Morning Read: Climate back on the agenda?

This morning the Kingston Ontario Whig-Standard is reporting that Ontario’s environment minister thinks climate change needs to be back at the center of the agenda.

“The climate is changing, it’s measurable right now and it will accelerate and change from the emissions we’ve already put out and will continue to put out,” [Gord Miller, the province’s environmental commissioner] said.

“We’re going to have more severe weather and we’re going to have more severe problems and we have to plan for that and look at our infrastructure.”

This includes implementing changes to roads by adding culverts to accommodate more water from intense storms, he said.

In an interview this morning with NCPR, activist and author Bill McKibben argues that groups like his 350.0rg are once again gaining some traction on climate issues, including President Barack Obama’s recent decision to cancel a controversial Canadian oil pipeline project.

Also, this week, state officials in New York state are hosting a national conference on the impacts of climate change on plant and animal species.

The National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy is geared toward providing a unified approach—reflecting shared principles and science-based practices—to reduce negative impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, plants and the natural systems they depend.

Federal, state and tribal partners, with input from many diverse groups across the nation, are collaborating to develop a common strategy to respond to the challenges a changing climate poses for our nation’s species, ecosystems and natural resources.

So what do you think?  Climate has been on the back burner as the US and other countries grappled with the recession.

In the midst of this warm winter and in the wake of epic floods, is it time to revisit the global warming debate?

Tags: , ,

109 Comments on “Morning Read: Climate back on the agenda?”

  1. JDM says:

    “In the midst of this warm winter and in the wake of epic floods, is it time to revisit the global warming debate?”

    The “man behind the curtain” has been revealed.

    The climate is changing but windmills and Chevy Volts cannot stop it from changing.

    The hoax behind the facts has been revealed.

    You can go ahead and try to fake it again, however. Don’t expect anyone to rush to put their last pennies in your till.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10

  2. JDM says:

    Here’s the first sentence on the Solyndra website:

    “Solyndra’s solar power solutions offer strong return on investment and make great business sense. ”

    Another $500 million, anyone? Nope!

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9

  3. tootightmike says:

    JDM is probably right on one point…climate change IS coming.
    We have dawdled around for too long, unable to come up with a plan or an agreement that would have reduced our impact. I read the first papers about “The Global Carbon Cycle” nearly forty years ago. We made a few moves at that time…insulated things, bought smaller cars, put on a sweater and such, but then we forgot. The SUV was invented, and the McMansion, and we surged ahead as though we could live very high for long enough to outrun the future.
    Even the climate change deniers like JDM have changed their rhetoric from “It ain’t happening” to “We didn’t do it”
    But now we’ve come to the hair-pin turn and our climate will respond to simple chemistry on a global scale. You won’t need a sweater this time, you’ll need a hard hat.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

  4. Gary says:

    I think the problem we face is a lack of confidence in our government to accomplish anything positive in regards to this problem. The time has come to stop listening to greedy companies and develop some meaningful strageties. Obama needs to realize it’s time to change the players sitting around the table!

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

  5. Peter Hahn says:

    with high unemployment its kind of hard to get anything else on the front burner – but climate change isnt going away or going to fix itself.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

  6. JDM says:

    ttm: “climate change deniers like JDM”

    Where does that come from? I have always stated my belief in climate change.

    What liberals like to do is drop the moniker “man-made” in front of climate change.

    You could accurately say, “JDM is a man-made climate change denier”, and you would be correct.

    But, no doubt, the climate is changing. It goes up. It goes down.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7

  7. JDM says:

    Peter Hahn: “climate change isnt going away or going to fix itself”

    Yes, it is. It caused itself. It will fix itself.

    Unfortunately for the man-made climate change affirmers, idiots like Al Gore (who has a Noble prize and Oscar, but can’t seem to run a business like Air America, by the way), already predicted that Bangladesh would be underwater by 2010, and polar bears would be wearing life jackets by now.

    Other enlightened idiots thought Solyndra and the Chevy Volt were the man-made fix to the man-made crisis.

    It’s a hoax. The climate will change again, and again, and again.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9

  8. erb says:

    @JDM – so, what do you think IS causing the climate to warm? Are you unaware of the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? If not, the conclusion is inescapable: higher CO2 levels lead to higher temps.

    The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution, increasing more rapidly in the second half of the 20th century. Charts demonstrating this are easy to find all over the web. The reason for this rise is the large scale burning of fossil fuels.

    You may not want to make the changes necessary to stop global warming, and you may not have faith in government and industry to do the right thing – you would not be alone. But denying the role of humans in climate change is driven by ideology, not facts.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7

  9. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Did I just agree with Gary?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  10. JDM says:

    erb: “@JDM – so, what do you think IS causing the climate to warm? Are you unaware of the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? ”

    erb, are you aware that the oceans contain H2O? If the snow melts and the ocean levels rise, that means more H2O Oh, my gosh!

    The earth has climate cycles bigger than you or Al Gore can control. Face it. We’re just little bitty people on a big planet. Kind of makes you wonder what life’s all about, doesn’t it?!!

    Well. If you don’t believe in God, you have to look somewhere for answers. Maybe it’s Al Gore.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8

  11. Peter Hahn says:

    JDM – The climate has been changed (temporarily) by volcanoes erupting (act of God)- and big forest fires (probably act of man). There is every reason to think we can dump enough stuff in the atmosphere to change the climate in the way that it has been changing (and its pretty well known which stuff). By extension we can stop doing that if we put our minds to it.

    You are assuming that God never acts through man or that we aren’t allowed any “freewill” in this situation.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  12. Pete Klein says:

    If you believe climate change (the new phrase for global warming) is happening and if you believe it is being caused by humans, all efforts to reverse the trend will fail until and unless you first stop the growth in human population and follow that up with a reduction in the human population.
    More humans equals more demand for energy and everything else.
    By the way, if you stop and then reverse the growth in the human population, you will also solve the unemployment problem.
    Everything else is just band aids.
    Planet Earth is sick of us.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  13. PNElba says:

    The earth has climate cycles bigger than you or Al Gore can control. Face it. We’re just little bitty people on a big planet.

    Yep, mankind simply cannot have any effect on the environment. Yet one man, with the help of a few family members, collected two of each “kind” of animal on earth to save them from a global flood. That occurred about 4357 years ago as best I can determine. I wonder just how many climate cycles the earth has gone through in its ~6000 year existence?

    On a more serious note, I am currently reading “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America” by Shawn Lawrence Otto. Otto says “American democracy relies on a plurality of voices representing economic, scientific, and religious perspectives to arrive at balanced public policy” and concludes “With the voice of science going silent in our political dialogue, America no longer has that plurality”.

    Otto is correct in laying a large part of the blame on scientists who have been too distant from the public sphere over the last two generations. But he also makes details the organization of the “climate change denial machine” which is at its roots the same machine that convinced consumers for decades that smoking does not cause cancer. Yes, it is about money. But the money to be made is not by the climate researchers, its about vastly more money to be made by the fossil fuel industry.

    Otto also points out that a good portion of the blame in this issue lies at the feet of the press. It’s embarrassing how few questions they ask candidates about issues of science.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  14. tootightmike says:

    Boy Pete, you just stepped into a hornets nest! You’re right though. As I pay the utility bills each month on several properties, there emerges a clear pattern. Two people use nearly twice as much as one. A four person household will very predictably use twice as much as two…even if they have a careful and thrifty nature about them. More people means more energy use, and until we develop other sources…more carbon.
    But how to reduce the population? In some countries (like Italy) the population is falling. These governments are actually trying to PAY folks to have more kids! Who will pay for our old age pensions? they worry. Our capitalist system only functions on continued growth, and falters when anything stabilizes. If there aren’t more babies, who will we sell Pampers, Cheerios, Iphones, and Toyotas too?
    We have designed a system that con only lead to one destination. All of the money will be in the hands of the very few, all of the resources will be used up, and all of the clean air and water will be destroyed in service of the other two. If you are very, very rich, it will be great.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

  15. JDM says:

    Pete Klein: “More humans equals more demand for energy and everything else. By the way, if you stop and then reverse the growth in the human population, you will also solve the unemployment problem.”

    Pete: I actually have done research in a similar area and found similar results.

    The Aztecs killed more than 10,000 people per year (30 per day, or 1 per hour, if you will) because they wanted to appease gods of war and gods of climate.

    They thought (or the “taught”) that sacrificing humans could help appease the gods of the volucanos, hurricanes, and earthquakes. None of the “religious” leaders thought it necessary to sacrifice themselves, of course.

    Basically, they fooled people into thinking that human sacrifice was necessary to cover for their inability to explain natural phenomenon.

    Fast foward to today. Some think humans cause global warming, or the preferred cover, “climate change”, or my moniker “man-made climate change”.

    As you suggest, it may someday come to human sacrifice as a means to cover our lack of understanding of natural occurrences.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

  16. JDM says:

    vulcanoes, sorry.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  17. JDM says:

    volcanoes, I give up.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Pete Klein says:

    I am not suggesting we do anything radical in terms of the population growth but just wanted to point out that we have painted ourselves into a corner on many fronts. We might say we have become the victims of unintended consequences.
    Nothing against old people (I am 69 but still working, thank you very much) but as modern medicine figures out ways to keep us alive longer and longer, we (they) create a situation where the young are more and more burdened by the old.
    Nature likes a balance. If things go out of balance, nature steps in with solutions we don’t like. What I most fear is not any Aztec solution but something more like a plague the likes of which we have never seen.
    One possibility would go something like this. As modern medicine eliminates one disease after another, the door is opened for a truly horrendous disease that has been held in check by a disease or diseases we have eliminated or will soon eliminate.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  19. PNElba says:

    Pete, how can you expect anything as puny as mankind to eliminate one disease after another. Besides, who is behind modern medicine? Scientists! And we all know that science is bogus and scientists do science for the big research bucks.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  20. PNElba says:

    JDM, your 10:34 AM post was very ironic and confusing.

    They thought (or the “taught”) that sacrificing humans could help appease the gods of the volucanos, hurricanes, and earthquakes. None of the “religious” leaders thought it necessary to sacrifice themselves, of course.

    Wait, appeasing gods? Isn’t this religion? Isn’t this something that people were doing as described in the Hebrew bible? How does this differ from prayer? Do you pray that someday abortion will be illegal? Have you been “fooled” into thinking that prayer is effective?

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  21. erb says:

    @JDM – not sure what you’re getting at. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels raises the overall temperatures. This, in turn, causes glaciers to melt. So, yes, the oceans will rise as the glaciers melt.

    You may not want it to be true, and the Earth does not care what you think, but we humans are changing the climate. Whether we can, and will, slow the change is not at all certain.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

  22. dave says:

    Right now, as is, the world is overpopulated. There are too many people, using up too many of our remaining resources, producing too much waste, and destroying too much of what little natural habitat there is left.

    This is a problem. I know of no credible source that would claim otherwise.

    In light of this, that some countries panic because their population growth stagnates a little just points to the complicated problem we have. And that is – as far as I can tell – that our entire economic system is based on this growth. The underlying systems that drive our world today, everything we have and enjoy, all of our comforts and advances, depend on the economics of growth.

    Combine this with the fact that our political systems are inherently short term and selfish – and by that I mean that people vote and make decisions based on (what they think) is in their immediate self interest… and you have a run away train which I personally have a hard time seeing a solution for.

    Yes, logically most of us can sit down and say… without a stable climate and environment that will support us, what good is a strong economy?

    But that is an abstract, long term notion that is too easy to ignore. Reality is, when the heating bills pile up, and our family has trouble finding work… when push comes to shove at the ballot box, as has been proven time and time again throughout history, the majority will opt for their short sighted self interest. We put jobs and money ahead of a safe place to live. Especially when fed misinformation or when in denial of the real dangers.

    So… is now the time revisit global warming? 5 years ago was the right time, 1 year ago was the right time, today is the right time. But will revisiting the debate make a difference? Increasingly I worry it won’t.

    Vulcanoes indeed. May they live long and prosper.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  23. Ken Hall says:

    Pete has hit the nail on the head. The current Earth wide rate of species mass extinction, with the exception of humans, exceeds the rate of the last great extinction 65 million years ago which resulted in mammals replacing the dinosaurs as top predators. In little more than 200 years the total population of humans has increased exponentially from about 1billion to 7billion during which time the rest of the Earth’s fauna have suffered unprecedented rates of decline/destruction. During the year 2011 approximately 135million humans were born, 57million humans died and a net gain of 78million humans was added to the burgeoning worldwide human population; more than 2 to 1 above stasis.

    A 20 April 1998 American Museum of Natural History press release attempted to appraise Americans of the severity of the mass extinction situation to little/no avail. The vast majority of Americans and the rest of the Earth’s humans are in as much denial of human causation of the current great die off, if they even recognize the existence of, as they are of the human causation of global warming.

    For an animal that considers it’s intelligence so far above all of the Earth’s other inhabitants it amazes me that humans are incapable of comprehending that the Earth is not an infinite source of “raw materials” available, for the conspicuous consumption of, by them. As Pete says the “Planet Earth is sick of us.”; to which I add “and by us”.

    My guess is that humans will recognize the great die off when they are included in the melee; likely to become undeniably evident within the next 20-50 years.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  24. PNElba says:

    Ken Hall statement: ……during which time the rest of the Earth’s fauna have suffered unprecedented rates of decline/destruction.

    Conservative reply: no they haven’t.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  25. dave says:

    I was typing a little fast there, that first sentence was intended to imply that we are well on our way to overpopulation… not necessarily that we are already there (although many feel we are). Doesn’t change the point I was making, but wanted to clarify.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  26. Ken Hall says:

    I recognize PNElba as a member of the vast majority of humans who are denier/ignorant of the current great die off.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  27. JDM says:

    PNElba: Wait, appeasing gods? Isn’t this religion? Isn’t this something that people were doing as described in the Hebrew bible? How does this differ from prayer? Do you pray that someday abortion will be illegal? Have you been “fooled” into thinking that prayer is effective?

    Yes, I do pray for abortion to end.

    Some bow at the altar of science, believing in no higher being. They “believe” scientific journals (and apparently that no “scientist” would ever let political pressure influence research – haha – or more importantly, the almighty research grant).

    We all believe beyond what can be proved. We put our faith and hope in something.

    Has anyone been back in time? Do we believe the “science” that we read about evolution and 7 billion years and decline and destruction?

    Apparently, we do.

    Some say there was no 7 billion years. There is scientific evidence for that. Oh yes, there is. It doesn’t get printed in public school text books, but go to the museum of Pennsylvania, or the British Museum, where writing confirming Biblical accounts and kings exist. They’re there to look at, if you care.

    Close your eyes real hard, because the evidence is there that what you call “science” is just another kind of “faith”.

    We all chose what we believe in, but there are many choices. Don’t rest too hard that there are absolute (provable) truths. The Bible demands “faith”. It does not insist on provable truth.

    If Darwin demands provable truth, well, you can “believe” it if you want.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  28. PNElba says:

    Ken, as a scientist I not only understand exactly what you are saying, I actually understand the evidence behind your statement. I was simply trying to give a typical “scientific” response to your statement from a typical conservative living in the USA today. Sorry if you misunderstood.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  29. PNElba says:

    JDM, your disjointed post above only shows how little you understand the scientific method. The scientific method is based on the premise that you cannot “prove” anything, you can only disprove hypotheses. Also, a good scientist tries not to use the word “believe” or “belief”. Those are words used in faith. A good scientist looks at experimental evidence and determines whether or not the evidence supports or does not support the hypothesis.

    Unfortunately, I cannot respond to your 7 billion years question because I have no idea of the context in which you are using that number. Are you confusing the number of people on earth with the age of the earth or what?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  30. JDM says:

    PNElba: the 7 billion was wrong in context, sorry.

    Am I correct in saying that items like man-made causes for climate change are, at best, the sum of evidences that supports (or disproves) a hypothesis?

    If so, it fits the definition of a “belief”, although that term is not liked by scientists.

    Other evidences may change the current position, at which point, the current position “moves” to the new one.

    Truth, in the scientific sense, is just as movable as “faith” in a religious sense.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  31. Paul says:

    One thing I do agree with Mr. McKibben on is that any change is going to be expensive. Given that fact the economy needs to stay as the main front burner item. No money, no climate fix. I have a hybrid, I have solar panels, I have done many of the things that I can do to make a difference. I can afford it, most people cannot. That is Mr. McKibben big problem not a gas pipeline.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  32. Paul says:

    “A good scientist looks at experimental evidence and determines whether or not the evidence supports or does not support the hypothesis.”

    There is very good evidence that climate change is happening and that we have a hand in that change. Is there “experimental” evidence? Not really. Here we really don’t have good controls like you have in most experiments. We don’t have the negative control – a planet that we have not messed with to compare. But despite that we have what we need scientifically to make the link.

    Do we have the evidence to link the local extremes that Mr. McKibben associates with what he calls “global warming”? No, I don’t think we do. Does it matter? Not really, we still need to make the changes that he describes as far as lowering emissions. Does making the claim that the two are linked hurt his credibility? I think it does.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  33. Bob S says:

    The entire subject has become political. That in itself guarantees that a solution based on a consensus is probably not possible. Let’s say that we all finally agree that not only is climate change a fact but also that it is caused by mankind. Is that the end of the argument? No. That is the beginning. The next argument will center around which of us must stop doing whatever it is we are doing to cause this problem. My position will be that you are causing it; not me.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Paul says:

    “If Darwin demands provable truth, well, you can “believe” it if you want.” Not quite sure what you are talking about here??

    Evolution (I assume that is what you call Darwin here?) is a “truth” (as you say) that has been proven over and over again. In fact we now even know the molecular basis for how evolution works (Darwin didn’t have the tools that we have now, maybe he had some “faith” as you call it?) You don’t have to believe in it because it is a fact. However you are free to ignore the facts.

    Evolution is also entirely compatible with any religion, certainly with Roman Catholicism that I was raised under.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  35. PNElba says:

    Is there “experimental” evidence? Not really. Here we really don’t have good controls like you have in most experiments. We don’t have the negative control – a planet that we have not messed with to compare.

    Nor do we have a control for the “Big Bang Theory” or the “Theory of Gravitation” or the “Cell theory”. Fortunately, observation also works in science.

    But there is experimental evidence for climate change. Some of it done over 100 years ago.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  36. myown says:

    One of the main arguments always brought up against dealing with climate change and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels relates to the cost. Alternative fuels are too expensive and any reduction in CO2 emissions will hurt our economy, blah, blah, blah.

    Well here is an interesting article I read yesterday that considers the real costs of fossil fuels and their hidden subsidies, including health costs borne by the public. Below is a paragraph from the article:

    {In fact, coal is so economically disastrous that the mainstream journal American Economics Review found that the electricity generated from coal actually does more damage to the economy than the electricity is worth. Grist’s David Roberts notes that “Coal-fired power is a net value-subtracting industry. A parasite, you might say. A gigantic, blood-sucking parasite that’s enriching a few executives and shareholders at the public’s expense.”}

    http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/true-cost-fossil-fuels.html

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  37. Paul says:

    “My position will be that you are causing it; not me.” Okay so I am causing it, now let’s work together to make me be able to stop. Once I stop and the problem lingers than we may have to look back at you.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  38. Paul says:

    myown, the transition is going to be expensive. There is no way around that. In the long run the economic benefits will materialize but the change will be costly upfront.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  39. PNElba says:

    Darwin based his theory of evolution by natural selection on observation and reason. Evolution is a fact. We can observe it and we can measure it. The mechanisms behind evolution are still being worked out. We know some of the mechanisms and we are discovering new mechanisms.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  40. Paul says:

    myown, it is not just the greedy corporations that are in on the fix. Here is the website for NYS Home Energy Assistance Program that subsidizes low income families with their heating bills:

    http://otda.ny.gov/programs/heap/

    Obviously I am being sarcastic. This kind of rhetoric that is on that “treehugger” site you sent is not very helpful in moving this issue forward in my opinion.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. Bob S says:

    Paul. I was of course stating as “my” position the position that most people will assume. That said it follows that “you” will never accept responsibility and therefore can never be convinced that you need to be stopped.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. JDM says:

    PNElba: “Evolution is a fact. We can observe it and we can measure it.”

    Creation is also a fact. It can be observed, measured, categorized, etc.

    Hot debate. Like/Dislike Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  43. “is it time to revisit the global warming debate?”

    Absolutely. And while we’re at it, let’s re-open the debate on topics that are similarly controversial in the scientific community like whether the Earth is flat and whether the sun revolves around the Earth.

    Popular. Like/Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  44. Paul says:

    It will be interesting to see how the critics of climate science react if there is confirmation of the discovery of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light? This will turn physics on its head. That is the problem with science!

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  45. Paul says:

    Or whether the speed of light is the universal speed limit, and pretty much all of the physics “facts” we know needs to go in the can?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. myown says:

    Paul, sorry to bore you with factual information that shows how distorted our energy policy is. And the fossil fuel industry wants to keep it that way and the public uninformed. If we don’t understand the true costs for existing energy sources it is easy to make alternatives appear more expensive.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  47. Paul says:

    Religion is not based on fact it is based on faith. That is why science and religion are entirely compatible. No reason for the argument (if there is one?).

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  48. Paul says:

    “Creation is also a fact. It can be observed, measured, categorized, etc.”

    Sorry, can you clarify what you mean here?

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  49. Ken Hall says:

    PNElba, my apology I jumped to conclusion without giving brain sufficient time to recognize the irony of your reply.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  50. Paul says:

    “If we don’t understand the true costs for existing energy sources it is easy to make alternatives appear more expensive.”

    True, the real facts are not a bore and they are important. The politically charged rhetoric is boring.

    Like you said others also have similar politically charged stuff up about the costs of making alternative fuels and other alternative energy sources work.

    Here is a good article in Scientific American about two Science papers on the fact that producing bio-fuels creates more carbon emissions than just burning “conventional” fuels. It’s a complicated problem with no easy solution.

    But at least here they leave out the boring stuff.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=FB257C3F-B45E-024E-CB9384ACC8F3CCDD

    Here is a quote from the site you gave us a link to:

    “In his new book Greedy Bastards, Dylan Ratigan explains how “vampire industries” like oil and coal have forged “an unholy alliance with government based not just on the money that they contribute to political campaigns and spend on lobbying but on their ability to hypnotize us with false prices.”

    That is the kind of crazy stuff that is not helpful.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Comments are closed.