Lets pretend global warming exist

[bedub1]

Nuclear ... what do you propose to do with the waste and how do you propose to prevent another 3 mile island (which was a success, by-the-way, since it did not actually melt).

If the situation is dire, nuclear waste and the risk of meltdown are risks I'm willing to take. Frankly, nuclear power is both clean and safe (or so I'm told). The problem with many political (political!) supporters of clean energy are not tied in to nuclear power, so it gets ignored on many occasions. For example, Al Gore does not own stock in nuclear power companies... that's why it's not talked about as much as it probably should be.

I don't feel it is safe, but I think we'll just have to disagree there. (I will say that I lived through many attempts to expand nuclear power close to where I used to live, so know a little more than average.. but its ultimatly a matter of opinion)

Often times the low-tech, eco-friendly approach is far better. What makes it inefficient too often in the developing world is the need to replace existing systems.

\

Like what? Horse-drawn carriages? I gave a horrible crude example (electric cars) to exhibit my point - namely that a lot of countries don't have the knowledge, economic wherewithal, or interest in clean energy. Therefore, I do not think these countries should be forced into anti-pollution treaties with first world countries. It's simply not fair (says the libertarian).

Maybe your suggestion of solar power would work...

My basic point is that your "knee-jerk" response truly has little to do with reality. The real truth is that some of the BEST 'eco-friendly technologies" are really pretty low tech and/or just plain cheaper and more efficient systems, particularly when you have a completely "blank" slate.

Solar is one example. Another, better one, though is using small, micro-wind-turbins. I heard a story on this a while back. Small isolated houses can get enough energy to fuel light bulbs, water pumps, etc. just from a very small investment in materials.

Another concept was using clay jars for cooling. Again, I cannot remember the exact details, but 2 nested clay jars (and I think a little water?) can create a small cooler .. enough to keep meats, etc fresh for a few days.

One with which I am EXTREMELY familiar is using artificial marshes to filter water. They are cheaper and far more efficient, create a CLEANER water than traditional systems. They are used all over Mississippi (hardly a bastion of eco-friendly folks!), just to name one example.

For transport, though bicycles, often with carts and so forth actually go a very long way for most. We think its extraordinary to walk a mile, but many people in these countries are used to going 3-4, even 5 miles just to get things like water. A set of bicycles is a far more practical and sensible solution than automobiles for the short term.

Etc.

Anyway, you really should look into these things before dismissing it as a bunch of "hippie hype". There IS a lot of bunk out there, don't get me wrong. However, that's true for anything. I mean, I groan every time I go to the grocery store and see all these fancy "eco-cleaners". I mean ... good, old-fashioned vinegar (and a good drying) goes a very long way for windows and a lot of general cleaning. (another topic I could go on and on about... but won't.)

Solar still needs more work....the panels are very expensive. Are you volunteering to buy solar panels for everybody? Cause i'm not. I'm not going to work my entire life and go broke just to buy some jackass a solar panel.

I don't live where clay is. I also want to keep things cold for longer than a couple days. I'd also like to freeze stuff. So thats a dumb idea for me at least.

Oh, so no more cars, just bicycles and carts. I'm not riding 15 miles to work, and then 15 miles back, and then 20 miles to get to a client job to do work....I'll keep my car thank you.

I saw a news report on those solar heaters for cooking...they look awesome. Fedex in california has a plant that is 100% solar...probably cost a mountain to buy the panels to start with....

nuclear waste goes in the yuca mountains in nevada. The us federal government gave billions and billions to build the thing...and now that it's about 80% complete...the people of nevada finally freaked out. "we want your money, we wants your jobs, but wait, what? we don't want your waste"

you want completely new technologies? Where do those come from? Does the government invent them? no, private industry does. YOu know why they do, so they can sell it and make millions. If I made a battery, that was 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot, and could power an entire house for 100 years, would you get pissed if I tried to sell them for $500,000? Start claiming you have some "right" to the battery? I'd make small ones for cars that would give you 500,000 miles, sell those for about $50,000. Would you get pissed and claim I'm "raping" you?

[thelastpatriot]

Alan Carlin is the economist and 38 year veteran at the Environmental Protection Agency whose report was stonewalled internally and so was not considered (or so he was told) in their decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. I spoke with him for an hour this evening. (A background interview with an anonymous source in the EPA that corroborates what Carlin says below can be found here.)

At the end of the hour, the last question I asked him was what had motivated him to come forward with an almost 100-page report written in 4 days detailing the problems with the scientific claims for global warming as given by the IPCC (an early draft can be found at http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf). The report was not transmitted internally, and the emails released by CEI on Tuesday suggest to me that this may have been because the report did not support the previously determined conclusions desired by the new Administration.

In Carlin's personal view "The bottom line is whether or not the IPCC is wrong or right about the significance of increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in increasing global temperatures--it is amazing how few people have asked that question. What's happening in Australia (where a Senator Fielding is holding a 'mini-debate' with skeptical scientists and administration advocates of an Australian cap and trade policy) is fantastic--why can't we do that here? Models, good or bad, don't prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis about the real world. I'm dreadfully concerned that we may be taking an ineffective and extremely costly action, and after six years of working on climate change I might be able to help--but I'm not allowed to."

Carlin got his first degree in physics, before he turned to economics and remembers lunching occasionally with the celebrated physicist Richard Feynman while at Caltech, who told him that if you attempt to compare observations with a hypothesis and the observations don't fit, you can either change the hypothesis or ascertain if the observations are wrong. Carlin is convinced that observations of climate do not match the hypothesis that human-generated greenhouse gases are producing significant global warming in the real world. He adds ruefully that if the NIPCC report recently released by the Heartland Institute had been available in March, when he wrote his report, it might have saved him a lot of time assuming that it covers many of the same points.

Carlin's main concern seems to be that the Endangerment Finding (an official declaration by the EPA that CO2 is a danger to public health and welfare) may actually turn out to be a time bomb that may explode in the EPA, echoing the reasoning of our anonymous source as reported earlier today. As I wrote then, the EPA does not want to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air act without legislation limiting their regulation to the largest emitters. If the proposed new cap and trade legislation (which removes EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming gases) is not forthcoming, Carlin worries that it may well be very difficult for the EPA to carry out its mandate. His report was an attempt to have the EPA reconsider the science (which Carlin considers bad science), as despite the respectable trappings that cloak the IPCC and their reports, their hypotheses fail many observational tests in his view.

Carlin has been transferred off all climate-related work, but is not at all bitter. He says that from a civil service point of view, his boss 'absolutely has the right' to give him new work assignments. "I still have a phone, I can still talk to people in my office," he says.

Carlin hastens to add that he did not turn over to the Competitive Enterprise Institute the emails that were published. "But when a reporter called Tuesday and asked me to verify them it became evident that CEI had them."

Carlin also assisted in the organization of a series of seminars with notable scientists in the field of climate science, including some notable skeptics as well as ardent "warmists." They were attended by an average of maybe 30 or 40 employees--but those employees only rarely included members of the workgroup that eventually would be charged with writing the proposed endangerment document.

Later we will discuss the science that Carlin wanted to present to the EPA. For now, he's another whistleblower who actually wanted to help the organisation that shut him out and moved him off the case.

Is this really how we want to run things?