Just how many billions does Gore stand to gain?

-Enough wind blows through the Midwest to meet 100% of the U.S. electricity demand.

Shove it. Let's destroy what is left of the tall grass great plains ecosystem. NOT.

I guess prairie chickens are not as cute as polar bears.

Windmills (they are not turbines) do create industrial pollution and fragment what is left of the short and tall grass prairie ecosystem thus destroying them.

I guess with Gore some ecosystems are more equal than others.

To test Gore's hypothesis, lets turn off all CO2 emitters for a couple of months, and see how well it works out.

Ladies and gentlemen,

"We�re burning (oil) in ways that destroy the planet."

Destroying the planet? Where?

"Some" scientists say that there is a 75% "chance" of the nothern ice cap disappearing within 5 years during the summer months.

- Pure speculative fear mongering. There is more ice now than at this time during 2005, 2006 and 2007.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

"27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an *energy tsunami* that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil."

- No kidding? How profound! This is why we need to drill for more oil here. If only Reid, Pelosi and other wackos would get out of the way.

I'm all for renewable energy. But Gore is looking to profit from these "offsets". He wants to tax fuel BEFORE you you burn it and AFTER you burn it. Double taxation.

Tax, tax, tax - the Democrat answer for everything. Just throw more money at it. That will solve the problem and help the economy, right?

Our over-reliance started when we listened to the green freaks and stopped producing our own. Once we had to start buying most of it - from countries that have little or no pollution laws - we became over-reliant. (that does not include Canada our #1 source)

The greenies keep saying we can go green faster than we can punch holes in the ground. The people that really know about that say there's no way and it's a lie.

I hope Al Gore isn't blaming the bad economy, problems with home mortgages, and job outsourcing on carbon-based fuels. The true causes of these are some carbon-based life-forms. Dependence on foreign oil is a problem, but the causes of the other problems is closer to home. More bad ideas that seemed to be a good idea at the time. Let's hope the cure isn't another bad idea that seems like a good idea at the time.

Maybe he can phase out of blaming everything on CO2 before the people wake up that what he said before wasn't true. This new cause makes more sense, although I'll believe it when I see it.

Couple things right off...
1. Sci Am last year had a great article advocating a complete national switch to solar power. This well researched, scientific based article conceded that many trillion of $ and several decades would be requred. Not the simple ridiculous lower cost faster timescale proposed by Gore. Does he read the literature?
2. Gore does not sufficicntly address the problem of wind and solar in that it is not always available when or where you need the power. A huge power transmission upgrade would be needed to distribute this power. Storage of peak power is a problem.
3. It is beyond irresponsible to ignore 21st century nuclear fission technology. This is where advocates such as Gore reveal their ideological bias and lose and credibility. If the CO2 crisis is SO bad (I disagree) then those concerned should vigorously embrace clean, 21st century nuclear fission technology as part of the solution.

So yet again we get a polemic short on facts and long on beautiful sounding "goals". I'll leave the economy destroying tax plan comments for later.

It always amazes me that people like Gore who knows so little about the energy markets gets all this free publicity for his fantasy solutions while others who offer up pragmatic, realistic goals for our energy security and future are rarely given a voice.

I agree!

I like some of his recommendations, but as a meteorologist he turned me off pretty quickly by attempting (once again) to relate tornadoes and "bigger downpours" to Climate Change. The comment about lightning was interesting - I'm going to run that by some experts and post a response on my blog next week.

http://chizumatic.mee.nu/ghosts_of_my_past

This link by Steven Den Beste sums up my objections to the so-call clean alternative energy. There is only one at the present that can be in wide-spread usage and that is Nuclear Fission power plants which the Greens are dead set against and not mentioned by Gore. Fusion could be the next when the breakthfough comes about.

Clean energy he mentioned are solar, unlikely at the moment because of the capacity limitations of silicon plants to produce that kind of area required and still supply the electronic industries at the price quoted by Gore. The area covered by these solar cells will create a micro-climate by itself. Wind farms? Too intermittant and only available in specific location, similar to hydro and geothermal power generation, and what about the large number of birds killed by these windmills? Geothermal plants produces toxic waste water at certain sources and corrodes the machinery.

So basically it is a choose your poison type of proposal.

Here's a challenge for Gore: practice what you preach.

Reply: From what I read, He is doing that now.

Whatever the reason for Gore's hanging chad debacle, I still thank God that Gore was sent on down the road by the American people.

The following link is a good commentary, but the comments and remarks that proceed it are even more telling: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/07/17/voinovich-finds-gores-energy-speech-ridiculous/

I believe that all that can be said about Al Gore has about been said. This man as well as other AGW proponents are nothing more than scare-mongers capitalizing upon the scare.

Some wisdom for the masses (I am sure you all know who penned this): I said there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. For example, if my neighbour hath a mind to my cow, he hires a lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my right, it being against the rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this case, I who am the true owner lie under two great disadvantages. First; my lawyer, being practised almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would be an advocate for justice, which as an office unnatural, he always attempts with great awkwardness, if not with ill-will. The second disadvantage is, that my lawyer must proceed with great caution, or else he will be reprimanded by the Judges, and abhorred by his brethren, as one who would lessen the practice of the law. And therefore I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is to gain over my adversary's lawyer with a double fee, who will then betray his client by insinuating that he hath justice on his side. The second way is for my lawyer to make my cause appear as unjust as he can, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary; and this if it be skilfully done will certainly bespeak the favour of the Bench.

Now, your Honour is to know that these Judges are persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most dextrous lawyers who are grown old or lazy, and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I have known several of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than injure the Faculty by doing anything unbecoming their nature or their office.

It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the Judges never fail of directing accordingly.

In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause; but are loud, violent and tedious in dwelling upon all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or title my adversary hath to my cow, but whether the said cow were red or black, her horns long or short; whether the field I graze her in be round or square, whether she were milked at home or abroad, what diseases she is subject to, and the like; after which they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, or thirty years come to an issue.

It is likewise to be observed that this society hath a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will take thirty years to decide whether the field, left me by my ancestors for six generations, belong to me or to a stranger three hundred miles off.

In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state the method is much more short and commendable: the Judge first sends to sound the disposition of those in power, after which he can easily hang or save the criminal, strictly preserving all the forms of law.

Here my master, interposing, said it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge. In answer to which, I assured his Honour, that in all points out of their own trade they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse, as in that of their own profession.....

of the above, um....Gore comes to mind....Hansen...others....they fit the above mould quite nicely........ and they also ain't got no clothes.......

I have to step out of my attempt at being civil for this one. His entire speech is conjecture based upon conjecture.

"Our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it?"

No, but the weirdoes we keep having to choose from in this crap Two-party system we have sure are.

Folks, hold on to your money, these jerks (Democratic and Republican leaders) are going to continue to invent ways to separate you from it.

I do like Gore's idea of reducing, if not eliminating, payroll taxes, but his carbon tax idea will be laughed at within a year since CO2 as a contributor to GW will be found to be false.

I'm Super Serial!

Steve

Gore supports a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes

I like that idea, because I ride a bicycle. In fact, they should eliminate payroll taxes completely!

I've always been in support of covering eastern Colorado with windmills. It would improve the scenery, and possibly keep the farmers from wasting water growing food for cows. There is a huge solar power plant down near Alamosa Colorado that I am impressed with too.

It is unfortunate that Gore is unable to present these ideas without stupidity like "we can do it in ten years." It destroys the credibility of serious environmentalists.

1. why now al? when you and bill took ove the plate was set pretty good for you. you did nothing but bask in the glory afforded you by
13-20 dollar a barrel oil. you did nothing to
secure that for the future. you did not call for
developing alternatives. as i understand it you did set up some sort of carbon trading scheme wherby cos who cant meet mandated emissions can buy credits from those who met or beat theirs.
result instead of govt getting fines from procrastinator that money goes to someone else.
you ending uo making commissions on the traded contracts.

2 tornados-i doubt theres more today than 45 years ago when i lived in ohio-today more people live in tornado areas and the meteorolgical technology has gotten to the point where we know where every one is including remote areas that we wouldnt have known about 40 years ago

3 california fires i live in ca fires happen every year some years worse than others. at this time of year fires and santa ana wind occur. encroachin development is bad news good nes scenario. bad news developments are now in fire areas good news means to fight those fires is now closer and quicker to dispel them but still you are occasionally going to have fires like the oakland hill and san diego cty fires
this years fires are mostly in rural areas no doing a lot of harm but difficult to put out since fire fighting resources have to be brought in

4 jack mclaughlin in aprevious post comments on the enormity of your challenge how can you even compare putting 2 men on the moon to transforming the energy needs of 300,000,000 people

5 once again you were serving the people for 32 years now all of the sudden your on this mission
as i see it nuclear power and fossil fuels will be looked back in history as ages. their use is only temporary until and your are right solar power wind power etc are developed to handle a mass scale we need to have more nuclear power plant so that oil is only needed for transportational purpose ie dont burn oil to provide power to a plug to charge and electric car

6 i wish you and all your energy guzzling friends would practice what you preach and quit talking buy offsets for your excessive use-it makes you look bad

Great idea, but we should use this technology to augment, not replace.

On a side note, I would install solar panels and a small windmill if I had the money. Plus any excess generated is just passed down the line and the electric company has to pay me for the excess I generate.

Al Gore, politician and owner of one of America's largest carbon footprints, simply isn't credible.

I can hear the PH and oiz's heads exploding. Algore (btw- Gore has lost a lot of weight, turned his Nashville house into a energy conservation showcase and mostly flies commercial jets)

PH actually got the first comment in on dot earth on the NY Times. Proves he needs to get out more in the Colorado sun (How is the weather, PH?)

Really -- Climate change / chaos or not, the faster we get off foreign fossil fuels the better. Every president has made it a goal -- and all have failed. Now we have a vision for a renewed America. And it would cost less than the war in Iraq.

Let's stop sending 500 or 600 or 700 Billion dollars a year overseas ("the foreign tax at the pump") and use it to revitalize American manufacturing.

How hard would it be to turn Ford factories in Ohio or Indiana into a wind turbine plant? Sheet metal, alternators, etc.

And I hope Gore and his mega-capitalist friends at Kliner-Perkins make a billion dollars.

Great American Capitalist vision for dealing with climate change, global warming and accounts deficits!

You know the best thing we as a nation could do, is to turn our backs to AL Gore and jump off his band wagon.

Al Gore -
" I don�t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. "

I for one don't ascribe to his gloom and doom. The major causes of our economic ills is 1) a devalued dollar and the drive by the eco-nazis to drive up the cost of power so we use less. (Well becuase they know better than us, and well they said we need to) Great, let's lower our standard of living and impoverish ourselves so Al Gore can save us? Not too smart. The reality is Al Gore and his ilk get richer and the rest of us get poorer. And he complains about the rich get richer and the poor getting poorer.

That is just sickening.

Let see, rates for electricity are increasing and the cost of gas is increasing. The people who need to be energy efficient can't be. The money that could be used to buy a more efficient car is being squandered on artificially high energy cost. Al Gore and his ilk are creating problems. Not only are the poor paying more energy, since the meager financial resources that could be and should be used to reduce their carbon emmissions is literally going out the tailpipe, buying the newer more efficient car slipped from reality. It is almost like the policies add to global warming.

Incredible

I'll probably get bashed for saying this, but I thought it was a pretty good speech. It was sensible and motivational. I agree with you Brett, this is something that we should do. Regardless of climate change, IMHO. Being independent of OPEC oil would do great things for this country.

I must make this statement also, I am not a big fan of Al Gore - but this is a step in the right direction - as far as energy policy. I'm not a dyed in the wool greeny either. I just don't like being held hostage by Iran and Venezuela.

On the other hand, the comments about Artic ice being gone in 5 years, that may be a stretch. And it only makes sense to me that if it is snowing more in Greenland's interior, that the Jacobshavn glacier will be moving faster. I also think that he left out an important piece of the energy puzzle - I think we need to include nuclear in any transition from oil.

I agree with many here, who say that we are not going to replace all of our coal fired power plants with windmills and solar panels. It would make a dent, but you need nuclear as well, to be able to replace coal and natural gas.

I also agree with many that we need oil - too many important things are made from it. But we must at some point, figure out a way to be energy independent. We are the United States! We can do anything if we want to. I would love to tell OPEC to keep all of their oil. That would be great!

More drilling here at home, unfortunately, will not replace all of the OPEC oil that we import. We need other energy sources as well. Why not mobilize the country to develop them?

Maybe I missed something, but, I liked the fact that his speech was more about being energy independent and less about climate change.

Lastly, I don't agree with carbon taxes or offsets, but if - and that's a BIG if - they reduce payroll taxes when/if they implement these carbon taxes - I may lighten my stance against them. Otherwise I see them as a penalty to consumers, and a drag on the economy.

Just my two cents. Have a great weekend y'all.

I think Tom Cruise (I know) said it best in A Few Good Men, when he said, "Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galacticly stupid?"

Having said that, there is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with the notion of pursuing clean, renewable energy sources as a means to replace fossil fuel use. Nuclear anyone? Good luck getting that clean, renewable energy source past the enviro nuts.

Anyone who believes that we can, within 10 years, completely, or even mostly, responsibly replace oil as our major energy source is, quite frankly, fully delusional. Sure, it can be done, as long as you completely disregard the plight of humanity. Think global warming is going to cause deaths? Wait till you get a load of the deaths caused by massive, forced energy use overhaul. Stalin would blush at the numbers who get wiped out.

Finally, knowing everything that Gore has flatly and openly lied about and misrepresented in regards to climate science, how can he possibly be taken seriously by any ethical and moral human being? And I mean that in the most literal sense. No pulling punches on this one.

Do as I say, not as I do. Gore's ideas are a fast track to collapsing the US economy.

Al, How about challenge the IPCC to update its sensitivity analyses so that its forecasts can truly be seen by all reasonable people that AGW is an incontrovertible dogma of climate science?

Given that Al Gore has substantial shares in GE (read wind turbines and solar power) his speech comes under stock promotion and possibly 'false prospectus'. And that doesn't even cover his carbon trading holdings. He wants things done quickly (a) before the public catches on; and (b) so he can get very rich while he is young enough to enjoy it.

I particularly liked this line:

"The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of one dollar per gallon gasoline."
Yes - one dollar per gallon.

He says we can do this in a few short years. If only he had been in a position of power 10 years ago and been able to do something for our future.

Could there be any significance to Al Gore pushing his 10 year alternative energy plan and the fact he became a partner last year in Kleiner Perkins?

There was an article recently in Fortune magazine, July 21, 2008, *Kleiner Bets the Farm, the legendary venture firm is going green�and leaving internet deals to the competition. *

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is a major venture capital firm, with John Doerr, its preeminent partner. It has started *an emphasis on alternative-energy projects, or �green tech� in Kleiner parlance. The new eco-focus has attracted plenty of hoopla, most notable late last year when Doerr hired his pal AL GORE as a Kleiner partner.*

Some excerpts from the article:

*The newest addition (project) is the $500 million Green Growth Fund, launched in May. Kleiner�s strategy focuses on existing alternative-energy companies that are well beyond the launch phase. In essence, like some of the biggest private equity shops, Kleiner is becoming more of an asset gatherer.*

*Then again, Kleiner needs more money than ever before because energy projects require BILLIONS of dollars in investments, not the millions required to jump-start a web idea.*

*Yet it�s this move into green that competitors and admirers alike consider Kleiner�s riskiest decision ever.* *I hope to god they�re right*, says a prominent Kleiner investor. *But if they�re wrong, it�ll be the end of Kleiner Perkins.*

So now Al Gore wants to propose a challenge to totally go to alternative energy in 10 years? Sorry if I am a little suspicious�

Apparently, T. Boone Pickens is of the same mind regarding the 10-year timeframe.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20080718_4628.php

Clearly, he's just some wide-eyed socialist dreamer who won't be satisfied until Oiznop is using an outhouse because he's jealous of his success, right?

Al Gore is drunk with power. Taxing carbon heavily enough to offset payroll taxes would absolutely destroy any bit of manufacturing capability that America has left. Plus, it would hurt poor people the most - if $2000 of carbon taxes are factored into every new car, does the person making $200,000 and saving $100,000 care, or does the person making $30,000 who is saving nothing (or paying more)?

You know, when I read this line:

"According to scientists, enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100% of the entire world's energy needs for a full year."

It dawned on me that this is the explanation for the warming planet. Given the simple fact that each day of sunshine equals 36 years of the world's energy needs, and one year of sunshine equals 13,140 years of energy needs....

Well, you see what I mean. Humans and our energy needs are completely insignficant. I kinda thought this was the case and have been chastised for the comment, but the statement above, by none other than Gore himself, certainly puts it all into perspective.

Lofty goals are fine but I would rather go back to the moon, even with today's skewed standards of reasonable risk, than try to live on a planet in which grass is replaced by solar cells. All that so we can "Solve it".

Face it, the guy's a politician, his lips are sorta moving, clearly it means his trying to dupe somebody.

It appears that those scientists are wrong.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase

Also, it makes me angry that there is a large body of scientific evidence surfacing that shows the fallacy of the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global warming and NO ONE is being allowed to speak about it in the news media.

Steve Bloom: I wanted to apologize to you. You were right and was not making capital off of the learner. You were talking about PH. Sorry.
KIPP

When asked his opinion about the former VP's speech, Sen. Voinovich of Ohio uttered a one-word description "ridiculous"

Sen. Voinovich was being kind.

Leaving asside the growing doubts about CO2 induced global warming, as illustrated by the recent posting on the American Physical Society's Website "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.", the former VP left out some very important points concerning alternative energy.

- The actual average output from wind farms is around 20% of peak capacity. In Texas, we've recently experienced power shortages due to variable wind conditions. This means you either have to install 5-times the generating capacity as a conventional power plant in order to obtain the reliability needed or have additional conventional power plants. That is one of the reasons that wind generation still requires substantial economic subsidies in order to be economic. T. Boone Pickens is currently engaged in a serious lobbying effort to maintain US subsidies, without which he won't be able to pursue his own wind farm project. Sounds like an economic boondoggle even greater than mandated ethanol.

- Most of the biofuels solutions are even more economically inefficient and compete with food production for farm land and fertilizer. That's a primary reason why the European Union recently issued a warning about government mandated biofuels initiatives.

- The US and Canada have vast untapped natural gas resources within emmerging shale-gas plays. Chesapeake Energy recently estimated that one of the plays, the Louisiana Haynesville shale, contains recoverable reserves in excess of 250 Trillion standard cubic feet. That's about an 12 year supply of gas for the US. Range Resources just quoted impressive estimates for a similar shale play in the Appalachian basin. Over the past year, US natural gas production has increased by 9%, due largely to the early stage development of these and other shale gas plays.

I am relieved that most of the bloggers here see the farce that is global warming. It is heart warming to see that others see through the bs.

I am all for cheaper energy! I hope I get cheaper energy soon!!!! I dont like spending money on gas and heating and electricity. I would rather spend it on stuff that is better for me, like improving my house, going on fishing trips, etc...

This sounds semantically good, now someone do it.

Mark - Denver, CO: "Just how many billions does Gore stand to gain?"

Probably a lot less then T. Boone Pickens, who is one of those people that Jack McLaughlin is looking for that "...offer(s) up pragmatic, realistic goals for our energy security and future".

The problem is Mr. Pickens is saying the same thing, but is he being criticized here? Gee, is it because he works for the energy industry and he should know what he is talking about, even though it is the same thing Al Gore says is feasible?

Here is an article copied from the latest July/August 2008 issue of the Weatherwise magazine:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1467133/wind_power_the_ultimate_renewable_energy_source/

"Only about 13 percent of land worldwide is windy enough for wind power installations to be economical. Assuming that we can cover that fraction of the land with 1.5-MW, 80-meter-tall turbines, the wind power potential turns out to be 72 Terawatt (TW). One TW is 1,000 GW, and 1 GW is the size of a modern coal-fired power plant. Consequently, the world's wind potential is equivalent to 72,000 new coal plants, which corresponds to 35 times the global electricity demand and 6 times the Earth's total energy demand (which also includes heating, transportation, and other energy)."

"Due to its relatively shallow continental shelf, the East Coast of the United States has an offshore wind power potential of 330 GW. This is out to a depth of 100 meters and takes into account exclusion areas for bird migrations, competing uses, beach rehabilitation, military exclusion, and shipping lanes. This is more than enough capacity to supply the adjacent region, whose demand is "just" 212 GW."

Rick: "Do as I say, not as I do. Gore's ideas are a fast track to collapsing the US economy."

Rick, it seems like Bush and his friends in the energy and banking industries are doing that job already without Mr. Gore's help.

By the way, this is what Bush has been able to accomplish in a few short 8-years (about the time we took to get to the moon):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_07152008_520.gif

I am also encouraged that so many people on this blog can see that this plan is not the way into the future. Let's do it all. This is America. We can use solar, wind power, natural gas, conservation, nuclear and our own oil to create a renaissance in this country like no one has ever seen. With our wealth, and our freedom, we will bring the poor of this world along with us to a time of unprecedented prosperity.
It is time to stop the small thinking that has plagued us and kept us from becoming the country that solves problems and makes things happen. Politicians, get out of the way and Americans will handle this.
Only great wealth and freedom will take us through these small problems.

Jesse,

Here are the official NOAA records for violent tornadoes. They peaked in the 1970s and have been declining ever since.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend-t.jpg

I think you have lost your mind. If you really want to look at this from an objective view, look where the money is. Gore stands to gain much money from investments in "global warming". If he really believed this stuff, he would change his own life (Reply: he did already according to the press) before he tries to changes others (see his own dwelling). When it comes to a politician, follow the money every time. His time will come.

Veets: I would like to bury the hatchet with you, and begin to talk about science again. Like you I'd rather learn, then just waste time. You got me on a couple of errors and I have come back on you. But we solved nothing, so chalk it up to the weather.
Al Gore is a good speaker but does not always walk the walk. He is a good businessman but owns three homes. Then he is telling us to conserve and only take what we need. So if he wants to give me his Estate in Georgia I will accept. First off, taxing people would never pass congress. I would rather see a law against speculators, especially it effects the public domain, like cable or electricity. They are finding new oil, and people are not waiting in line to buy gas, So why are the prices so high?
I am an AGWer, but don't see the ultimacy of solar panels, or the infinity of the wind. MIT just discovered a way to collect energy by separating out absorption of different wavelengths, making solar panels very effective. What happens when we build enough solar panels to illuminate the milky way, but need to change all of the panels for better ones. What about the new cylinder, which can work in cities where they can't hang huge propellers. What if a larger cylinder could be developed, that would be far superior to wind mills, that could be used above, and below in waters with strong currents. We are afraid to use nuclear fission because of Chernobyl. They have gotten much safer, and we need a ton of them. Environmentalism is of course good, and protecting ecosystems, and forests is good for us as well. America's ecosystems help keep diseases down provide fishing and hunting, and of course water to drink. Using food for fuel,
or land for panels, is not good for the environment. Nail the speculators, and mandate nuclear fission, and that would be a smart start.
In the mean time, things are a bitch.GWSteve said that he is becoming serial, so I guess it's time to write my short list!
KIPP

Saly:It is an economic fact that our dependence on oil became imperative as our economy and Industries have grown. This is a fact for all economic growing nations. You can't blame the greenies for much as they have done so little.
KIPP

Gore has spoken, so shall it be done!!!

Windmills on every peak from the Sierras, to the Rockies, to the Black Hills, to the Ozarks, to the Appalachians. No peak shall be spared.

Plaster every available square inch of desert in the Southwest with solar panels.

GORE MUST BE OBEYED!!

"Gore has lost a lot of weight, turned his Nashville house into a energy conservation showcase and mostly flies commercial jets)"

Just how many seats does Gore take up on his commercial jets? If he was serious about reducing his carbon footprint, he would dismiss his secret service etourage.

Reply: I was not aware he had secret service. I thought congess was just recently voting on whether to allow secret service protection to former vp's. Obviously, Cheney has some concerns for his safety when he gets back to Wyoming.

Wow, some folks would fall for anything. To believe this load of crap....I just don't understand it. Yeah, just like all the lines the lefties use, they all sound so heavenly, the sky is more blue, grass is greener, snow whiter, and some sit there in amazement like he is some powerful God and fail to realize he is a schemist making his next profit. I will say it looks as if holding in his own co2 because he must not breathe out, it looks like hes ready to burst,lol. Aviator pretty much hit the nail on the head with his comments. Also Al says we can do this in 10 years{which in itself is a load of bs}but isn't 10 years done too late, one time you hear it is too late now, then we have 5 years maybe 10 years, I do like when they are dumb enough to say 5 years so at least we don't have too wait as long to say "see nothing has happened yet". I can see some here that listen too him probably are up all night watching infomercials calling when they hear you only have 10 minutes to recieve this awesome once in a lifetime deal, call now before its too late, this is the same approach and has been a selling tactic since selling has existed. Gore says" the way to bring gas prices down is too end our dependence on oil and use renewable sources to give us equivalent to $1 gas" and it would only take a few years. There is a huge lie, there is no way in sam hell that this is possible, but don't it sound pretty, renewable does not mean cheap to free, this process of "converting" is not one that could take place in 10-15 years, stop look at everything aroung you, where did it come from, what process did it take to get where it is, was the OIL involved somewhere along the line, to either make it or transport it, and if you take oil away is there a way to put the object you are looking at where it is without what brought it to where it is. The answer is No, oil at home is our best solution for the near+ future, the subsitute in wind, solar, hydro, etc,etc simply does not do everything that oil can. What happens to everything that runs on oil, where does it go, what replaces it? I can't put a sail on my car and let the wind carry me down the road, it would be nice but its not going to happen, even if Darth Vader..I mean Al says so. Lets drill at home for oil, mix in alternatives where possible as I'm not completely against it, and not saying its bad but it simply can't work like som say, and maybe the biggest thing to actually help is build more sufficient vehichles and work on that technology which in itself would lower oil demand, give people more freedom to live as they want, not how others want them too, our oil+ good alternatives in their proper spot+ better technology to make what oil we produce go further= lower prices. No matter its not a quick solution, but drilling for our own first is the first big help because we are not designed to operate otherwise, but my, daises blooming, birds chirping, crisp clean air blowing, sitting by the babbling brook watching the deer frolic in the forest as the eagle soars by sounds like a wonderful ad line for a greener more peaceful earth, where everyone knows your name..CHEERS and just think..........

NGW Steve,

I do like Gore's idea of reducing, if not eliminating, payroll taxes, but his carbon tax idea will be laughed at within a year since CO2 as a contributor to GW will be found to be false.

How do youfigure that it will be foundfalse within th year?

Well two things might happen if we d what he says one it still warm up and he looks like a fool or it would cool down and he would say we have not done enough yet since it will only last a few years then warm up again. Make sense no but then half of what he says doesn't either.

Here is an interesting link that highlights Al Gore's personal conservation efforts.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/perfect-gore-takes-fleet-of-gas.html

Al gore or all gore.why try to instil fear of recession,immigration,war threat,and every scarey story you can think of to further your agenda.Hadleys computer predictions on man made global warming are now shown to be faulty,or adjusted.I think mister gore is acting like the wizard of oz,a big voice but no substance.Saving energy is and will always be the goal of any human being or any other creature on this lovely planet,but nobody needs a bully with scary predictions about the future.We had the same thing in europe before world war two and it got us nowhere.also for all the deniers and heretics out there ,It was once proved scientificaly that the sun revolved around the earth and anybody who disbelieved was crazy.Are we in the same situation now with man made global carbon dioxide warming.

Wake up America

Seems a lot of for-real scientists don't believe Al gore either.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

The APS says, 'waaaait a minnit!'

What an amazing speech, full of noise and almost completely devoid of truth.

1. Converting 100% of electricity generation to renewables in 10 years will have no measurable impact on oil consumption in the US, since oil currently produces less than 2% of electricity in the US. Reply: He is not just talking about oil, but coal and other other carbon based fuels.

2. Converting 100% of electricity generation to renewables in 10 years is impossible. Converting 300% of current electricity generation to renewables in 10 years to support plug-in electric vehicles is preposterous, although to be fair he does not propose this.

3. Converting 100% of electricity generation to renewables in 10 years will collapse the price of electricity derived from coal and natural gas. Consumers will revolt.

4. The US already has a secure source of electricity supply, since more than half is derived from domestic coal.

5. There is no evidence of climate tipping points or catastrophe on the horizon, and CO2 is helping to green the globe (6% increase over the last 20 years).

6. There are no cost-effective renewable energy sources when considering their use for base-load generation.

In conclusion, Gore is proposing a hugely expensive solution to nonexistent climate and electricity security problems that is impossible to implement in the time-frame proposed, with no measurable impact on oil consumption.

Awesome! Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars!!!

I would love to know what Al Gore is actually thinking.

Does he truly believe in his position?

or,

Does he know its not supported by science but is essentially lying to foster his personal financial investment interests?

I agree with Gore. It's a good day to change!

Gladys
Phoenix Arizona

If Gore wants to do the JFK thing, I suggest that he makes a big research push to solve the power generation via fusion problem. It may not be possible, but there should be spinoffs even if it doesn't hit the jackpot. Other things he could spend research money on are fuel cells, hydrogen storage methods, better batteries. If he prefers building things to research, then why not try a few solar powered generating stations (via heat, not photovoltaic panels). Or promoting LED lighting. Or supporting more climate research. Or supporting science education. Especially that.

If he wants to change the climate, how about covering a number of states with mirrors (much cheaper than silicon).

Alternatives to fossil fuels:

1)Nuclear -pros: small GHG emmisions, potential to reduce fossil fuel use by 40% or more. cons -wastes disposal, security, needs federal subsidies to be profitable.

2)Wind -pros: no GHG emmisions. cons - land use issues, needs tens of thousands to be vialble, dependent on wind speeds, needs federal subsidies to be profitable

3)Bio fuels -pros can reduce GHG during use, but produces GHGs during production. cons -needs lots of water during production, reduces food supplies, potential enviormental damage due to deforestation and over farming, needs subsidies to be profitable.

4)Solar: pros -no GHGs during use, improvements in electricity production improving every year. cons -dependent on the sun's angle of incidence for the amount of power converted, needs subisidies to be profitable.

If any of these alternatives are viable from a market perspective, VC would follow, and perhaps solar has the best future in this regard. Our forray into biofuels is fast becoming a policy disaster, and even the UN is screaming bloody murder on the US ethanol mandates. Subsidies are another problem. All alternatives require quite a few tax breaks and subsidies in order for the companies to remain viable. Ethanol also depends upon increasing mandates from the Feds. Of course, high gas prices make some alternatives viable. But what if gas prices fall? Even at $4/gallon, a hybrid takes on average 8 years to see a decent ROI.

Much (if not most) of the oil spike since May 2007 is the result of the plunging value of the dollar (oil is bought/sold in dollars). Demand currently remain high in some Asian nations, but elsewhere (NAmerica, Japan, Europe) demand has softened. High oil prices, like spikes in gold, precious metals, steel, and other commodities have caused many investors to pour thier money into the futures exchange. Like the Dot Coms, and real estate bubbles, the last 14 months of the commodities bubble was caused by cheap money.The recent rush to purchage futures was also caused by the need to find a hedge against inflation. Cheap money, and an uncertain political landscape in DC are the main culprits in high energy prices. If and when the Fed Chairman raises interest rates, look for the price of oil to plunge. Already, some investors have noticed a slackening in demand and are offloading thier contracts before they mature. While the days of $20/barrel are probably gone forever, a stabiliing of the dollar would bring oil prices back to the $60-80 range.

This brings us back to the energy policy. Some people look for energy independence as the goal; Gore and the AGW proponents demand that we replace the center piece of wealth creation as the focuse. Economics will drive this issue, and any attempt to force the issue "from the top" will do far more harm than good (our ethanol policy is just the tip of the iceberg).

Its very sad to see so many destructive comments over this fantastic forum.
I think you should all live in the moon, judging from the lack of climatic change you are reporting.
At least in Europe is well evident.

And even if it is not man-made, why in the hell should we persisting burning coal and oil? Isnt common-sense that using solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectrical will not pollute more as we did with coal and oil?

Its very sad to see these comments posted here. For the sake of putting thousands of species, forests and environmnents at risk, please think and act clever. If you are not egocentric and closing your eyes at that, I beg you to think and act wise. Please dont shut your eyes at the climate change, pollution and the destruction of habitats.

We live at a time when scientists are put aside and everyone seems to know more than scientists.
Eveyone uses their freedom to deny through the internet what is undeniable true.

People deny that we went to the moon, and that oil is good and a must.
We live in a crazy world I think.

Read this: many climate change skeptics are either simply blind or paid by oil companies:

www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp

"Not surprisingly, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to - in the words of one leaked memo - "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."

Over the years, the skeptics have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change - some of which actually contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:

Climate change is not occurring
The global climate is actually getting colder
The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response

After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, there has been a noticeable shift in the skeptics' tactics. Many skeptics no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high - or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.

To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced. "

Ok, 2007 was cooler, and solar activity affects our weather, but is that an excuse to improve our world and shift toward a greener energy?

Who does this guy think he is??? Is he a doctor? No. Is he a scientist? No. He is a meteorologist? No. What he is is a politician. Why is everyone listening to this guy? He has an agenda. Plain and simple. You lost the election Al, like it or not. Go away. Leave us alone. Go back to your mansion and enjoy the golden years. As for T. Boone Pickens, are you sure we aren't listening to Slim Pickens? Better send someone back to town for a load of dimes.

Al Gore's disappearing Arctic. Frozen solid on July 19 with less than four weeks remaining in the melt season.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T082010015

Here is what NOAA thinks about Al Gore's claim of increasing tornadoes.

With increased national doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency....there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html

Perfectly sensible people, that are even aware that over 130 countries on this planet are going to do nothing. Including Russia, China, and India - which pollute far more than we do.

Still think that anything we do will make a difference.

The US not drilling for oil, riding bicycles, or anything else is not going to make any difference.

130 other countries are just going to continue to burn and use the oil and coal that we do not use.

Fits into the liberal mind set though. Liberals care more about other countries than they do their own. Reply: What do liberals have to do with this story? And by the way, you are wrong.

Al Gore :
There is more sea ice now than before. Reply: When before? You need to be specific.
Sea levels are dropping not rising. Reply: Where?
His whole scam is a socialist redistribute the wealth con (which is why some otherwise sane people support it, they figure for the ultimate good a few lies won't hurt).
Didn't he already claim it was too late?
Since when did science give way to religious fantasy?
Opps I forgot, it's the Spanish inquisition all over again.
Who would have expected that??????

I hope Al Gore and his crusaders tune in to the British Open today...on this day in July at 2p.m. the temperature is 61 degrees and the commentator says it feels like 40 when the wind is blowing. Must be a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere over there.

I don't think anyone here is against solar, wind,or any other "supposedly" feasible alternative energy sources being developed. HOWEVER, to stick our heads in the sand and say we also don't need to drill for oil, build new clean Nuclear power plants, and conserve by increasing engine efficiency is a plan doomed to failure. I have heard many Liberals state that it would take 5-10 years to get oil to the market if we decided to drill today and that is just a flat out lie. At worst, it would take 3-5 years to have producing wells and only slightly longer to have more Nuclear plants in production. It will take a concerted, encompassing plan that needs to start with the fastest way to get more energy to the market to reduce the price of oil. This would also enable us to wean ourselves from as much dependence on foreign oil as quickly as we can. The market price for oil would drop immediately if we announced plans to drill for more oil and increase Nuclear power even before the products ever reached the market. That is how the supply and demand system works and they will not lower the price unless they see a concrete plan of action on our part ASAP.

As part of Gore's total Arctic summer meltdown, mid-summer temperatures in Alaska and Greenland are running 2-10C below normal.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html

In the same regard to all those that have expressed their concerns about the "Greens" wanting to send us back to the horse-and-buggy-days, there sure are a lot of people here that appear to be happy to hang on to the old technology based on burning oil. They either have some ties to the oil industry or their relatives must have been the same ones that laughed at the old electric/steam cars saying they will never replace the horse-and-buggy:
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=26341
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/6111/electcar.htm

"Railroads and stage coach lines hated the automobiles because they did not want competition. Autos were scarce and ridiculed by most of the population. "The car began life as a rich man's toy, rather than a means of transport or as an instrument of social change." They were displayed in circuses because they were considered a wacky idea with no future. The development and acceptance of the automobile in America took place around the turn of the century, from 1895 to 1910."

Seems like the same old arguments of the railroad and stage coach industries back then have been replaced by the ones we hear today from Exxon Mobil and the power plant industries. The laughs of the same group of supporters of railroad and stage coach industries were eventually silenced. Of course the railroad industry struggled for many decades since then but they have managed a comeback today on the heals of rising fuel prices.

There's a history lesson here in that the old arguments in the beginning of the 20th Century sound so similar to the ones we are hearing today about solar power, wind power and other alternative energy sources. The laughs, ridicule and claims that the new technology will take too long to implement and is too expensive (only for the rich) are all the same, but as time will tell, the newer technology will take over faster then you think. We just need to get rid of the resistance from all those that want to simply maintain the status quo (and we all know what industries are working hard to do that).

For all of you that think that Gore's plan will destroy the economy let's look at what Bush has done to it.

Bush said invading Iraq would keep the price of oil down. It was about $40 a barrel when we invaded. More than 3 times that today.

The increase since the start of the Iraq war in oil prices equals has sent and additional $6 Trillion to oil producing countries.

That doesn't include the minimum of $1 trillion the war will cost the US.

And Gore puts forth an ambitious plan to slow the flood of dollars that are flowing to the Middle East and Chavez and most of you condemn it.

Tell me how you would get the US out of this mess which has really crippled the economy.

Regards,
GettingWarm

I usually dont respond to political treads, but will with a short one this time.

Has anyone asked themselves why Gore made this announcement this week? IMO its because oil prices already started falling over 10 dollars in one week alone so he wants to make it look like he started the fall by annoucing we will reduce oil demands. Its the same thing he did when Katrina hit, he than released his Inconvient Truth movie. Its all about political timing. Gore's timing was off 5 days THIS TIME.

BTW, the falling oil prices are due to reduced demands which also means more supplies. This was magnified when the administration opened the US for exploration this week by waiving the executive order. The "speculation" that we might drill more HERE started the fall. Folks, its all about supply and demand even if part of it is paper speculation. You dont need to see the new oil coming out of the ground before it starts increasing supply and thus driving down prices.

Good thing I kept this one short eh? :)

Have a great week away Brett!

From NGW Steve:

"I do like Gore's idea of reducing, if not eliminating, payroll taxes, but his carbon tax idea will be laughed at within a year since CO2 as a contributor to GW will be found to be false."

cbmclean said:

"How do you figure that it will be found false within the year?"

See:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=310&Itemid=1

One thing's for certain, if even some of these proposals start to hurt people in the wallet there'll be a massive purge of democrats from the White House and Congress the next election. That's assuming Sen Obama gets elected of course.

The degree of delusion in Gore's blather is astounding.

First, there IS no "climate crisis" that is caused by, or can be "solved" by, human activities or alterations thereto. No matter how many times he insists that there is.

Second, what is at the core of this country's economic and national security problems (we don't HAVE an "environmental" problem) is GOVERNMENT policies. It is the government that made the US more dependent on fossil fuel imports than it needs to be by subsidizing the two LEAST FUEL EFFICIENT MODES OF TRANSPORT IN EXISTENCE, the airplane and the automobile, for the last fifty something years to the exclusion of more efficient alternatives (read: railroads).

Third, Al's "solution" to economic problems would MAGNIFY, not solve, those problems. There is a very good reason that so-called "alternatives" haven't swamped the energy marketplace with their supposed goodness - they aren't competitive with fossil fuels.

Fourth, for everyone who participates on this blog, before one more comment regarding "energy independence" is made, you need to read "Gusher of Lies" and get an honest and informed perspective regarding just how ridiculous the notion that the US is capable of ever being "energy independent" really is. Believe me, I'd love to tell OPEC to "eat their oil" too, but it's not going to happen. We need to explore for, find and produce all of the domestically sourced energy we can, but there is no way we will ever not be a net importer of energy resources because our consumption far outstrips our production. The alternative is economic contraction, which would suck a lot more than having to buy some oil.

Fifth, weather events such as hurricanes and floods, specifically the notion that they are becoming more frequent and/or worse are not scientifically connected to "climate change" no matter how many times Gore (or anyone else) says so, or no matter how many times those in search of more government funding try to find new ways to torture the data to make it appear as if they do. This is nothing more than the continued attempt to establish "truths" by way of repetition (which, unfortunately, has a certain degree of success among those unable to see through the tactics).

Finally, the notion that solar and wind in particular can "replace" fossil fuels and/or nuclear for electric power generation is pure fantasy. Neither solar nor wind power can produce sufficient power without conventional power plant backups, because the sun doesn't shine all the time nor does the wind always blow hard enough to generate power at the rated POTENTIAL output of solar panels or windmills, respectively. Just because "enough solar energy falls on the Earth's surface" or "enough wind blows in the midwest" doesn't mean that all of that energy can be captured, stored and made available when it is needed.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that alternative energy shouldn't be pursued, but not with taxpayer funding making it look like it is more cost competitive than it really is - let the private sector do it. All those (including the above-mentioned Mr. T. Boone Pickens) waxing eloquent about "alternative energy" are doing so because they stand to be the beneficiaries of enormous amounts of tax money, not because they're altruistic. I might note that when those trying to promote this agenda tell people that we can in essence USE the sun and the wind to do all of the work required to produce all of our needed electricity (not to mention the ADDITIONAL electricity that will be demanded in the future), they are not considering the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of diverting those natural forces from what they would otherwise be doing. How truly ironic.

That speech is pathetic i think its the last desperate attempt to scare people into accepting the false science of man made global warming.no doubt there has been some slight warming but come on al give us a break .

Anyways, the smart thing to do is to get off of fossil fuels and replace them with renewables. The best renewable is the KE in the Gulfstream.You never hear of this but the energy stored there is larger than all of the electrical output world wide by far. It flows 24/7/365 unlike wind, solar,tidal,wave, and hydro it beats them all by far. "Underwater Suspension Tunnels" are the key to our future if we want renewables to fight global warming.

Why are so many post here so angry and bitter about Gore's proposal. He does not know it all but give credit where credits due...

High Energy Prices - Bush policy.
Continuous war - Bush Policy.
Ignoring Katrina consequences - Bush...
environmental denial - Bush...
Credit Crisis - Bush...
Medical Crisis - Bush..
and on and on...

Can you see that the Bush Gov is the one that got it all wrong putting us in this dilemma.

Come on guys (gals) take your blinkers off and wake up to whats gone on for the last 8 years!

Paul:

Gore has spoken, so shall it be done!!!

Or you could think up something that could help...

Brett: I was shocked when I got back tonight to find such a negative reaction to Al Gore. He was elected to President by popular vote. He didn't make his speech to make money as he has a talent for doing it. He has become more conservative about waste in his own life which is admiral. I think a lot of the anger posted today shows that people hate Al Gore because he made Global Warming public. Also there seems to be a little jealousy, because he has lived the American dream and succeeded. I rather live in a country with free speech. Al Gore may be wrong in some of his Ideas but his forward looking approach is a position we will all make someday. He is a good father and Husband, and his kids are by his side.
Everyone it seems with some exceptions wants to put Al Gore in a box and classify him, a bad dude. You are wrong. He is dedicated to what he believes, and stands up for his right to say it.
This is what this country stands for.Living in Mexico city for two years, and watching military propaganda shorts before every movie makes you see what it would be like not to be an American . We are lucky to be born here, and should come up with better solutions for our future. Instead we tear down those who are brave enough to say what they hold True.
KIPP

Chance Metz:

Well two things might happen if we d what he says one it still warm up and he looks like a fool...

It is going to be warming up for a very long time no matter what we implement now...do you think we will be able to afford the air conditioning?

Brett: I don't get it, nearly 90% of the bloggers here seems to be against the theory of AGW. Why persist? Just joking.. please don't take seriously but is this not a valid point?

The APS American Physical Society (or parts of it) seems to be questioning the AGW theory (despite all the hopla about Lord Mocktons paper). This is a major shift and is bound to affect policy.. especially if temps keep going down.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

well AGW guys/gals it does not look like NH ice is melting the way you wanted it to
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
I sincerely apologise for this LOL

I suspect, once the emphasis switches to renewable engergy sources...the price of fossil fuels will drop to the point of making renewable energy sources the hight cost form of energy!

"Here's a challenge for Gore: practice what you preach.

Reply: From what I read, He is doing that now."

Brett, perhaps it is time on this board to look to the past to get some of the answers of this man's intentions.

Let's look first at the home he chose to buy which is a very large, older southern mansion. I had one of those once that looked very similar with pool, tennis courts, and pool house. I also spent about 20 years of my life buying old house and fixing them up and re-selling them and so I might know a bit about "old". I also grew up in a home that was built in the year 1690. So...Brett, NOBODY, and let me repeat this Brett, NOBODY that really is the energy czar he pretends to be would ever entertain the idea of buying "old" in hopes of making it an eco-friendly house. The changes he made to this existing house is a one time huge expense that will take many years to just break even for that initial expense. I learned that lesson back in the 80s and so why didn't Gore? Why buy a dinosaur when he could have built the state of the art home with his millions that could have been a green showcase? Equally Brett, I would ask why it took so long for him to make this effort to improve the energy efficiency of his home?

So Brett I am asking you if he first made the "not so fun" improvements, like plumbing, heating, before any lavish interior improvements? I think you won't like the answer. I know all the big homes we bought to improve the foundation(meaning the guts of the home) of the house was improved IMMEDIATELY before any fun began such as painting and personalizing the home. It is a matter of priorities. Gore has been chased into making these improvements in this house when his electric bill was made public. BTW, his bill is still climbing.

Gore has been touting himself as an environmentalists for decades and therefore Brett it defies logic that he would have to be pushed by conservatives to make his house more green friendly.

So first a wise man would never have bought that home. Second a thoughtful, honest person would have begun energy work IMMEDIATELY wanting to be the best role model as possible.

Speaking of T Boone Pickens it should be noted his association with the Swift Boat group. I recently spoke with a Texas millionaire that use to move in some of the upper echelon circles in Dallas that said Pickens is NOT to be trusted. So once again we are talking about intentions and putting our faith in people that have proven to us time after time with their actions that they care only about improving their own personal financial status.

The "green"energy movement is being powered by very powerful people with the same intentions that they had when they pushed oil on us. They want to get richer and the American people as often is the case, are naive and willing to let these hard core capitalists suck up our money and throw it at ventures where they have the control and can make the most money.

Brett, Gore has benefited tremendously the past 8 years pushing green. On the other hand, Brett, I have not faired so well as I am sure neither have you. My costs on the farm have skyrocketed and what I care about which is the safety and care of horses around this country is quickly causing poor animal care because their owners don't have the money to buy the hay, keep up with monthly hoof trimmings, buy grain, keep up with shots, etc. I care passionately about those horses that are being neglected. I have been told by a reliable source that at some of the auctions houses in the midwest that they are keeping armed guards at night because people are dropping off horses they can no longer care for. Meanwhile Gore is making six figures to tell me and you Brett that the world around us is falling apart except in his orbit.

I have a solution and a challenge to Gore. He should give back ALL the money he has made preaching green and donate that money to those that are victims of this energy crisis. He should not make one thin dime on the backs of those victims. Gore does not himself have science credentials that would allow him to make what he does a profession. He is acting in the role of an activist that puts the good of the people before any self interest. He is also in a unique position that he has made enough money(oil) that can sustain him and his wife and thus he can be a pure activist without monetary influence.

Saving the planet should have nothing to do with making millions. The fact that Gore and many are making millions stinks up the mission.

SOMEONE FORGOT TO TELL THE WEATHER THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A MYTH!!!!

It is shocking that this forum, which claims to be a public service, has rather become a place where people who haven't already made up their minds must face the stomach-turning bias in this community. They offer few facts, and most of those are from biased sources. It is received wisdom in this group that anything said to diss the general consensus - that something is happening, that it is related to fossil fuel emissions, and that something must be done - is correct, and anything said about our developing worldwide crisis and providing solutions is corrupt and false.

For years I have tried to look at sources and present some facts here. I wanted to support ordinary people who have looked at reality, and present some alternatives.

Today you exceeded my expections; the consensus is truly out of touch and very nasty.

I suggest that you all take a look at the weather and stop ignoring reality.

If you're interested in what Gore had to say, here is the Meet the Press transcript (supposed to reair on MSNBC at 6 pm and 2 am). Tom Brokaw is not as good at hardball as Tim Russert, but he did ask and get answers to some of your assertions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/

The question is: How long will it take for the majority, and ultimately our policymakers and politicians, to recognize Al Gore's pontifications for what they are - groundless environmental drivel.

The one fact alone that blows out of the water the belief that man is solely responsible for global warming is this: The global warming increases come first followed about 800 years later by the CO2 increases. These are the ice core records. Live with it!

The other facts are these:
a) On three other occasions within the last 200 years (1825,1857, and 1941) CO2 levels have been higher than they are today. (Beck 2007)
b) 600,000,000 years ago CO2 levels were 20 times higher than they are today and have declined ever since, while temperatures have remained within a stable 10-degC band. (Berner 2001, Scotese, 2001)
c) Nature produces 95% of the CO2; man only 5%.
d) Nature produces 99.999% of the water vapor; man produces the other 0.001%
e) Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a Spectral Absorption spectrum or gw effect than does CO2.
f) When the contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs are considered, nature is responsible for 99.72% of the global warming; man the other 0.28%.

Fossil fuels are the ultimate renewable resource; renewed over the eons by nature.
a) The US owns 82% of the world's oil shale, led by The Bakken and Green River Formation.
b) The US ranks first in coal reserves.
c) There is no energy crisis.
d) There is only the crisis created by Congress in getting rid of the Oil Depletion Allowance which has created the dependence on foreign oil.

Wind Power: Here are the questions to ask before a fortune is sunk into this black hole:
a) What will be the yearly generated NET power?
b) To whom are the profits distributed and in what percentages?
c) If power isn't produced, who pays for the replacement power?
d) Is the power USED by wind turbines METERED? (ie: stator energizing, blade heating, nacelle dehumidification, gear oil cooling/heating, stator cooling, yaw and pitch controls, etc.)
e) Who pays for the power used?
f) How much does it cost for a wind power installation, before dialing in the triple declining depreciation, renewable portfolio standards purchases, and other accounting gimmicks and taxpayer grants?
g) What will be the maintenance cost?
h) Who pays for the maintenance?
i) How much will the transmission system upgrade cost and who pays for it?
j) What will be the de-commissioning cost? Who pays for it?
k) If the developer goes bankrupt, who picks up the tab? Is there a surety bond?
l) Will it cost more to manufacture, transport, install, operate, maintain and scrap the wind power installation than it will generate in its useful life? Are the Odum Economics sound?
If you do not have the answers to the above questions, you do not know what you are doing!

Solar Photovoltaic:
In its lifetime a solar panel will produce only 48% of the energy hat went its manufacture, transport, installation, maintenance, operation, and salvage. (www.dieoff/pv)

Hydrogen: H is the first element on the Periodic Table. H is not a fuel that is found in a well. H has to be manufactured. The EROEI for H is less than 1. H is not an alternative energy; it is a waste of energy.

For a response to An Inconveneient Truth read A Convenient Fabrication.

www.aconvenintfabrication.com

But Sentef admitted Giaever had a point: �As a take-home message, the climate issue, controversial as it is, is not the most pressing problem. Rather it�s the energy issue, which is, however, more of a socio-economical problem than a scientific one. Science already provides the necessary technical solutions to solve it, but there is a lack of political will to implement them.�

From a report on a science conference in Germany attended by 25 Nobel laureates.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html

The ideas listed there are better than Gore's.

Mike Bryant:You have the right view ,in my opinion. I was just reading an article about the MIT solar Panel, but from Scientific American. They are going to revolutionize this Industry. Last weeks article by Brett was good and they are even going to do more. They will receive the visible wavelengths by coloring filters inside each panel, but also recently a physicist discovered that shaping the crystalline silicon would gain twenty times more electricity then previously captured. The article said that with this new panel it would be as cheap as a coal fired plant. In China where they pulverize their coal, not gasification, and don,t use desulphurization, this would be great. So I guess Al Gore was right about many things and someday our grandchildren may look at him as our greatest national hero.
KIPP

Hi Guys,

I have a challenge for Al Gore. Prove Global Warming is man made, period. Because the AGW theory is taking a beating with most current measurements. Measurements now that is something that AGW can't produce, just GCM's no evidence man did it.

"Only about 13 percent of land worldwide is windy enough for wind power installations to be economical. Assuming that we can cover that fraction of the land with 1.5-MW, 80-meter-tall turbines, the wind power potential turns out to be 72 Terawatt (TW). One TW is 1,000 GW, and 1 GW is the size of a modern coal-fired power plant. Consequently, the world's wind potential is equivalent to 72,000 new coal plants, which corresponds to 35 times the global electricity demand and 6 times the Earth's total energy demand (which also includes heating, transportation, and other energy)."

The is a huge difference between wind potential and reality.

Unfortunately we are so enamered by wind power we look right past it draw backs.

The big problem with wind is that is just does not blow all the time.

Windmills produce electricity roughly 20% of the time time.

What do we do when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine? Reply: How about storing the energy.

How much energy can one take out of the atmosphere with solar or windmills and not screw up weather?

The paper by viacnout Moncton is causing quite a stir. So much so that sites are now starting to cencer any posts that support him. Desmog for one is really running scared.
Seems like the AGW crowed is getting really scared.
Here is the latest development.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Deceitful ass-covering by the American Physical Society exposed

Vincent:

The APS American Physical Society (or parts of it) seems to be questioning the AGW theory ...

No!
They now have the following disclaimer at the top of the article in bold red:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

vincent Guerrini Jr:

well AGW guys/gals it does not look like NH ice is melting the way you wanted it to...

Yes, but what was your comment last year.... and have you got anything to say about the long term trend...

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

According to a (somewhat satirical) BBC radio programme this morning, official Government figures show that in 2007 Britain's network of wind turbines saved the equivalent of 0.01% of the world's CO2 emissions. However, the energy they produced was effectively 'surplus to requirements', since conventional power stations had to remain on line anyway in case the wind dropped.

Al Gore, well paid Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a company that specialises in making money from green investments for it's shareholders, which happens to have Al Gore as a major shareholder, wants to "change the terms of the global warming debate by focusing on investment ".

Gosh! I am shocked - whatever next?

Will bears defecate in the woods?

Weather Watcher:

Apparently someone forgot to educate you that 'weather' is not 'climate'.

This forum IS a public service. It is open to all, and not simply a refuge of AGW fanatics, as are some sites who claim to have open debate that I could name. The fact is that the overwhelming majority here are skeptical of AGW, and from points of view based on science, logic, and common sense though such skepticism goes against the politically correct grain of the present.

Most the consensus on this site simply mirrors that of the myriad of other sites that are on the web. Even news articles on Drudge have a following commentary running like 10-1 against AGW. To put it more pointedly, there is nothing near a 'consensus' as far as the AGW 'established science' as claimed by Gore. Fact is as more and more people look at the issue with basic common sense, less the smoke and mirrors of the AGW crowd, they become even more against so-called man-made AGW.

Did anyone on site mistreat you? Of course not. However, they may have treated your 'facts' with a complete disdain if those 'facts' had little basis of fact. Ordinary people who have faced reality have seen what, by all indications, is simply natural climate change. The models and other data used by AGW fanatics are so devoid of foundation as to completely insult the intelligence of 'ordinary' people.

I look at the 'weather' every morning. Today is another hot day here in Atlanta. The long term prognosis is more of the same through the dog days of August, and into September, same as it has been for all the past of my 55 years.

God's in his heaven, and as far as the world is concerned; she's seen it All, and if she needs to burp, she will.

"I suspect, once the emphasis switches to renewable engergy sources...the price of fossil fuels will drop to the point of making renewable energy sources the hight cost form of energy!"

I may be wrong but I believe that renewable energy is STILL the highest cost form of energy.

Hi Guys,

That Anonymous was me. LOL different computer forgot it didn't have my data.

HI Mike,

If you actually read the full article I provided a link to and not just the one quote that I used in my comments, you would have had your answer (in fact Brett answered it in his reply to you in storing the energy - something that has been in our cars for ages - gee, what a great new concept!!!):

Here is a quote from that article that addresses the intermitency issue using various suggested methods (but not limited to):
"A more serious barrier to large-scale implementation of wind power than concerns about aesthetics or bird kills is the intermittency of winds. It is possible to experience sudden, unexpected changes in wind speed, such as gusts or lulls. This means that wind power as a reliable source of electricity has some problems. One way to reduce wind power swings is interconnected power. By linking multiple wind farms together, it is possible to improve the overall performance of the interconnected system- or array-substantially compared with that of any individual wind farm. The idea is that, while wind speed could be calm at a given location, it will be active somewhere else in the aggregate array, so there can be a constant flow of power outward from the entire system if the farms are all interconnected. Spain, one of the world's leaders in wind power production, has created a system in which sudden wind power swings are eliminated. During a particularly windy period in the spring of 2007, wind power in Spain contributed 27 percent of the nation's electricity-more than coal, nuclear energy, or hydropower. Another problem of wind power is its temporal mismatch with the electricity demand. The winds are often weakest when the electricity demand is highest, such as during a heat wave. One solution to this is pumped hydroelectric storage. During periods when there is high production from the wind and low demand (for example, at night), the excess electricity is used to pump water from a reservoir located at low altitude to a second, higher reservoir. Subsequently, during times of high demand (for example, in the afternoon), water from the higher reservoir is released to generate electricity and complement the wind's reduced generation. Similarly, the wind's excess electricity can be used at night to compress air into a cavern below a wind farm. The compressed air is then run through a traditional turbine to generate electricity during high-demand hours. On a small scale, a network of car batteries from electric or plug-in vehicles connected to the grid can provide emergency backup electricity."

Let's see if I got the skeptic point of view being presented here straight.

1) They don't want the government to to use our money to develop and build the necessary infrastructure of the new technology.

2) They don't don't agree with and don't want the people proposing the new technology to do the building of the infrastructure since all that group wants to do is make money on it.

3) They would rather maintain the status quo and have world-wide oil prices dictate how much they are going to spend at the pump, which by the way will continue to go up as world energy demand outstrips the supply no matter how much we try to drill here.

OK what's left?

Reply: Dennis, I think there are many AGW skeptics out there that feel the opposite of those three points of view. Even though someone is an agw skeptic does not mean that they feel that way about technology and oil prices. You cannot put all skeptics together like that, it's not fair to in my opinion.

Dennis,

During a particularly windy period in the spring of 2007, wind power in Spain contributed 27 percent of the nation's electricity-more than coal, nuclear energy, or hydropower.

Yes, but the windy periods are not guaranteed and all the other methods suggested for storing wind energy still rely on the...wind.

Then there is the small question of transmission, getting the electricity to the places it is actually needed on a reliable continuous basis.

The article you quote is obviously pro wind energy and, in truth, in some places the methods suggested may work.

But you cannot extrapolate them across the total electricity and energy requirements of a complete nation. Wind may play its part but you also need regular supplies of electricity that are not subject to the whims of the climate

Paulm, Sorry you failed your own made up test>

High energy prices.You say BUSH. NEEEEEE wrong answer, correct one, democrats. Prevention of touching the earths energy sources

Continuous war. You say BUSH. Yes that is correct but you state is as a bad thing which is incorrect. What do you think keeps the country free and safe, I forgot maybe he should go over and say pretty please al quada settle down and lets be friends, maybe Barack could do that with his friends.

Katrina. My goodness, he made that storm happen didn't he, shame on him.

Enviromental denial. Well he knows where things come from as some don't, they think it magically appears, he actually has placed acts that make sense without going overboard.

Credit/medical crisis. Individual choices, not government responsibility although they would love to have that control over you.

Vincent, great job in noticing 90% of people on this blog have sense.

Gettingcolder, Show me where Bush said invading Iraq will keep oil prices down, it has been said from the start this is not about oil, why oil has risen is your wacko environuts who are afraid a blade of grass will get mashed.

PH, Great job and keep us updated on the big melt that is not happening, it probably will be kept quiet otherwise.

re t boone pickens my memories of t boone pickens are of an individual who would buy a stake in a company threaten takeover and the cash out when a white knight came in to save the company from him. this as opposed to an irwin jacobs who would take a stake in a co take it over run it better and make it a better company

leopards dont change their spots t boone must have invested is something that may not be panning out and perhaps is looking to the goracle for rescue from his dilemma any way ill wait and be open minded to see what boone offers up

kipp us said about al gore
also there seems to be a little jealousy because he has lived the american dream and bee succesful.

dont you mean born into it and remained politically connected to live it even larger
by the way in the 70s i liked gore and would have voted for him

Bobby Roberts:

Al Gore, well paid Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a company that specialises in making money from green investments

We should all invest in the green sector... seems like the way to go if you want to make money!

No matter what Gore gets up to. Global warming is real. In the past it mainly was re-enforced by green house gases.

Now, because humans are force feeding it into the air it is driving the warming we are seeing. This is all based on basic chemistry, accepted by the majority of scientist everywhere (maybe not meteorologists though. Why could this be?)

The earth may rectify the situation on its own, but then it may not. We have to be part of the control mechanism to stabilize the warm trend. A 3.5d global rise in temperature is more than not pleasant - it's bad news for us all.

Lord Montock did not have to revise his CO2 Climate sensitivity to make an important point - one that was already made in AR4. CO2 does not have the ability to cook the planet on it's own. This twaddle about the planet heating up has always been a bird walk. The question is not if the the planet is heating up ; cooling down or somewhere in between. The question still is , and always has been , does the planet have the POTENTIAL to heat up to castastrophic levels. The whole purpose of a discussion about the Climate Sensitivity is geared toward this end. If the sensitivity is greater than Zero [a.k.a. a positive feedback system] , then the potential exists. If it is less than Zero [negative feedback system] , then the the potential does not exist. Lord Montock's work with AR4 simply points out that CO2 as a GHG can't get Earth to the run away scenario that the alarmist want people to believe it can. If it is to happen , it has to come from the feedbacks. Isn't it interesting that you don't hear very much any more from the alarmists about the feedbacks [anybody heard from Chris Crawford since our little "Debate" about Feedbacks back in January?]. Maybe what is really needed is a revision of AR4's feedback tables. It wil be interesting to see if the UN finally caves in to some of the new research that has come out about cloud and albedo feedbacks in AR5. The inclusion of IRF's in the new climate sensitivity models is another hard prickly for the AGWers as well. The Church of Cataclysmastorology would have everybody believing that just because the planet gets warm now and then , that some how 1) Man is to blame for it ; 2) the warming is without a doubt terminal because a computer model says so. Human Induced End of the Worldism Theory IS A BOGUS PILE OF ......: Nuff Said !!

Paulm:

Your take on the reasons for all of the things you mention is quite humorous.

It seems that according to some, both Bush and climate change can be blamed for everything. As the church lady once said, if not once but a million times, "How Convenient!".

Josh's reply is mostly correct. Will choose to not explain it further since it is not weather related. Suffice to say that if you want to place any blame on the political situation, most of the fault for those items can be seen to be squarely with both major parties and the dolts in each that pander to a vocal minority.

Since there is generally more pandering and sympathy among the democrats and liberals (read: one and the same anymore), it seems to me that they hold the lionshare of the responsibility.

Fortunately for them, they are the antithesis of responsibilty therefore, they can blame shift quite easily.

Josh,

Your blaming of the Democrats for high energy prices is incredibly wrong. Remember, Bush and a Republican congress had 6 years of matrimony where energy prices went up.

That fact alone debunks your claim.

thank you.

More Pickens News. He agrees with Gore that in ten years we lose. -- Stop sending our precious US Dollars to foreign countries that are security threats or invest it in the US.
I would rather make Gore a billionaire than build new cities in the arab desert.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oil prices will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years if the United States fails to reduce its dependence on foreign imports, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens said on Tuesday.

The United States imports nearly 70 percent of its oil now and Pickens said the world's top energy consuming nation would import 80 percent in a decade if it does not aggressively tap its own natural gas and renewable resources.

Josh,
Why defend Bush? Even McCain is trying to distance himself from so many failed policies.

Greenspan wrote in his recent book that "“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Before 9/11 Bush spoke about Iraq:
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary."

Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."

In the spring of 2003, oil was at less than $30 a barrel. So much for security in the Middle East!

Predictably, this thread has been the perfect vehicle for the Denial Machine to espouse their anti-environment, anti-science and, yes, anti-economic growth rhetoric.

Of course, it escapes the right-wingers here that Gore wants to enact a tax structure that they, in the past, have supported -- that being reducing taxes on earned income (payroll tax) and replacing it with a consumption tax (in this case, a carbon tax).

I thought getting rid of taxes on what you EARN and instead taxing only what you CONSUME is what conservatives want? If Newt Gingrich delivered this message, and called the carbon tax by some other name, right-wingers would support it.

But since the Deniers on this blog are politically-driven beasts, they whip out their hate rhetoric.

Many people would have a lower tax burden under Gore's plan. For those who drive alone to work, 50 miles each way, in their Hummers each day, their tax burden may be higher....but then again, those people don't deserve our sympathy anyway, because it's their choice.

i think that dude al gore stole my "kennedy reach for the moon speech" reference!!!...Back in 1973 when the opec nations decided to draw the oil sword to punish western nations for their support of the yom kipper war, gasoline prices quadrupled overnight...the democrats answer was to pass the 55 mph limit, daylight savings time (in reality this burned more energy and just who likes going home after work in the dark?), TAX SUBSIDIES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, and increased vehicle fuel efficiencies...sound familiar?...not only did more people die because of lighter cars, the alternative energy sources were a pipe dream unable to relieve prices because they cannot come close to providing the amount of energy needed nor can they compete with the efficiency of fossil fuels...back then, with public outcry at a crescendo at this democratic induced energy failure, they passed the windfall profit tax in order to punish the big bad ole oil companies for making too much money and spread it around to cover for their tax induced blunder...sound like a familiar obama solution?...the historic consequence was the devastation of the united states (god bless it) domestic oil and gas industry and
the consequential ever increasing dependence on foreign oil...so here we are, fast forwarded
to a time when history will repeat itself and those that ignore it are bound to repeat those
mistakes...al gore has his story down...playing the terot fear factor
card from an undebated, pontificated speech on energy falsehoods pretending he has all the
answers when in reality, the desperation of his sales pitch is quite blaring and the gall of his misleading statements is unbelievable...1st paragraph) only thing he didnt lie about was the united states is in trouble...then he cannot help himself by lying that if thats not enough, then its the whole world implying co2 meltdown 2) then he follows up with a couple of familiar unsubstantiated crystall ball climatic disasters invoking the "extreme" weather card (how can any meteorologists sit idly by and let him get away with this crap) 3) then he goes on to quote energy numbers from the wind and sun promoting his "tax-payer bilking solution"...nevermind little details like you cannot produce enough electricty from the wind and sun to power america without it going broke from the subsidies needed to make it a reality 4) yep al, about thirty years ago, your pals were the ones that got us into this crisis with the windfall profit tax and the now bankrupt alternative energy plans 5) then al invokes the ten year desperation scam, which is all about his profit schemes to save the world from imminent doom by guess what? a windfall profit tax relabeled as a co2 tax 6) then he goes on to dismiss blame of his party's failed energy policies, poor old miners (what about your zinc mine AL?), our troops (that one really pisses me off like he really cares) and more co2 cap and trade like the failed european one...7) finally, he tops it all off with the NASA moon story, aka HANSEN connection, like his solution will really work...after all, he was the one who invented the internet...boy oh boy, this dude once again proves he will pontificate anything to make a buck including driving this country into the ground with his make believe money pilfering agenda...sorry al, only the naive believe your convenient untruths anymore...its time to take the green shackles off big oil, king coal, the nuke dudes, and flush the green schemes like the ethonal alternative...only doing that will solve this great country's domestic energy supply problems that you helped create and want to do all over again...there, i feel a little better...peace, bros!!!

Reply: Sammy, If you kept your comments in line and eliminated the name-calling then your stuff would get posted. Luckily for you, I felt generous today (on vacation by the way) and had some time to edit out that stuff. Please keep it clean or your next comment will not be posted. The moderator.

Veets,Anonymous

Thanks for completing my arguement between yourselves. When did oil really start to rise, well anonymous says in spring of 03 it was $30 a barrel, when did democrats take over congress, well I rest my case. McCain distancing himself from Bush, Hey he is not perfect, really it is a little bit of trying to pretend your something else to get votes, if your a member of the demo party right now you know all about this, fake everything to get everyone to like you, at least the ones that will fall for it. Anonymous says so much for security in the middle east, it takes time and if you find out facts instead of NBC opinions you will see progress is being made, although there will always be the quacks over there that wake up in the morning to throw rocks at each other, suicide bombings, etc, but eventually a state of control will take over.

Gettingcolder,

T.Boone Pickens is not the gospel. But he is right oil could probably hit $300 a barrel if in ten years we still have enviroquacks preventing drilling here at home where we have all the oil we need.

Mark,

"Many people would have a lower tax burden under Gore's plan."

What is Gores tax plan Mark? Anyone? I see no link for "Gores tax plan". Let's discuss it, which includes costly Kyoto and it's successor.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/21/10136/4144

Americans would be forced to lower their carbon footprints (how low) or pay astronomical fees. Some people call that "simple assault" on the economy. Isn't freedom grande?

And no Mark, many Americans would not be paying lower taxes under his plan. Our governmental operations/beaurocracy would require us to maintain current revenues. Add in the free offsets/money that would go towards developing nations under Kyoto, and most Americans would be paying more taxes. Don't forget to include the democrats health care plan.

We already pay consumption taxes AND income taxes. What country do you live in? FYI, I do not have a problem with payroll taxes. I do have a problem with how much money is collected and the ways in which it is wasted.

Hlinka,

1.) X
2.) X
3.) X

Mark and Hlinka aren't even close.

Todays chuckle: www.wecansolveit.org has ONLY gotten 1,414,700 people to sign up. Is that a majority?

Of course, it escapes the right-wingers here that Gore wants to enact a tax structure that they, in the past, have supported -- that being reducing taxes on earned income (payroll tax) and replacing it with a consumption tax (in this case, a carbon tax).

A carbon tax would decimate the poor.
The solution higher taxes on everyone else and supposed wealth transfer.

Right

Mark:

You are absolutely correct, a consumption (sales) tax is something that many right wingers support. The difference here though is the basis of the tax concept. If the tax is based upon carbon usage, none of us would support it because the concept is not valid. If a consumption tax is based upon usage across the board, then we would.

And more importantly, we are more concerned about the tax structure being fair rather than it be "weighted". Simply put, we all should pay an equal percentage in tax to support governmental services (no matter what you make).

As far as hate rhetoric, please, there is no comparison as to which political side resorts to name calling and snippy remarks. The last paragraph sums it up quite well, thanks.

Anon:

Just stop trying to link Iraq with oil with AGW. They are all seperate issues and there are no real links if you really understand the historical and economic chain of events.

Ummm...yeah....On the cabinent talking about Iraq prior to 9/11, I might suggest that your concern and insinuation is taken a bit out of context. The Bush cabinent was basing their comments upon prior cabinents of the 90's. And we all know who was Pres. in the 90's right? Frankly, you can go back to Bush 41 and Reagan, cabinents have been concerned over Iraq and its' crazy dictator. Military action has nearly always been on the table. No news there.

Please remember, oil did not begin its' meteoric climb until 2006 when Pelosi and Reid came into power in the congress. Back then it was a mere $60 and most of that was due to natural disasters and the ongoing terriost threat. Had we finished the job, in lieu of back down a little...but don't get me started there. That is a seperate topic.

Simply put, Gore's speech is campaigning for his pet cause. The fact he stands to reap gigantic profits for nothing more than an agenda should discount him altogether immediately.

T. Boone also stands to make a mint (more than he already has) from being at the forefront of the "green" wave. He too, is merely guilty of marketing his new method of financing his fleet of personal planes, homes, and fancy expensive things.

Mark:

IRT your comments: "Of course, it escapes the right-wingers here that Gore wants to enact a tax structure that they, in the past, have supported -- that being reducing taxes on earned income (payroll tax) and replacing it with a consumption tax (in this case, a carbon tax).

I thought getting rid of taxes on what you EARN and instead taxing only what you CONSUME is what conservatives want? If Newt Gingrich delivered this message, and called the carbon tax by some other name, right-wingers would support it."

Perhaps it escapes the left-wingers here, that many conservatives would embrace a consumption tax -- national sales tax, etc. -- but only if it makes sense. To the skeptics on this site, and I am one, carbon dioxide emissions have not been proved a threat to the climate, so why tax it? That remains a theory with many cracks in it, so of course there will not be support for such an idea.

As for your belief that the Gore plan will lower many people's tax burden, I haven't seen the details of his plan so that I can't speak to that. Have you? But I suspect that that the new tax loopholes (and there will be some) would entail buying carbon indulgences, oops, I mean offsets and credits so that people like himself with the means to do so can avoid/reduce the carbon tax as well. The bottom third of income earners naturally will pay no taxes (they don't now), leaving it to the middle class. Not a very equitable structure I suspect.

now i know how ph feels...got my hiney spanked and dont like it...its ok brett, i deserved it...i apologize if i make your job harder with politically incorrect descriptions of the two guys featured in the above article...i guess i get alittle passionate when i see people taking advantage of others thru falsehoods, bad science, and self-serving politically induced tax subsidizies...i'll try and do better in the future...thanks for your patience...

Hey, we could find a way to convert the CO2 to carbon then to diamonds and then get rich off of it!!!

"Anonymous:
Hey, we could find a way to convert the CO2 to carbon then to diamonds and then get rich off of it!!!

Posted by Anonymous | July 23, 2008 1:34 AM "

Yes, Patrick's tunnels will do that. Computer modeling will prove it. (mockery off)

"T. Boone also stands to make a mint (more than he already has) from being at the forefront of the "green" wave. He too, is merely guilty of marketing his new method of financing his fleet of personal planes, homes, and fancy expensive things."

Give me a break, the guy is 80 years old and, when he dies, his money is all going to charity. Of course, it never actually occured to you that the reason Pickens, along with a rapidly growing number of corporate executivies, are supporting green energy is because, in the long-term, it makes the most economic sense.

If you enjoy your 1% annual growth rates, and reduced economic thoroughput throughout the world, then by all means, stay addicted to oil. Maybe we'll return to the horse and buggy days.

By the way, a carbon tax is a consumption tax. You can call it a fairy tax for all I care. It's a tax on what you consume. The reason right-wingers don't support it is because it's Al Gore who trumpets the message, which is why you bring on your haterade.

Al Gore is only in this for the fame and money. He could care less about climate change. His house in TN uses 22 times the energy as a standard home. He also has a large SUV and power boat which he uses frequently.

I am all for a cleaner environment but this global warming crap has got to stop. To say that humans are responsible for it is an arrogant position to take. Do humans have the power to prevent floods, hurricanes, tornado's or sunami's? No, we do not. So what makes you think we have any control over the temperature of the earth.

The earth's climate has been warming for the last 15,000 years. We have had the knowledge to measure it's temperature for less than 100 years. Do you realize what a fraction of time that is? And who is to say that a warmer climate would be bad for us?

Everyone that beleives global warming is a bad thing needs a high school history lesson. Millions of years of evolution has already proved that the earth's temperature fluctuates. We build cities on the coast line and expect them to last forever. Many civilations before us have come and gone. 99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct. Are present day humans now the master of their domain? Are we so arrogant that we think we can control our environment?

"Of course, it never actually occured to you that the reason Pickens, along with a rapidly growing number of corporate executivies, are supporting green energy is because, in the long-term, it makes the most economic sense."

Oh heck yes, it does make the most economic sense.

Of course, as we have a politician as the subject of this post, what makes most "economic" sense isn't always tied to free market issues. Nuclear power plants still make the most economic sense in market terms as far as counting price to build + price to fuel + price to dispose of waste. It really adds up if you add in the intangible of amount of pollution generated. Now, let's add in the political costs and it suddenly becomes better to keep that less efficient, more costly to run and maintain coal burner online and screwing up the environment worse than a dozen nuclear plants.
Here we go: regulatory agencies demanding multiple reports over and over again, politicos who need to get their "contribution" because stupid treehuggers are going ballistic, time spent paying idle work crews because of protesters clogging the site and/or answering frivolous lawsuits getting temporary injunctions, paying either the lawyers or bullcrap settlements to every brain dead moron who thinks that their crap stinks a little more since the nukes started up three counties over, penalties paid to suppliers because of the frivolous delays, more frivolous lawsuits forcing wastes to be held on site in containers not designed for long term storage, even more frivolous lawsuits because of containment problems of wastes that are being stored beyond design, etc., etc., etc.

Don't even get started on the nuclear toxicity issue, all wastes are toxic, the amounts nuclear plants produce are trivial. Hazardous but trivial in mass and simple to handle if you stop playing the "what if" game. People who are that stupid need to stay in bed and never bathe, since "what if" they slip and break their necks.

You can work up similar lists for refineries and nonnuclear power generating facilities. Guess what? Because of the treehuggers, we are having to use inefficient, higher polluting, more costly older infrastructure plants because new ones either cannot be or are not worth the political costs of building. The "economic" bonus for going green is the evasion of regulations (since "WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!"), tax breaks, subsidies and lack of moron treehugging groups demonstrating and filing frivolous lawsuits against them.

Look at the whole biofuel fiasco. Farmers who switch over take land out of food production (which makes for other costs for society not addressed here), get subsidized for doing it, lower the costs of farming (they can use cheaper chemical fertilizers and pesticides), evade a lot of regulatory crap (the cheaper chemicals cause more persistent pollution, but since biomass growing is not "agricultural" it isn't regulated as such) and get the cachet of being someone "helping" our energy crisis with a fuel that pollutes, costs more than petroleum products and will almost assuredly end up costing more in environmental cleanup costs.

Welcome to the real world AGWers. Like all kinds of morons on a mission, your "solutions" (even if there was a real problem) will only make matters worse in the long run.

As a proud card carrying member/BEAST/philistine of the "politically motivated" DENIAL MACHINE, let me be the first LIBERTARIAN to say that suppoting ANY tax involving this tripe is backward thinking any way you slice it. Be it from the left by way of an income tax or the right via a "consumption" tax. The lunatic Gore and the equally looney Gingrich (looney for being pursuaded toward and falling for this glo-GULL warming FRAUD) have overstepped their boundries. But what the heck, they aren't the one's who are politicaly motivated, are they? This isn't about power and creating more taxes and mandates to control your behavior while the (non) political elites laugh a us, right?

Oh, and by the by, Mr. Marko, please do explain just how anyone who disagrees with you is emoting anti-environment, anti-science and, yes, anti-economic growth rhetoric? (growth through more government, taxes, intervention and regulations...Oh yeah, I get it). And you still haven't told us what kind of vehicle you drive, Mark. Are you ever going to fess up and prove to this on line community that you practice what you preach?

Save the planet from hot air. Muzzle Gore and Gingrich!!!!!

P.S. Oh, and before I forget. I saw the long range forecast. I am still waiting for summer to start here in Western Pennsylvania (and last for more than a week).

Here's another report about the comments of Nobel winners in Landau:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/lindau-half-of-nobel-prize-winners-are.html

Seven Nobel prize winners participated in a climate debate. How did it look like? Well, there may be a climate consensus among the high-school dropouts but there is none among the Nobel prize winners. There was one more difference. Many of the Nobel prize winners said, unlike the high-school dropouts, the following sentence: "I am no expert." ;-)

Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only those who are correct are important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money

-- Ivar Giaever

See also this paper for details on why and how nuclear power generation should switch from Uranium to Thorium.
http://energy.nobelprize.org/reports/rubbia_report.pdf

The future of mankind is crucially dependent on continued availability of cheap and
abundant energy. Should energy supply breakdown, mankind may collapse.

-- Carlo Rubbia

There you have it, Gore verus Rubbia, there are two doors and both have a tiger behind them. Which are you going to choose?

Personally, I think most cries of impending doom turn out to be exaggerated. Mankind will survive in anything. There are plenty of examples, of both natural and man-made misery. However, one thing for sure: you won't like it, it won't be pretty.

Dont Paninc,

Consider the earth an isolated island. A lovely blue and green one.

Now think, could we mess it up and miss manage the resources limited to this island. Yes and No, right.

Now think of Easter Island in the Pacific. The story goes that the isolated community there got it wrong and ended up in a sad state of affairs.

Could this happen to our big blue and green island in space - probably and it seem to be going that way with peak oil and climate change.

paulm, Peak Oil? Oh yeah, that was that idea that the world was going to run out of oil in the 70s. How is that doing? Oh, we have vastly larger proven reserves now that ever before in history? We didn't run out? Didn't that theory work for Peak Coal? It did and it didn't? Oh, you mean that we hit "Peak Coal" in production because Oil was cheaper and cleaner so that we haven't actually hit "peak", we simply don't need as much so are producing less.

Of course, mentioning AGW/AGCC along with Peak Oil is 100% appropriate. I like my fables all in one place.

Mark says:

"Give me a break, the guy is 80 years old and, when he dies, his money is all going to charity. Of course, it never actually occured to you that the reason Pickens, along with a rapidly growing number of corporate executivies, are supporting green energy is because, in the long-term, it makes the most economic sense."

Ah, the greying, altruistic "Big Oil" man, nearing the sunset of his days, finally gives back to the public he's been screwing his whole life. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? Has it ever occurred to you that energy companies are merely hedging their bets by appearing to be pro-green energy, all the while lobbying their Washington friends to get as large a slice of the carbon credit pie as they possibly can should we go down that road? Do you think BP would let Pickens go on this crusade if it did not in some way benefit the Board of Directors or their thousands of shareholders? Please don't tell me your view of corporate America is that naive.

Mark also says:

"If you enjoy your 1% annual growth rates, and reduced economic thoroughput throughout the world, then by all means, stay addicted to oil. Maybe we'll return to the horse and buggy days."

Ironically the main source of manufacturing power other than manual labor in the horse and buggy days was ... wind. Sure, let's abandon all the coal and oil we have and rely on the scientific fantasy of powering the world on renewable yet unreliable wind and solar. Maybe we could augment the power grid a little but wholesale replace is a nice story at best. Hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story or a political idealogy. Hansen's predictions have a major problem ... they diverge with reality now matter how you slice it. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354#comments) Those who cling to the theory of CO2 driving the world's climate do so at their own peril because the underlying principles are not grounded in scientific fact, methodology or transparency.

Gore's financial conflicts of interest on this issue disqualify him from being taken seriously. So, by the way, do Boone Pickens's.

Here's the deal: the earth gets warmer and cooler in long-term cycles dating back to before intelligent life existed on the planet. We happen to be between Ice Ages as we speak, which is a good thing. The human race would not be nearly so successful in the midst of an Ice Age. I am sure if we were seeing small differences in temperatures headed in the colder direction, there would be liberal theories of how we are responsible for that, too.

In the short run, e.g. during a human lifetime, this data is just too short-lived to suggest a trend in earth-time. In the medium run, the earth has plenty of feedback systems that move us back towards a sustainable equilibrium, and will be just fine. Over the long term, global temperature changes will drive changes in farming techniques, human diets, and perhaps human population. If the planet gets to be an unbearable place for 6 or 8 or 10 billion humans to live, well I guess the species will end up fighting over limited resources and the herd will be thinned out, sort of like what happens to the deer population some years. The earth will survive and go through many more Ice Ages to come, as if we had never even been here. Our influence over things, as viewed from the perspective of earth time, is insignificant.

Those liberals shedding crocodile tears for the earth are really more worried about their condos in Boca Raton and their beach houses on Martha's Vineyard. They are also doing what politicians are wont to do --- inflame public opinion for short term political gain.

If they were really concerned about things, they'd be talking about the root cause of all of this, which is human population growth. Anybody want to guess how well it would play at the polls if a politician says the government should be in charge of deciding how many new infants can be born in a given year, or put limits on the size of families?

Sure, the global climate is changing. But alarmists are using year-to-year data like it means anything. In earth years, this is like taking air temperatures every millisecond and extrapolating changes in them over a year. It's a misuse of data, taken out of the proper long-term context.

We are so short-sighted, but that's what politics is all about: twisting facts to suit your narrow purpose of having the government take over more and more control over the details of our lives.

When oil prices get high enough, economic forces will cause consumption to decline and production of it (and of alternative fuels) to increase. All we have to do is back off and let the economy do its thing. But if politicians get in there and try to micromanage things, they'll make this period of energy shortage much worse than it needs to be. You can bank on that one.

The earth is a powerfully durable thing. To think that we humans, who have inhabited it for only the last blink-of-an-eye in earth time terms, can ruin it permanently with our automobile exhausts, is the pinnacle of human-species-hubris. The earth is more threatened by solar flares, comets and meteors, plate techtonics, etc. Hell, even a global thermonuclear war would be but a short term setback for the planet. If humans become too much of a burden on the earth, it will easily find ways to thin out our herd. Or we will do it to ourselves.

I'm more worried about Islamic radicals blowing up Houston than I am global warming causing my homesite in west Houston to become beachfront property.