PDA

View Full Version : Al Gore is Gone Gone



M&K's Retrievers
02-27-2010, 02:27 PM
Apparently Big Al is AWOL lately concerning global warming. According to a Fox news article "Al Gore Gets Quiet on Climate Change", Gore has been impossible to find for interviews as well as unavailable to answer a few questions for Congress. I couldn't get the link to work (I'm sure I'm doing something wrong) but you can go to foxnews.com and find the article if your so inclined.

TCFarmer
02-27-2010, 07:22 PM
Here's the link
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/inconvenient-truth-for-al-gore/?test=latestnews

Marvin S
02-27-2010, 08:30 PM
Time for Henry to post his CO2 chart ;-) :) :) !

dnf777
02-27-2010, 08:37 PM
The only thing more boring than Al Gore....is threads about Al Gore.
Don't we make fun of people who constantly keep bringing up by-gones?
YAAAAWWWWNNNN.....

M&K's Retrievers
02-27-2010, 09:19 PM
The only thing more boring than Al Gore....is threads about Al Gore.
Don't we make fun of people who constantly keep bringing up by-gones?
YAAAAWWWWNNNN.....

Wake up DNF. Slow night in the ER? Did you read the article? The thread is really about climate change, the lack there of and Al Gore's absence since his BS has been disproved. You are right about one thing tho, Algore is really boring.

Henry V
02-27-2010, 10:06 PM
Time for Henry to post his CO2 chart ;-) :) :) !
Why would I?. It is not relevant to this discussion.

If someone questions wants to suggest that CO2 concentrations have not risen to levels not seen in thousands of years then I will post the facts. Seems like you and many others do not like the scientific facts, but that is to be expected.

Keep bashing the messenger and overlooking all the science.

huntinman
02-27-2010, 10:23 PM
With Algore keeping quiet, there is a lot less hot air being released into the atmosphere. Wonder if that has anything to do with all this cold weather?

Buzz
02-27-2010, 10:31 PM
Once again, it's time for you all to renew your memberships in The Flat Earth Society.


http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

huntinman
02-27-2010, 10:48 PM
Once again, it's time for you all to renew your memberships in The Flat Earth Society.


http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Thats exactly how the libs are acting about the smokescreen being removed from the "global warming settled science".

dnf777
02-28-2010, 05:35 AM
...I will post the facts. Seems like you and many others do not like the scientific facts, but that is to be expected.

Henry,
Your facts are useless. Global climate change deals in terms of tens of thousands of years. And we all know the Earth is only 6ooo years old! That PROVES the scientific data and, ice cores, and fossil record are all hoaxes. :rolleyes:

You're wasting your time. These are the same people who just got clobbered right between the eyes with 8 years of republican policy, are just regaining consciousness, staggering around muttering, "its all Obama's fault..."

People (sheeple) will see what they WANT to see. Believe what they WANT to believe, and discredit anything that stands in their way. Its more predictable than the sun rising in the east.

YardleyLabs
02-28-2010, 06:03 AM
I generally stay out of anything having to do with Al Gore since he is not a scientist and adds only to the politics of global warming, not the science (much like everyone on FoxNews, and all members of the RW blogosphere). But, llest someone actually believe that he has been less than present over the last three months, this is yesterday's op ed by Gore in the NY Times:

We Can't Wish Away Climate Change February 27, 2010

"It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."


"Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century."


"But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake."


[full piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?partner=rss&emc=rss]


And, of course, as FoxNews pretends that recent snowfalls contradict evidence of warmng in some manner, we have news like this from Alaska (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1956932,00.html) where evidence suggests that satellite images have significantly understated the degree of ice loss.

dnf777
02-28-2010, 06:58 AM
I generally stay out of anything having to do with Al Gore since he is not a scientist and adds only to the politics of global warming, not the science (much like everyone on FoxNews, and all members of the RW blogosphere).

Very true. Al Gore is to global warming what Mark Sanford is to republican family values! As much as either side would like to crown these two men as pillars of their cause to discredit an opposing view, it just ain't valid!

Both men, wrong as they may be, put the issue at the forefront of discussion, which isn't a bad thing.

Pete
02-28-2010, 08:48 AM
[QUOTEIf someone questions wants to suggest that CO2 concentrations have not risen to levels not seen in thousands of years then I will post the fact[/QUOTE]

what caused it to rise a thousand years ago?

P

subroc
02-28-2010, 08:58 AM
Once again, it's time for you all to renew your memberships in The Flat Earth Society.


http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

you have been duped.

want to buy a bridge?

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 09:22 AM
I generally stay out of anything having to do with Al Gore since he is not a scientist and adds only to the politics of global warming, not the science (much like everyone on FoxNews, and all members of the RW blogosphere). But, llest someone actually believe that he has been less than present over the last three months, this is yesterday's op ed by Gore in the NY Times:

We Can't Wish Away Climate Change February 27, 2010

"It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."


"Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century."


"But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake."


[full piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?partner=rss&emc=rss]


And, of course, as FoxNews pretends that recent snowfalls contradict evidence of warmng in some manner, we have news like this from Alaska (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1956932,00.html) where evidence suggests that satellite images have significantly understated the degree of ice loss.

Ca Ching!! Rake up another billion for Big Al. This guy is a bigger crook than the original Big Al.

Gerry Clinchy
02-28-2010, 09:28 AM
"It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

First we must have faith that the earth is truly in a long-term global warming trend, not just one of its natural short-term climate changes;

Second, we must have faith that the rise in CO2 levels is the cause;

Third, we must have faith that man has caused these disruptions of normal trends.

Only if all 3 are accurate can we have faith that we can actually impact the trend.

In the end, it all boils down to what people can afford. Oil increased in price, so people resorted to more heat pumps (electric), wood stoves, coal stoves, pellet stoves. Most could not afford changing to wind power or geothermal solutions. Even the solar solutions available for residential use are expensive.

I'm all for finding ways to make us less dependent on fossil fuels. I see no disadvantage to switching over to renewable energy forms. Home heating and cooling should be first as those uses do not require "portability" (as would be needed for motor vehicles).

Govt has had many years (since Carter) to implement methods of making the US less dependent on fossil fuel. Millions of dollars (hundreds of millions?) spent on an agency that was supposed to do that. What have they accomplished? What faith can we place govt to do any better with managing global climate change?

dnf777
02-28-2010, 09:29 AM
[QUOTEIf someone questions wants to suggest that CO2 concentrations have not risen to levels not seen in thousands of years then I will post the fact

what caused it to rise a thousand years ago?

P[/QUOTE]

Volcanic eruptions could be the cause. Large meteorite? If you're truly curious, there's a whole world of research out there. Its not so much the levels, but the RATE OF CHANGE that is unnatural. Can you explain that? I can't. But I'm not willing to disregard the warnings of the majority of climatologists because of a disingenuous politician and a lot of political rhetoric.

If I could find the numerous threads from before, I'd cut and paste what I said.....to discount global warming entirely is just as foolish as to believe everything Al Gore says about it.... Both sides in that argument are politicians and profiteers....not scientists.

Pete
02-28-2010, 10:16 AM
[QUOTE]Its not so much the levels, but the RATE OF CHANGE that is unnatural. Can you explain that? I can't.
QUOTE]

I cant explain much of anything. And I know about as much about global warming as you do.
But I do know according to scientific charts ,climate has been changing by increase and decrease of temperature fluxuations since the beggining of time.

Only now we have figured out who we can blame it on and look like we're smart.

I have very little trust in most science now a days because most of it is driven by money. And money corrupts.
Yesterday coffee will kill you ,,today it prevents cancer,,and tommarro it will be the major factor in global climate change.

I think new the age intellectual idiots who cry the sky is falling should fly to the sun and fix the solar flairs. I know, I know, those are our fault too.

p

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 10:30 AM
I generally stay out of anything having to do with Al Gore since he is not a scientist and adds only to the politics of global warming, not the science (much like everyone on FoxNews, and all members of the RW blogosphere). But, llest someone actually believe that he has been less than present over the last three months, this is yesterday's op ed by Gore in the NY Times:

We Can't Wish Away Climate Change February 27, 2010

"It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."


"Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century."


"But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake."


[full piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?partner=rss&emc=rss]


And, of course, as FoxNews pretends that recent snowfalls contradict evidence of warmng in some manner, we have news like this from Alaska (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1956932,00.html) where evidence suggests that satellite images have significantly understated the degree of ice loss.

He can write an article to further line his pockets but is unavailable (I mean too busy) to answer questions from the Senate.

dnf777
02-28-2010, 11:12 AM
He can write an article to further line his pockets but is unavailable (I mean too busy) to answer questions from the Senate.

Kinda like Dick Cheney and his energy policy, eh? ;-)

dnf777
02-28-2010, 11:19 AM
[QUOTE]
I have very little trust in most science now a days because most of it is driven by money. And money corrupts.
Yesterday coffee will kill you ,,today it prevents cancer,,and tommarro it will be the major factor in global climate change.
p

What you say is so true, and at the center of much of our problems. You can pick any dastardly aspect of modern existence, and with a little searching, you can find studies that will praise it's virtues. You're right. It's driven by money. Do you have any idea how much money the fast-food industry spent on lobbyists to get french fries listed as a vegetable serving? Or how much the snack food industry spent to get the health claims of olestra out in the public forum? Or that Coca-cola is currently lobbying to get the anti-oxidant anti-cancer benefits of soft-drinks touted by the FDA?

The two common threads here are 1) money corrupts, and 2) big corporations and other profiteers are behind the corruption of science.

If CNN reports that coffee prevents cancer, you can bet the effort was funded by Folgers and Maxwell House. If it reverts to causing global warming, you can bet Lipton Tea funded that effort!

YardleyLabs
02-28-2010, 11:42 AM
He can write an article to further line his pockets but is unavailable (I mean too busy) to answer questions from the Senate.
I can think of nothing that would entice any sane person to accept an invitation from Senator Inhofe. Beyond that, there is no value to pretending that science can be discussed intelligently in the context of a Senate hearing.

Uncle Bill
02-28-2010, 11:48 AM
Henry,
Your facts are useless. Global climate change deals in terms of tens of thousands of years. And we all know the Earth is only 6ooo years old! That PROVES the scientific data and, ice cores, and fossil record are all hoaxes. :rolleyes:

You're wasting your time. These are the same people who just got clobbered right between the eyes with 8 years of republican policy, are just regaining consciousness, staggering around muttering, "its all Obama's fault..."

People (sheeple) will see what they WANT to see. Believe what they WANT to believe, and discredit anything that stands in their way. Its more predictable than the sun rising in the east.


Don't you just love it when an avowed "INDEPENDANT" slips from the middle of the road, and falls in the ditch on the left side?

How much longer do you think it will take for everyone to buy into your position? NOT believe what YOU believe in, just buy into your position as an "independant".:rolleyes:

But you have to be pissed by the inability of the Obamaites, Pelositistas, and the Dingyharrymongers not passing that so-called healthcare bill. You coulda been on easy street...another 'gubmint employee'. They coulda counted you among the millions of 'new' jobs the messiah is creating.

Hang in there. Your 'independance' will soon be over. When the obsequious pathetic succeed in making an oligarchy out of a republic, you can rejoice in your part of the proceedure...your servility will be recognized.

UB

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 11:48 AM
I can think of nothing that would entice any sane person to accept an invitation from Senator Inhofe. Beyond that, there is no value to pretending that science can be discussed intelligently in the context of a Senate hearing.

Anything for that matter.

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 11:50 AM
You coulda been on easy street...another 'gubmint employee'.

UB

Methinks he already is :rolleyes:

dnf777
02-28-2010, 11:59 AM
But you have to be pissed by the inability of the Obamaites, Pelositistas, and the Dingyharrymongers not passing that so-called healthcare bill. You coulda been on easy street...another 'gubmint employee'. They coulda counted you among the millions of 'new' jobs the messiah is creating.

UB
FYI, I was a gubmint employee in the Army, making far less than i do in the private sector.

Anyone who thinks that the health bill plan will put doctors on "easy street" has just shown their TOTAL LACK OF ANY INTELLIGENT UNDERSTANDING of the health care situation. Thankyou very much for baring your ignorance. It will save me the trouble of responding more than I have!

M&K: yathinks wrong! I'm an employed physician working for the second largest international corporation in Pittsburgh, who just closed a much needed community hospital because it wasn't profitable enough or didn't fit their corporate model. Hope you or UB don't depend on a similar hospital that's in jeopardy. Otherwise, you may be wishing corporations weren't in charge of health care. I'll be just fine, wondering why I care, when I'm ok. Hey, I'm starting to sound more like a republican.....I got mine, screw those who don't! Unfortunately, I can't maintain that attitude. I see my grandparents at 90, and thier fellow "greatest generation" cohorts, who are all FDR democrats, who handed us this country and all it's bounty, only to see Reagan/Bush/Clinton unravel it all, and they deserve better than that attitude of "me me me".

Marvin S
02-28-2010, 12:00 PM
First we must have faith that the earth is truly in a long-term global warming trend, not just one of its natural short-term climate changes;

Second, we must have faith that the rise in CO2 levels is the cause;

Third, we must have faith that man has caused these disruptions of normal trends.

Only if all 3 are accurate can we have faith that we can actually impact the trend.

In the end, it all boils down to what people can afford. Oil increased in price, so people resorted to more heat pumps (electric), wood stoves, coal stoves, pellet stoves. Most could not afford changing to wind power or geothermal solutions. Even the solar solutions available for residential use are expensive.

I'm all for finding ways to make us less dependent on fossil fuels. I see no disadvantage to switching over to renewable energy forms. Home heating and cooling should be first as those uses do not require "portability" (as would be needed for motor vehicles).

Govt has had many years (since Carter) to implement methods of making the US less dependent on fossil fuel. Millions of dollars (hundreds of millions?) spent on an agency that was supposed to do that. What have they accomplished? What faith can we place govt to do any better with managing global climate change?

Good Post!

Goose
02-28-2010, 12:29 PM
Most thinking Americans know what globalwarmingclimatechange is all about. It's nothing more than leftistliberalpinkocommie twaddle used as an excuse to tax the crap out of the middle class. Like everything else this leftist government does...global warming legislation is all about taxes. They're taxing the very air you breath because some lying scientist at East Anglia University fabricated a bunch of phony information about what we're doing to poor ol' mother earth and the polar bears. Boo-freaking-hoo! The greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

It's all about higher and higher taxes so government can control your life and take your money and you leftists know it! So quit trying to impress the rest of us with phony knowledge and fake concern and keep your green and greasy hands out of my wallet.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
And you're working for no one but me.

We live in Cuba now.

Uncle Bill
02-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Most thinking Americans know what globalwarmingclimatechange is all about. It's nothing more than leftistliberalpinkocommie twaddle used as an excuse to tax the crap out of the middle class. Like everything else this leftist government does...global warming legislation is all about taxes. They're taxing the very air you breath because some lying scientist at East Anglia University fabricated a bunch of phony information about what we're doing to poor ol' mother earth and the polar bears. Boo-freaking-hoo! The greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

It's all about higher and higher taxes so government can control your life and take your money and you leftists know it! So quit trying to impress the rest of us with phony knowledge and fake concern and keep your green and greasy hands out of my wallet.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
And you're working for no one but me.

We live in Cuba now.


What Marvin said...Good Post!


UB

Uncle Bill
02-28-2010, 01:30 PM
And then the very "independant" DNF typed:

"I'm an employed physician working for the second largest international corporation in Pittsburgh, who just closed a much needed community hospital because it wasn't profitable enough or didn't fit their corporate model. Hope you or UB don't depend on a similar hospital that's in jeopardy...."


HMMM, makes me wonder how well they could have done if they didn't have the feds to contend with????


UB

huntinman
02-28-2010, 04:37 PM
I can think of nothing that would entice any sane person to accept an invitation from Senator Inhofe. Beyond that, there is no value to pretending that science can be discussed intelligently in the context of a Senate hearing.

Sort of like the beer er...healthcare summit, huh?

YardleyLabs
02-28-2010, 04:45 PM
Sort of like the beer er...healthcare summit, huh?
Actually, not even close. The fact is that if one is interested in the science, you look to scientific process to define the science and then make policies based on the results. Inhofe has zero interest in the science, just an interest in protecting his own ox from getting gored no matter what the future implication might be.

subroc
02-28-2010, 05:35 PM
Here is a real good one. This highlights the absurdity if not the corruption of it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

dnf777
02-28-2010, 06:20 PM
HMMM, makes me wonder how well they could have done if they didn't have the feds to contend with????
UB

Well, the latest medicare payment structure was passed under Bush with his republican congress. If you have a problem, its with YOUR boy. Careful loading up that cannon. It just blew up in your face.

But like I said last post; anyone who thinks healthcare reform is going to put doctors on easy street has no understanding or insight into what's going on, and isn't even an interested spectator in this game! Actually, it was under Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan that physician's pay was the highest. Us guys now are paying for all that greed. I don't blame them, it was just a reflection of the times......me me me! Wish I was working then, I'd be on "easy street" now! I took out a 30 year mortgage to pay off a house that the retired physician before me paid cash for in 1970. He took himself and about $2 million in race horses with him and retired to the Chesapeake Bay area on a new horse ranch. THAT'S easy street!

dnf777
02-28-2010, 06:24 PM
Sort of like the beer er...healthcare summit, huh?

No, like I said earlier, kind of like Dick Cheney's energy policy meetings. You know, the ones where one day he claims senatorial privilege, then the next he claims executive privilege?

I believe this last week's health care summit was fully televised, with no TelePrompTers either.

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 06:51 PM
I believe this last week's health care summit was fully televised, with no TelePrompTers either.

I believe it showed.

huntinman
02-28-2010, 07:44 PM
No, like I said earlier, kind of like Dick Cheney's energy policy meetings. You know, the ones where one day he claims senatorial privilege, then the next he claims executive privilege?

I believe this last week's health care summit was fully televised, with no TelePrompTers either.

I was referring to a room full of idiots bloviating, with no idea on how to really solve a problem. Senate hearings on global warming vs health care summit. I guess I need to talk a little slower. And I was actually responding to Yardley, not you. Same difference I guess.

YardleyLabs
02-28-2010, 07:50 PM
Here is a real good one. This highlights the absurdity if not the corruption of it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
Great. So here we have an article written by Christopher Booker with the headline:
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC

The emerging errors of the IPCC's 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental, says Christopher Booker


So who is Christopher Booker? Born in 1937, Booker did an undergraduate degree in history with no subsequent educational experience. His first job was as a joke writer and went on to more difficult assignments as Jazz critic, puzzle writer, and satirist. His forays into scientific areas have been more recent. In addition to his breathtaking journalistic investigations of global warming (where he claims to have written the skeptics' handbook), Booker is also known for his "scientific" conclusion that asbestos is not harmful and that there is no risk at all associated with second hand smoke.

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 08:09 PM
Great. So here we have an article written by Christopher Booker with the headline:
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC

The emerging errors of the IPCC's 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental, says Christopher Booker


So who is Christopher Booker? Born in 1937, Booker did an undergraduate degree in history with no subsequent educational experience. His first job was as a joke writer and went on to more difficult assignments as Jazz critic, puzzle writer, and satirist. His forays into scientific areas have been more recent. In addition to his breathtaking journalistic investigations of global warming (where he claims to have written the skeptics' handbook), Booker is also known for his "scientific" conclusion that asbestos is not harmful and that there is no risk at all associated with second hand smoke.

Well lets see... Al Gore was a senator, VP of the US and losing presidential candidate. Can't seem to find a scientific background for Algore.

YardleyLabs
02-28-2010, 08:11 PM
Well lets see... Al Gore was a senator, VP of the US and losing presidential candidate. Can't seem to find a scientific background for Algore.
And, if you notice, I say that I do not accept Gore as an authority for just that reason. That said, he has spent a lot more time studying the issues that Booker who is a johnny come lately on issues of the environment.

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2010, 08:29 PM
And, if you notice, I say that I do not accept Gore as an authority for just that reason. That said, he has spent a lot more time studying the issues that Booker who is a johnny come lately on issues of the environment.

I think he has spent more time studying the angles than the issues.

zeus3925
02-28-2010, 08:34 PM
How in the H--L did climate change ever become a Lib vs. Con. battle?

Koolaid
02-28-2010, 08:38 PM
How in the H--L did climate change ever become a Lib vs. Con. battle?

Because when you suck hole to the religious right, science becomes the enemy.

subroc
02-28-2010, 09:11 PM
How in the H--L did climate change ever become a Lib vs. Con. battle?

when the libs hitched their view of being for the environment exclusivly to the man caused global warming band wagon.

subroc
02-28-2010, 09:27 PM
Great. So here we have an article written by Christopher Booker with the headline:
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC

The emerging errors of the IPCC's 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental, says Christopher Booker


So who is Christopher Booker? Born in 1937, Booker did an undergraduate degree in history with no subsequent educational experience. His first job was as a joke writer and went on to more difficult assignments as Jazz critic, puzzle writer, and satirist. His forays into scientific areas have been more recent. In addition to his breathtaking journalistic investigations of global warming (where he claims to have written the skeptics' handbook), Booker is also known for his "scientific" conclusion that asbestos is not harmful and that there is no risk at all associated with second hand smoke.

It isn't scientific research, it is an expose' article. You know, an article that exposes corruption and lays out a step-by-step case, or points out significant irregularities and absurdities, virtually all have been proven and are not up for debate really. This is “settled corruption.”

Henry V
02-28-2010, 11:26 PM
Apparently Vice-President Gore is back.

see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?hp

or a summary at: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/gore_new_york_times_op-ed/

also, a great article at: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/scientists_ill-equipped_to_deal_with_war_on_climate_science_commu nity/

and a great running series of articles on the global warming denial machine at: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/C25/

subroc
03-01-2010, 03:09 AM
Henry V

That left wing organization might want to paint the picture of being persecuted for being a climate scientist, but they are less than honest. They are and should be persecuted and prosecuted for dishonesty.

If this science was worthy of its place in the scientific community as a science, its leading experts wouldn’t have had he need to fudge data (the Mann hockey stick), actually hiding data, would have been more open with their research and clearly wouldn’t have needed to present wild and outlandish claims such as the oceans will rise and drown Florida. The issue itself should have been able to stand on its own. Their need and desire to present a picture of disaster to advance their agendas instead of just presenting the honest results of their scientific research is criminal.

http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/manns-hockey-stick.gif (http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/manns-hockey-stick.gif)


http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/wp-content/gallery/january-2009-gallery/un-future-of-florida2.jpg (http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/wp-content/gallery/january-2009-gallery/un-future-of-florida2.jpg)

Hew
03-01-2010, 06:00 AM
How in the H--L did climate change ever become a Lib vs. Con. battle?
When global warming became just another means to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

Koolaid
03-01-2010, 06:09 AM
When global warming became just another means to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

How does it even do that? By speeding up the switch away from fossil fuels? You know the thing that is finite and is gonna have to be replaced relatively soon anyways?

Hew
03-01-2010, 06:13 AM
M&K: yathinks wrong! I'm an employed physician working for the second largest international corporation in Pittsburgh, who just closed a much needed community hospital because it wasn't profitable enough or didn't fit their corporate model. Hope you or UB don't depend on a similar hospital that's in jeopardy. Otherwise, you may be wishing corporations weren't in charge of health care.
Are you talking about UPMC Braddock that closed last month? Probably not, because UPMC Braddock doesn't come close to fitting what you described above:



Admissions at the struggling hospital have “declined significantly in the past several years,” according to a statement by UPMC. Between 2004 and 2007, admissions fell by more than 21 percent and were projected to decline further next year. In addition, four out of five Braddock area residents have been going to facilities other than UPMC Braddock for inpatient care.

The average daily census at the 123-bed hospital has been 51, much less than what’s needed for financial viability, Wood said, but all of the hospital’s key outpatient programs will continue. http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2009/10/12/daily39.html


"Much needed," eh? And it wasn't that they weren't profitable enough...they weren't profitable at all.



"UPMC acquired Braddock Medical Center in 1996 and invested more than $60 million into the facility. Despite the investments and a number of outreach and marketing initiatives, UPMC has absorbed nearly $27 million in operating losses over the past six years and projects to lose another $50 million during the next five to six years."

Hew
03-01-2010, 06:18 AM
How does it even do that? By speeding up the switch away from fossil fuels? You know the thing that is finite and is gonna have to be replaced relatively soon anyways?
The sun if finite. Should we start planning now for when it burns out?

By the way, from which model of governance do you think viable, alternative sources of energy are most likely to come from...market-based capitalism or socialist utopias?

dnf777
03-01-2010, 06:27 AM
Are you talking about UPMC Braddock that closed last month? Probably not, because UPMC Braddock doesn't come close to fitting what you described above:



"Much needed," eh? And it wasn't that they weren't profitable enough...they weren't profitable at all.

Hew, I believe I included "not profitable enough" in my line. Then you supported that, and said it doesn't fit??

Of course, UPMC will make their case, as they should, but it may not reflect the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, eh? Perhaps that community doesn't need a full scale hospital, but could it not have been scaled down to a profitable size? And obviously, the hospital was doing business and deemed necessary when UPMC shucked out $60 million for it a few years ago.

And BTW, thanks for the insider tip in your other thread. I'm dumping my Coppertone stock today!

badbullgator
03-01-2010, 06:53 AM
Henry V

That left wing organization might want to paint the picture of being persecuted for being a climate scientist, but they are less than honest. They are and should be persecuted and prosecuted for dishonesty.

If this science was worthy of its place in the scientific community as a science, its leading experts wouldn’t have had he need to fudge data (the Mann hockey stick), actually hiding data, would have been more open with their research and clearly wouldn’t have needed to present wild and outlandish claims such as the oceans will rise and drown Florida. The issue itself should have been able to stand on its own. Their need and desire to present a picture of disaster to advance their agendas instead of just presenting the honest results of their scientific research is criminal.

http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/manns-hockey-stick.gif


http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/wp-content/gallery/january-2009-gallery/un-future-of-florida2.jpg


Hey if Florida ends up looking like that I am happy....Miami...no loss and think how much better the fishing will be in the already great keys when they are underwater. Man I bet all those hotels will hold some grouper. It also looks like I will have much easier access to the gulf, maybe I should start getting my dock permits now. I wonder what they would think if I built a dock in my yard next week.

BTW they can predict this but they can't track a hurricane for anything even 3 days out....I am sure they are very accurate on something many years inthe future. Maybe these guys should hit the stock market with all their computer models.....

Koolaid
03-01-2010, 06:55 AM
The sun if finite. Should we start planning now for when it burns out?

By the way, from which model of governance do you think viable, alternative sources of energy are most likely to come from...market-based capitalism or socialist utopias?

Yes because the scale of the sun burning out and running out of fossil fuels is even comparable.

Using wind power as an example of alternative energy...The socialist EU are currently leading in it's production.

But I mean this IS the greatest country in the world, so why change

badbullgator
03-01-2010, 07:23 AM
Yes because the scale of the sun burning out and running out of fossil fuels is even comparable.

Using wind power as an example of alternative energy...The socialist EU are currently leading in it's production.

But I mean this IS the greatest country in the world, so why change


But I thought you were Canadian....... You worry about your socialist conutry thanks

Koolaid
03-01-2010, 07:26 AM
My puppy gets up early and I have nothing better to do.
I don't have to work or do anything, I just leach off the haves.
God Bless Socialism

huntinman
03-01-2010, 07:27 AM
But I thought you were Canadian....... You worry about your socialist conutry thanks

Maybe he is a Canadian wannabe... sort of like all the lefties who were going to move up there if GWB got elected but never did...

Koolaid
03-01-2010, 07:27 AM
Also my father is American...and I kind of like him

Hew
03-01-2010, 07:39 AM
Using wind power as an example of alternative energy...The socialist EU are currently leading in it's production. There's not a country on this planet that produces more electricity from wind than the United States. And yet with all that production, it's barely a blip in meeting our overall requirements. Wind power is barely a blip in your socialist heaven's (EU) overall energy requirements as well. I said a VIABLE alternative energy source. Wind isn't viable, and it's a waste of resources to persue it further. The same type of feel-good energy policy is what has brought us the stupidity of ethanol mandates, mandated by the govt. and not the market, that are devastating wetlands across North America.
..........

Buzz
03-01-2010, 08:27 AM
There's not a country on this planet that produces more electricity from wind than the United States. And yet with all that production, it's barely a blip in meeting our overall requirements. Wind power is barely a blip in your socialist heaven's (EU) overall energy requirements as well. I said a VIABLE alternative energy source. Wind isn't viable, and it's a waste of resources to persue it further. The same type of feel-good energy policy is what has brought us the stupidity of ethanol mandates, mandated by the govt. and not the market, that are devastating wetlands across North America.



Wind generation is not viable? Maybe without smart grid technologies. What makes you such an expert and were did you get your information, FOX News and Sara Palin?

I get my information on the topic here:

http://www.ieee-pes.org/publications/ieee-power-energy-magazine

I imagine they are a bunch of wild eyed flaming liberals.

Koolaid
03-01-2010, 08:49 AM
I really don't get how you can ignore a finite resource dwindling and just wait for it to fail before you look into other venues.

road kill
03-01-2010, 09:24 AM
Yes because the scale of the sun burning out and running out of fossil fuels is even comparable.

Using wind power as an example of alternative energy...The socialist EU are currently leading in it's production.

But I mean this IS the greatest country in the world, so why change
They also lead in Nuclear Generated power.....Let's GO!!!!!:D




rk

Goose
03-01-2010, 09:31 AM
Can you pick out the one quote among the five that was made by our High Priest, Algore?

1) "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

2) "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."

3) "Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature."

4) "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing our ecosystems."

5) "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Choose quickly because we've only got 1766 days before global warming becomes irreversable. The planet has a fever:)

M&K's Retrievers
03-01-2010, 09:33 AM
.

Using wind power as an example of alternative energy...The socialist EU are currently leading in it's production.



Perhaps T Boone should circle DC with his wind turbans.There is no lack of wind from those blowhards.

Buzz
03-01-2010, 09:46 AM
They also lead in Nuclear Generated power.....Let's GO!!!!!:D




rk


I'm 100% with you on that one.

Leddyman
03-01-2010, 09:59 AM
Can you pick out the one quote among the five that was made by our High Priest, Algore?

1) "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

2) "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."

3) "Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature."

4) "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing our ecosystems."

5) "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Choose quickly because we've only got 1766 days before global warming becomes irreversable. The planet has a fever:)


I'm going with F...All of the above.

Goose
03-01-2010, 10:12 AM
I'm going with F...All of the above.

Nope...he only gets credit for one of them.

Here's another of my favorite quotes:

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

Or this one,

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil."

Aren't they great!

Hew
03-01-2010, 10:26 AM
Wind generation is not viable? Maybe without smart grid technologies. What makes you such an expert and were did you get your information, FOX News and Sara Palin? Caucasian, please. Just last week you cut-n-pasted some swill verbatim right off of Daily Kos (and tried to hide it by not attributing it). We could power five smart grids from the reflection off your glass house.

But back to your other point...the US produces more wind energy than any other country and it still amounts to a fraction of a percent of our total needs. Half of California would need to be covered with windmills before it put a dent in the overall demand. Does that sound reasonable or feasible? Does it sound, you know, VIABLE?

I get my information on the topic here:

http://www.ieee-pes.org/publications/ieee-power-energy-magazine

I imagine they are a bunch of wild eyed flaming liberals. That's nice, but I'm not seeing any linked articles that contend wind power is The Way. From everything I've read about wind, it's a GD boondoggle and all bets on it are hedged on the presumption that the efficiency will improve to make it worthwhile.
...........

Hew
03-01-2010, 10:36 AM
I really don't get how you can ignore a finite resource dwindling and just wait for it to fail before you look into other venues.
I'm not contending that we ignore other venues.

As others have said, nuclear power would be just dandy. If, as Obama seems to be contending, the economy needs an infusion of govt. money to create jobs, then he ought to kill two birds with one stone and use the money to fund the construction of nuke plants all over the country.

Buzz
03-01-2010, 11:34 AM
That's nice, but I'm not seeing any linked articles that contend wind power is The Way. From everything I've read about wind, it's a GD boondoggle and all bets on it are hedged on the presumption that the efficiency will improve to make it worthwhile.

Sorry can't post articles due to this:


Copyright 2009 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.

Here is a link to an issue that deals extensively with wind power issues, you can check it out, if you're a member of IEEE Power & Energy Society... ;-) You can be an associate member, even if you don't know crap about electrical engineering.

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2009/nov/index.html

I don't know what your sources are, but as a Power Engineer, I tend to restrict my reading to authors who are actively working within the Utility Industry.

Here is an excerpt from an early 2009 article:



A Mighty Wind

March/April 2009

J. Charles Smith, Robert Thresher, Robert Zavadil, Edgar DeMeo, Richard Piwko, Bernhard Ernst, and Thomas Ackermann



© photodisc

In the spring of 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy released a report titled “20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply.” The report examined a scenario for producing 20% of the country's electrical energy supply from domestic wind energy resources, a level that has already been reached in some parts of Europe. While installing 300 GW of wind energy by 2030 would require changes to traditional business practices, the scenario was found to be feasible. By the fall of 2008, the United States had surpassed 20,000 MW of installed wind power capacity, and the country has installed as much wind capacity in the last two years as it did in the previous two decades. Even though wind still supplies less than 2% of U.S. electrical energy, there is a strong sense of optimism and excitement associated with wind turbine technology that has not been seen in the electric power business for quite a while.

Wind turbine technology has evolved rapidly over the last 20 years, allowing for the rapid growth of the industry that we are now witnessing. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has recognized the growing importance of this new source of energy to the power system. In response, it has established the Integrating Variable Generation Task Force (IVGTF) to examine the changes that will be required to the planning and operation of the system, and the associated standards, to accommodate this new source.

Wind plants are different from conventional generation plants in that their fuel supply is neither steady nor controllable, and as a result, they exhibit greater uncertainty and variability in their output. But the current power system also exhibits uncertainty and variability in both the loads and the generation sources, so the difference is in degree only. The current power system was designed and built to deal with variability and uncertainty. Much of what we know about the future impact of high penetrations of wind has been gleaned from wind integration studies performed by utilities and consultants around the world.

There is also a growing realization that significantly increased penetrations of wind power will not be realized without a correspondingly significant increase in the expansion of the electric transmission infrastructure. The current infrastructure is simply inadequate to deliver the large amounts of wind energy available from remote locations to the major load centers, as recognized in NERC's “2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment” released in October. But now that the problem has been recognized, a number of new approaches and creative solutions are being explored. These include the simple realization that transmission must be included with any new renewable portfolio standard goals in order for them to be realized and the identification of competitive renewable energy zones (CREZ) and their associated transmission corridors. The increased amount of transmission will enable the integrated operation of systems across broader geographical areas, which in turn will enable more efficient operation of broader, deeper, and better-functioning wholesale electricity markets.

To accommodate the uncertainty associated with this new resource, sophisticated wind-plant-output forecasting techniques based on numerical weather prediction models are being implemented. While they are just beginning to be used in North America as the number of wind plants increases, they have been used for more than a decade in Europe. While the United States reached 20,000 MW of wind capacity by the fall of 2008, the remaining world total had exceeded 80,000 MW, most of which was located in Europe. Looking at wind power involves a closer examination of turbine technology, wind plant interconnection and integration, transmission, and forecasting—from both a North American and European perspective. The basis of this examination is the November/December 2007 issue of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, whose theme centered on the application of wind power, a subject that will be updated again in the November/December 2009 issue.


Conclusion

Developments in the world of wind continue to happen at record speed. The world as a whole is in the midst of grappling with an epochal transition from a system dominated by fossil and nuclear fuel to one that relies much more heavily on renewable energy. No technology breakthroughs are required for the United States to achieve the scenario of 20% of electricity from wind by 2030. Instead, many evolutionary steps executed with technical skill, which can cumulatively result in a 30–40% improvement in the cost effectiveness of wind technology over the next few decades, are expected to occur.

The IEEE PES is expanding its presence and activities in this increasingly significant commercial arena, and the prospects for building and operating a robust power system that can manage the variability and uncertainty associated with the 20% wind scenario are looking increasingly bright. Wind forecasting is playing an increasingly critical role in the operation of power systems with a high share of wind generation. The stalemate in transmission development is coming to an end, with a new transmission planning paradigm being implemented. Several major projects have been initiated, and progress is accelerating across the country.

The Europeans are leading the way with increasingly sophisticated wind power plant operational capabilities, demonstrating the ability of a wind power plant to provide spinning reserves and frequency responsive governor action. And the small country of Denmark has embarked upon an ambitious course toward providing 50% of its total primary energy needs from renewables, primarily wind power, by 2025. In 2030, it will be interesting to look back and judge the ambition of the goals we are setting for ourselves now.


For Further Reading

Special Issue on Wind Integration, IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 22–103, Nov./Dec. 2007.

R. Wiser and M. Bolinger. (2008, May). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007. [Online]. Available: www.osti.gov/bridge

N. W. Miller, K. Clark, and G. A. Jordan, “Planning and operating power systems with a high percentage of wind generation: Taking advantage of the latest wind plant controls,” in Proc. AWEA WindPower, 2007.

2006 Minnesota Wind Integration Study, vols. 1 and 2. EnerNex Corp. and Windlogics Inc., for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, St. Paul, MN, Nov. 30, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.puc.state.mn.us/docs

Electric Reliability Council of Texas. (2006). Analysis of transmission alternatives for competitive renewable energy zones in Texas [Online]. Available: http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2006/ATTCH_A_CREZ_Analysis_Report.pdf

M. Lange, U. Focken, R. Meyer, M. Denhardt, B. Ernst, and F. Berster, “Optimal combination of different numerical weather models for improved wind power predictions,” in Proc. 6th Int. Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, Delft, 2006 [Online]. Available: http://www.windintegrationworkshop.org

T. Ackermann, Ed., Wind Power in Power Systems. New York: Wiley, 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.windpowerinpowersystems.info

Biographies

J. Charles Smith is executive director of the Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG) in Reston, Virginia.

Robert Thresher is a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.

Robert Zavadil is vice president and principal consultant with EnerNex Corporation in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Edgar DeMeo is president of Renewable Energy Consulting Services in Palo Alto, California.

Richard Piwko is director of energy consulting with GE Energy in Schenectady, New York.

Bernhard Ernst is with RWE Transportnetz Strom GmbH (RWE TSO) in Brauwiler, Germany.

Thomas Ackermann is chief executive officer of Energynautics GmbH in Langen, Germany.

YardleyLabs
03-01-2010, 12:12 PM
Can you pick out the one quote among the five that was made by our High Priest, Algore?

1) "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

2) "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."

3) "Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature."

4) "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing our ecosystems."

5) "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Choose quickly because we've only got 1766 days before global warming becomes irreversable. The planet has a fever:)
Well, we know it's not the first one. That was attributed to Maurice Strongs and is routinely quoted in the manner that you have here based on a broadcast by Rush limbaugh. Of course, the original quote came from a magazine interview where Strong was describing a hypothetical conspiracy novel that he would like to write, not from some cabalistic recommendation he was making.

The second is attrubted to Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician, author and lecturer whose main focus is opposition to nuclear energy. She actually is known for attacking global warming activists since some favor nuclear energy because of its relatively small carbon footprint.

The third quote is the one attributed to Gore from his book "Earth in the Balance". Of course, the only problem is that the "quote" is a carefully edited, out of sequence citation of a much longer statement. The actual page of the book containing the "quote" is at http://books.google.com/books?id=QDbNhec98iEC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=gore+%22Our+insatiable+drive+to+rummage+deep+be neath+the+surface+of+the+earth%22&source=bl&ots=cct8wlLfhc&sig=jigZdPf2ewd674uqJSaAfuangvs&hl=en&ei=T_qLS6PWJIfClwfv4fiuDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false. The full quote would be:

"Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth, remove all of the coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels we can find, then burn them as quickly as they are found -- in the process filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants -- is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world. [Nature] Obviously, this is still a pretty harsh statement, but gives a little more context to the misquote used on conservative blogs.

Number 4 is from John Davis, former editor of Earth First Journal, voice of a radical environmental group that he later left.

Number 5 is attributed (by conservative blogs) to former Senator Tim Wirth. However, as with most of these quotes, there is no real source cited to verify if the quote is taken in context or, like the Gore quote, artfully edited to support the biases of the quoters.

Marvin S
03-01-2010, 12:29 PM
A couple of recent articles - From Scientific American, March 2010 "The Moon That Would Be A Planet" about Titan, Saturn's largest natural satellite with it's earth like features.

& the writeup on the fault in Chile - the two plates that are overlapping each other are doing so at the rate of 3 1/2 inches per year. Anyone care to compute the ft/lbs of energy required to accomplish that? Having a little experience with rockburst's in mines, what happened in Chile is very significant.

I only bring these up as I believe what's happening in GW is a little like urinating into the wind, it's gonna end up all over us with precious little to show for the effort, except a much lighter wallet.

IMO, we need to do those cost effective little things we can, recognizing that effort is going to be insignificant compared to what nature is predestined to create.

Hew
03-01-2010, 12:41 PM
Biographies

J. Charles Smith is executive director of the Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG) in Reston, Virginia.

Robert Thresher is a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.

Robert Zavadil is vice president and principal consultant with EnerNex Corporation in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Edgar DeMeo is president of Renewable Energy Consulting Services in Palo Alto, California.

Richard Piwko is director of energy consulting with GE Energy in Schenectady, New York.

Bernhard Ernst is with RWE Transportnetz Strom GmbH (RWE TSO) in Brauwiler, Germany.

Thomas Ackermann is chief executive officer of Energynautics GmbH in Langen, Germany.

Wow. That's amazing. A bunch of wind energy consultants agree that wind energy might be able to provide 20% of our energy needs in 20 years. How hard would you laugh if I copied a portion of an article touting the future of fossil fuels that was written by fossil fuel consultants? Pretty hard I'm guessing.

Buzz
03-01-2010, 01:27 PM
Wow. That's amazing. A bunch of wind energy consultants agree that wind energy might be able to provide 20% of our energy needs in 20 years. How hard would you laugh if I copied a portion of an article touting the future of fossil fuels that was written by fossil fuel consultants? Pretty hard I'm guessing.


If they were talking about the future of non-fossil fuel energy sources, yes I would laugh. If they were talking about their own industry, it depends.

Guess who publishes articles in industry professional journals and magazines. Industry experts possibly?

Hew
03-01-2010, 03:01 PM
Guess who publishes articles in industry professional journals and magazines. Industry experts possibly?
Touche. ;-)

I was a relative ham and egger in the scientific field I was once involved in and even I had an article published in an industry journal and presented a paper at a national convention. That didn't make me an expert. Every writer has an axe to grind and every publisher needs to fill column space.

PS...I didn't see any PhD's or P.E.'s behind any of those expert's names in your article. Those guys may or may not be the tops in their field...I wouldn't know. But I do know that just because they got their article published in a trade mag doesn't make them correct or give them extra validation.

Koolaid
03-01-2010, 04:57 PM
I'm not contending that we ignore other venues.

As others have said, nuclear power would be just dandy. If, as Obama seems to be contending, the economy needs an infusion of govt. money to create jobs, then he ought to kill two birds with one stone and use the money to fund the construction of nuke plants all over the country.

The sun comment kind of made it seem like you were suggesting we should.

Also I double checked my facts, the EU, mostly Germany were higher wind producers...in 2005...current data does put the US slightly ahead of Germany.

I actually 100% agree with the nuclear comment. No one is suggesting wind is the only option. In the end it will have to be a collaboration of several options. The bulk load will have to be nuclear fission until/if fusion ever becomes viable.

Buzz
03-01-2010, 07:26 PM
In the end it will have to be a collaboration of several options. The bulk load will have to be nuclear fission until/if fusion ever becomes viable.

We have a winner. When I was at Siemens they were actually looking at installations that utilized a mix, solar, fuel cells, wind, natural gas, the mix depending on the location. I don't know if they have gone anywhere with that concept since. I would guess not.

I view energy as one of our top national security concerns. Ignoring alternatives is just asking for it.