The Death of Global Warming?


global-warming2

As Jacob Laksin noted, a surprising blog post appeared on Monday that proclaimed “The Death of Global Warming,” in which the author wrote:

“After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all.”

What makes that statement rather remarkable was not the fact that it was said, for we’ve heard many similar declarations over the last few months, it’s who said it. The author was not anyone from the Heartland Institute, or Junk Science, or Climate Audit, or any other of the long-time skeptics. The author was foreign policy expert Walter Russell Mead, posting at The American Interest Online.

Mead may be fairly described as a Jacksonian Democrat: a fellow of strong convictions, but those opinions are not so strongly held as to dismiss the collective wisdom of middle-America out of hand. As his post makes clear, he was previously on board with alarmist global-warming theories. Indeed he sits on the board of the Acra Foundation, an organization that funds eco-groups like the Tides Foundation, the Earth Island Institute and the National Resources Defense Council.

While most of Mead’s analysis is accurate, the title of his post is a bit misleading. Global Warming has been dealt a grievous injury over the last few months, but none have been fatal, at least not yet, for too many initiatives are already in place for us to administer last rights.

A national cap-and-trade program won’t pass Congress this year, or – if I had to bet – in 2011, and even if one did, it wouldn’t go into effect for years. The same goes for regulation under the Clean Air Act. That will take years to accomplish. However, several east coast states implemented the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional cap and trade program, in 2009. Midwestern and western states are planning their own regional cap and trade programs as well: the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Western Climate Initiative, respectfully. (The latter was originally called the Western Greenhouse Gas Initiative, until somebody figured out that the acronym “WGGI” would inevitably be pronounced “wedgie,” which came a too uncomfortably close to describing the effect that the program would have on the economies of those regulated).

Further, many states have implemented Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require power producers to use less and less fossil fuel each year. Starting this April USEPA will begin requiring large sources of greenhouse gases to incorporate those “pollutants” into their permits. And, as of January 1, 2010, industry had to start keeping track of their greenhouse gas emissions. The latter move is sort of the first step in figuring out who gets the biggest pieces of the national cap and trade pie, should national cap and trade ever come to pass.

The net effect of the various state and regional initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be profound. These measures artificially inflate the value of energy produced using low carbon or zero carbon technologies, well beyond the actual cost of production in a competitive, free marketplace. The President addressed the use of two of the lower cost, less greenhouse gas intensive technologies during his State of Union address, advocating more nuclear power and – albeit more tentatively – increased offshore drilling.

On the face of it, such a declaration seems a reasonable, moderate response to a problem that he, if not the majority of the American people, believe is important. But, there’s not much substance behind this exercise in style. Permitting new nuclear plants; negotiating the inevitable legal battles that are sure to follow the issuance of each permit and then, eventually, building those plants will take at least two decades. This is not a practical solution to the problem that the President assures us so imminently endangers the very existence of our planet.

More offshore drilling makes all the sense in the world if the planet is indeed threatened by the evils of coal. Burning natural gas is less greenhouse gas intensive than burning coal. Even better, combined-cycle power plants are far more energy efficient than coal-fired power plants. If one really wants to reduce our national carbon footprint, the cheapest, quickest way to do so would be to increase America’s supply of natural gas and to build the high-efficiency power plants that can utilize this fuel.

Should this administration cheerfully and willingly support offshore drilling, they deserve applause. Unfortunately, the President has heretofore only paid lip-service to offshore drilling, even as his Interior Department has quietly placed obstacles in the way of tapping offshore energy reserves, such as leasing the rights to an important oil/gas field off the coast of Virginia. The President said that he is in favor of “… making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” The salient question would seem to be: is the President actually going to make “tough decisions,” or will he choose to perpetuate a regulatory environment where such decisions are effectively impossible to make?

This administration can provide vocal support for nuclear power and offshore drilling, but – absent actual action – that rhetoric won’t mean a thing. Global warming hysteria has spurred multiple responses at the state and regional level. The states, in turn, are simply reacting to this supposed threat using every unit of government available, save Congress.

There is a good deal of bureaucratic inertia still in play here, in other words. Halting the global warming juggernaut, much less trying to throw it into reverse gear, will take an awful lot of work. Global warming is far from dead, but the fact that someone like Walter Russell Mead recognizes that its vital signs are dropping is good news indeed.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

    I'm "conservative". But I'm willing to look at hard facts. CO2 is rising due to human activity in burning fossil fuels. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's fair to be concerned about the impact of the change on our complex ecosystem. Simple common sense suggests that the Earth will retain more heat as a result. This doesn't justify the fearmongering on the part of leftists who have found a great new excuse to exert ever-greater control over free individuals. And clearly a lot of nonsense is published in the popular press. But it's fair to ask, in a rational way, what's happening and what we should or can do about it.

    Setting aside the threat of eco-catastrophe, America has a big financial/strategic problem with oil. We burn through a quarter of the world's oil, which we import from the hellholes of the world. We're going broke, and people who hate us are owning us. We can't solve this problem by drilling; there simply isn't enough oil on American shores to solve our problems. Sure, there are some nice reserves in Alaska, but not enough to pull us out of the fire. So one way or another, we should be concerned about our oil appetite. We've got stronger national reserves of coal and natural gas, but our oil tank is low. Forget the leftist eco-kooks; check out the "Pickens Plan" to see some practical thinking on the issue.

    • Prudent Man, CFA

      Solar Panels, windmills, etc. are mainly produced in foreign countries. Before we submit to the "Climate of Fear" we should get our economic house in order. If we have high comparative costs, labor and taxes, we are going nowhere. Furthermore those producing countries are the major producers of alleged pollution so why should the U.S. commit economic suicide? Also one must remeber that twenty years ago the "Climate of Fear" was a new Ice Age. If our economy continues to decline so will our consumption of energy as well as our standard of living. That is one thing that is indisputable so lets not put the cart before the horse. This country showed its greatest growth soon after WWII as we exported substantially more than we imported (competitively produced more than we consumed and that is where we should concentrate our political and economic attention. Producing more than one consumes: What a novel concept.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

        You're touching on the key issue. Economic activity divides into consumption and production and savings. America is out of balance…production and savings fail to match consumption. One way or another, we've got to restore balance.

    • owyheewine

      Sir, you are dangerously uninformed. Whatever you use as "common sense" could use a little science knowledge, The total energy released to the environment as a result of burning fossil fuel is so minute in the global energy balance that it's less than rounding error. Solar energy is the (thankfully) major source of global warming, and natural releases of energy from the earth (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc) exceed the human caused releases by hundreds of times.
      Fossil fuels are nothing more than naturally stored solar energy and must remain our major energy sources for many lifetimes.

      • Not Chicken Little

        You are completely right! Further, the US has PLENTY of reserves of coal, gas and oil – we should begin to develop them as well as go full speed ahead on nuclear power. CO2 as the bogeyman is a leftist scare tactic that unfortunately has worked all too well among the hordes of the ignorant who incapable of elementary critical analysis, scientific or logical or otherwise.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Inquisitor The_Inquisitor

      "So one way or another, we should be concerned about our oil appetite."

      We should be concerned about no such thing. Stop meddling with the market; it will take care of itself. Prices go up; alternatives are found. That's how the market works.

      The totalitarian mindset is always looking for problems in order to impose collective solutions. It always starts with some such question as What should we do about thus and so? The answer is WE should nothing at all.

      As for CO2, I've been told that there was nine times as much CO2 during the age of the dinasours. If true, you can wipe that concern off your plate.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        We currently have 387ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have proof that the earth has had periods in which CO2 was at 800ppm, and that life flourished at that level…

        While we do have plenty of proven energy reserves (enough for about 200 years, don't be surprised when you see the technological developments that will be coming in the next few years…

        • The Inquisitor

          I belive it was Monkton who said that CO2 levels were estimated to be nine times what they are today. Life not only flourished but the abundant plant life supported the dinasours. He argued that we need more, not less, CO2.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

            The Holy Grail of all this research is to produce a model which accurately predicts the impact of increased CO2 on global climate trends. This model has not been produced yet as far as I know. Where the rise in CO2 is taking us is uncertain. Al Gore does not know, and neither does Monkton. But what is known is that human activity is altering the parameters of a hugely complex ecosystem. We should not dismiss these concerns as a matter of political convenience.

            By the way, if there is a problem, there are solutions to explore other than shutting down steel mills. There are a number of ways we might reduce the Earth's exposure to the Sun. For example, if we took a few H-bombs and blew them up in the desert, they would blow dust into the upper atmosphere, thus deflecting some sunlight. I'm not suggesting we actually do this; it's just an example. If technology has indeed gotten us into a mess, then maybe more technology can get us out.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

            You're wrong.

            We do indeed have conclusive proof that CO2 poses zero risk to mankind. Their entire theory that increasing levels of CO2 are the primary cause of the warming over the last 150 years is bunk. The temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.

            The primary cause of warming and cooling is the sun which goes through cycles of activity. Rising levels of CO2 are actually good for the planet. The most shocking part of the AGW lie, is that the only climate change we need be concerned about is extreme cooling. Warming is good. All life flourishes in a warmer climate, and people starve to death in cold climates because crops won't grow as well…

            If you doubt this, ask yourself where you'd rather live… On a warm & balmy island in the tropics, or in Northern Greenland with the Eskimos…

            It's all a big lie !

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

        In a better world, I would agree with you. I don't want to meddle in the market. I'd rather let the system self-correct. However, I would point out that Federal monetary policy has become something of the enabler of bad behavior. The world has been flooded with dollars and America owes money right and left. The current "stimulus" efforts will end up with someone getting the shaft, through another dollar crisis or inflation or the next generation getting stuck with the debt. In other words, a situation that would have self-corrected under a free economy instead digs itself into an ever-deeper hole, because too much power has been seized and abused by Washington. Under the circumstances, I'm stuck pointing out one of our big financial/strategic weaknesses; that is, oil imports. In the context of the big picture, I don't think I'm the one who has abandoned the principles of the marketplace. In a truly free market, it wouldn't be possible for us to get into debt to this extent, because reasonable institutions wouldn't finance this degree of insanity.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Inquisitor The_Inquisitor

          "Under the circumstances, I'm stuck pointing out one of our big financial/strategic weaknesses; that is, oil imports."

          Why are oil imports a financial weakness? Who is "our?"

          I pay for my oil and gas when I refuel or service my car. It's a cost, but I don't consider it a weakness; so you can count me out of "our."

          Instead of worrying about oil prices I believe your energies would be better directed campaigning for liberty. How about privatizing the dollar or at least a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?

    • John Dodds

      WRONG. Greenhoue gases ONLY cause warming WHEN there is an added energy photon. On Earth there is excess CO2 and Water vapor in the air, and the amount of energy photons available for warming is limited and limiting. When you add CO2 to the air you add more excess CO2 to the air. It does NOT add warming unless there is more energy added. The IPCC, or was it the WWF, lied when they said more GHGs means more warming.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        John;

        Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does cause some warming, but the amount is so small as to be statistically insignificant. The entire premise conveniently ignores the fact that man is also responsible for cooling the planet as well. When we cut down forests to build farms, most of the farmland that grows light colored crops like wheat, reflect more solar warming causing cooling. The climate alarmists will tell you that cutting down the forests is killing us, but that's a proven lie as well. America's forests have increased by 40% in the last 50 years, while the CO2 levels are climbing.

        Nobody has yet figured out if the "net effect" of man on our climate has been warming or cooling..

    • John Pinckney

      the Pickens Plan is a non-starter. Wind power will be profitable only with $0.50/kw electricity. The energy density of the wind is too low. There is a lot of energy in wind but it is too dispersed. There is a lot of gold in the oceans but we don't mine it there because it is too despersed.

      • JaneW

        Guess what??? Windmills don't work up here in Minnisota. ITS TOO COLD!
        Wonder if any one is checking electric cars….bet they won't work up here either!

      • bardefa

        Almost every river could have a dam….a practically free energy.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      Your concerns are unfounded. CO2 only accounts for one half of one percent of ALL gasses in our atmosphere. Of the total CO2, only 4/10ths of 1 percent is created by man's use of fossil fuels. That amounts to 1 part in 62,500. The entire CO2 theory is bogus. Common sense should tell you that such an insignificant amount of a gas can't possibly have any meaningful let alone significant effect on climate change.

      The earth's climate has been constantly changing for over 4 billion years. From the 15th through the middle of the 19th century, earth was in a prolonged cool period called the Little Ice Age. The warming that's been going on since about 1850 is totally natural and BENEFICIAL, but it's over, as the planet started cooling again at the beginning of this century and has continued it's downward trend ever since.

      The most outrageous part of the global warming hoax to me is that the only type of weather that can possibly hurt mankind is extreme cooling. In colder climates, crops can't grow very well and people starve… when the planet gets warmer, all we have to do is use a little more sunblock. Warming is good !

      35 years ago, the same that have been pushing the global warming "emergency" were warning us that we were heading into another ice age, that was nonsense as well. The current cooling trend may continue for another 20 years or more, so don't be surprised when they start panicking about how cold things are getting then..

      It's all a lie !!!

      that plants need

      • Democracy First

        You're probably right. And certainly the AGW movement is full of bad science, lies, manipulation, socialist plans and disguised wealth transfer from 1st world to 3rd..

        However, it is apparently true that CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans. There may be implications in that.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

          Nope…

          Sorry, but that's simply one of their fallback lies.. It's just as much of a fairy tale as the AGW theory. As I said above:

          CO2 only accounts for one half of one percent of ALL gasses in our atmosphere. Of the total CO2, only 4/10ths of 1 percent is created by man's use of fossil fuels. That amounts to 1 part in 62,500. 

           

          It's equally absurd to believe that such a small amount of a natural & beneficial gas, is having any statistically significant affect on our oceans.

          SPPI issued a report about this which can be read here.

          It's all part of the same lie !

          • Democracy First

            I'm glad to see this. Hope it's true.

    • Democracy First

      You wrote, "We burn through a quarter of the world's oil, which we import from the hellholes of the world. "

      In fact, Canada is the US's #1 foreign oil supplier, followed by Mexico and Venezuela – which, admittedly, is increasingly an enemy of freedom and democracy.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        The idea that "We burn through a quarter of the world's oil is also part of the big lie.

        Part of the AGW hoax is their attempt to con us into believing that our oil reserves are being rapidly depleted. It just ain't so !

        Look at the difference between what the government tells us our oil reserves are in the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) latest report which can be found here.

        And the truth about our oil reserves according to a recent Investor's Business Daily article <a href="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=511487&Ntt=Power+to+spare">which can be found here.

        When the American people finally learn that almost everything the federal government has been telling us has been nothing but a pack of lies, then that's the day when the 2nd American Revolution truly begins.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

          Swemson, I looked up the IBD article you cite:

          http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article….

          It does NOT say America has adequate oil reserves. It gives a huge value for our total fossil fuel reserves expressed as the equivalent of oil energy. And that's exactly what I said in my original post: We've got large reserves of coal and natural gas, but our oil reserves (proven and estimated) are low. You can consult the geological reports to back that up. That's why we're importing oil at an unsustainable rate. And you probably appreciate that it's not a trivial matter to convert cars to coal or natural gas. We drive a lot and we've got a hundred million oil burners on the road, and most of the cars sold here are oil burners. This is a big financial problem for America.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

          Swemson, I looked up the IBD article you cite:

          http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article….

          It does NOT say America has adequate oil reserves. It gives a huge value for our total fossil fuel reserves expressed as the equivalent of oil energy. And that's exactly what I said in my original post: We've got large reserves of coal and natural gas, but our oil reserves (proven and estimated) are low. You can consult the geological reports to back that up. That's why we're importing oil at an unsustainable rate. And you probably appreciate that it's not a trivial matter to convert cars to coal or natural gas. We drive a lot and we've got a hundred million oil burners on the road, and most of the cars sold here are oil burners. This is a big financial problem for America.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

            There have been several discoveries in recent years that add up to several hundred billion barrels of oil reserves. The government previously said that America had only 27bbl (approx) out of the world's total of 1,300bbl.

            There have been massive new discoveries on the west coast continental shelf, and on the east coast as well, all the way up to New England. Additionally, recent improvements in drilling technology, have dramatically improved our ability to get at reserves that were outside our ability to access and which were therefore never counted… I don't know the exact numbers, but it's huge, and they're not counting oil shale deposits yet.

    • Jane

      Doggwood, give me your whole brain, I'm only gonna say this once: what planet have you just descended from? You obviously have been absent for a long time, it's like you:
      1. never heard the temperatures have been dropping for the last 12 years
      2. never looked outside your window to see the weather we're having
      3. never heard that the hoax of the global "warming" was totally exposed at Copenhagen last December
      Get real – tell us a true story about your life on the Moon.

    • bardefa

      Without CO2 all flora would die…together with human kind….Missed that biology class?

      Just for a sake of an intelligent discussion – what if the earth is cooling and if we do nothing we will perish? Shouldn't we start warming it up?

      Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  • jbtrevor

    "The game is up, the science is in, the truth is out, the scare is over" Lord Monckton at the end of a debate in Austrailia.

    • jbtrevor

      Actually, his statement could be a response to most Leftist 'scares'…

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        Now if we could only manage to get everyone to learn that, then this manufactured crisis will be over..

    • William Smart

      Lord Monckton's tour is not a debate, even if he's dropping off in radio stations to swap arguments with scientists. And he's not really talking about the truth or otherwise of anthropogenic Global Warming, he's telling us that the economics of cutting carbon use to reduce Global Warming don't add up (and world governments may have rumbled that one).

      Monckton may even be right, but don't write off the message most scientists have been giving us, not least because reliance on Middle-East carbon supplies is many times a bigger danger to our way of life than Iran.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        Not true William;

        Lord Monckton, and many others, have proven that the entire theory and the science used to back it up are bogus. Virtually everything you've bee hearing is a lie.

        If you want to learn more, I suggest you read Lord Monckton's "35 Inconvenient Truths"
        which details the scientific errors in Al Gore's Sci If Thriller movie, and then you should read Lord Moncklton's most recent report on Climategate.

        It's all a lie !

    • pathfinder58

      Fortunes have been made on the basis of this scare, and what troubles me the most, Al Gore was rewarded with a Nobel proze for his film, which pushed the world into anti-incandescent light bulb legislation. In doing so we have creaed a demand for, and a mass distribution system for one of the most notorious carcenogenics known to man. Mercury! This neurotoxin is in every CFL bulb. Don't break one, especially not on carpet. Vacuuming aerosizes the toxin. The EPA want the carpet destroyed by professionals. They have to be taken to a hazerdous waste collection site where it costs them $1,300 per dumpster to destroy them safely.

      People also don't now that the long life of the bulb exists only if it is upright, and if it is on for at least 15 minutes at a time. If you turn the lights on and off, or put them in a study lamp, you have reduced the efficiency by 85%.

      Thanks AL

  • William Smart

    Doggwood, you're right on the ball. We are mining the earth for carbon, and it is going to cause Global Warming – maybe catastrophic. Or maybe not, but we really, really need to know and act as if it's quite likely.

    And non-carbon sources of alternative energy are essential too. One day for sure, no matter how shockingly the scientists we pay have behaved, we'll be very grateful we started looking carefully at our carbon-budgets.

  • jimbo ellis

    libs=dangerous joke

  • http://www.failuretodisclose.com Jose Schwartz

    The global warming myth is only the first of several propagandas slated to fall. The other is the myth about homosexuality, visit http://www.failuretodisclose.com to obtain balanced information, especially if you are a parent, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, tacher, clergy, educator, or hope to hold one of these titles at some time in your life.

  • Jim Kilpatrick

    Like all scams,the global warming hoax is beginng to be found out. It's a way for leftists to get control of , well, nearly everything.

  • Chris

    Doggwood, if you were a conservative it would be obvious from your post. Nice try.
    USMCS- There are vast stores of dilithium on the planet pandora! And please join me in sounding the alarm on the most underreported global danger we face- dihydrogen monoxide. We must petition president Obama (peace be to all who hail him) to stop dihydrogen monoxide. By the way I'm a 'liberal'.
    /sarc. off

    • Not Chicken Little

      Dihydrogen monoxide poisoning causes around 6,000 deaths each year in just the US alone! And it is found worldwide in quantities sufficient to cause death in just minutes! The 0bama administration however is doing NOTHING to stop this!

  • wws

    The Dilithium mines are on Rura Penthe. You were thinking about unobtanium, but sorry, you can't get it.

    back in the real world, what we *can* get right underneath our own soil is about 120 years of Nat Gas.

    • Dannie Long

      Why are you conscerned about global worming. The greater conscern is are you ready to meet GOD??? Christ is soon to return for his people. I know ,I've heard it for years people have said that for years. Facts is that Christ is at the door, ready to return. He is just waiting on God to say go. Please if you don't know Christ as savior Ask Him To come into your heart now. I don't know exactly when He is coming , but I predict in the next 3 to 5 years. Sincerely Dan Long

  • USMCSniper

    Entertainment Weekly asked Cameron to respond to some of the criticisms aimed at him regarding "Avatar." Check out how he responded to this one:

    Entertainment Weekly: "'Avatar' is the perfect eco-terrorism recruiting tool."

    James Cameron: "Good, good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in eco-terrorism."

    So James, I guess you won't complain when the eco-terrorists burn down your home cause it isn't green enough or is built in the "wrong" place, burn your car and truck (or put sugar in the gas tank) cause they aren't carbon neutral, and cut off your electric power and gas to your house because it isn't run on green power?

  • a13579

    Planting more trees, bushes, grasses, etc will put an end to global warming

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      The warming that's occurred since the end of the little ice age, has caused CO2 levels to increase (as it gets warmer, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans diminishes, causing the increase, not the other way around as the climate alarmists claim), and as a result of the increase in CO2, our forests have already been growing at quite a pace, as seen in this chart.

    • pathfinder58

      You are so right. According to a study in The Smithsonian, older residential areas with mature vegetation are, on average, four degrees cooler than newer neighborhoods with few trees. Also, scientist have studied leaves on the molecular level and have found them to have a constant internal temperature of 72 degrees. Leaves not only provide shade, but by their nature, an atmospheric temperature modertator. Planting trees is a simple and perfect solution with no downside.

  • USMCSniper

    I have the answer! Dilithium, also known as radan is an element, a member of the hypersonic series, mostly occurring as crystalline mineral. It is used to power the warp drive systems of many starships. Dilithium regulates the matter/antimatter reaction in a ship's warp core because of its ability to be rendered porous to light-element antimatter when exposed to high temperatures and pressures. It controls the amount of power generated in the reaction chamber, channeling the energy released by mutual annihilation into a stream of electro-plasma.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      That may not sound quite so wild in a few decades from now…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WilliamJWard WilliamJamesWard

    Hanging a few someones from a tree and then planting them under some
    bushes and grasses is more likely to stop the scam of global warming.
    Warm or cold it is all weather and no one can stop it, weather happens and
    only by the colossal gullibility of the poorly educated can the scammers
    get any traction, money, dupes, anywhere. Global warming is big con using
    science that few understand and by repitition make people think it is the
    real thing, which it is not. As society devolves into superstition the bogey men
    like Al Gore will continue to make a fortune, think folks, just think.
    Swemson is absolutely correct………William

  • http://www.earthfacts.net Marcia Earth

    Excellent post, Doggwood.

    Depletion of fossil fuels is a real issue.

    Doesn't matter if you are conservative or not.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

      Thanks, Marcia. As I noted, we've got more domestic coal and natural gas than oil. Now if only I can buy a coal-fired car! Pickens is suggesting we build more LNG-powered cars. It would be easier if cars were electric, and then we could run them off electric plants that burned anything — oil, gas, coal, hydro, nuke, wind, whatever. But electric cars aren't broadly practical, at least not yet. We got onto the oil economy because it's advantageous in so many ways; that's why there's no easy alternative pathways. Too bad we don't have more oil. I don't know exactly what to do, but I think the conversation is worth having.

  • WRJonas

    I read an article in a monthly magazine I get from our co-op power provider ( rural Texas) about a new power plant they are licensed to build for 190 million in a small community called Woodville. They receive 40 million to build this clean renewable power plant which will BURN WOOD CHIPS AND FOREST TRASH . The last time I looked Texas was the leading producer in natural gas which I guess is illegal to burn. Coal is also a no-no and oil is forbidden in this fantasy world . If subsidized wood chips and saw dust can solve our future energy needs I need to get working on this fairy-farts and moonbeam powered car I'm thinking about.

  • WRJonas

    amend comment to read . "they receive 40 million dollars in federal renewable energy grants"

  • bardefa

    that, a…..what's his name? O'Bower, O'Bender, O'Bummer …..just recently talked about "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" of global "warming"……
    Facts of cooling never got in the way of liberal agenda… Facts do not count….

    Liberalism is a mental disorder. Just listen to Pelosi, the taxidermist's pride.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood
    • miller

      dihydrogen monoxide is water u fools

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood
  • timeklek

    The Global Cooling Scare of the 1970's and the current Global Warming Scare;
    both "caused by CO2" and both Disproven.
    Are an indicator that "They" wants to Control Energy (and us).

  • Jae

    Just because someone like Palin or Rush say it isn't true, doesn't mean that a lot of hard working scientist were wrong. Data can always be at issue, that's why scientist look at a problem from multiple directions. Still it’s pretty simple math: increase green house gases (carbon dioxide, methane) you get a warmer planet. Remember we outpace natural release of these gasses 10:1. Please all you deniers, a bit of bad press doesn't mean that all the data is wrong. Is the world flat, too? I wish we had reasonable people (Reps and Dems) that would think logically and stepwise, and not give into this pathetic denyists/defeatist bent that so many people profess.

  • bla

    ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!! its the end of the world as we know it….: )

    • shalendra

      no…………………………………………………………..

    • pipul dhar

      we know but y don't we try to save it 4 at least more 2 years after 2012 as we realized it too late..!now let us start 2 work together!then i am sure we could do it…!

  • Chris

    Oh my god this is shit!

  • katrina Evangelista

    Hui…mga Ka WORLD….help aman poih natin si madir earth………..naghi2nalo na eh………..
    let's act for our environment………

  • http://www.tangotango.no Tangokurs oslo

    TangoTango gir kurs i argentinsk tango. Våre kurs i Oslo er meget populære. Vi underviser også andre plasser.Velkommen på tangokurs med TangoTango.

  • esperanza

    hahahahahahahaha they say that it is the end of the world on 2012 that is so stupid but i do trest on it (but they invented that but we have to acepted ) :)

  • Stephen Stapinski

    Stephen Stapinski
    Really your blog is very interesting…. it contains great and unique information. I enjoyed to visiting your blog. It's just amazing…. Thanks very much for the share.

  • http://ballandbuck.com/ PIV Card Readers

    Global warming is getting furious day by day.It is getting so much harmful for us.PIV Card Readers

  • http://guarding-our-earth.com/ aggrand fertilizer

    How could I believe this.Global warming is a world wide problem still.I personally wanna meet that author to discuss such a weird news.organic fertilizer for pastures