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 24th, 2008 at 1:36 am

Global Warming Has Already Happened. In the mid 19th century, the Mississippi river froze over in the winter so you could drive on it at St. Louis. That's how St Louis became known as the gateway to the west. Now the Mississippi river is ice-free at Davenport, Iowa. If you want to drive on the river, you have to go at least as far North as Minnesota. Cattaraugus County New York [Olean, Little Valley] got 450 inches [37.5 feet] of snow per year in the 1950s and 1960s. Now it gets only 96 inches of snow per year. Hurricane season starts in spring now. Hurricane season used to start in the fall. The hurricanes are bigger now than ever before.
We humans have caused 1.3 degrees Farenheit of global warming since we started burning coal. COAL is still the biggest contributor to CO2 production. If we do not stop producing 70 Million tons per day of CO2[carbon dioxide]:
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
………………..Most of the article omitted………………….
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

http://www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I ahve no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 24th, 2008 at 1:42 am

There is no truth in any holy book.
As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability
and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be
required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when
would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in
1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in
Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he
visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high
school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The
correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until
50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who
told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean
Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played
the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers.
By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel
story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first
time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever
he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text
by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion:
There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to
know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or
did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have
been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like
animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the
consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there
is no such critter as "god.".] Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from
religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because
the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The
origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy
which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one
time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of
course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis,
iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

Comment from kim
March 24th, 2008 at 1:46 am

The AGW is NOT a scam buddy… U are a "slave" to the New World Order and u cannot see it and people like u r the problem and why they have came as far as they have Mr. Cunningham! The "scam-train" of forcing americans to PAY tolls on roads we already pay for, spending $50 billion yrly to make FELONS out of our youth over petty ignorance is Not a group of dictators getting power over the american tax payers by over burdening their lives so they have no time to stand???? Where have u been?? I watched it ALL develop especially here in my home state AZ and in my country that some members have died in our family for OUR rights & freedoms that are ALSO being cunningly stripped!! Splicing our food, oursourcing our jobs so we can all work for nothing, yet PAY more, more and more!!! IF u cannot see what is happening?? Then go join the gestapo bud! KIM

Comment from kim
March 24th, 2008 at 1:52 am

I pray to the arch-angels and my prayers are being answered. I pray for all deceit and evil with their greed/their evil ways and thieving of the peoples get their KARMA… Oh it WILL come a knockin', where it hurts most always! May the ignorant have guidance and SEE….KIM

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 24th, 2008 at 2:01 am

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to the fall of civilization or our extinction. Sea level will continue
to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas
bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the
people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already happening. Don't give up.

Nuclear power can save us from the collapse of civilization and extinction.
Nuclear is the one source of energy that is actually proven to work for BASE
LOAD power that produces 14.7 million tons LESS of CO2 than coal per 1000
megawatts per year. Burning coal to make electricity is the #1 source of CO2.
I have no financial stake in nuclear power.

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 24th, 2008 at 2:07 am

RECYCLE NUCLEAR FUEL. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR "WASTE."
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
a large amount of enriched uranium. I don't believe it was bomb grade as the
newspaper report below claimed because Numec was not in that business and
because the US has no reason to have bomb grade uranium. All of our bombs
are now plutonium bombs. Uranium bombs are too heavy and ineffective. It
was reactor grade high level "waste" probably with the plutonium still intact. It
wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants and
their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." It could work for any other
country, such as Iran or the United States. It is only when you don't have access
to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "Candu" reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.

Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.
See for more on Numec:
http://www.pittsburghlive.
com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/
specialreports/buriedlegacy
/s_87948.html
Government agencies investigated missing uranium, NUMEC
By Mary Ann Thomas and Ramesh Santanam
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, August 25, 2002
Editor's note: This the first of three parts on the history of the Nuclear Materials
and Equipment Corp.

Comment from Asteroid Miner
March 24th, 2008 at 2:12 am

Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

Comment from saulpaulus
March 24th, 2008 at 3:53 am

Not sure how anyone could think that the ridiculous lies and distortions told by Asteroid Miner even belong on this blog—a blog about global warming.

In any event, I have no time or patience to go through all of Asteroid Miner's nonsense, but here are a few items:

The New Testament writings were all written by the end of the First Century. The Gospel of Mark and First Corinthians were both written within a generation of the death of Jesus. In fact, First Corinthians 15, Paul's argument for belief in the Resurrection, has elements that reflect a tradition that likely dates back to the very time of the Resurrection.

The New Testament was written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire of which Israel was a part. Of the primary writers, Matthew, Luke, and Paul would certainly have been fluent in Greek and Mark, John, and Peter may well have been also. If they were not, there was certainly no shortage of Hellenistic Believers who could have translated from Hebrew to Greek for them.

As to the comments about "wild Indians" and the followers of Jesus being illiterate, any respectable historian or anthropologist of Biblical Israel will tell you that these claims are pure nonsense. Israel had a highly literate culture centuries before the time of Jesus and literacy was more the norm for the Jews and Jewish converts who made up the early Church than for any other similar group in the Roman Empire.

I have no wish to denigrate the native cultures of the Americas as Asteroid Miner has done. After all, I live in a part of NW BC where there was a long and highly developed trading culture at a time when Europeans were still making cave drawings. Nevertheless, I am not aware that ANY American indigenous people developed a written culture even remotely comparable to that of the ancient Hebrews.

Comment from Dave Ewoldt
March 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am

The latest scientific consensus that is emerging is that we only have two years left to cap GHG emissions. The feedbacks are already happening faster than predicted.

The overall need is to become sustainable. Nuclear is not sustainable due to environmental damage (including mining, water requirements and waste storage), plus the facts that producing a ton of concrete produces a ton of CO2 (thousands of tons necessary for each reactor core), and known reserves of uranium would last 40 years at most.

We have to get atmospheric CO2 down to 350 ppm, and we're currently at 385. This can be done, and it can be started today. The first step isn't changing lightbulbs, but changing the excessive consumption of throw away junk that acts as nothing more than a salve for the wounds of empire. This includes our forced and self-imposed disconnection from natural sources of fulfillment such as supportive community and other healthy, mutually supportive relationships. We could start by sharing seldom used items, and demanding that other products be built to last and be easily repairable. The relocalization movement provides a process to start moving in this direction.

People must remember how to connect the dots and see the full system. This applies to things such as our transportation system. Take the clamor for hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles. Hydrogen fuel cells require platinum to be strong enough to withstand the necessary pressures; they also have a limited lifespan. Known global reserves of platinum are of sufficient size to allow today's global fleet of personal vehicles to be converted to hydrogen for exactly one year. Then it would be all gone. Platinum also has military uses. Do any of you think the Pentagon would allow this to occur?

Another inconvenient truth is that about 50% of the greenhouse gas contribution a typical automobile makes over its expected useful lifespan occurs during the resource extraction and manufacturing necessary to get it off the end of the assembly line. 100 mile per gallon vehicles, or even an electric car doesn't do as much as people think to mitigate catastrophic climate destabilization, plus they do absolutely nothing to reduce the destructive sprawl of our current pattern of living on the Earth. Relocalization addresses these issues as well.

Comment from w.boune
March 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

David,

Excellent analysis!

It is certain that the prior models are pretty far off from what the cumulative effects of the greenhouse gassing, the predictions of the ice cap melting fell far short of what we are now witnessing, I believe, most of the other models will prove to far short as well.

I agree that hydrogen power is a nice dream, but due to the shortages you outline and the up front costs of creating the hydrogen it doesn't look like our salvation. In that hydrogen as a fuel source is basically a storage medium, batteries and capacitors make more sense for energy balancing and storage. New cleaner and longer lasting alternatives are becoming available such as by Altairnano.
http://www.altairnano.com/markets_energy_systems.html

The oil companies want us to war in east Asia and provide pipeline access to the Gulf (of all places) of Russian natural gas to convert into hydrogen. The conversion process would require carbon sequestration to be clean or else we pollute elsewhere to feel clean here.

The historic problem with nuclear energy, beyond storage or remanufacture of "waste", is that every plant built has gone 2 or 3 times the original cost estimate and the function so poorly that we have to continue to subsidize them to bring cost down to be "market" competitive.

With nuclear energy and fossil fuels we do not see the true costs of there use, it is obscured and externalized by the corporation behind these sources to the detriment of the world.

For all the rest of you, consider a bit of education from the west. California has done a great deal of research about what the energy future may and should look like, here.

Title: California in Context: Long-Term Scenarios of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2007-052

Title: California Bio Mass Bio Energy.
http://www.energycrisis.com/us/ca/CaliforniaBioMassBioEnergyKrebs20070111.pdf

W are just two people (3 when our child was in the nest), but we have lived with a smaller carbon footprint for 25 years due to our investment in old solar technology and can provide enough to cover transportation in the next four years. We have done this by being frugal with a mid middle class income. We drive our cars into the ground before we replace them, in that as Dave pointed out the manufacture is where most of the energy is required, our current car has 336,000 miles on it. Use everything up before you discard it!

Dave, you are right, relocalization will become essential to a sustainable world and local economies. The costs of fuel alone will eliminate the advantage of out sourcing the manufacturing base. When we build a factory it should be designed with sufficient on site solar, wind and waste energy recycling to provide the energy for the processes involved and zero out carbon. If these future factories are clean and green then the energy that goes into the processes will be less costly and make our base more competitive. Of course the factories should zero out the use and dispersal of toxic and synthetic chemical wastes.

Some have rightly stated that population growth is the real problem, true. The solution is to educated the women of the third world, this is a proven means of modifying behavior in significant ways!

Lets keep conversing!

Comment from Ray Evans
March 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

My prediction is that between overpopulation and endless GW finger pointing between nations about who is responsible and who should cut what, how much and when, nothing will be done that will stop a huge depopulation of humanity. It's the predator/prey cycle at work and in the end, it will balance the remaining population, if any, with available resources. As always, the weak and poor will go first and the strong will go last.

That's a grim forecast but I've been watching it unfold since the 1950s and have seen nothing to persuade me that I should change my forecast. Malthus predicted it in the 1790s and although wrong on the timescale due to better technologies, I'm certain he was right about the endpoint.

Comment from w.boune
March 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Ray,

In the final analysis we all have to take personal responsibility.

Education is the key to provide awareness of options that are available, education alone can provide the tools to assist in fostering attitudes which will slow the rate of overpopulation and greenhouse gassing.

I actually believe that is not too late, if we respond to this threat on a personally committed level. It is truly amazing what humans can do when organized behind a common belief, look at what harm we have done with a disorganized approach to life and the planet

If informed and educated people lead, the leaders will follow!

Comment from saulpaulus
March 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I agree with W Boune and I believe that an engaged US president…I believe it will be Obama, but even McCain has shown a remarkable engagement on GW for a conservative Republican…will make a great deal of difference.

Comment from svetlik22
March 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

In response to saulpaulus & w. bourne,since you gentle people did not comprehend what i wrote, as penance, you must go back and re-read. Here you go, going on and on about something I WASN'T EVEN REMOTELY TALKING ABOUT, GETTING ALL OUR READERS MORE AND MORE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE TRUTH IS. I did not say anything about fuel cells, or creating fuel cells,or building an infrastructure that would require tons of BTU energy. I was writing about "Hydrogen On Demand",the simple process of electrolysis where the the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are separated/extracted from water. You haven't heard about it because they don't want you to know.In this case, using the electrical energy from a car battery (12-14 volts), that is already being generated.The resulting gaseous compound, now called HHO (2 atoms of hydrogen-one atom of oxygen) is then diverted to the air intake manifold and pulled into the carburetor or fuel injecton system to combine with gas. The result is less gas consumed, more clean HHO burned, and less emissions. People are experiencing 25-50% drop in fuel used. It's already been calculated that if each auto in America had one of these units installed, we would not need imported oil. Not to mention the money you save. It can happen now. But we must still get rid of the right wing neo-cons, the one world order corporate cartels attempting to control all the world's resources. Imagination is a dangerous thing to these thugs, and they will not rest until they have us under complete domination. This "Hydrogen on Demand", contrary to what you folks are saying, takes minute amounts of energy, and soon will have many household and industrial uses. And as I also said, there is no use in waiting for corporate america, they can't control it, they can't partition it, so they can't make a profit selling it. This is going to be "cottage economy" at it's best. Nor am i proposing to do away with all other forms of alternative energy systems. I'm taking that big leap forward to visualize the potential of this type of hydrogen. To reiterate, for more information, you can google "hydrogen on demand", "water for gas", "water for fuel",etc. Visit my new website at; http://www.energyfactory.us, for a sampling of what many individuals are doing NOW to answer the call to find solutions. I'm afraid the clock has passed midnight, and we are in for some hard times before we get this all sorted out. Karma is real. What negative energy you put out, will eventually come back to haunt you. It's natural law. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Global warming may be nothing more that cyclical nature doing it's thing. What I am worried about is the amount of pollution and carcenogenic crap we're emmitting into the atmosphere, into the rivers and ground water, and getting into the food we eat and the air we breathe. There is no simple soluton, indeed.

Comment from Ray Evans
March 24th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Gentlemen, I can't tell you how much I hope you're right and I'm wrong. A "normal" life with a decent standard of living for my grandchildren and their children depends on it.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

OK, Svetlik…although I was in part affirming you. I still think what I have heard about geothermal to power households and businesses with enough left over to charge electrical vehicles sounds very promising,

Comment from Matt Butts
March 24th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Thanks for the great information. *stumbles*

Comment from JEC
March 25th, 2008 at 2:56 am

In response to w.boune:

I was just proving that we aren't the primary cause of global warming. In fact, as my former article proves, global warming will continue irregardless of what we do because of the cycle of global climate change caused by variations in Earth's orbit.

What we can and should do is to reduce all forms of pollution as much as possible and develop and utilize clean technologies.

Any other ideas out there?

Comment from JEC
March 25th, 2008 at 3:12 am

In response to Asteroid Miner:

I don't believe that this site is an appropriate forum for apologetics, but let me point out one thing in response:

The reason those "religious people" can be trusted is because of what they base their words upon. The Bible is the only reliable writing from antiquity.

It all boils down to the notion of probability. Considering that the Bible contains approximately 2000 prophecies, none of which have been proven false, it is highly indicative that the Bible, and hence it's message, are true.

For example, it was prophesied thousands of years ago, after Israel had been conquered and divided, that Israel would again become a nation, and the U.N. recognized the sovereignty of Israel in June of 1948 (according to encyclopedias).

There are numerous other prophecies that you could check like this.

Comment from w.boune
March 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am

svetlik22, I went to your website, I would have liked to access the technical info to help me evaluate their efficacy. I have read about the water injection systems for years but have never given it a try, sound like this may be a bit different.

I am open minded and would like to hear more, I will bookmark your site and visit again in hope of finding more information. We need to implement any approaches that make incremental differences, which then become cumulative in their effects.

As to hydrogen as a energy storage medium or as an instant conversion process, I look forward to vast improvements to make it feasible. I would rather convert my solar into hydrogen and run it through a fuel cell to produce energy on demand

JEC, I agree we know far less than we need to know, but we now know that we are having and great effect, if we can do the great things you urge we can then become carbon and chemical neutral, only then will we be able to determine what the natural factors are and how great their effects are. Lets' clean our acts up and find out.

With our combined efforts perhaps we can gradually turn the tide.

Humans make plenty of mistakes, the one's our leaders make have a far greater impact than most of our individual plunders. If we all stop our plundering we can offset the leadership errors.

There are plenty of old prophesies, true.

But it has been revealed on occasion that life is a self fulfilling prophesy. The sports trainers tell us that the odds of success go way up when one believes success is attainable and a perfect performance is visualized.

When it comes to all our lives, "Lets Prophesize Good", the odds of a positive outcome go way up!

Comment from kim
March 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

All I know is that my neighbor that worked @ "the palo-verde nuclear plant" here in AZ, told me a-lot of stories about the reactors going down often. This is the very nuclear power plant that we protested against, because it would ruin OUR beautiful home AZ, which "they" see only as "waste-land", Growing up in Az/CA/NM/TX/OR/WA, There are very small delicate, intricate wild flowers, The air used to be fresh, It used to be FREE… Now we have the Retired Republicans and their discrimination with/55+ communities?? I bet you we couldn't put Under 45 ONLY in OUR communities.
Their families move here to be near them ( a lovely thought) as their home states are depressed from Bush & co " outsourcing" all of our "High Paying" jobs. ( quoting a reporter) Then now they are protesting against the mexicans taking their jobs??? It is just ALL a waste/deterent from what we should REALLY be focused on and WHOMS…….
UR awesome, lets work together as men & women were/are meant to!
Kim

Comment from kim
March 25th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I meant to complete about the Nuclear power plant WE paid for swnds power to CA! I mean we LUV our cali-friends/families, but now they r building another power plant that WE foot the bill for and of course the power goes to NV??? Why in the HHHH… is there NOT… a solar plant here in Phx, AZ, Arizona for that matter???? We grew up here and family since 1800 it is just money grafting "scam-train"! We were on it already, But Bush & co??? Is literally trying to break our backs to "enslave" us. The New World Order… Stands for??? Look Around!! K

Comment from w.boune
March 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Kim,

We are shackled and chained by the current energy regimes and the corporate media, but we can throw off the shackles by continuing to learn and make the best choices.

You prove the argument against the wrongness of nuclear power. If we wait for the government and/or the corporations to solve this riddle for us we continue to pay through the nose forever.

Solar power grids in California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico should be on all of the homes and businesses and be supported by government tax incentives, both state and federal, so the financial benefits of energy production ownership go back to the public, not just big utilities.

As you say if we join together, men and women and make the right personal commitments to become more individually energy independent we can, break the trance. Private household ownership of energy production decentralizes the system and reduces the control of mega business and bring the individuals costs down for a very long run.

Comment from w.boune
March 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Perhaps it's time to laugh at the absurdity of our current plight. http://www.globalvillagesquare.com/#Political%20Cartoon

Have fun saving the world!

Comment from saulpaulus
March 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I still think we should use incentives to convert US homes en masse to geothermal energy. This will produce enough extra energy to recharge electric vehicles owned by the household.

Comment from w.boune
March 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Certainly an important part of the distributed energy mix!

Comment from JEC
March 27th, 2008 at 1:07 am

saulpaulus,

I've already left an article on this blog that more comprehensively explains some major causes of global warming, but tell me how we would go about using geothermal energy and summarize the costs involved.

Comment from saulpaulus
March 27th, 2008 at 1:59 am

JEC—

Here is a website for a Canadian supplier. http://www.justgeothermal.com/howgeoworks.php

They reflect an installation fee of $36,000 Canadian and they break down the greatly reduced cost of electricity.

Government can help in several ways. They can offer companies financial incentives to mass produce extraction systems and tax and other incentives to consumers to purchase the systems.

Comment from kingfellow
March 27th, 2008 at 4:10 am

I am very to see that youre doiing these things. But however I see that you are only focusssed on the USA. When you use the internet , I think you could go international en so enlarge your influence.
Friendly greetings,
Vital,
Belgium.

Comment from w.boune
March 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

kingfellow,

It seems that you Europeans are ahead of us in the green movement, you probably should teach us!

I think that most of these ideas and strategies can be applied globally, re-localization is just as important in Europe, Asia, universally, as it is here.

Currently it appears that us yanks do more than our part in creating the problem, we need to clean up our act before we cast a critical eye towards others.

saulpaulus,

Excellent website to explain your proposition, this concept has been around for quite a while, really intelligent in colder and hotter climates to reduce the energy requirements for the production of heating and cooling. There is a US firm doing something similar. http://www.geomaxusa.com/

Another way to accomplish this, in more moderate climes, is retrofit or build from scratch with implementing passive solar with high insulation and mass storage. Using the winter sun to heat mass to get through a few cold days and in winter, and storing the night's cooler air to keep the home comfy during the hot days. This is by far the best way to conserve energy in homes and businesses, now the addition of the geothermal system you brought forth would be an excellent combination with passive solar.

When you mentioned geothermal earlier I thought you where discussing the form we have here in Sonoma County. http://www.thegga.org/ This plant produces enough energy to save nearly 8 million gallons of oil per year. One drawback with this form, here at least, is the steam emits hydrogen sulfide. But there is a patent for a removal process.
Document Type and Number: United States Patent 4402713
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4402713.html
It uses carbon dioxide, what happens to that?

Let's keep thinking!

Comment from jec0
March 28th, 2008 at 12:28 am

kingfellow:

Indeed, I am from the USA so I can speak more knowledgably about the USA, but tell me then, what do you think specifically would be useful internationally?

Comment from w.boune
March 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

kingfellow,

Governments should offer any incentives that may assist in providing motivation for individuals and businesses to implement personal investment in a clean and green future.

All people, worldwide, who can find the means, should commit to setting personal goals to make investments that benefit themselves, their culture and the world environment in renewable energy solutions. Governments and N.G.O.'s should provide assistance where the personal means cannot be found.

Governments and N.G.O.'s should find the will and means to educate all people, especially women, who tend to be the ones who take responsibility throughout every culture, about energy conservation and over population concerns and provide the knowledge and the means to control unwanted pregnancies.

Providing clean water and energy, replace wood fired cooking with solar ovens etc., to villages in the third world would be a good volunteer effort to get behind. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.charityguide.org%2Fvolunteer%2Ffewhours%2Fsolar-ovens.htm&ei=dj7tR97SHYuqpwTO-MB5&usg=AFQjCNHpXE2XxV6iWSFPqWdchYXzLo31pw&sig2=12vKI5_YSMJX9KOEgFf-1A
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunoven.com%2FNews_Cooking.asp&ei=dj7tR97SHYuqpwTO-MB5&usg=AFQjCNFhy_CzyVRfaQAC-RDSFCsTK7RE-A&sig2=v8jxF2aJI4L8DdlboVhoDg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeacecorps.mtu.edu%2Fresources%2Fstudentprojects%2Fgk.htm&ei=dj7tR97SHYuqpwTO-MB5&usg=AFQjCNGfiAeYcoia1MjcAWacsRas3X4-DQ&sig2=XfoeT-05WKmYkVBsHiYzFg

Provide solar PV electrification systems and community kitchen and food storage centers for small villages and communities in the "developing" world.

Worldwide governments should initiate renewable energy solutions to offset their own demands and thereby reduce the utility costs of government and the burden of their requirements for the long run.

As I stated earlier, all good ideas should have some degree of universality to them.

What would you suggest, in that you are living offshore and may have a different perspective due to those influences.

Comment from Leonard Sogodi
March 29th, 2008 at 6:28 am

I am very interesting on environment issues. I like what is your doing.
What i want to say is this, Keep in touch to save our planet against global warming.In my country Tanzania i am doing the some with our society especial school social clubs. We are on the some goals. For more imfolmation of what we are doing contact with me though my email address. Best regards

Thanks

Comment from jec0
March 30th, 2008 at 4:30 am

As I pointed out in an earlier article on this blog, we CAN'T stop global warming because of variations in the earth's orbit. So what we really need to do is to start planning ahead with global warming in mind. For example, much of the commerce sector in Ontario is underground, in order to block out cold weather. In Tanzania I think that solar panels would be good. You ought to join a think tank to think about environment issues. We just need to think!

Great talking to you!

Comment from Kaya
March 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Yes we can resolve global warming. By using the non toxic, non lethal, unlimited renewable, oil from the hemp seeds to replace all the toxic waste from focil fuel and protroleum products and use the henp cannabis sativa seed also to replace destroyed trees this 120 day crop would save our environment. Yhe resolution and healing is not the challenge but the egomaniacs that block the healing through deception, confusion and chaos to fulfill their own selfish and greed desires at the expense of the world and its inhabitants.

Comment from saulpaulus
April 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am

W Boune:

Interesting. So geothermal tech doesn't work in moderate climes? Why is that?

Asteroid Miner:

Science provides some of the answers humanity needs. If it provided all of them, people might not turn to God for others.

Comment from kim
April 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am

This is to the person whom does NOT believe in Global Warming. I understand ur paranoia, as they have enslaved the american people/tax payers and people don't even know it! Here in Phoenix, Az from May to September u can feel/see the global warming! Plant life is struggling/ no rains/droughts, The dust from Massive construction (population doubled in the last decade) and the pollution is so bad we have to start wearing masks!! It gets 128 degrees and above for weeks and weeks and weeks with NO relief in site! It is obvious, think about all the pollution, Oil, refineries, nuclear plants/waste, sewers/plastic/cigareete butts/ trash/ landfills/ poisoned food/water/chemical everything!! Medical waste etc. Diseased humans being buried in the ground. Manufacturing of tires, all types of things. How can it not effect us? The animals? People that do not care about the earth and/or their own children's futures?? Are evil and have NO business being in a position of power!

Comment from kim
April 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm

To steve: Thank u for the links. It is awesome to find a link about other possibilities, as we do not see that very often it seems. Personally I like to see all sides. I did live in SF,Ca when we had a El Nino in 1997/98? I believe. Here in Arizona it has become so bad though, which has changed! It used to be so awesome here, now it is miserable. However, I do contribute the MASSIVE construction, population doubling in the last decade to the severe dust/pollution!
I don't think it is bad to recycle, do as many green, mother earth respecting things as one can. How can it be wrong? The massive pollution cannot be good. China for example.Some real freaky stuff going on there. Oil into our oceans? Factual proof of wild life becoming extinct? Is it from pollution or progression?? Here it is both. Oil in the SF,Ca bay because of CHEAP, outsourcing= CHEAP everything, including ship staff, Yeah a ship of fools!
There is alot of disease, cancers that have been linked factually to pollution. Poisoned air???? Hmmm? Carbon monoxide produced by a house furnace kills families in their sleep! Should it be overwhelmingly suffocating us when we are outdoors? Can it happen? There are so many things combined, including selfish ignorant/arrogance human behaviors!
I haven't much trust for the media, TV, just cause someone says? So many people I see on threads on-line believe the dumbest crap! We don't trust very many. We are here in Az fighting for our home state against the retired republicans and their politicians that have MOVED here and have destroyed our wonderful home! They r trying to be the example for the nation of stripping ALL the youth of ALL their rights!! North American Union signed 3/03 behind the american people's backs is why the mexicans and drugs flood into our state and if a teen is in the wrong place? insta-felon!!!!! forever!!! These retirees families moved here from depressed states and are attacking the mexicans and falling right into the trap! Civil war, an excuse for the govt to implement marshall law!!!
I hope that u r correct, but I see all the pollution and that nuclear plant they built here in the late 70s, Playing GOD with lives and this planet cannot have good results! U call these people lazy? They r enslaved!!! They don't know it! Prices are so inflated that people r struggling to stay above water, many are drowning and people have NO time to stand, and certain ones want it that way. Americans MUST make time as did our forefathers. This administration is trying to impose Europe's ways onto us, which is how america came about! They forget… This is America the FREE!!!! Never give up, I guess they r NOT familiar with WILL.

Comment from kim
April 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm

To Dave: I wanted to comment on the very well written piece about the 5 understandings of the earth, temperatures/thermodynamics/cars/destructive carbon/humanity. here in Phoenix, Az which is called " The Valley of The Sun" the utility conglomerates APS/SRP are charging us to build another power plant this time a solar not nuclear, but again the power is going to another state!! The things they r getting away with here would blow ur mind! Especially in a place that has massive sun there is NO excuse to NOT be using solar energies to power this whole state, except for evil/selfish/greed!!!! The valley is about 500 miles square+ and 30 yrs ago they were going to build a huge train system, which would of saved this city/state from being so over polluted from the massive construction from all the people MOVING here. The transit system here is… pathetic. The 128 degree 3, 4 month summers make it impossible to go without a car, It is deadly!There are now so many retired republicans that are against new things and they hate the youth which is un-natural, because the old are supposed to teach the young!!! They r putting them all in prison over drugs that flood into our state. Stripping them of all their rights forever!! Well I wanted to comment about solar and cars and yes to grow food for car fuel when so many are starving including here in america, I know cause we deliver food to the very poor, seems backwards. Sucking the life out of the earth, splicing our food so we cannot grow our own? for ultimate enslavement powers?? There are many clean fuel ideas out there.

Comment from jec0
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 am

Solar thermal power plants are the way we should go; we just need to create more of them and transform our economy to rely on them. It'll take just a while…

Comment from jec0
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 am

We need to use solar thermal power plants, especially in deserts.

Comment from w.boune
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I see this discussion has not yet died, excellent!

Comment from saulpaulus
April 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am
W Boune:
Interesting. So geothermal tech doesn’t work in moderate climes? Why is that?

Saul, I am all for geothermal home heating and cooling, it works fine in any climate, it is just not necessary in moderate climates with proper energy design considerations, a passive solar home will not require the energy to pump the coolants around to heat and cool the home. If one has a industry standard, inefficient, home geothermal heating and cooling is far more efficient than an conventional system, you bet! My comments are in support of the concept with existing inefficient housing, my point is with retrofitting and better yet, initial smart designs, we, in the moderate climates don't need to unnecessarily to spend that energy !

I see trees dieing off in the forests in which I live at higher rates each year due to insect infestations, maybe global warming might be debatable, but I have observed great changes in this area over my short 58 years.

Underground living may well be way of the future, part of my home is earth protected. A super efficient home can use very little energy for heating and cooling, a significant conservation factor, for sure.

Thermal solar is a bright concept, the flaw is that it continues the idea of centralized energy production and probably cuts you and me, the public, out of ownership of this form of energy production

If these schemes are to be realized they should be funded by you and me, we should be the share holders and participate in the profits, or make it not for profit and drive costs way down. Public ownership of these would be far better than corporate ownership.

The California study I, suggests that a 159 square mile thermal electric system would provide 60% of the energy needs of this state for the year 2060. However I am opposed to centralized energy production in principal, in that you relinquish control of you energy future to others. Search around the following website-
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2007-052

But to beat the same old dead horse, invest in your own personal energy production and then you benefit directly from it and you take away the power the utilities hold over you!

Financing should be made readily available formatted as such: Government guaranteed loans should be available to individual real estate owners, homes and businesses, amortized in a manner which would lower your monthly energy expenses during the payoff period, once it is paid for your energy would be cheap or free! With a stable picture of future energy costs, in my vision lower costs, society can better plan and implement a sustainable economy.

Couple this with electric or plug in hybrid electric vehicles and the upshot is – presto – cheap clean energy and clean and cheap fuel costs for transportation. http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/

Simply disregard the question of global warming and be self centered, as we Americans often are, and make the best choices for our own economic future and implement my simple vision of personal ownership of energy production and green transportation and you will benefit and improve your own life while, later, you listen to those who lack the will to do these things complain about high fuel and energy prices.

Our home has been 90% solar powered since the 1970's I feel pretty lucky when I can spend, invest, these energy cost savings into more cheap energy and clean transportation. I use our personal experience as an example of what is possible for many if you set real and attainable goals.

Gas will, most likely, reach $5 per gallon here in CA. by the fall, I predict $10 per gallon by 2012, maybe $20 per by 2020 (or more). Be selfish, save your money with intelligent personal energy conservation and production investments and maybe the planet will benefit with cleaner air and water.

Forget global warming, think about your pocketbook and the potential of future of ever rising costs!

Comment from Bill
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

W. Boune:

Thanks for your comments. If we are to make real progress in fighting climate change, I think we need to have all of the Developed World nations joining together to subsidize public use of the most viable method to provide energy for homes and vehicles as well as industry. If we stipulated that construction had to be done a certain way and existing structures would need to be retrofitted over time and then also subsidized conversion to geo thermal or solar thermal and used excess production to charge electric vehicles, we would make a very big dent in the problem. That's my theory at least. The problem with living in a democracy is getting enough people to agree.

Comment from w.boune
April 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am

Bill,

A simplified reasonable, rational approach is the best approach, simple and local is alway better in my book!

Yes, subsidized, not for profit, massive solar thermal, geothermal, incentives spawning personal geothermal and solar thermal investments, integrated with super insulated, solar and/or geo-mass homes, extreme energy appliance conservation coupled with home grown solar and wind energy, married to electric cars (and hybrid plug-in electrics)and organic homegrown food gardens (while eating much less animal products) and we free ourselves from outside controls, stabilize our overhead over unknown and uncertain future costs and free resources for those who are not yet ready or able to invest in their personal energy futures.

I saw this morning that the House is going carbon neutral, installing spiral compact fluorescent bulbs, recycling everything and installing wind generators, a good sign. Too bad they aren't already aware of the energy advancements in LED lighting with less negative pollutants when sent to land fill sites.

In Cal, gradually, but soon, all new developments will be required to integrate renewable energy and high energy efficiency in their original design standards, moving forward here.

There must be incentives and funding to incite owners of residential rental, governmental use and commercial structures to go carbon neutral, incorporate utility costs into rents, and provide energy to lure employees that want to recharge their cars and scooters at work and at home.

The current Federal renewable incentives, which expire at the end of the year, provide limited credits for once in a lifetime only investments, primarily for residential use, and once for commercial investments in energy for sale. This should be broadened to as many investments as you wish to make and at higher credit levels, it now only pays for the first $10,000 for residential installations, guesstimate that one must invest somewhere between $50,000 – $100,000 for each home if you want to be carbon neutral and have two rechargeable vehicles, with total energy conservation.

I bet the long term expense of the war on terrorism, in Afghanistan and Iraq alone, could have subsidized every home in the country.

Have you read a very short book titled, "The Hundredth Monkey?" It quite simply puts forth the idea that at certain point in a society's acceptance of new ways of doing things, after the hundredth monkey accepts change, the rest realize the advantage and rapidly follow suit in mass.

If we the people lead by example, if we put our money where our collective mouths are, the benefits will become apparent and others not yet ready to evolve, the leaders of industry and the government just might follow our positive lead! Life is a self fulfilling prophesy.

Thanks for Clear and Clean Thinking!

Comment from Bill
April 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am

As a Seventh Day Adventist, I am certainly in favor of a vegetarian diet and I know about the superiority of organics over regular produce. I am just not sure what role government can play in encouraging it. Given the recent news about rising food prices, we may have to take a closer look at government involvement there. It may finally lead to the elimination or substantial reduction of those dreadful farm subsidies if you are looking for a silver lining.

Comment from w.boune
April 25th, 2008 at 11:45 am

My sister once had a mother-in-law who was a Seventh Day Adventist, she first made me aware of the benefits of vegetarianism at a young age, My wife and I haven't eaten meat since 1971, a healthy choice that keeps me going strong and freed a good deal of grains for others to consume.

Meat consumption is the driving force behind rain forest destruction in South America, as it was in the earlier development of North America, the U.S. in particular.

It is well proven that the modern petrochemical model depletes the soil and lessens the productivity below prior levels over a not too long period, 5-6 years, and the food lacks a full spectrum of nutrients, taste is poor and may be harmful to a healthy society. Oil, the new black death!

With a new leader who has inspired a true populist movement, Obama, the people could lead the government to make the right subsidy choices. Incentives which encourage organic farm production which may cause mega agribusiness to convert to a sustainable form of farming and not rely on petrochemicals for soil nutrients.

When the new President and Congress take office next year the people need to step up the populist movement for positive change.

But my never ending point is, we don't need to wait for the government, buying power, with principled buying decisions, can influence business policy or, more directly, the simple decision to grow your own organic produce and reduce meat consumption will free resources for those less fortunate or the better off not compelled to make a positive difference, yet!

Petroleum is everywhere, it touches and corrupts everything, when the price spikes so do food prices and every other item that is shipped in this outsourced world..

All things are interrelated!

Comment from Bill
April 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

W. Boune

I don't necessarily disagree with you. We should individually become more green. Thing is that to have the kind of impact that is needed, government would need to step in and push the country in the right direction. I don't think most of the folks would have a problem with the government helping them to save money on energy for their homes and cars. I think, however, that there would be blood in the streets if the government tried to take away their Big Macs!!! The government might try to educate folks as to the advantages of avoiding meat, but that would be about as far as they could go.

Comment from w.boune
April 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Bill,

I would not wish to force my will or beliefs on any individual, nor do I want a government that forces it's will on the individual. Many laws should be taken of the books.

By all means, enjoy your Big Mac, but, know where it comes from and what harm may result from that choice. Meat consumption is and should be a personal choice, however information should be widely available to help consumers to understand the effect on personal health, the environment and the availability of food to the third world by that choice.

A wide spread sustainable organic agricultural switch from the dominant mono culture of petrochemical mega-agribusiness would be a good thing for the government to promote and encourage by financial incentives.

A homegrown organic garden bypasses the system. Homegrown energy bypasses the system. Becoming a Prosumer (both a consumer and a producer) bypasses the system and empowers the individual and strengthens our personal bottom line. Having a garden when the stores don't have food might be really healthy. The overpriced food in the stores looks totally disgusting, sick and old wasting away on those shelves.

Options and financial incentives to compel the consideration and implementation of a new way would be a good use of government. The corporations have run roughshod over this land and the world since WWII, careful, well thought out regulation is called for in this arena, regualtion that affects proper response and benefits with win win results.

More information about options and choices allow individuals to make informed decisions about energy, food and other lifestyle choices. More visible options, not less, allow better side by side comparisons to aid decision making. I observe that, being a vegetarian since my early 20's, I relate better physically and mentally to 35-40 year olds than to my old looking and slow thinking contemporaries in the 55-60 age group. If we can compare which choice do we make.

David C. Korten suggests in his book, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, that our choices will determine whether world society unravels during the next fifty years or whether there is a great turning. Through principled choice and increased activism we create our better future. http://www.davidkorten.org/BulletPoints http://www.thegreatturning.net/

Korten calls it Empire, I label it "Dominism". Throughout history one group or another (often the same families) tend to dominate cultures by use of story telling (the media) to maintain control to wealth. Dominism, even in the form of a modern dominant Democracy, may be more harmful to the common person than, Totalitarianism , Communism or any other dominant ism, of the past.

With a new leader, any leader, who willingly risks and encourages the participation of the people could truly bolster positive principled change.

In a government of, for and by the people, We the People must, at times, step in and push the government in the right direction.

If the people lead the leaders will follow. Take the lead!

Comment from jec0
April 26th, 2008 at 4:27 am

I think the government ought to do some thinking and outline all the options we should take, and prioritize the importance of all the options and rank all the options, and then divide the money allocated for such options proportionately between all the options according to their ranks and thus satisfy the competing options.

Comment from w.boune
April 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

jec0,

I like that, a sweet and simple demand.

We will have to push them for even simple change!

The government and media should spell out the currently available options for consumers and government. Such as, if oil and coal have their carbon sequestered, how much will the true costs of the product be, compared to going solar and electric etc.

What are the true facts and costs when you factor in for pollution and the environmental and cultural destruction at the harvesting source points and in transportation etc.

Comment from Isaiah_53
July 31st, 2008 at 10:31 am

Gweetings fewwo fwiends and countweemen…

If you plan to read only one book on global climate change, the weather, etc., let it be "Climate Confusion" by Dr. Roy Spencer. (If you don't plan to read one book, change you plans and read this one!)

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

What others say:

'Dr. Spencer's is the best book length treatment of global warming science that is available to the literate citizen. The title says is all. Dr. Spencer explains the broad agreement over the existence of some climate change and the existence fo some human role, but he also explains why these have little to do with the implausible and overheated projections of environmental disaster. The author thus cuts through all the rhetorical brickbats of "denialism" and "salvationism" to allow the citizen to reach rational conclusions. Despite a light touch, Dr. Spencer does not pull punches when it comes to unclothing the moral pretenses of mean in the environmental movement — pretences often disguising some truly immoral agendas'
– Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Check it out, mon!

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Confusion-by-Roy-Spencer.htm

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm?expertId=163

Comment from wboune
August 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am

More confusion?

Don't be confused, think for yourself, take actions that benefit your long term economic survival, the planet will benefit too!

Don't take your eye off the ball, we are on the verge of extreme resource depletion, particularly in the area of energy.

So, disregard the confusion about the sources of global warming, focus on energy depletion and air pollution these are real and looming to become much worse, just look at the poor air quality in Beijing, is that the future you desire.

Global warming is a side effect!

Look at the economics, no private investments in nuclear energy, investments in new sources of oil and coal, are way down. investments in wind and solar are way up, these represent the new majority of energy investments. These investment trends indicate that renewable energy sources are the new mass energy solution, the market is proving it out.

If the oil companies invested the huge profits they are "reaping" directly into huge solar and wind energy projects for the next ten years they could control and profit from this for the long future. I hope they don't realize this, then they would have their hands in our pockets forever, we would be at their mercy forever.

Invest in your own personal renewable future and take the oil, coal and nuclear energy industry corporate hands out of your pockets for good!

Renewable energy coupled with plug in hybrid cars, trucks and buses will cut air pollution in the city centers greatly, this is the simple solution, avoid dangerous complexities.

Live long and prosper, with a green energy future!

Comment from astroknott
September 9th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

The best solution to global warming is for everyone concerned about it to watch the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Its a documentary produced by the BBC. It demonstrably proves the utter lie and scam that "man made" global warming is real. Oh, the globe has been warming up for the last 100 years but it has nothing to do with C02 or methane. Or anything we are doing to the planet. The scientific evidence clearly shows that increases in C02 levels, FOLLOW, increases in temperature. Increased C02 levels are the RESULT of increased temperatures. Not the CAUSE of increased temperatures. We are being fed the biggest steaming load of propaganda in the history of mankind.

This is about nothing but an effort to drain the resources of developed countries to undeveloped countries. Also about forcing socialism on the world through these scare tactic.

Wake up people!