Global Warming In Thailand

[canuckamuck]

. I was in bondi beach sydney like at the end of winter (which is not really a real winter) and it snowed!!!? Tell me thats normal and you need some help. I bet there is a lot more being covered up than we think.

It is surprising that this far into the climate change debate that there are still people that assume that at one point in history we were experiencing normal weather.

[canuckamuck]

That is yet another totally false and misleading statement. The climate change models take numerous variables into consideration, both human induced and non-human induced.

Unfortunately, the models show that human activities are causing the bulk of climate change, especially apparent within the past two decades.

For someone who goes on and on about pseudo science, I would think that you would get as far away from climate models as possible. IMO the climate models are as good of a representation of pseudo science as I have ever seen. I would like to see them get a four day model running 50% accurate before I would have a look at anything long term.

[teatree]

That is yet another totally false and misleading statement. The climate change models take numerous variables into consideration, both human induced and non-human induced.

Unfortunately, the models show that human activities are causing the bulk of climate change, especially apparent within the past two decades.

For someone who goes on and on about pseudo science, I would think that you would get as far away from climate models as possible. IMO the climate models are as good of a representation of pseudo science as I have ever seen. I would like to see them get a four day model running 50% accurate before I would have a look at anything long term.

Exactly, climate modals are the very definition of pseudo science. Weather can barely be predicted 3 days in advance with any degree of accuracy let alone years or even decades.

Perhaps JRTexas could tell us what climate modal predicted the current cooling period we are going through. Oh, that's right there wasn't one.

And by the way, there ARE plenty of people who believe that ANY change in what they consider to be normal weather as evidence of man made global warming/cooling/climate change. Just a week or so ago the UK was experiencing temperatures around 30c, higher than normal but something that does happen from time to time. Of course news reporters had a field day stating this as proof that man made global warming/cooling/climate change is fact.

The debate isn't over. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA LA LA I'm not listening isn't going to work for much longer. You remind me of the position of the church when Copernicus stated that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. No debate, just burn the heretics!!! Oh wait, that will add to man made global warming/cooling/climate change, drown the heretics!!!

Do you know that some scientists are actually saying that people who deny man made global warming/cooling/climate change should be put on trial? Hardly the scientific way.

[JR Texas]

That is yet another totally false and misleading statement. The climate change models take numerous variables into consideration, both human induced and non-human induced.

Unfortunately, the models show that human activities are causing the bulk of climate change, especially apparent within the past two decades.

For someone who goes on and on about pseudo science, I would think that you would get as far away from climate models as possible. IMO the climate models are as good of a representation of pseudo science as I have ever seen. I would like to see them get a four day model running 50% accurate before I would have a look at anything long term.

Exactly, climate modals are the very definition of pseudo science. Weather can barely be predicted 3 days in advance with any degree of accuracy let alone years or even decades.

Perhaps JRTexas could tell us what climate modal predicted the current cooling period we are going through. Oh, that's right there wasn't one.

And by the way, there ARE plenty of people who believe that ANY change in what they consider to be normal weather as evidence of man made global warming/cooling/climate change. Just a week or so ago the UK was experiencing temperatures around 30c, higher than normal but something that does happen from time to time. Of course news reporters had a field day stating this as proof that man made global warming/cooling/climate change is fact.

The debate isn't over. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA LA LA I'm not listening isn't going to work for much longer. You remind me of the position of the church when Copernicus stated that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. No debate, just burn the heretics!!! Oh wait, that will add to man made global warming/cooling/climate change, drown the heretics!!!

Do you know that some scientists are actually saying that people who deny man made global warming/cooling/climate change should be put on trial? Hardly the scientific way.

Once again diverting the issue to nonsense. The debate is over........your side lost.......the international community and responsible scientists and scientific organizations worldwide are focusing on the solution.

One solution for you is to become familiar with the literature before you open your mouth.

Here is that link again: http://www.realclimate.org/

It might also help to think about what would happen if we develop an energy system for the 21st century.

Here are some things that would happen:

fewer working hours necessary (that means you work less and for more money....more leisure time),

environmentally sound and sustainable economies worldwide,

less expensive products (that means you pay less money for what you need),

a massive urban to rural migration along with the formation of small scale, sustainable communities

cleaner environment

no more poverty and hunger (ability to grow food anywhere)

no more water shortage

cleaner cities

less crowded cities

less money needed to pay for the War Machine (because violence worldwide would diminish)

creation of hundreds of thousands of quality jobs (because the entire energy grid will change)

These are only some of the benefits of moving away from costly, environmentally unsound, socially disruptive, outdated Big Oil.

[canuckamuck]

would that new energy source be magic beans, or does it come in a lamp that you rub?

Why don't you at least give us some details, instead just listing all the worlds problems and stating your new energy source will solve them.

[JR Texas]

would that new energy source be magic beans, or does it come in a lamp that you rub?

Why don't you at least give us some details, instead just listing all the worlds problems and stating your new energy source will solve them.

Good.......maybe an intelligent discussion about a real solution is possible.

What characteristics must the energy system of the 21st century have in order to solve our social and environmental problems?

How can we best develop that energy system?

[chuckd]

JR:

What will be the source of all this new energy? Will it be wind-driven, solar, bio fuels, salt water?

How about something that has been under our noses for the past 25 years. Nuclear?

How do you greenies feel about the nuclear answer? I have never heard a real answer to this question.

What's wrong with this source of energy?

What's your objection to oil, anyway? Is it because of the "big oil companies" you so obviously detest or is it some other reasoning?

What is your recommendation as to how to get China and India to curb their emissions? UN action? Sanctions? Trade wars?

Don't give us the stock "They are a third world country and should be exempted" answer. They are the big polluters so what are you proposing to do about them?

=================================

Oh, by the way, T. Boone Pickens dropped his plan to ruin the landscape of the Panhandle of Texas with wind powered turbines. He said establishing a power distribution system to get the power out would be cost prohibitive.

As far as green jobs are concerned, have you checked out the experiences of Spain with their "going green" experiment?

[canuckamuck]

I ask for details because you seem to have an idea that a solution exists. Clearly you have no answers, so I will play your game for a while.

What characteristics must the energy system of the 21st century have in order to solve our social and environmental problems?"

I guess it would have to be an energy source that would be able to keep men from being greedy, cause families to stick together, and overcome class, race, and ideological division. It would also need to cause less environmental damage to implement, maintain, and operate than the low tech versions functioning today.

How can we best develop that energy system?

Love covers a multitude of sins.

[JR Texas]

I ask for details because you seem to have an idea that a solution exists. Clearly you have no answers, so I will play your game for a while.

What characteristics must the energy system of the 21st century have in order to solve our social and environmental problems?"

I guess it would have to be an energy source that would be able to keep men from being greedy, cause families to stick together, and overcome class, race, and ideological division. It would also need to cause less environmental damage to implement, maintain, and operate than the low tech versions functioning today.

How can we best develop that energy system?

Love covers a multitude of sins.

I am asked you to focus on solutions and think about something that is possible......something that perhaps you have never thought about.

And you come back with "clearly you have no answers."

Try not responding with insults and a conversation might be possible.

At least you did go on to identify some characteristics. Two are interesting:

1) it needs to be environmentally sound

2) it needs to be high tech (what we are using now is Stone Age technology)

I can agree with you on points one and two above.

I would add:

3) It needs to be decentralized (small, powerful, safe, easy to move, under personal control)

I am thinking about a personal system that you can easily place in virtually any location. It will be your energy system.......like your toaster, or your refrigerator, or your car, or your computer.

If we can have personal versions of those things, why can't we have a personal version of an energy system?

Do you agree with points 1, 2 and 3? If so, what other characteristics does it need to have to improve the quality of life for all human beings on the planet.........all life for that matter.

First, work with me to identify the energy system. It does not matter that it does not exist.

To create something you first need to have a good idea about what you want to create and why.

[chuckd]

JR:

Your argument seems to be the alternate energy source hasn't even been invented yet. Am I reading you correctly?

I think it has, and the answer is in the following editorial from Investor's Business Daily. It lies in the frozen North of the US.

=================================================

Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Politics: John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade, suggests the Alaska governor "check the view from her front porch." What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste.

The political death of Sarah Palin has been greatly exaggerated. In a devastating op-ed in the Washington Post, Alaska's governor exposes the cap-and-tax fraud that has nothing to do with earth's temperature and everything to do with government control of the economy.

She also exposes the stealth socialism ambitions of the Democratic left and once again points out the availability of abundant "shovel-ready" resources under America's soil, off America's shores and even in America's rocks.

Judging from the reaction from Sen. Kerry and the political arm of George Soros, one must ask: If Palin is spent as a political force, why is everyone on the left so worried and talking about her?

Kerry took to the ultraliberal Web site Huffington Post to object to Palin's description of "the president's cap-and-trade energy tax" as "an enormous threat to our economy." In Alaska, she wrote, "we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, energy and security."

Kerry, who opposed the Cape Wind project off breezy Cape Cod because a wind farm capturing energy from ocean breezes might spoil his view, went ballistic. In a thinly veiled reference to Tina Fey's "Saturday Night Live" skit, he repeated the warm-monger mantra that the "global climate change crisis threatens our economy and national security in profound ways" and that "Gov. Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be."

What Palin sees is a cap-and-tax plan that will result in a "dried-up energy sector" that even the sponsors of the Waxman-Markey bill anticipate, or they wouldn't have included a provision providing $4.2 billion over eight years for newly unemployed energy workers.

It's not just the energy sector that will be devastated. Palin notes that "even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan." We have cited an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation that found unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Kerry responded that Palin failed to mention that "jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly 2 1/2 times faster than overall jobs since 1998." That's easy when you start from almost zero. Note that 1998 is also the year the earth started cooling, with not a warmer year since. There's even been snow in Malibu.

From Palin's front porch, senator, she can see "the largest private-sector energy project in history" — her "3,000-mile natural gas pipeline (that) will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America."

From Palin's front porch you can also see the 2,000-acre part of ANWR's frozen tundra that contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil (such estimates often underestimate actual yields) and that could supply all the oil needs of Kerry's Massachusetts for 75 years.

And from her front porch, Palin can see the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska's landmass. Awaiting development there, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 30% of the world's supply, and 83 billion barrels of oil, 4% of global conventional resources.

MoveOn.org began e-mailing members Tuesday, asking them to fund a rapid response ad blasting Palin's op-ed. Soros' group said Palin was positioning herself as the face of conservative opposition to Obama's energy policy, telling supporters her op-ed was "a marvel of misinformation and outright lies."

What really hurts is Palin's truth. Kerry and MoveOn.org say Sarah Palin must be stopped. We say, drill, baby, drill.

Press Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Site Map Home

© Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

[JR Texas]

JR:

Your argument seems to be the alternate energy source hasn't even been invented yet. Am I reading you correctly?

I think it has, and the answer is in the following editorial from Investor's Business Daily. It lies in the frozen North of the US.

=================================================

Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Politics: John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade, suggests the Alaska governor "check the view from her front porch." What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste.

The political death of Sarah Palin has been greatly exaggerated. In a devastating op-ed in the Washington Post, Alaska's governor exposes the cap-and-tax fraud that has nothing to do with earth's temperature and everything to do with government control of the economy.

She also exposes the stealth socialism ambitions of the Democratic left and once again points out the availability of abundant "shovel-ready" resources under America's soil, off America's shores and even in America's rocks.

Judging from the reaction from Sen. Kerry and the political arm of George Soros, one must ask: If Palin is spent as a political force, why is everyone on the left so worried and talking about her?

Kerry took to the ultraliberal Web site Huffington Post to object to Palin's description of "the president's cap-and-trade energy tax" as "an enormous threat to our economy." In Alaska, she wrote, "we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, energy and security."

Kerry, who opposed the Cape Wind project off breezy Cape Cod because a wind farm capturing energy from ocean breezes might spoil his view, went ballistic. In a thinly veiled reference to Tina Fey's "Saturday Night Live" skit, he repeated the warm-monger mantra that the "global climate change crisis threatens our economy and national security in profound ways" and that "Gov. Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be."

What Palin sees is a cap-and-tax plan that will result in a "dried-up energy sector" that even the sponsors of the Waxman-Markey bill anticipate, or they wouldn't have included a provision providing $4.2 billion over eight years for newly unemployed energy workers.

It's not just the energy sector that will be devastated. Palin notes that "even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan." We have cited an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation that found unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Kerry responded that Palin failed to mention that "jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly 2 1/2 times faster than overall jobs since 1998." That's easy when you start from almost zero. Note that 1998 is also the year the earth started cooling, with not a warmer year since. There's even been snow in Malibu.

From Palin's front porch, senator, she can see "the largest private-sector energy project in history" — her "3,000-mile natural gas pipeline (that) will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America."

From Palin's front porch you can also see the 2,000-acre part of ANWR's frozen tundra that contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil (such estimates often underestimate actual yields) and that could supply all the oil needs of Kerry's Massachusetts for 75 years.

And from her front porch, Palin can see the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska's landmass. Awaiting development there, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 30% of the world's supply, and 83 billion barrels of oil, 4% of global conventional resources.

MoveOn.org began e-mailing members Tuesday, asking them to fund a rapid response ad blasting Palin's op-ed. Soros' group said Palin was positioning herself as the face of conservative opposition to Obama's energy policy, telling supporters her op-ed was "a marvel of misinformation and outright lies."

What really hurts is Palin's truth. Kerry and MoveOn.org say Sarah Palin must be stopped. We say, drill, baby, drill.

Press Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Site Map Home

© Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

Why not add your input to the previous discussion.

Step one.......identify what the energy system of the future should look like.

Step two.......identify how to create it (of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new)

Step three.....identify how the new system will impact us economically, socially......in terms of the environment. This relates to why it must be developed.

(As an aside.......we will develop it.......the question is when, now, or after it is too late.)

This is a discussion that takes us beyond whether or not climate change is real.

[chuckd]

Why not add your input to the previous discussion.

Step one.......identify what the energy system of the future should look like.

Step two.......identify how to create it (of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new)

Step three.....identify how the new system will impact us economically, socially......in terms of the environment. This relates to why it must be developed.

(As an aside.......we will develop it.......the question is when, now, or after it is too late.)

This is a discussion that takes us beyond whether or not climate change is real.

My input is really simple and to the point. DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

I think the answer is to develop our natural resources in Alaska, offshore and the shale reserves of the Mid-West United States. We create jobs, solve our problem of reliance on foreign oil and stop sending our money to Hugo Chavez and the Middle East. We become masters of our own fate, provided we can get the Democrats out of office soon enough.

All these questions you are asking me is what we have been trying to get you to do. You're the one crying about big oil, but you are offering no alternatives. Come up with solutions instead of more questions. I have provided the solution and it is very simple and does not require a Cap and Tax bill such as Waxman-Markey.

The best you have come up with is some sort of personal energy system we carry around with us to solve our personal needs. How about a personalized backpack that has a very tiny nuclear reactor inside it so we can power our very own cars, jet packs for air travel and maybe our very own Batmobile?

Methinks you have been watching too many Hollywood movies lately.

And you still haven't answered my question about utilizing more nuclear energy.

[JR Texas]

Why not add your input to the previous discussion.

Step one.......identify what the energy system of the future should look like.

Step two.......identify how to create it (of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new)

Step three.....identify how the new system will impact us economically, socially......in terms of the environment. This relates to why it must be developed.

(As an aside.......we will develop it.......the question is when, now, or after it is too late.)

This is a discussion that takes us beyond whether or not climate change is real.

My input is really simple and to the point. DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

I think the answer is to develop our natural resources in Alaska, offshore and the shale reserves of the Mid-West United States. We create jobs, solve our problem of reliance on foreign oil and stop sending our money to Hugo Chavez and the Middle East. We become masters of our own fate, provided we can get the Democrats out of office soon enough.

All these questions you are asking me is what we have been trying to get you to do. You're the one crying about big oil, but you are offering no alternatives. Come up with solutions instead of more questions. I have provided the solution and it is very simple and does not require a Cap and Tax bill such as Waxman-Markey.

The best you have come up with is some sort of personal energy system we carry around with us to solve our personal needs. How about a personalized backpack that has a very tiny nuclear reactor inside it so we can power our very own cars, jet packs for air travel and maybe our very own Batmobile?

Methinks you have been watching too many Hollywood movies lately.

And you still haven't answered my question about utilizing more nuclear energy.

Continuing our dependence on Big Oil will not solve any of our problems, much less climate change. The social and environmental costs of our dependence on Big Oil is immense.

About alternatives........I already said this: "Of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new."

Do I actually need to tell you what those are? The problem is that they don't have all of the characteristics we need to improve the quality of life for all.

We are using an outdated, socially and environmentally destructive Stone Age energy system......we should have moved past it decades ago.

Now, back to my question: What characteristics should the energy system of the future have?

By the way, people posed a similar question about the horse cart, plow, steam engine, train, plane, rocket, computer, etc.

It is not an unreasonable question. If it is too hard for you to answer, then there is no reason for you to answer.

[canuckamuck]

I am asked you to focus on solutions and think about something that is possible......something that perhaps you have never thought about.

And you come back with "clearly you have no answers."

Because when I asked you to respond with your solution, all you could do is ask me what I thought the answer was.

Try not responding with insults and a conversation might be possible.

How were you insulted, because you had no answers and I called it?

At least you did go on to identify some characteristics. Two are interesting:

1) it needs to be environmentally sound

2) it needs to be high tech (what we are using now is Stone Age technology)

I can agree with you on points one and two above.

I would add:

3) It needs to be decentralized (small, powerful, safe, easy to move, under personal control)

I can see you left out fixing all the earth's political issues which is a ridiculous notion. Even with total energy independence, man is man, and man will abuse, pervert, and destroy as always. Energy independence might actually pave the way for all sorts of breakaway states and radical extremism.

First, work with me to identify the energy system. It does not matter that it does not exist.

To create something you first need to have a good idea about what you want to create and why.

There are a lot of things that don't exist but if they did they would fix everything. I already suggested magic beans.

Do you really think that if the geniuses at MIT and other places had a real theory about a portable power source such as you mentioned that they wouldn't be on that idea day and night. They won't be waiting for you and me to share our dreams.

The thing you describe is totally sci fi, but if you look at what the natural world has to offer that might replicate your mystery energy, then you would have to say, only nuclear fits the scenario.

If you think global warming has got people riled up, just wait until the greenies get a hate on over portable nukes. Can you say "not gonna happen"?

[chuckd]

Why not add your input to the previous discussion.

Step one.......identify what the energy system of the future should look like.

Step two.......identify how to create it (of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new)

Step three.....identify how the new system will impact us economically, socially......in terms of the environment. This relates to why it must be developed.

(As an aside.......we will develop it.......the question is when, now, or after it is too late.)

This is a discussion that takes us beyond whether or not climate change is real.

My input is really simple and to the point. DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

I think the answer is to develop our natural resources in Alaska, offshore and the shale reserves of the Mid-West United States. We create jobs, solve our problem of reliance on foreign oil and stop sending our money to Hugo Chavez and the Middle East. We become masters of our own fate, provided we can get the Democrats out of office soon enough.

All these questions you are asking me is what we have been trying to get you to do. You're the one crying about big oil, but you are offering no alternatives. Come up with solutions instead of more questions. I have provided the solution and it is very simple and does not require a Cap and Tax bill such as Waxman-Markey.

The best you have come up with is some sort of personal energy system we carry around with us to solve our personal needs. How about a personalized backpack that has a very tiny nuclear reactor inside it so we can power our very own cars, jet packs for air travel and maybe our very own Batmobile?

Methinks you have been watching too many Hollywood movies lately.

And you still haven't answered my question about utilizing more nuclear energy.

Continuing our dependence on Big Oil will not solve any of our problems, much less climate change. The social and environmental costs of our dependence on Big Oil is immense.

About alternatives........I already said this: "Of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new."

Do I actually need to tell you what those are? The problem is that they don't have all of the characteristics we need to improve the quality of life for all.

We are using an outdated, socially and environmentally destructive Stone Age energy system......we should have moved past it decades ago.

Now, back to my question: What characteristics should the energy system of the future have?

By the way, people posed a similar question about the horse cart, plow, steam engine, train, plane, rocket, computer, etc.

It is not an unreasonable question. If it is too hard for you to answer, then there is no reason for you to answer.

Are you a slow learner? I have answered your question in three posts so far. Now I will try and spell it out so there can be no misunderstanding on your part. I am typing this slowly in case you can't read very fast.

Now, back to my answer about what characteristics the energy system of the future should have.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

...and...

BUILD NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS

There is my answer to the energy system of the future.

There is no such thing as global warming. Obviously you have sipped on the Kool Aid put out by the tree huggers and believe man is polluting the environment. I choose not to believe them but, rather, believe many in established science that state the activity of the sun controls the temperatures of the earth today just as it has for millions of years. Even Al Gore as he drives SUVs, flies around in private planes and lives in an eco-unfriendly home really isn't contributing to global warming. Al is simply contributing to his bank account with global warming.

Perhaps you might also consider refraining trying to tell another member whether he or she should post or not. Now that is something constructive you could do in the future.

[JR Texas]

JR Texas to canuckamuck (some of the discussion deleted because too many quotes):

You are not interested in asking or answering intelligent questions and having a serious dialogue. Your only desire is to make sure we continue to be exploited by Big Oil.

I have tried my best to have an intelligent conversation with you. It is like talking to a rock. You refuse to use reason and seem to not be able to grasp anything that runs counter to your paranoid view of the world.

Unfortunately, I am now forced to move you to my ignore list.......

[JR Texas]

Why not add your input to the previous discussion.

Step one.......identify what the energy system of the future should look like.

Step two.......identify how to create it (of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new)

Step three.....identify how the new system will impact us economically, socially......in terms of the environment. This relates to why it must be developed.

(As an aside.......we will develop it.......the question is when, now, or after it is too late.)

This is a discussion that takes us beyond whether or not climate change is real.

My input is really simple and to the point. DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

I think the answer is to develop our natural resources in Alaska, offshore and the shale reserves of the Mid-West United States. We create jobs, solve our problem of reliance on foreign oil and stop sending our money to Hugo Chavez and the Middle East. We become masters of our own fate, provided we can get the Democrats out of office soon enough.

All these questions you are asking me is what we have been trying to get you to do. You're the one crying about big oil, but you are offering no alternatives. Come up with solutions instead of more questions. I have provided the solution and it is very simple and does not require a Cap and Tax bill such as Waxman-Markey.

The best you have come up with is some sort of personal energy system we carry around with us to solve our personal needs. How about a personalized backpack that has a very tiny nuclear reactor inside it so we can power our very own cars, jet packs for air travel and maybe our very own Batmobile?

Methinks you have been watching too many Hollywood movies lately.

And you still haven't answered my question about utilizing more nuclear energy.

Continuing our dependence on Big Oil will not solve any of our problems, much less climate change. The social and environmental costs of our dependence on Big Oil is immense.

About alternatives........I already said this: "Of course, there are many existing, alternative sources of energy that can be put in place now prior to developing something new."

Do I actually need to tell you what those are? The problem is that they don't have all of the characteristics we need to improve the quality of life for all.

We are using an outdated, socially and environmentally destructive Stone Age energy system......we should have moved past it decades ago.

Now, back to my question: What characteristics should the energy system of the future have?

By the way, people posed a similar question about the horse cart, plow, steam engine, train, plane, rocket, computer, etc.

It is not an unreasonable question. If it is too hard for you to answer, then there is no reason for you to answer.

Are you a slow learner? I have answered your question in three posts so far. Now I will try and spell it out so there can be no misunderstanding on your part. I am typing this slowly in case you can't read very fast.

Now, back to my answer about what characteristics the energy system of the future should have.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

...and...

BUILD NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS

There is my answer to the energy system of the future.

There is no such thing as global warming. Obviously you have sipped on the Kool Aid put out by the tree huggers and believe man is polluting the environment. I choose not to believe them but, rather, believe many in established science that state the activity of the sun controls the temperatures of the earth today just as it has for millions of years. Even Al Gore as he drives SUVs, flies around in private planes and lives in an eco-unfriendly home really isn't contributing to global warming. Al is simply contributing to his bank account with global warming.

Perhaps you might also consider refraining trying to tell another member whether he or she should post or not. Now that is something constructive you could do in the future.

No, you are not answering my specific question. Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by energy system of the future.

It is something we do not have now. You keep talking about what we have......Stone Age technology.

One more time: What characteristics should the energy system of the future have to improve the quality of life for all.

Let me help you get started:

1) it needs to be environmentally sound

2) It needs to be decentralized (personal system)

3) it needs to be small scaled (easy to move around)

4) it needs to be powerful (can run anything, from a house to a factory to a community)

5) it needs to be safe

6) it needs to be portable

7) it needs to be cheap

Big Oil and nuclear power (at least as presently designed) do not meet most of the above characteristics.

That is why they are ancient, outdated technologies.

[chuckd]

You keep asking these theoretical questions about the characteristics of future power sources. You then post seven characteristics these imaginary power sources should have.

I stopped reading science fiction comic books many years ago so I probably can't come up with any more than the seven you have already posted.

Now how about giving us a specific power source that meets the characteristics you have already posted, yet you keep asking about.

I am beginning to think Canukamuck is the lucky one here.

PS:

Do you know what your avatar is? I do.

[canuckamuck]

Just to save any one else from attempting a meaningful debate with JR, here is his entire position in a 5 point list.

-Big Oil is the source of all the world's trouble. Apparently no other industry is evil or has self serving agendas, just Big Oil.

-The debate about Global Warming is over (dissenters lost). Anything you might see to the contrary is an illusion orchestrated by Big Oil

-The dissenters don't exist, All real scientists believe in ACC. All of the other scientists are pseudo scientists working for Big Oil

-We need to get away from Big Oil and implement a lo-cost, hi-tech, enviro friendly, portable, and safe energy for the future.

-This new energy hasn't been discovered yet, but when it does it will solve all social and economic issues. Which of course are caused by Big Oil.

[JR Texas]

You keep asking these theoretical questions about the characteristics of future power sources. You then post seven characteristics these imaginary power sources should have.

I stopped reading science fiction comic books many years ago so I probably can't come up with any more than the seven you have already posted.

Now how about giving us a specific power source that meets the characteristics you have already posted, yet you keep asking about.

I am beginning to think Canukamuck is the lucky one here.

PS:

Do you know what your avatar is? I do.

Obviously, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion here.

What we need and what we have are two different things. That simple recognition is often a central component of scientific invention.

History shows us that when people try to think independently they are met with a chorus of "science fiction," or "blasphemy" etc. Your response reminds me of so many other responses like,

"The earth is at the center of the universe."

"Man will never fly."

"Replace the horse with an automobile........rubbish."

"Make a computer that will fit on your lap........nonsense."

"Fly to the Moon......impossible."

The record shows that we are capable of moving beyond the dogma of the present.

Climate change is real and a serious strategic threat to humanity. The debate about that has already taken place. Your side lost.

Many scientists are moving past that old debate and searching for solutions.

The last thing Big Oil wants if for people to consider solutions.

What they do want is control.........power.........and wealth beyond imagination.

And that is costing us untold sums of dollars.

[sukeroku]

It's clearly a bit cooler down here in Phetchburi the last few days. Let's wait and see before we jump to conclusions. Lots of real estate snakes have given up flogging houses and are now reaping commissions in the carbon trading frauds. Seems like a great way to make a buck!

[chuckd]

Yeah, but you never answered my question about your avatar.

[canuckamuck]

Right on cue JR!

Edited July 17, 2009 by canuckamuck

[chuckd]

What they do want is control.........power.........and wealth beyond imagination.

And that is costing us untold sums of dollars.

Congratulations. You have just described the current Administration in Washington, DC.

As well as the sky is falling global warmers.

Now, about that avatar.......

[teatree]

That is yet another totally false and misleading statement. The climate change models take numerous variables into consideration, both human induced and non-human induced.

Unfortunately, the models show that human activities are causing the bulk of climate change, especially apparent within the past two decades.

For someone who goes on and on about pseudo science, I would think that you would get as far away from climate models as possible. IMO the climate models are as good of a representation of pseudo science as I have ever seen. I would like to see them get a four day model running 50% accurate before I would have a look at anything long term.

Exactly, climate modals are the very definition of pseudo science. Weather can barely be predicted 3 days in advance with any degree of accuracy let alone years or even decades.

Perhaps JRTexas could tell us what climate modal predicted the current cooling period we are going through. Oh, that's right there wasn't one.

And by the way, there ARE plenty of people who believe that ANY change in what they consider to be normal weather as evidence of man made global warming/cooling/climate change. Just a week or so ago the UK was experiencing temperatures around 30c, higher than normal but something that does happen from time to time. Of course news reporters had a field day stating this as proof that man made global warming/cooling/climate change is fact.

The debate isn't over. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA LA LA I'm not listening isn't going to work for much longer. You remind me of the position of the church when Copernicus stated that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. No debate, just burn the heretics!!! Oh wait, that will add to man made global warming/cooling/climate change, drown the heretics!!!

Do you know that some scientists are actually saying that people who deny man made global warming/cooling/climate change should be put on trial? Hardly the scientific way.

Once again diverting the issue to nonsense. The debate is over........your side lost.......the international community and responsible scientists and scientific organizations worldwide are focusing on the solution.

One solution for you is to become familiar with the literature before you open your mouth.

Here is that link again: http://www.realclimate.org/

It might also help to think about what would happen if we develop an energy system for the 21st century.

Here are some things that would happen:

fewer working hours necessary (that means you work less and for more money....more leisure time),

environmentally sound and sustainable economies worldwide,

less expensive products (that means you pay less money for what you need),

a massive urban to rural migration along with the formation of small scale, sustainable communities

cleaner environment

no more poverty and hunger (ability to grow food anywhere)

no more water shortage

cleaner cities

less crowded cities

less money needed to pay for the War Machine (because violence worldwide would diminish)

creation of hundreds of thousands of quality jobs (because the entire energy grid will change)

These are only some of the benefits of moving away from costly, environmentally unsound, socially disruptive, outdated Big Oil.

Yes, let's find alternative sources of energy , let's get away from polluting the air. I want to breathe fresh air, I want to drink clean water, I want to eat healthy food.

BUT, the fact remains that the problem is nothing to do with CO2. Taxing the use of CO2 is not the answer. Even if you believe that CO2 causes man made global warming/cooling/climate change, the new climate regulations are just going to ship business to countries such as India and China where there are no regulations. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this is going to do nothing to reduce CO2 and will probably increase it.

p.s. The debate isn't over, our side didn't lose, because there never was a debate.

Edited July 18, 2009 by teatree

[AleG]

Now, back to my answer about what characteristics the energy system of the future should have.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

...and...

BUILD NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS

There is my answer to the energy system of the future.

There's no future in your first solution, and while the second may last significantly longer it will also, in time, run out of steam... er, Uranium.

The solution to a sustainable source of energy is not just simple, ist's obvious. What has been the source of energy used by all organisms to sustain life for the last few billion years? The Sun, energy for the next 4 billion years for our taking. Harvesting it is the trick, turning back to the old proven method we have photosynthesis, after all, directly or indirectly, all fossil fuels that we are burning today came from plants photosynthesising sunlight.

So the alternative for fossil fuels would be, in my opinion, to turn to a bio fuel generation system. Not the corn ethanol swindle going on in the USA at the moment though. The way of the future would be oil producing algae, I've heard figures of almost half a million liters of oil per acre with this technology. A couple examples of how this could be implemented.

-The Qattara Depression in Northern Africa, 130 meters bellow sea level 18.000 square kilometers in area. Make a channel to bring in water from the Mediterranean Sea, the height difference could be used to drive a large hydroelectric dam in between. Flood the depression and use the lake to grow oil producing bacteria, sewage could be used as fertilizer (another plus in dealing with pollution) and the evaporation from the artificial inland lake would boost rainfall in a very arid region.

Now, let's say using 1/5th of the yield I mentioned before that would mean that for every square kilometer it would produce 24.700.000 liters of oil per year every year for who knows how many centuries, that's almost 156.000 barrels of oil; using half of the Qattara Depression area (9000 sq. kilometers) the total yield would be 1.4 billion oil barrels per year, about 5 or 6 times the yearly consumption of Thailand and about 1/5th of the US's.

-Closer to home, I've seen vast areas of salt ponds to the West of Bangkok, that could be possible to convert into an algae oil producing area, using sewage from the city as fertilizer. I don't think that area alone would be enough to provide all of Thailand with the fuels it needs, but it would certainly help ease the dependency on exports and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels.

I can see how large areas that are unfit for agriculture could be used for oil production, for example Australia could become a major exporter of oil.

[AleG]

Now, back to my answer about what characteristics the energy system of the future should have.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

...and...

BUILD NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS

There is my answer to the energy system of the future.

There's no future in your first solution, and while the second may last significantly longer it will also, in time, run out of steam... er, Uranium.

The solution to a sustainable source of energy is not just simple, ist's obvious. What has been the source of energy used by all organisms to sustain life for the last few billion years? The Sun, energy for the next 4 billion years for our taking. Harvesting it is the trick, turning back to the old proven method we have photosynthesis, after all, directly or indirectly, all fossil fuels that we are burning today came from plants photosynthesising sunlight.

So the alternative for fossil fuels would be, in my opinion, to turn to a bio fuel generation system. Not the corn ethanol swindle going on in the USA at the moment though. The way of the future would be oil producing algae, I've heard figures of almost half a million liters of oil per acre with this technology. A couple examples of how this could be implemented.

-The Qattara Depression in Northern Africa, 130 meters bellow sea level 18.000 square kilometers in area. Make a channel to bring in water from the Mediterranean Sea, the height difference could be used to drive a large hydroelectric dam in between. Flood the depression and use the lake to grow oil producing bacteria, sewage could be used as fertilizer (another plus in dealing with pollution) and the evaporation from the artificial inland lake would boost rainfall in a very arid region.

Now, let's say using 1/5th of the yield I mentioned before that would mean that for every square kilometer it would produce 24.700.000 liters of oil per year every year for who knows how many centuries, that's almost 156.000 barrels of oil; using half of the Qattara Depression area (9000 sq. kilometers) the total yield would be 1.4 billion oil barrels per year, about 5 or 6 times the yearly consumption of Thailand and about 1/5th of the US's.

-Closer to home, I've seen vast areas of salt ponds to the West of Bangkok, that could be possible to convert into an algae oil producing area, using sewage from the city as fertilizer. I don't think that area alone would be enough to provide all of Thailand with the fuels it needs, but it would certainly help ease the dependency on exports and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels.

I can see how large areas that are unfit for agriculture could be used for oil production, for example Australia could become a major exporter of oil.

[Garry9999]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

<deleted>,where's the global warming???

Maybe you need glasses

Glasses for what, please explain.

[teatree]

Another New Study Challenges Climate Change ‘Orthodoxy’

Friday, July 24, 2009

By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Virtually all changes in global atmospheric temperatures in the late 20th century were the result of nature rather than human activity, according to a new peer-reviewed study, one of whose authors predicted Friday was “sure to cause a stir.”

“It goes against the orthodoxy,” said climate scientist Chris de Freitas of New Zealand’s Auckland University. The new findings called into question the politically-correct, politically-motivated assumptions driving the climate change debate, he said.

De Freitas and Australian scientists John McLean and Bob Carter reported that at least 80 percent of climate variability tracked over the past half a century could be attributed to internal climate-system factors including the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Pacific warming phenomenon and its cooling twin, La Nina.

This left little room for human-caused factors like emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases. Intermittent volcanic activity, producing significant cooling, was found to have been a factor.

The paper was published Thursday, following a six-month peer review process, in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research.

The Australasian trio compared the ENSO and the rise and fall of lower-atmospheric temperatures between 1958 – when continuous records of those temperatures began – and 2008, and found that the one closely correlated with the other, with a lag of around seven months between the ENSO and the temperature variation.

“The sequence of the lagged relationship indicates that ENSO is driving temperature rather than the reverse,” the paper states.

The results showed that the oscillations accounted for some 80 percent of the rise and fall in temperatures, leaving “little room for CO2” as an attributable factor, De Freitas said Friday.

He described the data as established, reproducible, and “out in the open.”

The scientists’ finding flies in the face of the assertion by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a series of reports, that “global warming” is occurring, is primarily the result of human activity, and requires urgent action.

Advocacy groups warn of catastrophic consequences including rising sea levels, extreme weather patterns and drought, and governments across the planet are exploring ways to combat the problem, mostly through costly cap-and-trade schemes – setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging trading in emissions permits.

A major climate conference in Copenhagen in December aims to produce a new global agreement which may include binding emission-reduction targets and deadlines.

U.N. climate chief Yvo De Boer told the BBC World Service Thursday that wealthy nations will have to put at least $10 billion “on the table” in Copenhagen. “That will allow developing countries to begin preparing national plans to limit their own emissions, and to adapt to climate change.”

De Freitas, based at Auckland University’s School of Geography and Environmental Science and with 30 years of climate science under his belt, does not deny that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising, but questions the effect that that is having, and in particular whether it is dangerous.

He said the climate debate has been “degraded” by politics, ignorance, “end is nigh” alarmist hype, and the argument that the science has been settled.

The notion of “consensus” is unscientific, he added. “Science is meant to be robust debate.”

[Honolulu]

I remember back in the 70's people began talking about Global warming. Mainstream media was having a field day. It was one of the reasons I began to get interested in Solar technology.

Then one day a scientist did a calculation and discovered that one single volcanic eruption pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of civilization. For me it was Case Closed. How do you argue after that?