By on April 15, 2014

South_Point_Wind_Farm

The U.S. Department of Energy unveiled last week a four-year plan that would advance the goal of energy security by building upon as many alternative sources as possible, further reducing dependence on imported petroleum.

Autoblog Green reports the 27-page plan illustrates the proposed aims of the DOE to double the amount of energy produced by renewables, improve battery technology, usher in advances in biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells, and push further electrification of vehicles.

In addition, the DOE also has strategies ready for testing the nation’s nuclear deterrent for safety, security and overall effectiveness, as well as boosting the tools needed to bring improvements on the nation’s security infrastructure.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

267 Comments on “US Energy Department Unveils Four-Year Strategy For Alternative Energy...”


  • avatar

    #1 Allowing windmills to murder birds and bats.

    #2 pushing “global warming mandates” to TAX PEOPLE MORE even though global warming is a farce.

    #3. Pushing their “urban planning” goals to further make us socialists under government control – and reducing car ownership through “car sharing programs”.

    #4. The systematic elimination of the I.C.E engine by malthusian luddites.

    Make no mistake: this is an attempt to control and tax energy.

    • 0 avatar
      faster, greener, wonkier

      SFI-5 flamesuit on:
      #1) This doesn’t seem like your biggest concern.

      #2) As we all learned in Civics, congress and the Energy Dept. are the only parts of Gov with the power of the purse. Also if you knew anything about carbon tax proposals, you’d know that every one that’s taken seriously uses carbon tax revenue to reduce other taxes, but their political nonstarters, so no need to worry about lower taxes.

      #3) Search the document for ‘urban’ and you get 1 result, a reference to the Univ of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. The conspiracy is so vast even it’s proponents don’t advocate on its behalf

      #4) The report calls for more choice of vehicle tech, so yes, they believe the ideal share of ICE vehicles is less than 100%

      I look forward to a reasoned and productive dialog.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “…congress and the Energy Dept. are the only parts of Gov with the power of the purse.”

        Really?

        My home electricity costs thousands, yes, thousands of dollars more per year so CA can “encourage conservation” and fight “climate change.” So PG&E is essentially taxing me via artificially high rates. Of course, if your kids qualify for free school lunches, you can get a reduced rate on your electricity.

        Food prices are now through the roof because 50M people receive food stamps.

        Same thing will happen with health care. Those of us who work will pay higher premiums to subsidize the feckless.

        Everything these big government types get their mitts on turns into an income redistribution plan, effectively creating a “tax” without ever having passed an explicit tax law.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          re: “My home electricity costs thousands, yes, thousands of dollars more per year so CA…”

          you evidently must use a whole lot of electricity to RAISE your cost “thousands of dollars”

          for purposes of comparison, i just completed tax filings for 2013 last month. my wife and i are home most of every day. we run a small business out of our house [1556 sq ft]. and yet, our san diego / sdg&e electrical bill for the entire year was only $1350 [full retail rates apply - no discounts whatsoever].

          seems to me that those of us who use lots of resources in our daily lives – along with those of us who recognize the increasing dangers of a chaotic climate – should be better able to understand and truly appreciate precisely why our government is seeking alternative sources of energy.

    • 0 avatar
      FractureCritical

      1) you don’t give a bat crap about bats or birds, you care about your truck. If you really cared about bats and birds, you’d go after feral house cats, which kill per capita more birds than any windmill could ever dream of. there’s a reason a dead cat pelt in Australia gets you $20 from the government, and it’s not the Prime Minister’s allergies. I’ve often thought of going to Australia and doing this for a living since I hate cats. I also like General Tsao’s chicken, which oddly is relatively cheap down there. I wonder if there’s a connection(?)

      2)You can deny it all you want, us engineers will continue to scrape boats off of bridge decks until you come around. It’s ok, take your time, I get paid by the bridge. the more I build low today, the more I rebuild higher 20 years down the road. I therefore encourage you to keep denying, I have a kid who needs college paid for in a few years, so you go, girl!

      3)Most car sharing programs are for profit, as far as I know. Last time I looked, ‘profit’ was a capitalist thing. The Chinese I think are socialist, but they make more profit than us as a country, so maybe they’re Profitalists? beat’s me. Now a real socialist wants everyone to pay for their unearned lifestyle, or so I’ve heard on FoxNews, which we all know is the most trusted name in news. Since I’m an engineer, and most roads get paid for out of deficit spending, which are primarly beaten into dust by heavier trucks, I must therefore conclude that truck drivers are socialists, since they don’t pay their fair share. At least they buy more undertaxed gas than anyone else, so it drives the price up for everyone else, so I guess that’s good too? seems confusing.

      4) ‘mathusian luddites’? really? you didn’t think that up yourself, you got it from some conservative diaper wipe of a book and probably highlighted the passage and dog eared the page so you wouldn’t forget the term. ;)

      Chill. Stop looking for zebras in donkey country.

      The idea that our government has some well thought out organized plot run by a crack secret team implictly requires the assumption that government is competant. but for everyone that has ever actually worked with a government agency, we mostly chuckle a little and shake our heads at the idea of government competantly doing anything.

      hugs and kisses

      • 0 avatar

        #1 cats are killers of small animals but that’s part of nature’s plan- really doesn’t bother me.

        #2. People are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that global warming is real. If you want to believe in it considering we only have less than 100 years of satellite data and less than 1 million years of human study…you go right ahead. I don’t believe in it.

        Biggest mistake you make is assuming that Earth’s climate zones don’t change. THEY DO.

        The other mistake you make is assuming that Earth has a regular pattern of weather. IT DOESN’T

        #3. If I can’t make up an insult myself then I must ask you where are you getting all of your “proof” that global warming exists?

        You are merely parroting information that you heard of from people who call themselves climate scientists.

        Believe it or not: I have a Masters Degree in Geology.
        I’ve actually spent time going into caves, drilling sites, hydraulic fracturing sites and visiting ice core storage centers on field work.

        And considering the Earth’s violent history with asteroid bombardment, volcanic activity and various other global catastrophes, the belief that pumping a little CO2 into the atmosphere is “destroying” the planet does not convince me.

        Stop deforestation – that will help solve the “problem”.

        Soil is also an excellent carbon sequester.

        A single volcanic eruption does more damage to the earth that humans could ever possibly do. But a volcanic corruption is part of nature. The earth constantly goes through various cycles and there are many species which either survive or don’t. This entire global warming movement is nothing more than a tax on the energy that people use. There is no arguing with me – there is no debate.

        Earth is close to 4.6 billion years old and the very same politician talking head TOOLS that are quick to talk about global warming have absolutely no idea about the history of this earth.

        Sad thing is there is no one to call them out on their bu!!sh!t when they say it

        • 0 avatar
          faster, greener, wonkier

          Sorry, I missed that you were a climate change denier. Not really sure where to start with you on this.

          What beliefs do you have that you are willing to consider new evidence on, this will help me not post something like FractureCritical…

          • 0 avatar

            I love it how people try to use oversimplification to nullify someone’s argument.

            I am a global warming denier.

            Climate Change is NATURAL.

            The Liberals entitled this whole fiasco as “global warming” and then when they realize that the earth wasn’t getting warmer even according to their own charts they tried to change it to “climate change”.

            Earth is not getting warmer in fact it is getting colder as the radioactivity of Earth minerals where’s out. The vast majority of the heat on the earth’s surface comes from the sun. Even the sun is slowly wearing out over the next few billion years. It will convert its hydrogen into helium – it will grow bigger and Redder. It will eventually collapse into a white dwarf.

            I think you need to learn the difference between global warming and climate change.

            To change is a natural phenomenon.

            You people assume that the Earth’s climate has regular patterns and that it does not change.

            THAT IS FALSE.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            BMSR: “Climate Change is NATURAL.”

            So is the light from the sun. Therefore, there can be no man made light.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @KixStart

            That’s actually a reasonable analogy. AGW is to climate change as man-made light-pollution is to the sun–proven, but mainly inconsequential.

        • 0 avatar
          jbreuckm

          The point isn’t that the climate changes. It always has.

          The point is that it is changing due to man-made factors at a pace that is orders of magnitude faster than anything in the geological record.

          Human civilization has occurred entirely during a period of relative climactic calm. The climate will change, eventually, to one that is inhospitable to supporting 7-10 billion humans.

          So perhaps it is most accurate to say that anthropogenic global warming is a existential threat to the stable climate system that has allowed modern civilization to flourish. If we don’t care about preserving a livable planet for future generations – not distant ones, but 3-4 human generations hence – then we need to rein in carbon and other GHGs.

          On the other hand, if you want to create a straw man like “the climate is always changing ipso facto no problemo!” then there’s no point in even talking about this. An analogy: growth is natural and usually healthy, except when growth supercharges and becomes cancer.

          • 0 avatar

            > The point isn’t that the climate changes. It always has.

            The argument that “X is happening anyway” is so simple minded and trivially clueless I’m not sure why a serious rebuttal is necessary against those who obviously can’t compare numbers.

            OTOH they might make smart hires for menial labor since you might be get away with paying them much less than agreed upon with the “but I already paid you” argument.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            Do you know what the rate of warming is? If you average all the data sets of global temperature, you find that the earth has not experienced any statistically significant warming in over 17 years, despite continued release of CO2 by man. Climate models developed 20 years ago to create this hysteria all overstate the actual observed warming by an order of magnitude. The models rely on positive CO2 feedback mechanisms which clearly don’t exist in nature. Anyone who knows anything about control systems knows that positive feedback is extremely rare in nature. If our climate exhibited positive feedback, we would have spun off into oblivion long ago and the earth would not be habitable. I’ve researched this myself for several years now and all the hysteria you hear in the media and from the IPCC is a crock of $hit.

          • 0 avatar

            > Anyone who knows anything about control systems knows that positive feedback is extremely rare in nature.

            Anyone capable of the most basic science can understand the effect of greenhouse gasses and greater solubility of said gasses in colder water.

            Those pretending to know “control systems” and “positive feedback” shouldn’t need more hints what that implies.

          • 0 avatar

            ^ also, this only makes the problem here much worse given it’s middle-school science material:

            > I’ve researched this myself for several years now

        • 0 avatar

          > Believe it or not: I have a Masters Degree in Geology.

          That is rather hard to believe since STEM students in grad programs are generally expected to read primary sources. There’s basically zero research which supports climate denialism.

          People who just don’t know better (lack the education) at least have an excuse here. It’s only much worse when people claim basic proficiency but fail regardless.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “There’s basically zero research which supports climate denialism.”

            There are thousands of scientists who question the tenets of CAGW. Do a little research instead of parroting John Stewart.

          • 0 avatar

            > There are thousands of scientists who question the tenets of CAGW. Do a little research instead of parroting John Stewart.

            Just a clarification here, by “research” I mean the relevant science experiments, whereas by “research” you and your peers seem to mean listen to what happens to be on AM radio.

            It’s confusing when two words are spelled the same but mean different things, so it’s best if we start calling one “science research” and the other “AM radio research”.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            MB: “There are thousands of scientists who question the tenets of CAGW. Do a little research instead of parroting John Stewart.”

            There are unvetted lists of thousands of people who claim “scientist,” notably at the OISM. I wonder if the OISM did finally remove the “signatures” of world famous climate scientists Drs. Benjamin Franklin Pierce, John McIntyre, Margaret Houlihan and Frank Burns.

            If you look at the people who do the work, analyze the data and try to tease out what’s going on from the copious noise in the system, they’re in nearly complete agreement. Holdouts would include Richard Lindzen, who acknowledges CO2-driven warming as a forcing but argues that it won’t be severe because of negative feedbacks he hasn’t yet proven (he’s probably pulled as many papers as he’s written in the last decade), John Christie in Alabama and something like a half-dozen others who have some credibility.

            If you want to do the “scientist” counting thing, you’d probably want to refer to the statements of the NAAS, APS and AGU. The Denialists there are very much in the minority.

          • 0 avatar
            fvfvsix

            the use of the word “denier” or denialism certainly doesn’t do much to bolster your argument.

            It’s a petty name calling exercise that doesn’t belong on this discussion thread.

          • 0 avatar

            > the use of the word “denier” or denialism certainly doesn’t do much to bolster your argument.

            Denialism is more of a historical argument against the groups commonly found on the wrong side of history by rejecting inconvenient conclusions of empirical science.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          re: “…we only have less than 100 years of satellite data…I don’t believe in [global warming]. Biggest mistake you make is assuming that Earth’s climate zones don’t change. THEY DO…other mistake you make is assuming that Earth has a regular pattern of weather. IT DOESN’T…If I can’t make up an insult myself then I must ask you where are you getting all of your ‘proof’[?]…parroting information that you heard of from people who call themselves climate scientists…the belief that pumping a little CO2 into the atmosphere is “destroying” the planet does not convince me…A single volcanic eruption does more damage to the earth that humans could ever possibly do…There is no arguing with me – there is no debate.”

          I D I O T I C

          • 0 avatar

            You can call me an idiot, but it doesn’t change the facts of laws of thermodynamics, nor does it in any way decrease my position.

            I don’t even need to use name calling tactics because I am so far ahead of you on the issue.

            You need to catch up…but you can’t.

            It’s like trying to chase a Veyron SS.

            You failed the moment you thought about doing it.

          • 0 avatar

            > You can call me an idiot, but it doesn’t change the facts of laws of thermodynamics, nor does it in any way decrease my position.

            It’s complete true that philipwitak calling you an idiot doesn’t change the facts of laws of thermodynamics nor decrease your position, but it’s unclear what that has to with anything since your position has zero correspondence with thermodynamics.

          • 0 avatar
            philipwitak

            re: “You can call me an idiot…”

            i realize i can. and i understand that i am able. but i didn’t.

            i simply labeled your pronouncements ‘idiotic.’ any inference or conclusions drawn from that can only be credited to the viewer reading them.

        • 0 avatar
          05lgt

          @BTRS, As a fan of The Big Bang Theory, I have to break the news to you; Sheldon says geology is the Kardashian sister of science. That makes you a master of Kardashian. Wait, I want to have a Masters in Kardashians…..

      • 0 avatar
        Onus

        I’ll chime in. Good post.

        The last part about governments is spot on. I worked at one for nearly 6 years. That enough to know how things work, err or don’t.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      Sharpen the blades on the windmill’s so its a quicker kill. This should help out the bleeding hearts and animal rights freaks.

    • 0 avatar
      Scott_314

      Ah… not sure whether to grab the popcorn or reply.

      1. Wind turbines are economically viable at current electricity prices, though they need to be large. Locate them carefully.

      2. Global warming is a major but slow moving disaster. We should try to prevent it or prepare for it’s effects.

      3. Didn’t see much about urban planning goals. Don’t know what you have against mixed use development (jobs, retail, and residential co-exist, rather than being located miles and miles apart).

      4. In a treehuggers wildest dreams. Better fuel economy, hybrids, and electrics will help save people money and reduce oil consumption.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        1. Take locate carefully to read: in neighborhoods with lots of windmill supporters. Rather than other people’s ‘hoods, where windmill supporters are wont to vote for locating them.

        2. It’s and event. Like a snowstorm. Whether it’s a disaster or not, depends on whether you’re a skier or some dude locked out of his house in no more than speedos.

        3. It’s the “planning” period, that is the problem. As it is always and everywhere shorthand for “single story homes, acre sized lots and Teslas for me and my lobbyists; Andy Gumps stacked under a freeway and the bus for you.”

        4. There is fairly good reasons to suspect that things that saves one money, requires very little in the way of prodding by government mandate.

        The US Constitution never really did mention an taxing people to run an Energy Department as one of the government’s enumerated powers. For good reason.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Article 1 Section 8:

          The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in ***any Department or Officer thereof.***

          Article 2 Section 2:

          The President…may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.
          ___________

          The “Departments” refer to the Cabinet and the agencies that they run.

          The president obviously has the authority to have a cabinet with departments, as noted in Article 2. And the departments are clearly contemplated under the enumerated powers listed under Article 1 Section 8.

          The Constitution didn’t identify what Departments should or shouldn’t exist. The Constitution is a fairly open-ended document, and far more flexible than some people would like it to be.

    • 0 avatar
      nitroxide

      Bravo! Brilliant! Thank you for speaking truth to power. Basic thermodynamics teaches us that during an ice age, the temperature of the Earth naturally falls. We have had at least 4 ice ages (perhaps add many as 9), and we know that between the ice ages the temperature is the Earth must rise relative to what it was during an ice age. It’s natural and it happens whether Al Gore is blowing smoke out his mouth or not.

      • 0 avatar

        I recommend the film:

        HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE
        by: Smithsonian Chronicles

        For all of these clueless liberals and people who’ve never passed Earth Science 101.

        It’s astounding to me when I meet kids failing Earth Science or Physics.

        Thing is: when you notice the the Government is doing a poor job educating K-12, and that the vast majority of American kids are FAILING K-12 English and math…

        …having to argue with people about “global warming” is inevitable.

        I’M NOT ARGUING WITH ANYONE.

        They don’t have the facts to argue with me.

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          It could be more kids being home schooled by the far right and the far left of society.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            You obviously don’t know many homeschoolers, do you?

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Actually the ones that I do know that are home schooled are well sheltered from the facts of society. Maybe that’s a good thing in a way. But its almost like they are living in a bubble. And there parents also live in a bubble and can be quit ignorant to there surrounds out of there church cocommunity. But this could be the way to go to keep your kids safe in the United States.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            There are a lot of articles on homeschooling outcomes. Here’s one from an academic prospective:

            http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2012/11/homeschooling/

            I have to wonder how this guy’s grant proposal wasn’t spiked for seditious behavior and doubleplus ungood thinking.

            Even the extremes of left and right could hardly do a worse job than many of the government daycare centers – and those government schools have the opportunity to mis-educate far more kids than the 4% who are homeschooled

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “…the ones that I do know that are home schooled are well sheltered from the facts of society.”

            As long as “the facts of society” stubbornly refuses to be factual at all; that is what the less well indoctrinated amongst us refer to as A Good Thing.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Stuki- you pretty much make my point. God bless America.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Waingrow

      I think TTAC has been wasting a valuable resource. Can’t we get bigtruck to do more humor pieces like this one?

    • 0 avatar

      @ bigtruck

      Wind turbines kill trivial numbers of birds compared to cats (as previously mentioned) and buildings. Massachusetts Audubon came out in favor of Cape Wind. If killing birds had been a problem, they absolutely would have opposed it.

      House cats, the cats responsible for decimating birds (as opposed to non-domesticated cats, such as mountain lions) are NOT part of “nature’s plan”. There were no house cats in the Americas until Europeans brought them here, and they have absolutely decimated many species of birds, including songbirds.

      Saying that global warming is a farce is like saying that greenhouses don’t work as advertised. The physics is quite simple. I would explain it to you, but your mind seems quite made up on the matter.

      As for your number 4, first, let me say that I love my ICE, and I prefer it straight, like my bourbon, rather than adulterated with electric tech. That said, something else might ultimately work BETTER, and taxing carbon would encourage development of that something. Many advancements in technology, including ICE technology, have been made because regulations forced the companies to innovate. But your statement under #4 makes you sound like the very luddites you criticize.

      You write: And considering the Earth’s violent history with asteroid bombardment, volcanic activity and various other global catastrophes, the belief that pumping a little CO2 into the atmosphere is “destroying” the planet does not convince me.

      Oh, it won’t destroy the planet. It won’t even destroy life on earth. Microbes can survive just about anything. But it DOES threaten to destroy civilization, because it threatens to gravely harm agriculture, and at 7,500,000,000 people, earth is so heavily populated that there is very little play in the system.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Progressivism already destroyed civilization. Compared to that unabridged catastrophe, some added soda bubbles in the air, are pretty benign.

        Just like microbes, people are pretty adaptable as well. Some live in the Sahara. Which is probably quite a bit warmer and dryer than anyone foresees the Alaskan North Slope becoming any day soon.

        The world always changes. That it does so, is little reason for letting a bunch of scummy busybodies use that excuse to harass others.

        If things get too warm for you where you’re at, Go North, Young Man! Or South. Or ditch the skis for surfboards. Or whatever floats your boat. While leaving others free to do the same. Instead of supporting their harassment by institutions as universally useless and disgusting as tyrannical governments.

        • 0 avatar

          I don’t know about you, Stuki, but I can still afford to buy food, and fuel to run my car and heat my home. Global climate disruption, if left unchecked, will change all that as droughts, much more severe storms, and greater extremes of climate decimate agriculture.

          @bigtruck
          You think climate data goes back only 10,000 years? I thought you said you were a geologist!

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            It’s already happening in California – produce prices are on the rise due to the 5-6 year drought. There was so little snow there this winter that it will get even worse – our food will have to be brought in from Chile, etc. by bunker-fuel burning ships.
            There are still compensatory mechanisms (being studied) in the atmosphere and oceans that have moderated warming to this point, giving deniers some ammunition, but when these are overwhelmed by a 50% increase in CO2 then the tipping point will be reached, and things will get much worse, much faster. We have to do what we can, while we can – there’s no place else for us to live.

          • 0 avatar

            > There are still compensatory mechanisms (being studied) in the atmosphere and oceans that have moderated warming to this point, giving deniers some ammunition,

            There isn’t. The main difficulty in demonstrating AGW is the measurement and not the physics. The earth is a big place and it’s hard to cover all of it with temp probes.

            The latest satellite temp reconstruction which provides the most complete coverage show warming pretty much in line with the original expectations.

      • 0 avatar

        David…

        Cats don’t kill BALD EAGLES!!!

        http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/Windmills-wind-solar-obama/2013/11/26/id/538744/

        Global Warming is a FARCE.

        There is nothing that you can share with me to disprove that fact.
        Any information that you have is based on less then 10,000 years of climate study.
        Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
        You don’t have enough evidence to prove anything.

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          We have overwhelming evidence that human activity is, by itself, raising the average global temperature, and that this will inevitably lead to a climate crisis, if not addressed.

          This human activity does so by introducing pollutants into the air.

          Taking action to reduce air pollution is urgently required if we are to avert/avoid the crisis we are creating for ourselves.

          Period.

          Proclaiming that there are changes in climate resulting from natural causes is a red herring. We humans are poisoning our planet, and the “global warming” debate is about taking action to prevent this from happening.

          Denying the impact of human activity on global average temperatures, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is akin to saying “I want to drown in my own s**t”.

          • 0 avatar
            fvfvsix

            Actually, I have that data from Oxford you reference sitting on one of my servers. Of course, the news outlets you read won’t tell you that large swaths of it were copied and pasted in an attempt to prove the point you just asserted.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “Saying that global warming is a farce is like saying that greenhouses don’t work as advertised. The physics is quite simple. I would explain it to you, but your mind seems quite made up on the matter.”

        OK, give me the equations that prove man-made CO2 emissions are warming the planet. You’re the only one who claims to possess them. And if you can produce those equations, there’s a nobel prize in it for you.

        Newtonian gravity is pretty simple, however there’s no closed form solution for five bodies moving under mutual gravitation. It’s a chaotic system, extremely sensitive to initial conditions. If you can’t predict where five smooth balls will end up after moving around under a simple square law equation, how easy do you think it is to predict the global temperature 100 years in the future?

        • 0 avatar

          > OK, give me the equations that prove man-made CO2 emissions are warming the planet. You’re the only one who claims to possess them. And if you can produce those equations, there’s a nobel prize in it for you.

          The thermo equations get published in the relevant research as well as summaries by the IPCC. At this point it appears “researched this myself for several years now” really means “I can’t even read the basic lit”, which is an odd definition.

          > Newtonian gravity is pretty simple, however there’s no closed form solution for five bodies moving under mutual gravitation. It’s a chaotic system, extremely sensitive to initial conditions.

          There’s no closed form solution like most things in science but given numerical iterative tools it’s usually possible to predict basic characteristics like convergence/divergence.

          Anyone familiar with math knows this, so it’s interesting what this sort of “sounding technical” is supposed to impress.

          What’s more amusing/revealing here is that “closed form” is hardly a requirement at all in *science* models, and anyone remotely familiar with STEM at a college level should know this.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “…it’s usually possible to predict basic characteristics like convergence/divergence.”

            Go back and look at what the models were saying 20 years ago vs. where the actual temperature is now. There’s been no warming for over 17 years. In fact, since 2005, the earth has actually been COOLING at a rate of 0.15°C/century while the IPCC projected it would WARM by 1.67°C/century.

            I’m not a climate scientist, but I can read a friggin’ graph. Can you?

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/the-great-credibility-gap-yawns-ever-wider/

          • 0 avatar

            > Go back and look at what the models were saying 20 years ago vs. where the actual temperature is now.

            http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/22zwkq/science_ama_series_im_prof_stephan_lewandowsky_i/cgs101z

            > I’m not a climate scientist, but I can read a friggin’ graph. Can you?

            Given that you just copy/pasted the “arguments” above from the same sources, I’ve abundantly illustrated that this crowd has no clue how numbers much less science works.

            Their teachers back in K-12 already gave it their best shot over a dozen years, so it wouldn’t be effective to start from square one here again.

    • 0 avatar
      340-4

      #1 – Warming up the crowd with a joke! Perhaps I will try the veal.

      #2 – Better cite your credible, peer-reviewed sources on this one – if you have any.

      #3 – TIL we have unlimited land area for wasteful expansion. Thanks for clearing that up for me! Where can I design your petroleum-clad split level? I assume you want no insulation and the least efficient boiler, amirite? Don’t want to be part of that gubment kontrol!

      #4 – If your big trucks didn’t run on gas you’d still bitch, right?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @BTR:

      I’m with you on every point (remember, I’m the resident EV driver from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).

      But I have one minor nit: “murder” is a term properly applied to the malicious killing of creatures with souls, namely people. The death of a few birds is neither malicious – nor murderous – because birds have no souls, and their deaths by windmill are not done with malice.

    • 0 avatar
      cars-freedom

      This will make our west look like something out of an old Godzilla movie. Our beautiful plains replaced by gigantic bird-choppers. If only the Indians of old come come back to life, they would have one more reason to hate our government.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Is Canada no longer friendly? We get little oil from the Middle East so this reeks of appeasing idiots. There’s not enough money (or land area for that matter) to make the whole world run on so called “green” energy, its just a way to manipulate energy prices and blame energy providers. Stop killing the coal industry, stop spreading anti fracking propaganda, that’s a good start for energy independence.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      ” reeks of appeasing idiots.” and good manners means many of us have to appease you. Do you think – or does your head just randomly hit the keyboard in a drunken stupor.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Oh, I see, forget the numbers, you don’t want the facts so attack the argument, is that it?
        Tell me how much oil do we get from unfriendly sources if I am incorrect?

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        Probert, you should also stop using your critical thinking skills. Stop, just stop. Someone will report abuse on the site. Once the koolaid is deeply injected, one can never go back to reality. There has never been any U.S. armed forces protecting or fighting over oil. That is socialist propaganda. Forget Americans that died in the gulf war and Iraq war. Just move forward. Spend 10 to 15% of your monthly wages on gas for your auto and pretend nothing is happening around you and the koolaid will take care of everything.

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          It’s terrible that we have a military that has protected access to foreign oil not just for ourselves, but Europe and Japan as well.

          It’s even worse that relatively inexpensive oil and natural gas have provided a source of fuels for home heating and transportation.

          In the good old days, before those eeeeevil oil and natural gas companies provided us with these dirty fuels, people in this area heated their homes with coal- or wood-fired stoves.

          It was so much better having to regularly feed a hot stove that provided a steady source of indoor air pollution.

          The indoor air pollution produced by those stoves had another bonus – they kept the population down by encouraging respiratory diseases. More so, one might add, than the pollution that was of the outdoor variety. I’m guessing that was a good thing, too.

          Those hot stoves located in key rooms had another great advantage. They were perfect for burning small children who accidentally touched one. Then again, having a child die from an infected burn certainly also hampers population growth.

          It’s just terrible that people now use efficient, gas-fired and oil-fired furnaces that no longer produce soot and dust that needs to be cleaned daily, and aren’t burning small children on a regular basis. And let’s not forget all of the loggers we’ve thrown out of work now that fewer homes need a steady supply of wood.

          They’ve also cut down on the number of house fires, which happened more frequently in the good old days. That did ensure more employment for firemen.

          And who can forget the Eden that was America before gasoline made it possible for lots of people to have automobiles? Why, before Henry Ford I developed the Model T, 90 percent of native-born Americans never ventured farther than 20 miles from their place of birth. That certainly cut down on the nasty effects of travel and expanding one’s horizons.

          If you did visit the city, you smelled the lovely aroma of horse manure, and took chances with diseases borne by flies and other insects. Then again, those insect-borne diseases probably kept the population in check, too, so I’m guessing that was also a good thing.

          And, if you were really lucky, you visited during the sweltering summer months, when that aroma was especially zesty. You also got the added fun of seeing overloaded horses literally dropping dead in the streets from pulling heavy loads in the summer heat. But, hey, horses can always be replaced, so who needs a truck?

          Yes, life was a picnic before those nasty oil and gas companies came along. And why would we ever want to have our military ensure a steady supply of oil for not only ourselves, but also our allies, until the new sources of energy are not only widely available, but cost-effective, too?

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            @ geeber….Its not everyday that I agree with you. That was brilliant!

            Very well said! I couldn’t agree with you more.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            geeber – Henry Ford told you history was more or less bunk and tradition. George Santayana said something quite different.

            Actually, I think one of the most important questions you can ask in any situation is – How did we get here? Bet GM is asking it right now about their ignition switch.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            A military powerful enough to bitch slap other countries around at will, despite them being halfway around the world; is a military powerful enough to encourage the stooges controlling it to do the same to you and me. And then to make us pay for it.

            Besides, even the most cursory understanding of economics, gives plenty confidence that oil will flow from the most efficient producer, to the most efficient consumer. And consumption efficiency is higher amongst those with less drag from funding a militaristic empire, just so a few progressive yahoos can preen around and pretend to be important.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Thank you, mikey.

            The problem is that there are elements in the world that don’t give a hoot about economics, cursory or otherwise, and would be happy to disrupt the flow of oil to the West in general, and the U.S. in particular. Our military prevents that from happening – or minimizes it.

            I have no problem with the federal government encouraging the development of alternative energy sources.

            But instead of casting oil and natural gas as the villains in this ongoing saga, let’s just remember that the good old days weren’t so good, and the use of oil and gas really has improved our overall quality of life. My older relatives have told me what life was like in the good old days. It wasn’t so hot, and cheap energy has made it much better.

            Is something better on the horizon? Undoubtedly there is. Government sponsored research, or incentives, can help us find it. Please note, however, that “something better” does not include something more expensive or inconvenient.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s quite possible to note that having dead horses in the street wasn’t an ideal alternative to smog, while also recognizing that burning this much carbon is bad for us and that carbon dependency adversely impacts our foreign policy.

            Unfortunately, we probably can’t conserve enough energy or produce enough renewables to make much of a difference. If we were smart, then we would be investing heavily into research that could provide us with an alternative.

          • 0 avatar

            > Please note, however, that “something better” does not include something more expensive or inconvenient.

            Considering that climate pollution has a timetable within our lifetime, “something better” is quickly turning into “something that’ll still work”.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Given the choice, I’ll take my chances with the smog as opposed to dead horses and insect-borne diseases.

            Urban life was hardly a bed of roses in the 1950s by our standards, but it was cleaner and healthier than urban life in the 1890s or early 1900s.

            Today we have much less smog along with no dead horses in the streets, and not too much in the way of insect-borne diseases.

            The poorest urban resident in 2014 America enjoys a healthier, cleaner environment than the richest urban resident did in 1914. Air quality has improved dramatically in our urban areas over the past 30 years. I look forward to continued progress.

            u mad scientist: Considering that climate pollution has a timetable within our lifetime, “something better” is quickly turning into “something that’ll still work”.

            The goal, to me, is to avoid the consequences of something like Germany’s plan, which had been had been widely praised. Unfortunately, it has ended up increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

            And, in the real world, something won’t work in the long run if it ends up being cost-prohibitive and inconvenient.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            We’ve made progress with smog. With carbon, it’s quite the opposite.

            Smog can be reduced substantially by means of technology. In contrast, carbon output can only be reduced by using less of it, and there is only so much that can be done to improve the operating efficiency of an internal combustion engine. (Plus, we have a tendency to offset efficiency gains with greater power output, which makes for more enjoyable driving but is a wash when it comes to fuel consumption.)

          • 0 avatar

            > The goal, to me, is to avoid the consequences of something like Germany’s plan, which had been had been widely praised. Unfortunately, it has ended up increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

            I haven’t really looked into it, but it was at least unfortunate that they’re giving up on nuclear. The timelines involved dictate that all solutions need to be on the table given that there’s no guarantee that stuff still in the research stages will work out.

            > And, in the real world, something won’t work in the long run if it ends up being cost-prohibitive and inconvenient.

            Climate is the ultimate tragedy of the commons, so arguments predicated on the invisible hand doesn’t really apply. If we’ve learned anything from regulating pollution it’s that only heavy handed tactics are effective.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      +1

      Alternative energy sounds great to soccer moms and other low information voters.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      We can easily grow enough carbon-neutral biofuel to power our entire transportation sector. We don’t even need arable land or fresh water to grow it. Furthermore, we could cut our carbon emissions by 15%-20%, with a paltry sum of money (2%-3% federal revenues) by using basic economic incentives, like federal rebates for economy cars and hybrids.

      Coal is not being killed. Coal electricity is being replaced with natural gas electricity because coal is much easier to export. The government has an interest in the economic efficiency of the energy sector so DC is creating policy to make sure everyone goes along with the plan. Obama is a Democrat so he plays the role of climate-savior, but that’s not what is going on. We are trying to avoid the inefficiency of natural gas glut.

      • 0 avatar

        > We don’t even need arable land or fresh water to grow it.

        If it were so trivial, the laggard Mericans wouldn’t be the first to succeed.

        > with a paltry sum of money (2%-3% federal revenues) by using basic economic incentives, like federal rebates for economy cars and hybrids. The government has an interest in the economic efficiency of the energy sector so DC is creating policy to make sure everyone goes along with the plan.

        Ironically, carbon credits are that “free market” alternative the usual regs for pollution.

        DC is just doing its usual do-nothing status-quo business.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          Carbon credit trading rewards people who pollute less than others. The system isn’t even good enough to be categorized as pseudo-free-market. It’s just a lobbying scheme to make the Chicago Mercantile Exchange more powerful. No irony involved.

          • 0 avatar

            > Carbon credit trading rewards people who pollute less than others.

            Thus by definition free market, compared to reg limits across the board.

            > It’s just a lobbying scheme to make the Chicago Mercantile Exchange more powerful.

            Again, Mercantile Exchange vs. the EPA. I don’t think you quite grasp what free market means.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            Go read Pigou. Then tell us what you’ve learned about markets for negative externalities.

          • 0 avatar

            > Go read Pigou. Then tell us what you’ve learned about markets for negative externalities.

            Just so we’re clear on this again, it’s the free market folks who want their Pigou or Coase.

            I’m not arguing for their efficacy, but it’s worth pointing out that this is normative econ, ie. “engineering”, not “science”.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            Neither Coase or Pigou supported carbon trading. Pigou argued that artificial supply and demand were politically dubious, and had implicit measurement difficulties beyond those of taxation or subsidization. The Coase Theorem wasn’t even created by Coase, and it is based on a hypothetical circumstance regarding two-party transactions for pecuniary externalities. CO2 pollution is not pecuniary. The transactions are not handled by individuals. Coase argued against the eponymous theorem throughout his life.

            Carbon-trading is not pseudo-market-based. It is an economic fabrication based upon the normative concept of “polluters’ rights”. Carbon trading is designed to undermine institutions like the EPA, while recreating Eden for brokers and traders. International carbon-trading is based on normative wealth redistribution theorems.

          • 0 avatar

            > Neither Coase or Pigou supported carbon trading

            Who cares? Certainly not the people advocating them.

            > Carbon-trading is not pseudo-market-based. It is an economic fabrication based upon the normative concept of “polluters’ rights”.

            Exchanging the right to do X for Y dollars instead of outright ban is by *definition* “market-based”. You’re probably confusing market-based with “good outcome”.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      Energy security is not just, “Can we import some from Canada?” It’s also price stability and global access. Shocks to energy and/or food supplies tend to increase the unrest that leads to war.

      The US military is very much interested in how this is going to go down for just those reasons.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        An often forgotten story from WW2 is that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and much of SE Asia in late 1941 was precipitated by US decision to cut off exports of oil to Japan. In Europe, it was the oil reserves of the Caucasus that drove Hitler to attack the USSR.

        So, yes, energy security is a huge issue for Americans, and nearly all nations. I think if you totaled up all the costs associated with US support for the Gulf and to fight the terrorism that support has caused, you would find those costs meager compared to what it would take for the US to gain energy independence.

        A few market-based measures to support solar and wind; support for environmentally friendly fracking; and additional carbon taxes would be a small price to pay to get rid of all those yellow ribbons.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      The current US power consumption could be handled by a mixture of solar and wind power. If anything moving the system to small scale individual-level units would offset the need for large power plants and in the case of industrial zones keeping a few nuclear plants online would provide the difference. I know as a conservative you need to not believe environmentalists because they threaten the status quo of corporate domination but at some point do you ever ask why it is that you hate the planet that much for some sort of theoretical ‘savings’?

  • avatar
    xtoyota

    The first 3 responses are right on………….
    Too bad that we have idiots running our Countries
    AND idiots voting them in

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      In America the majority rules. This is what the majority wanted. This is what they voted for. Not once, but twice!

      Those, like me, who don’t agree with their philosophy just have to live their lives around this nonsense.

      In MY area electricity is not as dependable as it is elsewhere and I often have to generate my own. My choice is gasoline for as long as two 55-gallon drums will last me, until I can get them refilled.

      Do I pollute? You bet! And the US Dept of Energy’s alternative energy policy is not going to make my commercial source of electricity any more dependable than generating my own. All it is doing, has done, and will continue to do, is drive up the price of electricity.

      Add to that the greenweenie’s wet dream of behavior modification of the masses to favor EVs on a grid that is already seriously overloaded and all the elements for an energy disaster are in place.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @HDC….Were an oil producing nation. If the truth be known, energy wealth is carrying our country. The Keystone pipeline, will bring huge benefits to both our countries.

        We also have more greenweenies, per capita, than the USA has. We just don’t have the Hollywood types. Unless you count” Neil Young”

        The whole thing has F.A to do with saving the earth. If you look real close into the tree huggers agenda. It all comes back to the socialist dream.

        ” Redistribution of wealth”

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          mikey, we agree! Howsomever, I also believe that there is a place for the alternative sources and generators of energy, just not at the expense of col, oil and gas.

          The greenweenies want to sent us back to the agrarian age and I’m too modernized to give up anything I have now, including my electronics and that magnificent 5.7-liter beast under the hood of my truck.

          If anything, I want more, more, more!!!

          And as long as I can afford to pay for it, why not? Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The latter comes in the form of potent fun wrapped in sheet metal.

  • avatar
    alsorl

    Sounds like a good concept. Except for all the money that flows in from lobbyist to keep foreign oil in the U.S.
    Then Wind and solar energy makes big oil lobbyist cringe and makes to much damn sense to use it more in the U.S.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Sorry but I work in energy, used to work petroleum on land, and now local nuclear, gas, and coal fired plants. Energy costs would have to quadruple for wind to make sense, and even then it makes little sense. Coal has been murdered by the current admin but it would still make more sense to invest in coal then it would wind. The only reason wind and solar farms exist is because of government requirements, otherwise the millions lost from their construction and massive maintence costs would translate to lower energy bills for you.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        Didn’t really need to mention you work in “energy”. We’d have known.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Considering how many sheeple with arts degrees believe msnbc in that the sky is falling if we don’t redirect all education funding to their dear global warming; I think its worthwhile to mention I actually see the raw information on maintence and production.

          Don’t get me wrong, engineers make a lot of money on windmills, they require a lot of downtime.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            More like you live in a bubble and only associate within your bubble world. I’m not some bleeding heart liberal Toyoda Prius driving tool nor am I some right wing koolaid drinking nut. Its just one should never bet against math. Math always wins.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            You make no sense, I’m looking at math, I’m betting on the math.
            You don’t have to be liberal, you don’t have to be conservative, the math speaks for itself.

            I am socially liberal-esk, however common sense tells me to verify everything I read or hear, until then take it with a grain of salt.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            In the case of global warming, with a bag of salt.

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        Currently there are three states that I’m aware of where you can purchase a new home with a roof completely covered in solar panels L’s. Honeywell also sells a home use windmill type of device. Four years ago it was a $15000 option. But in those very hot and sunny states it would pay for itself in less then 5 years.
        And since your the resident TTAC enegyt man. How many years of coal do we have before running out in the United States ? Or how many American’s have to die in foreign country’s to keep are love for oil in the United States? Fracking in Oklahoma is causing earthquakes, and water sources are being contaminated all over the country do to tracking. So my energy hummer man. How do we fix the earthquakes and water sources for our generation and future generations ?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          First of all, like a broken record, we get next to NO oil from unfriendly sources.
          Unless your growing a marijuana farm in your basement 15k in 5 years doesn’t add up. Considering coal production has been cut to nothing, we have several hundred years based on what is known to exist, which tends to increase every year as new veins are found.
          Where did fracking all of a sudden come up as an issue in the past month or two? I was sure all supposed negatives had been proven invalid a while back. Honestly they don’t bother me, put it a mile away to keep noise down and you could surround my home with them for all I care.

          Back to coal, isn’t there a vein in Australia that’s been on fire for several thousand years?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Fact: Coal has never been used as much as it is today.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            In china sure, in America, WV and Pennsylvania are hurting and scrubbers are putting any plants not relatively new out of commission.

          • 0 avatar
            probert

            The american military will be interested in your fascinating analysis. Most of our military strategy and troops and equipment are dedicated to protecting oil supply lines.

            With India and China coming on line in a big way you can bet that our nation’s blood and treasure will be doubled down.

            Other peoples’ children are dying out there – at least have the decency to try to understand the reasons why.

            Considering that all but one of the 9/11 attackers was Saudi – I’m interested in you definition of “friend”. (rhetorical -I’m not really interested in anything you’re spouting.)

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Hummer. Yes go live in china with all your coal production. Cancer up in children by 40% due to coal power plants without those socialist scrubbers to clean the air. Power in Florida for a 2400 s/ft house could be up to $600 for electric. Mr.hummer its not the noise of fracking. Its the killing of water sources for communities and earthquakes that are happening in fracking areas. Your koolaid drinking words are freaking entertaining.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Vogo. Stop thinking. People don’t likey factual information.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        Land based wind power is quite competitive, cost wise, only a few types of natural gas generation is less expensive, and that’s at today’s low gas prices, which are certainly not guaranteed to remain low. Solar, on a cost per KW basis, is still high, but when you consider that the times of the year and of the day that solar is most productive rather neatly matches most utilities peak demands, when you compare the cost to a peaking plant, the cost becomes competitive.

        With both solar and wind, you also have 100% fuel cost certainty, you can’t say that about gas, coal, or nuclear.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Wind is not competitive if you consider the need to backup conventional power plants for when the wind doesn’t blow, not to mention the conventional plants cannot run at their most efficient when they are switched off and on in synch with the wind. Cost projections also do not make realistic assumptions about lifespans and downtime for maintenance, which means the DOE/EPA estimates are very overly optimistic regarding wind (and solar) costs. You are right about cost certainty, however, as in certain that renewable costs will be much higher.

      • 0 avatar
        cackalacka

        “Sorry but I work in energy, used to work petroleum on land, and now local nuclear, gas, and coal fired plants.”

        If you work for Duke Energy in NC, you owe the other 7 million of us an apology. I enjoy my tap water. I enjoy being able to fish and water ski at the reservoirs my neighbors built. I could give 2 $hits about your employer’s (and our governor’s former employer’s) profits.

        We need to bring back Progress Energy and/or have NC regulate your employer.

        Anyone attempting to argue from authority that gets a paycheck from Duke Energy is a fraud. Full stop.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Yes exactly what we need, more regulation, I’m surprised old Bev isn’t in jail yet, that would make what 4 democrat governors in a row in jail? But wait we at WRAL should just ignore that, because the current governor isn’t an absolute crony, it would be bad for our agenda, lets just make stuff up!

          • 0 avatar
            cackalacka

            So the sludge your company is floating down the Roanoke River is made up?

            Got it.

            Poor deflection and obtuseness is the hallmark of a troll. Given your positions, I believe your situation is a little more serious than an internet denizen wanting attention.

            What your organization is doing to my state, a place and people I love dearly, and given your position on what harm your employer is doing to my home, I must come to the conclusion that you are not a troll.

            You are a fraud.

            This response is probably more polite than you deserve, but goodbye Hummer. Moving forward, you are invisible to me.

            My advise to others on this thread, if they value discourse, is to take anything Hummer posts with a coal-ash-pond-sized grain of salt.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            So… Your going to shut down discourse, on the idea that you can’t be wrong…?

            I’m not part of the coal ash spill, I work around rebuilding major components (ie generators) periodically. But what I do is unimportant because your afraid of differing opinions. What I see and say doesnt correlate to my pay check. I get raw numbers, NOT what the fools at Wral spout off as the truth. Wral has made so many conjecture stories only to be wrong, and then to offer no apologies or corrections, that any journalistic integrity they may have once had went out the window.
            But if your afraid of the truth, by all means declare I’m wrong and end the discourse.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Regardless of the legitimacy of climate change (I’m pretty sure it’s mostly a natural phenomenon as well), we can always look into alternative energy sources. Eventually we will run out of oil, coal and natural gas. It might not be tomorrow, it might not be next year, it might not be in a hundred years…but it will happen. To completely disregard wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear energy is both short-sighted and cruel.

  • avatar
    YellowDuck

    Okay, all of you “I’m pretty sure climate change is a natural phenomenon” folks, may I ask you, where are you getting your information on this subject? If you have spent many many hours listening to third hand analysis on talk radio or whatever, how about this idea? Why not take the time to read these 28 well-written pages that summarize the actual, current consensus of climate scientists, in accessible language?

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

    It is a summary of the latest consensus findings of the international panel on climate change. It very directly address the “natural phenomenon” issue, and also clearly outlines where there is scientific uncertainty and where there is not.

    Seriously, why not find out what the climate scientists are actually saying, rather than what talking heads on NPR or Fox News say the scientists are saying? It’s an easy read if you have an IQ over 90.

    Then make up your mind. If you can’t find the 45 min or so needed to do this important reading, why not shut up and let serious people who actually know something about the issue carry the conversation?

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “…[R]ather than what talking heads on NPR or Fox News say the scientists are saying?”

      Since when have NPR and Faux News ever agreed on anything? Fox is too busy attacking NPR as “liberal-biased”.

      “It’s an easy read if you have an IQ over 90.”

      When in doubt, resort to ad hominem attacks. That always works.

      FWIW, it doesn’t matter whether it’s natural or not. We still need to use more alternative energies.

      • 0 avatar
        YellowDuck

        My point was that NPR / PBS and Fox represent opposite ends of the spectrum in the US “mainstream” media. Personally I feel like those ends are “approximately centrist” and “extremely right wing” respectively, but that is a matter of opinion. But no matter which you trust more, you have the option of reading the scientific consensus yourself if you are so inclined. Seems like a useful thing to do if you want to be in a position to evaluate the quality of information you are receiving from the news you watch.

        I was serious about the “IQ over 90″ thing. It’s not like everyone can get their heads around this stuff. But most people can if they try. But most people would rather argue than learn.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          You’re right in all of your points. I’m glad you were able to clear that up. (Sorry if I came across as too accusatory.) See my comments farther down regarding the increasing polarization of …well, everything, really.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Fox is a TV version of tabloid journalism that also borrows from the British newspaper tradition of interweaving opinion into news stories. (This differs from the US ideal of confining opinion to its own clearly defined section of the paper.)

          NPR so badly wants to be the BBC, a trusted voice of authority that carries extended, deeper stories that could actually teach people something.

          They’re just very different business models. One of them tells you what you want to hear, the other one does what a decent news outlet should be doing.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Dumb people believe dumb things, while their cynical leaders harness that dumbness for their own gain. The internet seems to encourage the dumb crowd to seek community with each other and bond around their dumbness, instead of doing the smart thing, i.e. learning something factual and becoming less dumb.

      I do hope that you’re not expecting a rational answer that’s based upon anything that is credible and peer-reviewed, because you won’t get one. But I must give credit to whoever figured out that one could use hostility to science as a way to win votes and talk show listeners — those guys are fairly clever.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        “But I must give credit to whoever figured out that one could use hostility to science as a way to win votes and talk show listeners — those guys are fairly clever.”

        I think that would fall under “negativity bias”–we tend to remember bad things more than good things, so we also respond better to sensationalist negative headlines than positive ones.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Conservatism is essentially an appeal to tradition.

          At the same time, the American dream is built around material wealth.

          There is a fairly direct linkage between material wealth and energy consumption.

          Those who choose to wear the conservative label don’t want to be told that they may need to make changes, and that what they’ve been doing hasn’t been good.

          Accordingly, it’s easier for them to attack the messenger and to assign the bad news to some ridiculous conspiracy than it is to accept the research for what it is. Why go the trouble of learning something when you can just demonize the bearers of bad news?

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            I’m further right than John Birch and I accept the research just fine. My disagreement is with the reaction.

            Unilateral environmental restrictions on the west that exempt the developing world are nothing but wealth transfer. Green subsidies, more of the same.

            Furthermore, I don’t accept that a reaction is needed at all. Destroying the nuclear family, the church, five thousand years of gender roles, the ethnic background of my country, is a hell of a lot bigger change in my eyes than the world getting two or three degrees warmer. Now the same radicals who tore all of that down without blinking have found a tradition that they don’t hate with all their being … and it’s stagnant weather?

            I don’t buy it for a second. They’ve found another way to go on tearing down what they’ve spent their entire lives tearing down.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I accept the research just fine.”

            vs.

            “I don’t accept that a reaction is needed at all.”

            Those two statements don’t jibe.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      If you think climate scientists and the UN IPCC are unbiased, you’re an idiot.

  • avatar
    Jeff Waingrow

    The square earth society folks are out in force today, and it’s not going to be very pretty.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      They’re always out here. It’s just another forum for both sides of any issue to “spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with [them], and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog!”

      Seriously, though, nothing will ever get done as long as both sides continue to become more entrenched in their own views and less open to opposition. When both sides refuse to see the other as anything higher than pond scum, nothing gets done.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        It’s a serious bit of fallacious reasoning to believe that there are two “sides” to every issue. There may be points of contention, certainly, and scientific knowledge is constantly evolving. Thus, we have terms like “theories’ and “laws”. But scientific consensus is a hell of a lot better basis on which to order things than the half and ill-formed notions of people who find it easier to spout than to actually think, study and listen. Such folk will inevitably spell our doom. Only in their own minds are they the lonely truth tellers.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          There are AT LEAST TWO SIDES to every issue.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            HDC, you’re actually right (the capitalization is unnecessary, but whatever). I never said that both sides are equally valid or true, or even that they deserve equal time in the spotlight, but there are always two sides.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Drzhivago138, depending on which side of the issue a person is on, the arguments for or against the issue are equally valid and true and each advocate will demand that they deserve equal time.

            Add to these opposing sides the various nuances, beliefs and philosophies of others, and the number of sides for or against any issue can often become more complicated that it needs to be.

            I think that there is a place for any and all forms of power generation to include solar, wind, geothermal, wave and nuclear, but earth natural resources like gas, coal, and oil should always be highest on the list because they are plentiful in comparison to that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, and nuclear should be last resort because it is nasty.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Oh, yes. Make no mistake–I’m not trying to say we should abandon petroleum, coal, or natural gas. It’s just that there’s so many advocates of those (nonrenewable, BTW) resources who immediately dismiss any new forms of energy as tree-hugging nonsense/liberal conspiracy. Using their same arguments, we should have never abandoned the horse and wagon because automobiles were too expensive up front.

            Last December there was a story that scientists had managed to convert algae into crude oil–potentially putting petroleum on the “renewable” side of the list. Science is awesome.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Way back before WWII there was experimentation on how to make oil, a simple hydrocarbon molecule. During WWII the Nazis were able to successfully perfect the process to where it was a feasible option.

            But in our everyday real world, oil, gas and coal are plentiful and we have no such worries of running short of any of it for at least the next two hundred years.

            I don’t buy into the whole climate change greenweenie agenda because our planet goes through these cycles and has been going through them for the billions of years it has been in existence. Imagine, if Methane was harmful, why did the earth evolve as it has since at the beginning Methane was the most prevalent in the earth atmosphere.

            My worry is more the pollution in the developing countries like China and India. They pollute a hell of a lot more than we in the US have ever polluted since the industrial age combined.

            So in the mean time while all this cussing and discussing is going on, I will drive the biggest gasoline-fired vehicles I can afford, generate my own electricity when the grid fails me, burn my trash out in the open using old motor oil as an accelerant, and celebrate oil like it was 1959.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow”

            That’s the provincial type of thinking that allows this “debate” to go on, ad nauseum.

            The sun *always* shines, and the wind *always* blows, somewhere. We just need to invest in the technology to distribute or store what nature gives us.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Speaking of provincial thinking, the Province I live in did just what you’re proposing. Invested billions in wind and solar power while cancelling gas plants and closing coal plants. What did we get in exchange? The highest electricity rates on the continent and thousands of property devauling eyesores.

            Many people can’t afford to live with that kind of foolish investment. The guy who ultimately signed the deal can, though. As soon as the heat was turned up on all his scandals he cut and ran, typical.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            The wind doesn’t always blow? Come on out to the prairies of MN and SD and say that with a straight face.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            danio3834: Yes, big projects, big money, big corruption. My thinking is to subsidize home solutions (PV panels, small turbines and battery storage) to the extent that increased sales will bring the price down.

            Coastal cities could be fed by off-shore wind farms since small installations aren’t possible – there are ways around almost any perceived negative effects of clean energy.

            Side note: A guy I know put in a “home-made” geothermal setup and it saves him A LOT on his heating and cooling bills (which would reduce the need for grid energy and those huge wind farms) – it cost a couple of grand (he did most of the labor) – and it’s already paid for itself in 5 years.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          There are always at least two sides to every story.

          But there are times when one of the sides can be a favorite of morons and otherwise utterly lacking in merit. This appears to be one of those times.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Thanks for the Saul alinsky approach, it really clears everything up.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    How do windmills help us lower our petroleum imports?

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      By reducing global warming through reduced production of greenhouse gasses, windmills allow petroleum tankers to ride lower in the ocean, given that glaciers melt more slowly.

      That was your question, right?

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Well, that’s one answer…or, we can use the energy generated by windmills to offset some of the energy produced from petroleum, some of which is imported.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      The first 22 miles I drive each day are on electric power. I fill my gas tank every 6 – 8 weeks unless I go out of town. Anyone with a BEV or a PHEV can use wind power as a substitute for imported oil.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        What are those — FACTS? ;-)

        I would assume that you drive a C-MAX energi – someone 2 blocks from me just bought one – parked on the street every night, plugged in (it’s a quiet suburban neighborhood, not wealthy by any means).

        We just have to implement alternative energy sources so that first 22 miles are cleaner.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Here’s a link to a long list of global cooling articles from the 1970′s. Everyone was very concerned we were headed for the next ice age.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I remember being in school, in science class, and the teacher explaining how the scientist wanted to bomb the earth’s poles with soot, to harness the sun’s heat to melt the ice to raise the sea levels.

      Seems kinda silly right now, but those scientists back then held their beliefs and convictions with equal fervor as do the greenweenie nut job scientists of today, with their global warming agenda.

      Can’t sell the public on global warming? No problemo! Rename it climate change. It’s all a matter of semantics, but the nut jobs behind it remain in place.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        Based on a quick look at the global cooling articles, the solution also seemed to be to reduce pollution from autos. So regardless of whether the earth is cooling or warming, cars are to blame

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I’m a beefeater and I blame the methane from cows.

          I plant a lot of trees, all year ’round; they need the CO2.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          And that makes sense if you think about it for about three seconds. In the ’70s the foremost pollutant from cars was hydrocarbons (i.e. unburned gas and soot) that darkened the atmosphere, which could plausibly have led to cooling. Now, as we’ve cut way back on HC pollution with modern emissions equipment while drastically raising the number of cars, the foremost pollutant is CO2, which leads to warming.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      The number of papers that predicted global cooling never exceeded those predicting global warming. Global cooling never made it past the conjecture stage, and was never widely accepted by climatologists.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        It’s amazing how many “scientific” papers you can buy with the $4B per year pumped into this nonsense by the UN and various governments that support its agenda.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          You really ought to make up your mind. If you want to argue that science is corrupt, then you shouldn’t be simultaneously claiming that there are an abundance of credible skeptics within the scientific community who support your position. This sort of inconsistency only helps to typecast you as one of those dreaded “low information voters” who you claim to dislike.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            I never said all science is corrupt.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’ve made an appeal to authority (“There are thousands of scientists who question the tenets of CAGW.”) out of one side of your mouth, while making a wholesale dismissal of authority out of the other (“It’s amazing how many “scientific” papers you can buy with the $4B per year pumped into this nonsense”).

            Frankly, I find it to be more worrisome that the small cadre of fierce deniers within the scientific community are on the payroll of energy companies and conservative politicians. But more importantly, I’m really forced to be, er, skeptical about their positions when they are addressed solely to laymen and aren’t subjected to peer review.

            A foundation of science is presenting ones work in a format so that it can be challenged by ones peers. Your guys aren’t doing that — in fact, they do the opposite by going directly to the uninformed public while skipping the scrutiny of their peers. That should make you wonder what they’re afraid of, but it’s obvious that you have no desire to know.

          • 0 avatar

            > Frankly, I find it to be more worrisome that the small cadre of fierce deniers within the scientific community are on the payroll of energy companies and conservative politicians.

            The saddest part of all this is that those who may be interested in legitimate science skepticism stay away to avoid getting clumped with idiots.

            Pretty much every paper that happens to fall on the wrong side of the usual back and forth in science gets to be the new posterchild of the denialism, to the point where authors might as well prep statements that their research has nothing to do with this crap ahead of time.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    “. . . further reducing dependence on imported petroleum.”

    I think they mean “further reducing dependence on petroleum.” The “imported” stuck into that sentence is just there out of a combination of 40 years of habit and the desire to appeal to a broader spectrum than just carbon-based fuel haters.

  • avatar
    cpthaddock

    We need a government program the size of the manhattan project to harness the wasted energy generated by internet trolls and talk radio. I think Tom Tomorrow already sketched out a draft proposal.

  • avatar
    YellowDuck

    highdesertcat said

    “I don’t buy into the whole climate change greenweenie agenda because our planet goes through these cycles and has been going through them for the billions of years it has been in existence.”

    Billions of years are not relevant. All of humanity spans about 1 million years (i.e., 1 / 1000 of 1 billion). Yes there were times in the distant past when the Earth was much warmer, and when methane concentrations in the atmosphere were higher than they are now…and at those times the planet was completely ill-suited for human habitation. No problem – humans didn’t exist yet.

    More to the point, previous natural climate cycles occurred on *much* longer timescales (several orders of magnitude longer) than what is occurring now. The current rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (since 1750, the dawn of the industrial revolution) are *much* more rapid than anything that occurred in the past 100,000 years at least, and are accelerating. It really is something special going on now, at this point in the planet’s history.

    What the ultimate consequences will be is more open to debate, but to deny the basic fact of anthropogenic GHG emissions and associated global warming, putting it down to “natural cycles” just proves you have never read and understood any serious writing on the subject. It is simply not a defensible viewpoint once you look at any actual data.

    Why not find some actual evidence to support your beliefs, rather than just adopting the model that appeals to you intuitively?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      You obviously haven’t figured out that a misinterpreted half-a**ed anecdote is far more important than your pesky facts.

      I still don’t know why anyone bothers to study science or conduct research, when they could just read political blogs.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I’m looking out my window here. Its hovering around the freezing mark. I’ll bet I got an inch of snow on my lawn.

    OMG its got to be “Global warming”? No wait, that’s not it. Oh yeah “climate Change”

    Oh! I forgot…I live in Canada. Hey HDC! you got snow on your lawn? I think not. Maybe its as simple as the fact that I live 2000 miles closer to the Arctic circle ?

    • 0 avatar
      340-4

      Ten minutes of research would reward you with the knowledge needed to answer your seeming conundrum.

      But let’s just stay smarmy – that’s much more fun!

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Snow during the winter doesn’t negate climate change, anymore than rain in the desert is proof that it isn’t a desert.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      mikey – “Climate” and “Weather” are two different things….but I don’t want to spoil your meme.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @IHateCars..I do understand the difference. As one that lives in a northern climate, one cannot deny that climate change is real.

        I do not believe that mankind caused it. If I’m wrong,and I might be. Then so be it. We would need to get every country in the world onboard. All of Asia, Russia, South America and Europe? That will never happen.

        • 0 avatar
          KixStart

          mikey,

          First off, are we leaders or not? I get sick of people whining about other countries. The US and Canada are two of the very best countries in the world, for a variety of reasons.

          Second, we don’t need every country on board, changing the way we do business is a good start because we use a sh!tload of energy. If we embrace the change, the economies of scale and technological advancements that we develop (and own), make it more economical for the LDCs to develop without intense use of fossil fuels.

          Finally, if you’re wrong, your intransigence will help further f*ck future generations. And… you’re wrong.

          You should be smart enough to find reliable, useful, fully developed sources of information. Go do it.

          The IPCC report, in fact, brings together a lot of that for you. Go read the physical summary part. You’ll notice that it’s well footnoted, sourced and explained, although not every explanation is simplified.

          This web site:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

          is run by people who sweat the details and that link is designed as a starting point to be more approachable than the IPCC report.

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            @ KixStart….. I will read it.

          • 0 avatar
            ktm

            KixStart, I am not a climate change denier, but you put far too much faith in the climate “scientists” (or any scientist) than you should.

            “Sweat the details!?!??!” Remember this furor:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11126597

            They did not “sweat the details”.

            All funded scientists have an agenda: to retain funding. They may not lie, but they certainly will interpret data that fits their agenda.

            What if the funding mission statement was such:

            “We are seeking evidence that climate change is happening.”

            Bam. Case closed. They know change is happening and want evidence to support it.

            Versus

            “We are seeking to determine whether or not climate change is happening.”

          • 0 avatar

            > All funded scientists have an agenda: to retain funding. They may not lie, but they certainly will interpret data that fits their agenda.

            There’s a common misconception that science works like big office politics. What you’re saying is largely true for think tanks where being right doesn’t matter in the context of pleasing the boss, but not in empiricism.

            In contrast going against the grain is a main principle within grant writing, and prove everyone wrong is what makes careers (eg Einstein). If anything, the problem is often experiments aren’t repeated enough due to this game of oneupsmanship.

            As mentioned more than enough times, the populist anti-science arguments mostly appeal to ignorance.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There are conservative politicians with access to funding. Why can’t they just buy themselves a few well-written peer-reviewed studies to back up their positions?

            Since it’s apparently easy to buy scientists, I would think that they could purchase some quality work, instead of the unsupported schlock that they are currently providing. Maybe they just aren’t good shoppers.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            ktm,

            In a thousand page document, there a couple of errors! OMG! It must all be crap and they’re all liars!

            In other words, you should develop a sense of perspective.

            In that business, most of the spending is in data collection. Then there’s a lot of hard work in data analysis and a fair amount of money in computer time. These guys mostly have the statistical and analytical skills that would get them big salaries as quants on Wall Street. They do what they do for the reason most researchers research… They want to know why things work the way they do. Some have written books that brought them a chunk of change but so has El Lutzbo, the difference being their books are useful descriptions of reality.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      No, Mikey, (LOL!) no snow here. Just global warming in the desert where I live! 83-degrees at the homestead today, and I had both swampcoolers on and both the refrigerated-air conditioners to keep the house at a comfortable 74-degrees. This is only April! It’s going to be another long hot summer. Just like it is every year. Lotsa Canadians here, snobirds for the winter enjoying global warming in the desert of New Mexico, Arizona and West Texas.

      I like the heat. That’s why I choose to live in the desert where the skies are clear and air is fresh. I suppose if I was a city dweller the pollution would cloud my brain into thinking like the greenweenies and their agrarian agenda. I don’t do well in cold weather or near the pole where you live.

      But, I live in America where people can still choose to believe what they wish and live their lives accordingly. So all those greenweenies who choose not to use gasoline or diesel will leave more for the majority who think like me, and we will be happy to accommodate them and use it.

      Fortunately, the normies like me still outnumber the global warming crackpots. We’d be in deep sh!t if those fruits and nuts ever got the majority. I would have to grow my own food! There would be no more OTR trucking!!! We’d be using a horse-drawn carriage instead of my Tundra. It must just kill them that the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada will be built after all. Those nutcakes are being trained on how to be arrested. As if that will stop the inevitable.

      Neh, I don’t buy their doomsday message. Better yet, the vast majority of Americans don’t either.

  • avatar

    Comment threads like these are basically a demonstration of why it’s smart to create professional agencies to handle the complicated science and whatnot instead of leaving it to the ignorant democratic masses.

    The DOE funds a significant amount of STEM research surrounding this stuff which stays out of the limelight because the dummies can’t even begin to understand it. Their more publicized (and perhaps questionable) moves involve supporting private companies for the last implementation mile which comes under mostly politically scrutiny from those who still don’t understand it but need to “have their say”.

    So in effect all the public commentary is the usual political rhetoric at best coincidentally containing words spelled the same as used in science or tech or even the finances.

  • avatar
    340-4

    Dear science,

    Thanks for the internet and this neat computer.

    Too bad you’re wrong about the climate!

    signed, half of America.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    What is the temperature of the Earth at present, and what should it be?

    • 0 avatar

      > What is the temperature of the Earth at present, and what should it be?

      The most important thing to grasp in the face of “it’s always changing anyway!” arguments is that human systems are often engineered around historically stable climate of a given area.

      When those underlying assumptions change there’s some cost associated with reengineering these normative systems, and at some point those outweigh the marginal costs of less polluting energy sources.

      Climate is the ultimate tragedy of the commons, and those who can’t grasp what that implies simply lack the basic clues to engage meaningfully.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “…human systems are often engineered around historically stable climate of a given area….”

        Baloney. Humans can live in Death Valley, or they can live at the arctic circle. How? By using the cheap energy that so many here seem to want to destroy.

        • 0 avatar

          > Humans can live in Death Valley, or they can live at the arctic circle.

          LOL. I’m actually kind of curious if this was meant as a coherent reply or you’re just copy/pasting random content, but it seems you’re just the usual know-nothing hit&run commentator so I guess I’ll never know.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            I don’t have time to argue with fools.

          • 0 avatar

            > I don’t have time to argue with fools.

            Apropos reply from someone evidently with the time to copy/paste anti-science he doesn’t understand anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            You don’t know the first thing about me, my education level, credentials, etc. All you can resort to are ad hominem attacks. I’m done engaging with fools.

          • 0 avatar

            > You don’t know the first thing about me, my education level, credentials, etc.

            To the contrary, so much can be inferred about those *incapable* of grasping simple statements such as “human systems are often engineered around historically stable climate of a given area”, and offer nothing but indignation when this is pointed out.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            “I don’t have time to argue with fools… I’m done engaging with fools.”

            And you say he’s the one engaging in ad hominem attacks?

            “You don’t know the first thing about me, my education level, credentials, etc.”

            Then tell us! We need to know if you want us to take you seriously!

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            MB: “You don’t know the first thing about me, my education level, credentials, etc.”

            It’s the internet. Maybe you’re a dog or maybe you’re 6’3″, tall, handsome with a doctorate in chemical engineering.

            However, if you don’t give others respect, why should we respect you?

            Frankly, I doubt you’re any great shakes in anything.

            As to the Death Valley / Arctic Circle question… sure, almost every part of the planet has people. Industrialization makes it possible to extend our habitat to places which would be most difficult to live.

            But there are limits to what we can do. If we change the climate enough, we may find it becomes as easy to grow wheat in Death Valley as it is in Kansas…. which is not to say that it would be easy to grow wheat in Death Valley.

            Climate change will require that we change the way we feed ourselves. This is not likely to be a series of convenient changes. Better to protect what we have.

  • avatar
    Ubermensch

    I find it amusing how the types of people who are climate change deniers are the the same sort of folks that tend to believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories. They like to think they are above the “propaganda” and “brain-washing” of the liberal elite and other imaginary back-room socialist “new world order” cabals. When in reality they have just become the stooges of the really existing cabal of big money interests that make up our oligarchy. Most if not all of the anti-global warming research is sponsored by big oil and other carbon heavy industrial interests and they buy it cause it fits the views of them and their cohort.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Genetic fallacies don’t actually rebut any of their arguments, though.

      • 0 avatar

        > Genetic fallacies don’t actually rebut any of their arguments, though.

        Theirs aren’t really “arguments” in the reasoning sense, but rather “arguments” in the trailer park at 2am sense.

        This again appears to be a matter of confusing semantics, but also something else: often pets enthusiastically engage in the human social pursuits with humorous results, which is analogous to similarly oblivious denialists trying to engage in science.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I used to presume that the conspiracy theorist types were all nutjobs.

      Now, I’m starting to wonder whether they’re just incredibly lazy. The conspiracy theory removes all need for doing the heavy lifting that might otherwise be necessary. It allows the conspiracy believer to feel superior, without needing to offer anything meaningful to support that sentiment.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Perhaps the problem is your lack of perspective. The people that haven’t been conditioned to swallow the latest threat to individual rights have realized that they can waste all the time they have producing evidence for true believers that will dismiss their sources rather than accept that the AGW liars have a pathetic track record of pushing bad models and changing their stories to reflect the weather.

        • 0 avatar

          > AGW liars have a pathetic track record of pushing bad models and changing their stories to reflect the weather.

          How can people who can’t even understand the words in a science paper discern this?

          Serious question.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I just can’t take you seriously. Sorry.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Waingrow

            Pch101, I salute your patient responses to the various lunacies that pass for opinion. I only wish I had the patience, but the satirical approach tends to suit me more. I just worry that you will start to believe that most people are idiots and lose heart.

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          You’re wasting your time. I don’t know who the bigger liberal wind-up toy is: Pch101 or u mad scientist. Disagree with their world view and it’s like pulling their string…

          “blah blah blah… Fox News!”
          “blah blah blah…Denier!”
          “blah blah blah…Talk Radio!”

          • 0 avatar
            SayMyName

            There is no reasoning with the Useful Idiots on the Left, so it’s pointless to engage them in debate.

            Best to focus our efforts on stripping them of any real power to influence policy, and silencing their shrill voices on the public stage.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Licking your wounds doesn’t make for much of a rebuttal.

            Next on the Conservative Comedy Channel: Gravity is a leftist plot to keep all of us down.

          • 0 avatar

            > There is no reasoning with the Useful Idiots on the Left, so it’s pointless to engage them in debate.

            LOL, “reasoning”. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/04/us-energy-department-unveils-four-year-strategy-plan/#comment-3102842

            I do agree it’s pointless for people familiar with math or science or such to “debate” those who apparently take pride in boasting about *something* while demonstrating none of it:

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-caroline-ethics-marketing-roi-and-the-sad-state-of-non-mommy-blogging/#comment-3093490

          • 0 avatar

            > Fox News!.Denier!.Talk Radio!

            Just so that it’s clear, nobody’s actually disputing that’s where these folks get their info.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      A few years ago, they said 50,000 people die every year of second-hand smoke. Scientific studies proved it. Such studies were used to justify all sorts of anti-smoking laws which are still in place. Later they said, oops, we were wrong–we vastly over estimated the danger.

      I see the same thing happening with climate change. Once all the carbon taxes are in place and we’re all driving around in $hit boxes with 1L engines, they’ll come out and say, “oops, we were wrong, we vastly overstated the danger from CO2 emissions.”

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I believe this cartoon is appropriate:

        http://ultrasupergenius.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/climate-comic-54377232786.jpeg

        Obviously, like all political cartoons, it grossly oversimplifies the issue. But it has some relevance.

      • 0 avatar
        cars-freedom

        Climate change is a crock. The Earth has been warmer and cooler in our past and yet life remains. No one knows what the “correct” temperature of the Earth is. Even if Obama were to reduce our carbon emissions in our country to 0% the temperature would not even drop one degree. One volcano has a million times more effect than all the big government regulation schemes which are really about control and power. A famous man on Mount Rushmore once said “I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive”.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          [Citation needed].

          • 0 avatar

            > [Citation needed].

            That’s just copy-pasted off some web version of AM radio. There’s nothing going on upstairs.

            To help illustrate how bad this situation is: these folks are openly told what the facts are, who’s manipulating them, etc, and they don’t get it.

            It’s like watching Michael Scott but without any underlying talent, from perhaps the most introspective and insight TV show of our generation.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        “Such studies were used to justify all sorts of anti-smoking laws which are still in place. Later they said, oops, we were wrong–we vastly over estimated the danger.”

        Yes and I no longer get to smell stale cigarette odors in public places. Jeez I miss that.

        Wait… no, I don’t.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Funny. When I enter [dangers secondhand smoke] into Google, I get 282,000 hits, including to the CDC, EPA, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, the American Lung Association and various medical organizations that all say how bad it is. None of them are claiming that it’s a good thing.

        Admittedly, I have no idea what your credentials are, but I’m feeling pretty confident that neither healthcare nor research are part of your skills set.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Ubermensch
      These type of people are the best drivers on the road as well.

      Just ask them.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Brainwashing and mass psychosis are horrible things to observe.

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    Richard Feynman – Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

    Max Planck – A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

    (Mann, Jones and Hansen are all looking pretty old)

    Ring Lardner – “Shut up”, He explained.

    (for good measure because these discourses always, always, degenerate)

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Great topic. How often do you get the football team and the chess club in the same room?

  • avatar
    mikey

    @ Kenmore….I agree. Its too cold to go outside today. Reading this debate has certainly been entertaining. Oh yeah, and to some degree, informative.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      Yep, same here. Ran the kids to the airport yesterday and put their Prius in our garage while they’re in FL. Parked my car outside overnight and this morning I was scraping some of that super thin, super hard windshield ice. What the…?

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Because cold days proves climate change is wrong? When people make this argument it really means they’re too lazy to even understand what is being said. The argument is that as the earth heats up slowly the slight increases will create more dramatic weather events and cause issues. No, Buffalo, New York isn’t going to turn into Miami overnight and that was never the argument scientists made. So why are you making it now?

  • avatar
    TW5

    The problem with most bureaucratic policy initiatives is that they represent a confluence of objectives from people who are incredibly naive and people who are incredibly self-interested. Naive green people believe we don’t already have the technology to clean up the economy. The self-interested lobbyists are keen to capture as much money as possible from federal grants, while rendering no services to the general public.

    We could reduce our net carbon emissions to almost nothing, at an extraordinarily low cost to the treasury and the people. For instance, a $5,000 rebate for every vehicle that achieves more than 40mpg, would cost just $100B at current SAAR, if every vehicle qualified. It would cut total US carbon emissions by 15%. For another $50B we could create a robust system of producer subsidies for algal biofuel that use non-arable land and saltwater. We could blend biobutanol into our gasoline or refine the existing dual-fuel-injection engines. Emissions would fall by another 5%-10%. Spend another $100B on nuclear energy and smart grid technology, and we can reduce carbon emissions by another 25% in less than a decade.

    For 10% of the annual budget, we could cut carbon emissions by 50% or more in about 10 years. We don’t do it because the disruption would be immense. DOE programs are designed to accomplish nothing, without upsetting the establishment. The sad part is that we could do more with the money ourselves.

    • 0 avatar

      > For instance, a $5,000 rebate for every vehicle that achieves more than 40mpg, would cost just $100B at current SAAR, if every vehicle qualified. It would cut total US carbon emissions by 15%.

      LOL WUT. How does that math remotely work?

      I’m not disputing the general point that the gub is best at doing nothing drastic nevermind disruptive, but the solutions really aren’t trivial or someone else would’ve already tried it.

      > The sad part is that we could do more with the money ourselves.

      Giving more money to the already rational individual actors isn’t an effective way to resolve tragedy of the commons.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        16M SAAR x $5,000 = $80B. The math doesn’t work because I forgot to mention that $20B would go to freight fuel efficiency. If you cut transportation emissions by 50%+ with light-duty and heavy-duty fuel efficiency regulations, carbon emissions fall by roughly 15%. Natural gas and biofuel improve the carbon savings, depending upon implementation.

        Rebate or tax/rebate programs don’t happen for political reasons. Detroit is dependent upon US-assembled pick up trucks. Toyota refuses to build the Prius in the US or NAFTA. The US doesn’t have a strong battery manufacturing infrastructure. Acquiring federal funds is politically impossible. Oil geopolitics is complicated. CAFE-style regulations have no government spending and no statutory tax increases (politically-convenient).

        Rebate systems are relatively simple to implement and administer. They don’t exist for political reasons.

        • 0 avatar

          > If you cut transportation emissions by 50%+ with light-duty and heavy-duty fuel efficiency regulations, carbon emissions fall by roughly 15%.

          Sure, that’s why CAFE or any other emissions control exists.

          > Rebate systems are relatively simple to implement and administer. They don’t exist for political reasons.

          No, they don’t exist because it’s unnecessary to bribe people to follow this law any more than it’s necessary for any other.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            CAFE is a complex set of regulations that subsidize the pickup truck industry. We use CAFE because it requires no government outlays and it imposes no statutory tax increases. Obviously, the cost of compliance is not free. It is dumped on third parties, often small car manufacturers and small car buyers.

            Rebates are not bribes. They increase marginal private benefit until it’s closer to the marginal public benefit. Eliminating $250B in consumptive oil imports exceeds the cost of lavish rebates.

          • 0 avatar

            > We use CAFE because it requires no government outlays and it imposes no statutory tax increases. Obviously, the cost of compliance is not free. It is dumped on third parties, often small car manufacturers and small car buyers.

            We use CAFE because that’s how the EPA or any other regulatory control works. All “laws” in general dump some cost of compliance on the public. It might be the case that CAFE is biased for bigger personal vehicles, but that’s a matter of specific implementation and nothing to do with the nature of laws.

            > Rebates are not bribes. They increase marginal private benefit until it’s closer to the marginal public benefit. Eliminating $250B in consumptive oil imports exceeds the cost of lavish rebates.

            Rebates are by definition bribes/”incentives”, in contrast to rule by dictat. It’s certainly the case that bribes are sometimes an efficient way to affect outcomes, but so is dictat.

    • 0 avatar
      cackalacka

      As the oft-quoted Upton Sinclair quote goes: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

      On this thread, we have folks who get paychecks from fossil fuel interests predictably saying that renewables cannot work. That would be pathetically humorous, but the petrochem industry owns nearly all of the decision-making apparatus. Only in a perverse society with no concept of benefit-cost would the idea of funneling bitumen across the most productive farmland in human history make sense.

      It’s a lot easier for idiots to chuckle at decent ideas.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        @cackalacka – Well I think renewables could work. They just haven’t in the past 40 years I’ve been an engineer.
        I’ve worked in my specialty on nuke and coal fired plants, on a building-sized natural gas fired generator (real high efficiency, clean and with instant response), on a wind turbine blade design, on tidal/river current power generation and on oilfield drilling issues, oh and on a solar heliostat. And if I could have, I’d have done some work on an OTEC project, but you can’t win’em all. What has really produced power (not just electric) is: oil, gas, nuke and, uh, coal. I got hopes for solar PV, too, because I’m an optimist.
        If you like windturbines, watch Windfall, an account of a Woodstocky town getting up close and personal with a wind turbine farm. Its a NYTimes 5 star pick, no evil energy companies involved, streamable off Netflix. Then look up the financing.

        • 0 avatar
          cackalacka

          Chuckrs,

          Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Understand that my comment was not directed at you, but rather, less thoughtful individuals who are currently drawing a salary from a corporate miscreant that is destroying my state’s watershed.

          I’m willing to hear different positions and viewpoints, particularly from informed individuals. Duke Energy employees, contractors, and state employees collecting checks from them need not apply.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The best way to reduce US dependence on Arab oil is to stop buying it.

    My wish would be for this policy change to happen overnight. Lots of creative solutions would appear following that.

    But it won’t go this way, because we are drawn to the cheapest energy like bees to honey, and nobody likes the taste of medicine.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      >> Lots of creative solutions would appear following that…

      Liquid ethanol from carbon monoxide gas – no plant material needed:

      http://phys.org/news/2014-04-scientists-ethanol-corn.html

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    The list of climate deniers and Big Trucks threatening agenda 21 is hilarious to read. The sad irony is that these people can vote and often do just to spite the rest of us who like a progressive and intellectual society. This is exactly why we hire experts who have professional understandings of this and then watch as armchair scientists try to undercut them with complete BS from the think tanks of wealthy industrialists who just happen to make money by continuing to pollute this way.

    As an aside: Anybody who calls somebody a ‘greenweenie’ has a severe issue with masculinity and a desperate desire to reconnect with their lost identity. I’m fairly sure I’m young enough and fit enough to knock the lights out of HDC but he wants to equate me and my identity as an environmentalist with an emasculating worldview because his own psyche can’t handle a reality where masculinity isn’t a required element to social acceptance or scientific accuracy.

    • 0 avatar

      > I’m fairly sure I’m young enough and fit enough to knock the lights out of HDC but he wants to equate me and my identity as an environmentalist with an emasculating worldview

      Naw dude, you can only be a Real Man by showing nature who’s boss. That’s how this “responsibility” works.

      Personally what I don’t understand is people who evidently have ~zero technical proficiency trying to “argue” with a whole establishment of educated domain experts. Obvious Dunning-Kruger aside, how does anyone ever figure that’ll end well? Srsly, stick to the echo chamber.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      “Greenweenie”

      Why get offended at that? You’re a blue one.

      Oh, wait… the Niemöller thing, yeah.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Because, Kenny, sometimes you have to take the fight to them, specifically to call out their obviously loaded language to bring to a point that their arguments are based solely on ad hominem attacks and on perceived masculine/feminine ideology. I don’t really care to take to fisticuffs with HDC (since it would be a waste of my time and energy) but I wanted to point out that the larger right-wing argument is based on masculinity identity cues that rely on them so much as to exclude science and intellectual thought.

        Do I really take it personally? No….But by pointing it out I rob them of their power because I can explain to onlookers and others that their position is indefensible and relies more on the perception of the size of their package than on scientific expertise.

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          “I rob them of their power”

          For you have the Magic Buffalo Robe!

          I can understand why you needn’t fear fighting a man in his late 60′s.

          BTW, how’s that masculinity-centric strategy work with female opponents?

        • 0 avatar

          > the larger right-wing argument is based on masculinity identity cues that rely on them so much as to exclude science and intellectual thought

          That’s correct but incomplete because the broader approach of an anti-competence movement results in a general shift away from worthwhile dialog towards mindless platitudes.

          It just manifests itself in differing forms for differing audiences: the masculinity stroking is for the cro-mags; the money stroking for the “job creators”; the “intellect”-stroking for the “idea guys”.

          Therefore a discussion of science matters isn’t about learning or explaining or generally figuring things out, but rather but how “our scientists” (you know, petrochem engineers) are “better” than “gubmint scientists”.

          It’s all hollow mass market elitism with no concrete distinction.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          The manliest men in the world, 100 years ago, had a carbon footprint the size of a small dog.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Xeranar, you’re entitled to your beliefs. Just don’t expect me to buy into it. Millions upon millions of other Americans don’t buy into your beliefs either.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        No, no you are not entitled to your beliefs because I am not believing in anything. I am accepting a scientific consensus as any rational human being would. Nobody at this point is seriously questioning the 97% of scientists who agree because the remaining 3% are professional skeptics or paid for by the industries most likely affected by the changes in how we operate.

        You’re not allowed to cast this as a game of ‘who’s got the numbers’ and ‘belief’ because this isn’t it. Nobody but right-wing politicians in the US because of their ultra-pro-business stance are in the way of attempting to make changes. Other countries are dragging their feet due to the private sector but we’re the only country still trying to make this a debate. It’s over, HDC, it’s man made, it’s changing out climate, and yes, we should do something about it. If you want to argue that we should do nothing because of ‘jobs’ or what not, I will atleast hear that out (and disagree completely as it is foolish) but to still try and cast dispersions on the subject is ludicrous.

        I understand the climate change deniers are in a desperate tailspin as more and more people recognize that when 97% of scientists agree they’re right. But you should stop kicking and screaming so desperately, anybody with a reasonable understanding of science would conclude you’re a fool by now and it really makes any further discussion pointless.

        So…It’s over. There was never a fight to begin with. It was never about my ‘belief’ versus anything. It’s cold, hard, scientific proof. Deal with it.

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          “So…It’s over.”

          Or, as Archie Bunker said, “Case closed!”

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            I believe the irony is too much for Kenmore as he equated scientific consensus with a right-wing bigot’s inability to accept reality. You do understand that HDC and the rest (including you, Kenny) are more in line with Bunker’s views than I am? Oh wait you actually think you’re the heroes by telling science they’re wrong based on your gut and that you saw snow outside in January.

          • 0 avatar

            The modern Archie Bunker is dissected in this wonderfully perspective post:

            http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1v0d2a/the_white_ghetto_in_appalachia_the_country_is/cenn3pe

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I don’t see much benefit in arguing with a refrigerator, particularly when the refrigerator is just having a bit of fun.

            As for the others, it’s enough to mock or pity them. The Republican leadership is brilliant in some respects; here, they’ve managed to take a rather dull bit of science and turn it into a cultural wedge issue.

            I’m wondering what their next trick will be. Perhaps we can create political polarization with fonts, for example, with Times New Roman being the “good” conservative font of decent God-fearing family people, while Helvetica is the font of bad, liberal commie homosexualized gay married socialists. (“Fonts for Jesus” has a nice ring to it.)

          • 0 avatar
            Ubermensch

            @u mad scientist
            Thanks for posting that reddit link, great read. I have read “What’s the Matter with Kansas” a few years ago and his post distills that book pretty well which describes what is wrong with this voting base. The conservatives have pulled off a pretty impressive coup in being able to steal what should be the liberal base right out from under the Democrats by identifying meaningless wedge issues and running with them.

          • 0 avatar

            > The conservatives have pulled off a pretty impressive coup in being able to steal what should be the liberal base right out from under the Democrats by identifying meaningless wedge issues and running with them.

            What’s also quite revealing is tone of the OP link for that reddit comment:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson

            where a National Review reporter goes to the Real Merica.

            As you noted there’s little doubt many in these places believe themselves in the same middle-”class” as the Review’s readers who’re meant to look down on them. They don’t realize they’re the 47% Romney talks about to his peers.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Xeranar, The scientists who believed in global cooling decades ago, believed that science with the same vigor..

          There have been other allegedly man-made threats to nature over the millennia but civilization managed to adapt, to overcome, and voila, here we are today facing global warming.

          If YOU want to believe it’s over, go head on. The rest of us will continue with our lifestyles.

          Any geologist will tell you that the planet goes through these cycles every 11,000 years or so. This is no different. I wasn’t around for the last change but I do not believe were due for another one just yet.

          But I’m fine with you believing otherwise. Just don’t try to alter MY lifestyle or those of the other non-believers. And don’t f*ck with my oil supply!

          Hey, the Heaven’s Gate people decided that there was a space ship behind the comet and chose to croak. History is rife with believers who believed in things that never happened. I prefer living.

          Join the endtimers. You and those alarmist global warming scientists have much in common with them.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “The scientists who believed in global cooling decades ago, believed that science with the same vigor..”

            That wasn’t the consensus opinion back then, and it /really/ isn’t the consensus opinion now.

            But keep throwing up this canard.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Be kind. If you take away the canards, there won’t be anything left.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

            It’s actually pretty funny watching the puppets dance and posture. Xeranar is up to being a keyboard tough guy? What next? u mad scientist pretends to have an important job that doesn’t impinge on the time available to him to drive intelligent discussion from this forum?

          • 0 avatar
            philipwitak

            re: “Just don’t try to alter MY lifestyle or those of the other non-believers. And don’t f*ck with my oil supply!

            gonna try. gotta try.

            you fail to take into account that one’s individual right to pursue one’s particular ‘lifestyle’ ends where infringement on society’s collective right to a healthy, sustainable environment for all begins.

            moreover, your ‘oil supply’ will be sacrificed just as soon as a sufficient number of people come to their senses and acknowledge the exorbitant costs associated with the calamity that has already begun consuming us.

          • 0 avatar

            > http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

            Thanks for this great example of literary humor:

            “The NIPCC is awesome! Written by:”

            “Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute, publisher of the Climate Change Reconsidered series for NIPCC”

            Funny enough, Bast’s extensive experience in the janitorial arts while never graduating college (after 10 or so years, not kidding) is the perfect background for a think tank to present science to american conservatism.

            > u mad scientist pretends to have an important job that doesn’t impinge on the time available to him to drive intelligent discussion from this forum?

            I’m just temporarily stuck at home due to an unfortunate sports injury, but don’t worry it’s getting better. Relegated to answering emails while reading through philosophy is some first-world problems.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Geezus – I hope our youngsters are smarter than we are – because they’ll have to deal with the mess we’re leaving them.

  • avatar
    onthercks07

    ugh…this got ugly real fast.

    My biggest problem with critics like Bigtrucks is that they somehow turn something as important as clean air, energy independence, and clean water into controversies like abortion and creationism.

    I don’t really care a lot about global warming per se…. but you know what? I DO care about:
    1. Clean air so I can enjoy jogging and my local park. So my kids can run around without a mask or developing asthma or other developmental defects. So you can watch the sunset outside instead of on your TV.
    2. Clean energy so I don’t have to worry about my water. Or that my food is polluted. Or that my kids will not have to enjoy increasing rates of cancer.
    3. Clean water. So you know, I can drink when I want. So my loved ones can drink when they want. So my future generations don’t have to fight wars to ensure a future water supply.
    4. Sensible consumption. Buying huge trucks with lifted tires doesn’t just emphasize your small penis size. It also clogs streets, creates inordinate amounts of pollution, and is incredibly inefficient. Unfortunately, it is still cheaper to buy a full size truck than it is to buy a fuel efficient hybrid with useful space. Such consumption without the benefit of foresight will continue to make us dependent on foreign countries filled with people who hate us for energy. And no, fracking ourselves to oblivion or melting some of the most toxic sands known to mankind in Canada is NOT going to grant us energy independence, despite the words of some crazy natural-gas millionaire’s deluded commercials. Consuming without thinking of efficiency is just dumb. Almost as dumb as thinking that we can cure mental illness to stop gun violence (d’oh!)

    None of these are controversial issues. Why wouldn’t you want clean air or water? Yet these things are impossible without the same basic steps that yes, hopefully, will have a beneficial impact on global warming. What further amazes me is that people like bigtruck have always hated progress, despite the fact that they directly benefit from it themselves. MPG laws and clean air acts have made truck engines much more cleaner, efficient, and heck, more powerful than they have EVER been.

    The days of building as many homes as we can, with as many trucks as we can, with the biggest tires we can fit…are coming to an end. As the U.S. lurches to a future filled with uncertainty over basic such as food prices, energy prices, and even clean water….everyone is going to have to do their part to contribute. Even those who refuse to acknowledge what is coming.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

  • Re: Junkyard Find: 1959 DeSoto

    Lorenzo - Yeah, the industrial processes were still WWII vintage and wearing out, but hey – they gave us flashy design, acres of chrome, and tri-tone paint jobs in a...
  • Re: European Review: Peugeot 208 GTi

    Russycle - I like it…but not that steering wheel. At least the shift knob should be easy to swap. As for the gauges, I like MINI’s solution: mount the...
  • Re: Thank You And Goodbye (Sort Of)

    Jack Baruth - They don’t have that kind of money.
  • Re: Thank You And Goodbye (Sort Of)

    Pch101 - Bare Trees is a personal favorite, and what I like most of all is a Danny Kirwan instrumental: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EbyRK Mzirg
  • Re: Versatile 2015 Mercedes Vito Van Puts Power To Front, Rear Or All

    CoreyDL - The first step on the road back to having multiple body style and options packages. I sold my flower shop last month though.
  • Re: Junkyard Find: 1959 DeSoto

    mars3941 - Someone mentioned the rust issues with these cars and Ford in 57 had it’s share of equally bad quality control. The rust issues were so bad with the 57 Fords a...
  • Re: Thank You And Goodbye (Sort Of)

    Lorenzo - Dang! Typical internet tubes – nothing stays the same. Here’s your tip on the love thing: the surface things are in constant flux, but the core of who...
  • Re: Millennials Start With Sharing, End With Individual Ownership

    This Is Dawg - These comments, as well as any other remotely political thread on this site, rapidly turn into “Everyone that isn’t...
  • Re: Thank You And Goodbye (Sort Of)

    bball40dtw - “Given some of the differences in opinion I have recently had with TTAC’s owners” Did they want to bring Doug back and pay him by the pun?
  • Re: Thank You And Goodbye (Sort Of)

    mdanda - I appreciate the honesty. Well done. I used to love this site back in the Deathwatch days, I even contributed an article or two, and I especially like the way you...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India