Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting that you would move the discussion in this direction since you haven't answered my (first) question. However, I will answer yours.
Starting yesteryear, we should be pursuing every possible source of energy. As our research matures, so will we be able to make a reasoned and logical decision on which energy sources (solar, wind, tide, nuclear, etc., etc.) will be the most viable on a national and worldwide scale. My bet is that several energy sources will be necessary, just as they are today (oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, NG, etc.). So, as we "run out" of oil, if indeed that happens, we will have the alternative energy sources available.
Now, please answer my question. What can, at this moment, replace oil?

Judged:

1

1

1

real old money wrote:

<quoted text>I believe we, the 1% richest, should pay for all the government programs. If I pay for it then I get to say where the money goes not you. And I would sharply curtail all spending tomorrow. After all its my money.

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>The climate change issue is obviously not going to be settled in this forum. A lot of people have a lot of dollars and emotion invested in denying that global climate change is happening. I thought maybe if we could all agree that fossil fuels are a finite resource, we might have a more productive discussion. I see I was wrong--the same dollars and emotions are invested in believing that we can drill our way out of any problem. Just like the addict, we only need one more hit, and then maybe we'll think about going straight.

democratic socialist wrote:

Okay, throw those in, too. They all have start-up costs in terms of time, money, and energy. That doesn't change the problem.

Algernon Sidney wrote:

<quoted text>Average workers don't fork over 1/3 of their paycheck. The rich have to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. What do you assert is the income of an "average worker"?

Algernon Sidney wrote:

<quoted text>Average workers don't fork over 1/3 of their paycheck. The rich have to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. What do you assert is the income of an "average worker"?

robert wrote:

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out we need to move away from fossil fuels. I'm glad you get your checks from the oil company and want to dissuade people from the truth, but sorry, oil is so last century. Time to move to sustainable and clean energy, and as quickly as possible. If you're against that, you're either a shill or have your head up your bum.
<quoted text>

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you considered that those millions of dollars spent worldwide may have actually averted a big problem?
Software departments in financial organizations worldwide spent many months of time reinforcing their systems against Y2K. The threat was real.
You cannot know what would have failed if they hadn't done that.

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
With so many scientists taking the threat seriously I think it is absolutely fine to pour scorn on those who wave it all off as if there is no risk at all. I see too many people saying they *know* manmade global warming is crap and often when when I ask them why I discover that their position is based on a rag tag collection of bad anecdotes, urban myths and personal hunches. Hardly the kind of stuff to make a reasonable person dismiss an issue like this so lightly.

M Blackburn wrote:

<quoted text>
This has been said before: There is not the great number of scientist that support man-made global warming that advocates suggest. An environmental scientist looking over the list published by the IPCC isn't necessarily going to be impressed. What I would like to see is an honest and candid assesment of support. One which clearly separates the government bureaucrats, politicians, environmentalist, lab technicians, and scientists from irrelevant fields.
To suggest those that don't buy man-made global warming have nothing better than anecdote, myth, and hunches to back them up is ridiculous. Look at the advocates and you will see there is more of that coming from them than vice versa. What you need to bear in mind is that global warming advocates are predicting the future – nothing they say can be proven until their predictions come true. The onus is on them to prove their theory based on historical evidence and scientific fact.
Can they possibly do that? They can't even prove that we are in any significant warming period. There is nothing historically unusual about our current temperature. They can't prove carbon dioxide drives temperature change, and even if they could, how would they explain human influence when our contribution to carbon dioxide is so insubstantial? The list of questionable evidence just keeps growing the more you look. Nobody has been able to predict weather patterns. Airlines won't accept information that is more than a few hours out of date, yet global warming advocates claim to be able to predict temperature change for the next century. This is an outrageous claim that no honest scientist would ever make. Computer technicians can make their models do whatever they want, they are deluding themselves if they think they are entering unbiased parameters.
Maybe for a quick overview you should watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's a BBC program that ironically features some of the people that got this whole thing going in the first place.

creach boonton nj wrote:

SORRY you big GOOF GLOBLE GORE, WE AMERICANS will do as YOU DO. NOT as you say. WE WILL BE LIVING WATEFUL life styles just like you and your phony globle gooofs.

Judged:

1

1

M Blackburn wrote:

This has been said before: There is not the great number of scientist that support man-made global warming that advocates suggest...

M Blackburn wrote:

What you need to bear in mind is that global warming advocates are predicting the future – nothing they say can be proven until their predictions come true. The onus is on them to prove their theory based on historical evidence and scientific fact.

M Blackburn wrote:

They can't prove carbon dioxide drives temperature change, and even if they could, how would they explain human influence when our contribution to carbon dioxide is so insubstantial?

M Blackburn wrote:

Nobody has been able to predict weather patterns. Airlines won't accept information that is more than a few hours out of date, yet global warming advocates claim to be able to predict temperature change for the next century. This is an outrageous claim that no honest scientist would ever make.

M Blackburn wrote:

Maybe for a quick overview you should watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's a BBC program that ironically features some of the people that got this whole thing going in the first place.

Mo Lubee wrote:

It just puzzles me, as a person who voted for Bush twice, that my fellow Republicans haven't come to terms with the disaster we caused America with our votes.
Just look at the results; 5000 kids killed in a war that should never have been fought, housing industry down the tubes, foreclosures all over the place, food costs way up, gas prices staggering, unemplotment climbing, with Chinese goods being sold everywhere... to our unemployed factory workers.
Look, I know we are Republicans, but when is enough... enough? Bush policies have brought our country to the brink of fiscal disaster, we build bridges, roads and schools in Iraq, while ours crumble before our eyes. Our factory workers are having to compete with Chinese slave labor as Chinese factories and foundries burn soft coal.
Look around you; the price of milk for your kids is higher than the gas you can barely afford. The only people happy with this mess are the Big Oil fat cats and Chinese politicians thast hate us.
We desperately need change big time, and I don't care if it's left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat.
It may not work, it may already be too late, but I'm voting for Barack Obama because he offers an approach that is the opposite to the foolhardy policies we have disasterously followed for 8 long years.
Barack may not be the answer, but I know McCain intends to keep us on the Bush course that has just about destroyed us already.
I implore my fellow Republicans; look within your hearts, look at the for-sale signs on your neighbors lawns. Look at how we have descended from that "shining city on a hill" into the ignominy of our present condition.
Look at where we have been, at where we are, and you'll know in your heart you don't want to go where John McCain intends to take us.
Take off your Republican blinders, wake up and smell the coffee... if you can afford it.

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
"I made no statements that could even remotely be construed as to: "wish widespread, and costly, societal upheaval due to an unproven theory"."
You made no statements, but that is the practical effect of your position.
"Regarding CO2 cause and effect; in past warmings CO2 levels only rose hundreds of years after temperature did, because CO2 was mostly a result, not a cause.(Physically, it can be either). This time CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature, proving it's a major cause."
"Proving it's a major cause"... ostensibly of warming. I'm not sure you can make that leap, that it is a "major" cause. Also, I'm not sure you can make the leap that humans are the "major" cause of the increase in CO2. And finally, the temperature is beginning to trend in the other direction, yet CO2 is high. Why the disconnect in correlation?
"realclimate.org is a good resource. Here are some of their 2008 entries as opposed to the link from 2004 you provided.
Real Climate is also partisan on this issue. Wouldn't you agree? I understand why you would consider it a good resource — because they agree with you. Oh, and, my link was merely to point out a very specific fact — that CO2 increase lagged temperature increase in past warmings, which was used to debunk your previous statement. No other purpose was intended. And I'm not sure what the purpose of your two links would be?
"bridgetdgms.wordpress.com is clearly politically biased in one direction."
As is the Real Climate website.
"I could also provide many links from the other side of that coin, but why even bother with the political end of an issue that clearly should be considered from the scientific end first and foremost?"
I agree.
"There are many good reasons why the vast majority of scientists know global warming is mostly caused by CO2."
They KNOW this, eh? Actually, water vapor is the leading greenhouse gas.
"Theoretical physical modeling of CO2 ("objective" models) shows that, given present levels of CO2, something like the present warming would occur. They're not used for most detailed calculations because:
"Empirical" models that do a "best fit" to the observed data give more accurate results. A wide variety of such models come to the same conclusion - it's basically us...etc."
That's a long way of saying, they have a theory. Have they proven it yet? Can they, with certainty, predict what will happen in the future? No. Will variables change in unexpected ways? They always do.
"One major denier talking point has been debunked by scientists using actual observations. "New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases."
"All due to cosmic rays..." Quite a straw man you set up. I have never heard anyone say that climate change is "all" due to any one source, but hey, I'm sure someone could have said it.
"You can read the original article, recently published by the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters, "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover,"
I could post many other links showing why AGW deniers currently have no scientific legs to stand on, but as you pointed out, they are so easy to find."
Very well, then. You have an abundance of links that purport to "prove" your stance. I have an abundance of links that purport to "prove" AGW is a hoax, including many scientists with actual legs to stand on. So, I guess we are at a stalemate. I don't begrudge you your beliefs, and I hope you will give me the same respect. You are certainly capable of taking all steps you deem necessary, without infringing on my rights, to try to abate AGW. Good luck to you, sir.