China appears to be forging ahead on its own with gigantic renewable infrastructure development, and that is a relief, but in the immediate future, this country is going to be left further and further behind, because of the strange refusal of Republicans to support any renewable energy. In the long run, because we are at the climate tipping point by 2013, legislative decisions now, do decide humanity’s fate. That tipping point cannot be undone.

History will show that an accident of history, how we set up the Senate, to have 2 Senators per state, regardless of population, has been humanity’s downfall. As a result, there are way too many Senators coming from states with nobody in them, just fossil extraction, and those Senators represent the interests of fossil industry, not of human beings. Though mostly Republicans, the same problem even affects several Democrats – the problem is too few people in the state. About ten states have under a million people and a thriving fossil industry.

You talk about fear mongering as a scare tactic in a lot of your columns, I was just curious if you consider yourself a hypocrite for doing the same. Many countries are exponentially increasing their energy consumption, mainly China and India, yet you manage to lay all the blame on one political party. Republicans will “end the world”? Please wipe the foam from your mouth and stick to the science instead of injecting you flights of fancy.

Climate scientists have a real motivation to try and disprove climate change (fame, fortune, grants). So far, none has been able to. The vast preponderance of evidence lies the other way.

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for Crooked Politicians to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected Us to Our Constituents, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Our Corporate Sponsors requires that We should declare the Causes which impel Us to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident: that all Crooked Politicians are created equal; that We are endowed by Our Corporate Sponsors with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Greed, Wealth, Power, the Pursuit of Political Pandering, and the Rights to accept Graft; to Lie; to espouse Half-Truths; to pay back Special Interests; to spend without accountability on Pork Barrel projects; to keep certain Votes secret; to subvert the Constitution to fit Our political Agendas; to raise Our own Salaries; to spend millions to land a Job that pays much less; to provide for Our future financial Well-Being when voted out of Office; and to sell Our Souls to all who will ante the Fare.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that it is Our Right, it is Our Duty, to throw off the Constraints of Law and Campaign Promises, and to provide for Our future Security.

We, therefore, the Ostensible Representatives of the People, with a firm Reliance on Mutual Protection, do hereby pledge Our Lives and Our Fortunes to Ourselves. God bless America.

The dictatorship of the dollar

Dirty money [from carbon fuel lobbyists] begets dirty politicians, who beget dirty laws which beget dirty energy.

Hiding in plain sight, dirty oil in the Gulf is floating on top of the very answer to our energy independence! Water, easily split by photocatalysts, is our only source of renewable, carbon-free hydrogen fuel available in the huge quantities needed to supplant gasoline.

Automobile manufacturers can make internal combustion engines that are designed to use hydrogen as a fuel. Onboard hydrogen-producing systems would obviate the need for a nationwide system of hydrogen refilling stations.

Origo

Try going to http://www.drroyspencer.com sometime and check out the following which discusses CO2 and various feedbacks and definitely data that conflicts with the author you quote. You are making (or maybe the 4C author is making) will statements that are not universally backed up by the scientific community most notably Dr. Roy Spencer. Spencers’ work is NOT dis information.

“Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”

Best Roger

Welcome back, Roger. But, I don’t need to “try going to a site”. The science already provided a vast body of evidence, for the world’s scientific community to debate. That is their job: (climate scientists). It is not up to me or to you to decide these matters for them, by “trying going to sites” or other means.

You wouldn’t dream of second-guessing say a civil engineer’s scientific underpinnings for why he builds a bridge a certain way so it won’t fail. Nor a vaccination. Nor how airplanes really fly. Likewise, all of you non-climate scientists don’t need to endlessly fret over the underlying science in this scientific field, also.

[SK: Reid, like most of the Democrats, has voted for clean energy in all 50 votes since 1993.

http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm

As a “possible” result we’ve seen an approx. 0.6 C increase in temp (the local stations in my state, Mississippi, show NO increase using “Raw” data.

Anyhoo, using the above “Facts” how in the world do you come up with 4.0 Degrees C? You are printing nonsense.

The 4 c will be the 2100 new world average rise if we keep on like this without changing to clean power – that is the business as usual scenario.]

You don’t need this to make a wonderful case for sustainable, clean energy.

But it is the reason we need to switch. Forget pretty environments: We will not survive this, as a race.

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Neanderthals did mostly die out during periods of relatively mild climate change. We, who are mostly the descendants of Homo Sapiens, were smart, so we survived, but we may not be able to survive the future we are making. (Some Neanderthal genes have survived in us, according to new findings).