Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Global Warming — RIP?

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 15, 2012, 1:03 a.m. EST by jerseydevil (-11)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Not long ago, candidate Obama promised to cool the planet and lower the rising seas. Indeed, he campaigned on passing “cap-and-trade” legislation, a radical, costly effort to reduce America’s traditional carbon energy use.

The theory was that new taxes and greater regulations would make Americans pay more for fossil-fuel energy — a good thing if it reduced our burning of coal, oil, and gas. Obama was not shy in admitting that under his green plans, electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” His energy secretary, Steven Chu, at one point even said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” — that is, about $8–10 per gallon. Fairly or not, the warming movement appeared to be a tiny elite attempting to impose costs on a poorer and supposedly less informed middle class.

But despite a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 2009–2010, President Obama never passed into law any global-warming legislation. Now the issue is deader than a doornail — despite the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency to enact new regulations that would never pass Congress. So what happened to the global-warming craze?

Corruption within the climate-change industry explains some of the sudden turnoff. “Climategate” — the unauthorized 2009 release of private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom — revealed that many of the world’s top climate scientists were knee-deep in manipulating scientific evidence to support preconceived conclusions and personal agendas. Shrill warnings about everything from melting Himalayan glaciers to shrinking polar-bear populations turned out not always to be supported by scientific facts.

Unfortunately, during the last three years “green” has also become synonymous with Solyndra-style crony capitalism. Commonsense ideas like more windmills, solar panels, retro-fitted houses, and electric cars have all been in the news lately. But the common themes were depressingly similar: few jobs created and little competitively priced energy produced, but plenty of political donors who landed hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans from the government.

Of course, it didn’t help that the world’s most prominent green spokesman, Nobel laureate Al Gore, made tens of millions of dollars from his own advocacy. And he adopted a lifestyle of jet travel and energy-hungry homes at odds with his pleas for everyone else to cut back.

But even without the corruption and hypocrisy, sincere advocates of the theory of man-made global warming themselves overreached. At news that the planet had not heated up at all during the last ten years, “global warming” gave way to “climate change” — as if to warn the public that unseasonable cold or wet weather was just as man-caused as were the old specters of drought and scorching temperatures.

Then, when “climate change” was still not enough to frighten the public into action, yet a third term followed: “climate chaos.” Suddenly some “green experts” claimed that even more terrifying disasters — from periodic hurricanes and tornadoes to volcanoes and earthquakes — could for the first time be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. At that point, serially changing the name of the problem suggested to many that there might not be such a problem after all.

Current hard times also explain the demise of global-warming advocacy. With high unemployment and near-nonexistent economic growth, Americans do not want to shut down generating plants or pay new surcharges on their power bills. Most people worry first about having any car that runs — not whether it’s a more expensive green hybrid model.

Over the last half-century, Americans have agreed that smoky plants and polluting industries needed to be cleaned up. But when the green movement began to classify clean-burning heat as a pollutant, it began to lose the cash-strapped public.

While the Obama administration was subsidizing failed or inefficient green industries, radical breakthroughs in domestic fossil-fuel exploration and recovery — especially horizontal drilling and fracking — have vastly increased the known American reserves of gas and oil. Modern efficient engines have meant that both can be consumed with little, if any, pollution — at a time when a struggling U.S. economy is paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars for imported fossil fuels. The public apparently would prefer developing more of our own gas, oil, shale, tar sands, and coal as an alternative to going broke by either importing more fuels from abroad or subsidizing more inefficient windmills and solar panels at home.

We simply don’t know positively whether recent human activity has caused the planet to warm up to dangerous levels. But we do know that those who insist it has are sometimes disingenuous, often profit-minded, and nearly always impractical.




Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago


Climate Scientists Rebut Flawed WSJ Op-Ed February 01, 2012 10:58 am ET by Jill Fitzsimmons

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by 16 scientists and engineers which downplayed the threat of climate change and urged public officials not to combat global warming. As we reported, only 4 of the 16 authors have published peer-reviewed research related to climate change, and 6 have been linked to fossil fuel interests. Given their lack of expertise on the science of global warming, it is hardly surprising that the op-ed was riddled with scientific inaccuracies and distortions. Today, 38 climate scientists responded to the flawed op-ed in a letter (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet) to WSJ titled "Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate." The following is an excerpt from their rebuttal: Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming. [...] Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. Top 10 Climate-Change Denier Arguments Debunked There’s no doubt that historically, temperatures and greenhouse gas fluctuations are nothing compared to the increases we’ve seen in the past century. December 16, 2010 |


Snow in the South, ice gain in Antarctica and scientists seemingly fudging climate data: is the global warming debate over? Definitely. But skeptics aren’t on the winning side. Global warming deniers have gleefully seized on recent scandals and misinterpreted data to bolster their collection of arguments, but there are these pesky things called facts that keep getting in the way of their agenda. But how do you respond to that impassioned neighbor, cranky uncle or annoying cocktail party guest who uses sunspots, Al Gore’s supposed greed and a limited grasp of climate science to claim that global warming isn’t really happening? Presenting the top 10 global warming denier arguments, and the facts that thoroughly debunk them. Today’s installment features numbers 10-6, check back tomorrow for the top 5.

  1. It’s all a hoax perpetuated by money-hungry Al Gore “You fools are being taken for a ride! Al Gore just made all this stuff up about ManBearPig global warming so he can roll in the Benjamins at his mansion.” Fact: Gore donates all of the proceeds from both the book and DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to environmental causes. He also donated 100 percent of his Nobel Peace Prize award as well as the salary from his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, to the Alliance for Climate Protection. Al Gore isn’t the only target. Some claim that scientists “follow the money right onto the man-made global warming bandwagon.” But most funding for global warming research comes from government grants, and the money is doled out before the results are determined. Meanwhile, dirty energy companies and anti-climate-action groups shower scientists who are willing to argue against climate change with cash. ExxonMobil was one of the largest sources of funding for such scientists for over a decade, and purported to stop in 2008. Surprise! They lied. Recently released records show that the oil giant paid out $75,000 that year to several climate action opposition groups.
  2. But look at all the snow! “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries “uncle,” tweeted U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint (R-SC) on February 9th as a fierce winter storm dropped foot after foot of snow on the nation’s capital. “Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science,” trumpeted an editorial in the conservative Washington Times. And let’s not even get started on The Donald. Right, because winter is never cold, and all that snow can’t possibly have anything to do with a near-record amount of moisture in the air. Meteorologist Jeff Masters explains that heavy precipitation events are increasing as the world warms, and guess what -- at the freezing point and below, that means snow (and lots of it). Global warming doesn’t mean winter is going to go away. The U.S. isn’t the entire world -- it’s only 1.5 percent of the globe. The Earth’s atmosphere is getting warmer, but different climates will be affected in different ways. Local weather is becoming more volatile across the board due both to warming and normal variability, but while that has translated to more frequent, more severe snow events in North America, Brazil is experiencing a near-record heat wave at the same time.
  3. Warming is a good thing “Break out the grill, swimsuits and daquiri mix because a huge chunk of the world is about to turn into tropical paradise!” Okay, so not everyone using this argument paints such a laughably simplistic picture of supposed global warming benefits, but it’s still bad: many believe that global warming would be good for the Earth and us. Some cite fewer winter deaths, an ice-free Northwest Passage and increases in the number of certain species. Others argue that if the climate were to cool instead, even a little bit, a feedback effect would make things worse as growing Arctic snowfields caused more sunlight to reflect away from the ground. And another Ice Age wouldn’t exactly be kind to humanity. But while a few select regions could benefit from a warmer overall climate, most of the world would suffer on a nightmarish scale, and the feedback effect applies to warming as well. Raging wildfires, extreme water scarcity, expanding deserts, changing ecosystems. Heatwave deaths, the spread of deadly mosquito-borne diseases, growing dead zones in the oceans, death of healthy trees and other vegetation, coral extinction. War. Climate refugees. That’s only a small fraction of the projected consequences, but it’s surely more than enough.
  4. Climate change is part of a natural cycle “How can we, petty little humans that we are, possibly alter something as huge in scope as the planet’s climate? After all, when you think about just how complex the Earth really is, we’re just not that important. So why should we change our habits?” That might have been true until about two centuries ago, when the Industrial Age came along and we first started burning massive quantities of filthy, CO2-producing coal. Since then, as technology has advanced and our population has multiplied to over six billion people, we’ve gotten a bit big for our britches, pushing the limits of just how much pollution we can pump into the air before seeing catastrophic global effects. There’s no doubt that historically, temperatures and greenhouse gas levels have fluctuated naturally, but those fluctuations are nothing compared to what we’ve seen in the past century (see charts in #6.)
  5. Temperature data is unreliable Skeptics like to claim that temperature records showing a warming trend are unreliable because weather stations are often located in areas that absorb and radiate heat, like rooftops and asphalt parking lots. But in reality, the Urban Heat Island Effect has had a very small influence on temperature readings and climate scientists adjust the data to account for it.

All major temperature reconstructions for the past 1,000 years published in peer-reviewed journals show some variability in surface temperatures over centuries (above graph), with a dip in the Little Ice Age and a huge uptick during the last century. Even if those reconstructions are excluded and we only look at the last 150 years (below graph), there’s a significant rise.

When it comes down to it, surface temperature records are far from the only evidence of global warming. With borehole analysis, weather balloon temperature data, satellite measurements, glacial melt observations, sea level rise and other indicators can be used completely independently of surface temps. Stephanie Rogers covers lifestyle and news topics for EcoSalon and is also an MNN contributor and Beauty Editor at Eco Chick. http://www.alternet.org/environment/149101/top_10_climate-change_denier_arguments_debunked?page=entire

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

That's my Terminator. And he absolutely will not stop...ever.

[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

A'll be bock!

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

Terminators are so cool!

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago


I have more terminating to do.

We have to concentrate on just a couple important things:

Clean up Occupy's act, picture perfect, camera ready at all times, loud & clear signs, and clean American flags.

Get out the vote! No more Cons and Bags in Congress, or state and local government.

Image & Vote! Image & Vote! "We the 1%" Is NOT What They Wrote! ©

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!! ©

Just for you: SC

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

It's all good. 2010 Never Again! Like it!

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

Spread the word!

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

Look you moved to the top ;)

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago


[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

"We simply don’t know positively whether recent human activity has caused the planet to warm up to dangerous levels."

Yes, we do.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 9 years ago

ep@1nter : You have it in a nutshell ;-)

Further, I too would like to point out that there is a rather overwhelming international scientific agreement in the actuality of rising temperatures. Even if the US Govt. wishes not to accept or acknowledge the science of major US scientific institutions, such as the World famous, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) etc., internationally the scientists have known for well over a decade that 'something' is afoot. I'm not going to try to argue out the science here but I will pare and factor it down by restricting myself to the following :

'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!!

That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores).

However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~380ppm (0.038%). Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?!

The atmosphere is but a film above us like cling-film on a water melon. It's easy to assume that we can have no effect on the vastness of the atmosphere but this is not true. As the atmosphere warms, the dynamic and apparently chaotic but actually relatively ordered 'Climate System', has 'more energy' and will operate at a higher energetic level. Thus, 'The Climate' will be seemingly more chaotic to our perception.

We are already witnessing weather records being taken to new levels throughout the world and this matter is not really up for debate - unless there is a truly vast international conspiracy of scientists at all levels !! Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing' but we may choose to behave like the proverbial 'slowly boiling frog in a pan on a stove' and / or as a 'bunny rabbit caught in a bright light' !

Sadly, I don't really think that we will stop either our behaviour or its results in the short or even medium terms. It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That 'The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites [Translation = 'Parasites' !!] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and Less Of Us !!

The above is compounded by Militant 'Pro-Industrialism' as well as by Religious Nutters - who IF they have belief in 'Biblical End Times' (ie Jewish, Christian and Muslim) do not think human action can possibly affect The Earth's Climate as only 'God' could do that AND when compounded by the ignorant, those in denial and those who know but just don't give a shit ... well, we have quite a recipe for forthcoming perturbations, to say the least !!!

I could go on however instead, please find the following useful links :

"tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis" ...

[+] -4 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

No we don't. Let me ask you Environ Prot Agency 1nter, if Al Gore believes that global warming is man-made, why does he fly around jets and live in multiple gigantic mansions around the country? If he really believes in it, he's the biggest asshole the world has ever seen.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

That is the dumbest question I have ever heard, for so many reason i can't even count them. You are a fool who believes the oil companies are this planet's best friend and are looking out for you interests instead of their profits.

Read the fucking science. The scientists are not politicians or oil men, and have no agenda but the truth. Even if they did have an agedna, the science itself speaks for itself. It is the best witness about who is lying or not. But you're either too stupid or too lazy to read it opting instead to read op-ed pieces by the Heritage Foundation or some other political spin machine.

[+] -4 points by hellbells (-2) 9 years ago

Do you have any proof of that or are you just blowing smoke?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago
[+] -4 points by jerseydevil (-11) 9 years ago

"While the Obama administration was subsidizing failed or inefficient green industries, radical breakthroughs in domestic fossil-fuel exploration and recovery — especially horizontal drilling and fracking — have vastly increased the known American reserves of gas and oil. Modern efficient engines have meant that both can be consumed with little, if any, pollution — at a time when a struggling U.S. economy is paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars for imported fossil fuels. The public apparently would prefer developing more of our own gas, oil, shale, tar sands, and coal as an alternative to going broke by either importing more fuels from abroad or subsidizing more inefficient windmills and solar panels at home."

Would you mind commenting on this paragraph as well?

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

the Obama administration's record of investment in green energies is so far about 99% successful.

As as young technology, it is not yet efficient or cost effective. Partly that has to do with economies of scale. Things get cheaper when they are produced in the millions instead of the thousands.

It doesn't surprise me that your article is from the National review. It is a right wing, oil swilling Republitard mouthpiece, known for its lies and distortions. I would use its pages to wipe my ass for fear of dirtying myself.

Why did you post this after the other post? Why did you not spend the time reading the science first? What the purpose of this post?

[-] -3 points by jerseydevil (-11) 9 years ago

"the Obama administration's record of investment in green energies is so far about 99% successful."

How can that be?

"What the purpose of this post?"

I need some more feed back and want to know what other people have to say. I'm not convinced.

I thought OWS was not affiliated with any one political party. If so why are there so many OWS participants that seem to be Democrat or Liberal? Just wondering cause it seems very disingenuous,wouldn't you agree?

[-] 6 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

I advised you to read the science. What do people's opinions have to do with whether the science is accurate or not? If my opinion says the sky is white, does it change the fact that it is blue?

The only failure in investment so far has been Solyndra, a project George Bush started. Its failure was due to a number of factors, but inefficiency of energy production was not one of them, The Solyndra investment came to about 1% of the total invested in Green energy so far. All other investments are doing fine . It is a record of investment that any investment banker would KILL for.

The Solyndra failure was just something the Republitards distorted in order to gain political capital and try to embarrass the president. They never mentioned that it was one of their own who initiated teh investment, nor dod the ever talk about the percentage of failure it represented.

I think that you will find a lot of people on this board who hate both parties, and rightly so. But many, myself included, feel the right wing is so completely, absolutely corrupt, dangerous, and mendacious that Obama, though far from good, is not at least an all out fascist. We feel that it is the right wing, of BOTH parties, that got us into the mess we are in, and they would do anything to give the extreme of that right wing even more power to do even more harm.


[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

Silence from jerseydevil ?

Dude you keep posting crap about an issue that has little to do with OWS, and goes against well accepted facts, AGW is real get over it,. yes we have to change our ways or parish, this is not the worst thing that could happen. Do not fear change. Grow a pair.

Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney,. etc.

[-] 3 points by Faithntruth (997) 9 years ago

People are what they are.... It just shows that there is some common ground, and also that some are here to make their own points outside that common ground. But no one likes feeling attacked or having someone they support or their ideas reacted to in hostile or demeaning ways. And we all share a sense of things spiraling out of control and of losing our voices to affect change in whatever direction we happen to support. It makes for stress and tension. While the people who are active here probably tend to range farther than the middle politically, the majority of americans do support ows... All these problems we face have connections like a spider web, and depending on what any person believes, the strands and connections that stand out for them will be different...

If you think you see more liberals, you probably do. Track it and post what you find... I think it is clear that right wing talking heads have focused negatively on ows from the start, so probably the part of right that is heavy into fox news and talk radio does not hang out here unless they see a mission for themselves to break ows apart.

[+] -7 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

You are flat out an idiot.

I've stood in at least one lab that, over two years ago, came to the same hard conclusion that many had already and have afterwards, that the battery technology for the Volt, was simply not viable.

Far more viable would be to get the government out of funding R&D and let armed inventors defend themselves against the overly entitled energy barrons who have thus far, managed to hold our nation hostage forcing them to be slaves to their owned and controlled resources.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Green technology is far more wide ranging that the battery for the Volt. It includes solar, wind, geothermal, and a host of other new technologies too numerous to list. And it is only via real and significant R&D investment that more efficient and viable technologies will be developed, expanded and made inexpensive due to economies of scale. Making such investments is the alternative to remaining dependent on oil and coal, while also sowing the seeds for a new constellation of American manufacturing jobs.

Every modern convenience, including the very computers we're typing on and internet we are communicating with, is a result of similar government R&D investment. And for every dollar of investment in such enterprises the government has made, it has generated between 3 and 10 dollars to the economy.

Yeah, I must be an idiot for supporting that.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

If your claim is that "more R&D investment will make it more efficient and viable" is true, then why did Solindrya go down the tubes along with several other solar companies that the obimantion used our tax money for?

He invested in them so what was the problem?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Solyndra went down the tubes for a variety of reasons, NONE of which had to do with the viability of the technology. 99% of the investments in green technology have NOT gone down the tubes.

Using Solyndra as a poster child for bad investments is hysterical. It represents 1%of the overall investment portfolio. Any venture capitalist or banker would KILL for that kind of record. In fact, since Government investment in R&D overall has been an economic return of 3x to 10x, depending on who you talk to, a failure rate of 66% would still be a break even proposition. But the failure rate is 1%. That happens to be an amazing success.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

So 500 million that the taxpayer has to pay is not an issue.

Just who's 1% of the investment portfolio does that represent? If you want to make a comparison against other Solar companies they are all losing money and they are all receiving some kind of government support.

Two years ago the Obama administration started giving grants to these companies and this is the result of it. Yet he refuses to acknowledge this and in order to make himself look good he is trying to get gasoline prices up to $5.00 a gallon so the playing field will be equal.

China makes cheap panels - GE is now in the process of having "cheap panels" made by China.

Again China is in the equasion - wonder why that is?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

You can't look at one single investment in a portfolio and judge the entire portfolio bad by it.

Solyndra is not the net result of the process. The 99% success rate is.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

I didn't look at one investment in a portfolio I compaired all the solar investment companies as a whole.

They can't compete with China.

And that isn't going to change anytime soon.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Yes, China is a problem. They don't make cheap panels. They subsidize, HEAVILY, their solar panel industry. Those panels sell for below cost of manufacture. They also own the majority of the rare earth mines that provide many of the materials needed for production. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for the Solyndra failure. That failure was especially sad because the technology was far more promising that what we have available in current solar panels. They came up with a unique method of making cylindrical photovoltaic arrays that capture solar energy regardless of the Sun's position in the sky. It would have increased energy collection and production ten fold. But the bottom fell out of the price of other types of units (Chinese) before they could achieve savings in costs due to economies of scale.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

China saw the light in green technology. Our populace did NOT. State subsidies made huge differences for the solar panel companies in China. We in the U.S. were either asleep or mumbling the free-market mantra so we get what we deserve -- no solar-related jobs and we will eventually buy expensive solar panels from China. This type of thing occurred during our Robber Baron era of dominating railroads before so it is NOT new. Perhaps it happened so long ago that the U.S. has forgotten. At any rate, China has much more at stake with the whole global warming spiel than the U.S. so China had to take it more seriously and it DID. In venture capital funding of companies, a large number of failures is well accepted as long as a few really pan out. Having government do venture capital funding has the drawback of politicization. Failures in new ventures ARE to be expected but some have better succeed, hopefully with better guidance and support from the funders. In Solyndra's case, the U.S. government provided terrible guidance and support. If a country goes against a U.S. company, we can and should go against that country's companies or that country in retribution. State power used against companies is abusive but we can see whether OUR U.S.A. has more power going against China.

[+] -6 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

You're an idiot for buying into thinking our planet has no readily viable alternative AND CLEAN energy sources available, and that DC is really trying while clearly sucking off DUKES and the rest of the big energy cartel which own the planet, along with the other handfuls of big money.

No? Then tell me why nukes are still using Uranium?

I've read plenty of your drivel, you have no clue what's going on in this area. You buy into what your corrupt DC fascist tell you is real.

[-] 8 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

And you're a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut job.

[+] -5 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

It may be easier for you to come to that conclusion than to consider I may very well hold several related patents and know what the fcuk what I am talking about.

And see, if you actually knew a thing in this area, you'd know that tinfoil would be next to zilch in effectiveness.

Again, why is uranium still being used for nuke plants?

of course you have no clue

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

OK, I'll bite. Why is Uranium still being used and what is your proposed alternative. Also, what patents do you hold?

[+] -5 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Go read the fcuking science yourself, hypocritical bs artist, and also, none of your ignorant business.

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

wow you call other idiotic and you spout utter nonsense with out the balls to back it up,. good luck winning.

[+] -4 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Winning? Is this a war?

Unfortunately it is, and battling anyone who buys into DC having any say in development and search for alternative energy sources, of which many already exist and have long since been proven viable, eco-friendly energy sources, especially when what DC is pimping are clearly patent failures, is one of futility.

Meanwhile, DC remains in bed getting ready to force the public to pay trillions to "experimentally and hopefully" contain CO2 underground, while the cronies reap all the profits at zero risk, other than extermination of billions who lack the resources to deal with the fallout. Maybe all humans if they fcuk up badly enough.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

I say "winning" in the Charlie Sheen sense of the word,. as that is who you sound the most like .

If you are claiming there are some "clean alternative" that the nasty fed. gov. is covering up, how about pointing to some actual information on the subject, you seem to be a self proclaimed expert in? In my experience all the 'free energy' people are clinging to unsubstantiated BS. (and are largely right-wing nut jobs, clinging to the misguided faith that we can just keep expanding consumption with zero consequences) If anyone has ever devised these methods they would be selling this free energy and we would all be buying it. :. it clearly is the stuff of sci-fi and wishful thinking. I do not say these things are not possible, just that no one has ever, here on earth, seen them in action, and they are therefore not relevant to any actual debate.

[-] -2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Fair enough, the truth is more than one group has offered more than one viable and clean source to various municipalities, who have declined such viable means even when offered for free.

I'd say the majority has long since been accepting that big energy can and will bury anything that stands in the way of their wealth accumulation and total control of our planet. For you to imply otherwise, makes you appear very shirley temple and pollyanna.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

So, you make vague outlandish accusations and claims about some nefarious secret about uranium substitutes and are unwilling to post even a single link? You make claims about holding patents, presumably in the alternative energy sector, in order to establish your expertise in the area, but are unwilling to identify and describe them?

Until you do, you have zero credibility.

[-] -3 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Really? You must be quite adroit at information acquisition to have missed so many here on this very forum!

It's quite clear you have no expertise in the field of energy production.

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Still no links or explanations. Your silence speaks volumes.

[+] -6 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

I'm not here to do the thinking for people like YOU. Other people, who are earnest and diligent, read these posts and will seek out information for themselves.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

When you make claims, especially vague ones, it's up to you to back them up. It's not up to anyone else to guess what you're referring to. Nor is anyone psychic, so without identifying the patents you CLAIM to have (in an unspecified field, to boot), there is no way to verify your credibility. Anyone can make such claims, but if they are used as evidence of expertise, that evidence must actually be produced.

You have had no hesitation putting up links to conspiracy theory sties. Your unwillingness to produce evidence here suggests nothing other than a lack of confidence in your assertions. Alternatively, it could be a simple indication of belligerence, which is an equally invalid substitute for evidence or credible argument.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

I hope that wasn't meant to be informative.

I was curious as to why you think it's so.

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Nothing wrong with being curious. Now act on it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

ECAT and LFNRs are options, and they don't produce plutonium.

What's your option?

You can keep your "patents" a secret.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

I'm familiar with the ecat and hyperion. What is LFNR?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

LFNR=Liquid Fluoride Nuclear Reactor.

It's the option that was skipped over after WWII, although it still has it's champions........At that time, I'm guessing they wanted the plutonium..........It's said the LFNR can actually neutralize waste from current reactors.

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Then go find them.

Viable alternatives have existed since WWII.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

ECAT is being built now and LFNR WAS the other option after WWII, and here I thought you might know what you're talking about.

I was mistaken.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Actually we positively do know. We also now know who's really trying to tell us it's not so.


Just for the conspiracy buffs, I can add in a dose of fundies.


It might be a conspiracy, but not a theory anymore.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

Take it from and engineer student

we learn that "green" doesn't mean clean

windmills are to inefficient to be built all around

solar panels reached their limit in silicon bases panels. new technology has to be developed to make them worth building in mass amounts

cars will get greener on their own it only natural to do so

Good post brings up good questions

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

Exposed: Leak of Documents Shows How Leading Libertarian Think Tank Is Working to Undermine Climate Science Information published by DeSmogBlog reveals that the Heartland Institute keeps prominent skeptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from the carbon industry. February 15, 2012 |

The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.

The scheme includes spending $100,000 on commissioning an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming.

It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents. But Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind."

Watts, in an email, did not mention the entire cost of his temperature station initiative but said: "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project."

"There is nothing I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels in New York's Times Square as well as in Washington DC.

If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.

"It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy."

The Valentine's Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN's climate summit later that year.

In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.

The documents posted on Desmog's website include confidential memos of Heartland's climate science denial strategy, its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting.

The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year.

The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as Microsoft and RJR Tobacco.

The documents confirm what environmental groups such as Greenpeace have long suspected: that Heartland itself is a major source of funding to a network of experts and bloggers who have been prominent in the campaign to discredit established science.

Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn.

But the cache raises an equal number of questions – such as the identity of an anonymous donor that has been a mainstay of Heartland. The unnamed donor, who contributed $4.6m in 2008, has since scaled back contributions. Even so, the donor's $979,000 contribution in 2011 accounted for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, the fundraising plan says

According to the fundraising document Heartland hopes to bump that up to $1.25m in 2012 [click for PDF].

The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland's operations is underscored by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. "We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with," the document said.

Heartland hopes to cash in on its vocal support for the controversial mining method known as fracking, the document suggests.

Heartland operates on a range of issues besides the environment. But discrediting the science of climate change remains a key mission. The group spends $300,000 on salaries for a team of experts working to undermine the findings of the UN climate body, the IPCC.

It plans to expand that this year by paying a former US department of energy employee to write an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming. The fundraising plan notes the anonymous donor has set aside $100,000 for the project.

The plan also notes the difficulty of injecting non-scientific topics in schools. "Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet curriculum guidelines, and the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12 education," the fundraising plan said.

The documents suggest several prominent voices in the campaign to deny established climate science are recipients of Heartland funding.

They include, according to the documents, a number of contrarian climate experts. "At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found," the documents say.

Heartland also hopes to expand that network in 2012 by raising around $90,000 for a project on temperature stations by the well-known blogger Anthony Watts.

Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified. However, Heartland's website notes that Idso, Singer, and Carter werecommissioned to write a report for the organisation.

The strategy memo as published by DeSmogBlog mentions "cultivating" as a potential ally Andrew Revkin, a respected journalist who enjoys a huge following at the New York Times DothEarth blog.

[-] -3 points by jerseydevil (-11) 9 years ago

Thanks for the in depth post. The Heartland Institute sounds like a phenomenal place. I never knew about it,but if they take donations I'll give what I can.

These are the kinds of proactive organizations that will be needed to beat back the propaganda,hoax and scam that is Climate change and Algore's Carbon tax crimes. We will win and the perpetrators of this hoax will be arrested and jailed for their crimes against humanity.

[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

Wanna bet $10,000 there's enough info that you "never knew about" to fill the George W. Bush library? Obviously it hasn't dawned on you that greedy Big Oil-Coal and other historical polluters have the most to gain from killing efforts to stop pollution. You wanna be on the Profit Over Environment side? Really?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

I guess more than a few people took Gordon Gecko's famous words to heart:

"Greed is good."

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

Even further with the current Con Cult: Greed is their Charlie Manson!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

few jobs created

people need food, shelter and health

what if that were possible with fewer job ?


[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

There is a pretty good treatment here of a global warming debate that gets little coverage: how likely is it that global warming is a huge problem and how does that problem rank relative to other issues that we face: