For years, Steven Chu argued that leadership on climate change should be wrested from the politicians and turned over to the scientists. But on Capitol Hill this April, on Earth Day, as Chu testified on the scientific merits of the most ambitious climate-change bill ever to come out of Washington, you might have wondered whether he regretted getting his wish.
The opposition attacked immediately. Representative Fred Upton of Michigan suggested that a greenhouse-gas "cap and tax" bill would lead to the loss of American jobs. Lee Terry of Nebraska asked some amusing questions about regulating methane emissions (produced in high volume by the cattle industry in his home state) and wondered if the bill's emission standards met "the administration's goal of bankrupting coal plants." John Shimkus of Illinois shook a few props he'd brought — a hard hat and a piece of coal — and called the bill "the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I've ever experienced." Michael Burgess of Texas asked for proof linking human activity to the rise in greenhouse gases. That's when the scientist took control of the debate. He politely told Burgess that he'd be happy to explain the connection in private. It sounded as if the congressman, having fallen behind everyone else in the room in his understanding of the matter at hand, had been asked to stay after class for extra help.
Before his appointment in January as secretary of energy, Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning quantum physicist most recently in charge of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was more accustomed to giving lectures on the laser cooling of atoms than patiently smiling through a barrage of grandstanding. Chu had better get used to it, though, because the political challenges he will face as President Obama's energy secretary are unprecedented. Like the career executives and military officers who held the post before him, he is still responsible for the the job's standard, massive managerial chores: maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and oil reserves, running a 16,000-employee bureaucracy, funding research at the country's national laboratories. Chu's immediate predecessor, Samuel Bodman, insisted that emissions targets were a bad idea and that global warming would be solved by future technologies. Chu has been much more proactive. His biggest task in his new job is to help enact the Obama administration's sweeping goals for transforming America's energy economy, to turn the country responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions into a model for low-carbon sustainability. Chu accepted the position of secretary of energy; his successor will almost certainly be the second secretary of climate change.
At the Earth Day hearing, Chu's primary responsibility was defending climate-change action of the kind proposed in the Waxman-Markey Bill, a.k.a. the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which sets strict greenhouse-gas reduction targets — reducing them to 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2050 — and creates the framework for a national greenhouse-gas cap-and-trade system. Meeting these targets would require an average annual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions of about 4 percent nationwide starting next year.
The larger goal behind this and other initiatives is to stimulate nothing less than what Chu has called "a second industrial revolution." The aggressive timetable for reductions in emission levels that Chu and Obama would like to see enacted will inevitably rearrange the list of winners and losers in American business, and that's where Chu will run into trouble. Opposition to this project has been coming from both Republicans and moderate Democrats, especially those from coal-rich states, who are worried about its economic impact in their districts. Overcoming that opposition will require all the persuasion Chu and his colleagues — including Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ray LaHood, the secretary of transportation — can muster.
Chu's performance that day on Capitol Hill boded well for his chances. During the hearing, his colleagues often yielded the floor to him, especially on scientific matters. This obviously didn't stop all the political showboating. But often, when Chu took the lead, something very un-Washington happened: The tone of the discussion shifted from divisive debate to studious consideration of a scientific challenge. Maybe it's just the natural deference that anyone, Republican or Democrat, feels the need to show a Nobel laureate. But in Washington, every advantange helps.
Chu, 61, is the second of three boys born to native Chinese parents who immigrated to the U.S. to pursue advanced studies at MIT. He says education was the family's highest purpose, and the Chu brothers have seven advanced degrees among them, from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Berkeley and UCLA.
Chu speaks precisely, with few hesitations or mid-course corrections, and he doesn't slow down for, say, thorny concepts from quantum mechanics. Listening to his lectures is the intellectual equivalent of hitting with a tennis pro: Even when he's making it easy for you, it's still as fast as you can handle, maybe faster.
Before we spend trillions of dollars and devastate whole industries like oil, coal, auto industries couldn't one of the "scientists" answer a simple question?
How are you predicting weather-temp-climate 20 or 50 years into the future but can't tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW?
After you answer that-then maybe get to the answer of how "global warming" is linked to a colorless/odorless naturally occuring gas (CO2) and yes where IS the proof that it is linked to humans?
Since most of us missed the "debate", quit with the lie of saying "the debate is over". When did the debate occur?
And why weren't the simple questions answered?
It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
I agree with Commonsense...also, it is extremely irresponsible that you seem to be in favor of the passage of what is now an extremely draconian "climate change" Cap and Trade bill. This bill, if it becomes law, will devastate the economy, and it will be like the late 70's under Jimmy Carter all over again, but this time it won't be OPEC that's doing the damage - it will be our own government!
I think it's a good and wise thing to look for alternatives to fossil fuels, if for no other reason then the fact that it will become prohibitively expensive to continue to recover oil in the future. There's a finite supply on earth. However, when it comes to getting people to do things, carrots almost always work better than sticks. Twisting the collective nations' arm to "punish" people and businesses for using fossil fuels is plain wrong and it will backfire. You can see, in an extreme sense, what government repression has wrought in Iran. A much better legislation would reward people for not using fossil fuels, or cutting back, not by punishing those who have no choice about how they heat their homes and use electricity.
That said, the whole "climate change" thing is truly jumping the gun. Is it possible that burning oil and coal could alter the earth's climate? Maybe... but no one truly knows for sure. And let's assume for a moment that it does - but by how much? Again, there is no consensus as to what percentage is caused by human activity (and OTHER human activities like deforestation and black-topping everything in site!) and what is due to natural cycles like solar variations, volcanism, etc.
You seem to have forgotten how science works - while some things become law, most things end up being hypothesis and theory. For instance, take evolution. While as a whole it is universally accepted as fact (save for a few fundamentalist religious denominations), however, the determination of what animal evolved from what changes all the time. When dinosaurs were discovered, very few though they were related to birds, most thought they were giant lizards. Anyone who would have proposed a bird-dinosaur theory would have been marginalized and ignored. Now, of course, it is accepted that the link is factual, at least for some species of dinosaur. But, and here's the big BUT - no one ever proposed passing any draconian legislation based on the idea that dinosaurs are related to either lizards or birds.
With regards to climate change and carbon dioxide, what is accepted as "fact" today may well be disproven in the near future. This is why legislation such as the Cap and Trade is folly - much, much more study and consideration is needed and much less money needs to be flowing from people and companies that would profit handsomely from harsh restrictions.
Predicting a long-term trend is different than predicting short-term noise. What the temperture tommorrow is at a specific location and time has nothing to do with the global average temperature 50 years from now.
No amount of technology/modelling will allow me to predict the voltage at the electrical outlet behind me, but common sense tells me that on average over the next year, it will be 110 V.
To the first two posters, try reading up about Chaos Theory. That should explain why recent weather prediction is difficult. However, it's more likely that you'll instead ignore that and continue your uninformed lambasting.
The most likely problem with the weather is that the sun is burning hotter every year. Please see this article:
Also a fix for physics can be seen at Super Relativity.org.
We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity: www.superrelativity.org
I thought humans only contributed around 0.3% to the greenhouse effect?
Maybe if some of you bothered to really study Climate Change/Global Warming before commenting, you might be able to understand that is has NOTHING to do with predicting the weather. Try goggling Ben Santer instead of listening to Rush and the like.
Both sides of the issue deserve merit as people take the time to consider where the world will be.
I do see that humans do "Contribute" to the greenhouse effect even though on the other hand that the "colorless/odorless naturally occuring gas (CO2)" that is produced from within the earth and expelled into what we consider "Our Air" can show that the "World" which is in no way "Ours" (we just destroy what we "CAN get to") and the "World" really does not feel for "Humanity" or see the need to get rid of humanity as the small amount of burning that humans do is "Allmost" insignificant from a percentage stand point. On the other hand sometimes it only takes that extra pound of weight to break the scale.
For "Humanity" to see the need to get off of the scale still should be considered by those who say that "Humans" can do "Nothing" AND for those who think that "Humanity" has caused "Global Warming" there is no "Debate" needed. Just a simple explanation of how to reduce or change the direction that was set thousands of years ago by humanity while not expecting today's "Humanity" to solve the problem in three years or less.
There really are truly simple, easy, and effective solutions the problem is that there really is no time made to solve the problems. Just "Debate" and "Highly Intelligent" scientist who should get paid to take a vacation rather than finding ways to burn more and then clean up. First the burning must stop. Good "Luck" on that as society is "Hinged" and "Hooked" on things that burn, explode, and further destroy.
The only "Thing" needed is "Clean Energy" without the mess of splitting atoms, burning, but of most importance is the need to stop "Splitting Hairs" as if any comment made is a "Stupid Comment" and that there are "Stupid People" behind stupid comments. There is no such thing as "Stupidity" and if any one can truly find a "Stupid Person" I would really be interested in a picture of the one who "Finds" the "Stupid Person" because the "FINDER" of the stupid person would then be the "FIRST" truly stupid person I could have the pleasure of meeting. I would still not consider them stupid because I know better than becoming a stupid person by agreeing that anyone is "Stupid".
I love to read what others write when they are not "ACTING STUPID" by telling others they need to "LEARN". I can see that everyone is making a good point. But is that leading humanity out of the "Hole" that the "World and Worldly" have driven into over the last few thousand years?
Once the "World" really feels "Humanity" as "Destructive" the "World" could, can, and will destroy "Humanity" before the "Humans" can destroy the "World". Being "Kind" to the "World" has no effect on the "World" but at least then when everyone is dying due to world changes we will not join in to help exterminate one another as we have a past history of doing so. "Humans" do have the ability to "Think" and we "DO!" so let's try not to "RE-DO" and "DO-DO" over each other. Picking up our "DO-DO" over the world would be helpful to "US". The world has a history of surviving without re-building. Humans always seem to be re-building.
Come on! Just a thought. But then maybe I already am stupid and do not "See".
SO!. "Enlighten Me". Thanks and Cheers.
Here are some people who study the climate for a living, who make actual observations and conduct real experiments:
You'll find that a lot of readers here actually have spent a good deal of time investigating for themselves the claims of zealots like Al Gore and James Hansen, and they've come to the conclusion that much of what these two alarmists are fear-mongering about is without merit.
You might want to spend a little more time learning about the issue and those of us who have done our homework before making personal insults and assumptions about our listening choices. You hardly seem objective.
Steven Chu has exactly the right ideas for what the DOE can do regarding climate change, especially getting us out of hydrogen transportation research. That was always a diversionary tactic by the energy and auto industries.
He is also extrordinarily fortunate to have a pile of money to work with, via the stimulus package. One unintended benefit of GW Bush (God, it is hard to write that!) is that there is a huge built up demand for renewable energy, and Chu can harness that. Like Rahm Emmanual says, never let a crisis go to waste.
I do have to say, though, Steven, that during your testimony, press conferences and live interviews, you don't come off as the most confident guy in the world. You need to speak with more authority. People expect confident declarative statements from a Nobel prize winner. The Nobel prize is like a brand name, to non-scientists. Leverage your brand!
I think Dr. Chu needs to clearly understand what he can do on his own in the executive branch, versus what Congress will allow him to do. (And don't be afraid to act.) In light of the watered down climate bill that just passed the House, I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling that if we leave CO_2 reduction up to Congress, we're dead. Chu needs to act as much as he can now, early on, before he runs out of momentum. I would like to see him more with Obama, and above all, I would like to see Obama give a prime-time address on climate change and energy. Dr Chu, maybe you can mention it to the President?
Other than painting rooftops white, I haven't heard much of what Chu is proposing. He's more or less hamstrung on nuclear after the administration pulled the plug on Yucca, so at best they can spin their wheels looking for a new site. They spent 8 billion dollars and 22 years selecting that site all to pull the plug, so it's pretty clear they're not interested in promoting nuclear.
I have no problem with research in alternative fuels or energy production, but this particular scientist seems to have signed onto the faith in AGW, and for that, he loses a great deal of credibility with me, Nobel prize not withstanding.
It seems that this administration's approach is to tax the dominant form of energy making up around 70% of all energy production in the US and use the funds to create a new entitlement program. It's marketed as cap and trade, but effectively they're taxing the consumers (because producers will pass the cost on to you), taking in the hundreds of billions of dollars in "carbon allowances" and spending that as a down payment on a social program.
And I wouldn't worry too much about GW. The average temperature has been declining for the last 11 years despite the increase in CO2. This is why I think Chu and his kind have little credibility.
Instead of using "Cap & Trade" to try and change the climate, why don't we go back to sacrificing virgins? It will have the same ultimate effect...
Yes, I can see how anyone who does not agree with kstauff are clearly "Left" as there is only "One Right" way to "Think".
How can anyone be "Objective" about the future without the "Crystal Ball"? I do in no way believe in Global Warming, but must those that do be taught through being attacked by the "Right"?
Where you read into what I wrote as personal insults and assumptions goes to show that you read with "One Eye Closed". I would never tell any one so "Right" to lean to the "Left". But to consider that any one who is not laying on their "Right Side" along with you should be considered "Blind" is well, yes, as you "Know" you are "Right". Just keep telling yourself that while the U.S. grows poorer AND at the same time more dependent on the import of energy.
Government has no solutions. And I can see where everyone will have a good reason to blame the other side. So, what is "New". Now I have insulted you. But I still do not consider you stupid in any way. You are of course very serious, and yes, very seriously "Acting Stupid". Everyone is in the same boat and there is nowhere for the economy to go without finding less expensive ways to manage and produce the needed energy that fuels this country and the world.
The next year shall prove to be a very difficult beginning to the following year where the real down turn will begin. All of my "Republican"... OOPS! I almost said friends. I will just call them business owners have businesses that are suffering. A problem I have is that "Liberals" consider me "Satan". So I can see how many people write with a political agenda. I thought people who would read science stuff could get past their "HATE" and be "Objective" since as you point out that I can't and I agree.
I see no need to bring in politics. But you are of course "Right". And I in no way can "Learn" such advanced "OPINIONS".
Relax! smile, take a break, the economy will not recover any way. I do know that. Or my "Poor Friends"(Below 20/Million Dollars U.S) would not be so "Scared". The middle class starts around 300/Million and they are afraid of becoming "Poor". Give me a break about how Republicans could do anything better. Even seeing where we are headed now which I agree is down... down...
Now tell me something that has "VALUE".
Where's the trust? If I go to my friend who's a fully certified mechanic and never steered me wrong, and he says I need a new alternator, I trust him, and if he replaces the alternator and the car still doesn't work, then I blame him. Same goes for my doctor, I don't go into his office and argue with him. This Steven Chu is a smart guy, and hasn't screwed up yet, so I trust him. Why don't we let him do his job, then we blame him if things go wrong. How would you like it if somebody came to your work and second guessed you on whatever you are supposed to be good at?
I like the way you think. You're o'k.
Here is the problem. I was the owner of a auto body shop for 15 years and even though I had work backed up for three years everyone was a judge, jury, and knew more than I did and they just wrecked their cars or needed a show winning paint job while never even trying to do the work. I have nothing against any scientist. But I grew up with them as friends at the National Institute of Health Bethesda Md. Very intelligent people but say that they could tie their shoes correctly. My father retired(Engineer, Inventor), my brother works there both neurological, neurophysiological, etc... I was going to be one of them and would have to trust the scientist who make the decisions. Yeah, right.
I would not be so forward or seem so arrogant but I do not trust my brother, father, and that whole selection of self selected people. Their agenda is beyond humanity. I have designed systems for the wind that produce much more energy than modern wind turbines and systems for the ocean waves including air compressors that require 70 percent less energy and a truly internal combustion engine etc... I prototype, see more, and prototype. Would any one of these scientists trust me? Just getting into a conversation would end up with how they helped me think of the idea. Scientists steal from each other ideas regularly as politicians eye each others wives and business men keep their hands in each others pockets.
If you do not see how the world works that just means you have not walked in my shoes. But the way you talk shows clearly that you place trust over money. I also know that you do know the way the world works and that we should all be trying to work together.
It sound like you are a really nice guy and have the best intentions...but your idea of "trust" reveals your complete ignorance
You need to update this site with...
-Comment ratings (ie. like/dislike)
-Reply to comment option
-Email notifications for Replies
A good example of this is what you see on blogs like autoblog
Anyone else agree?
I think popsci would get more traffic with these added features
I never addressed you, so I don't no "why" you're "singling" me out. What's with all the quotes anyway? Do you think we need them to read your attempts at sarcasm?
Thanks for the laundry list of assumptions. I'm not going to bother to refute them, I'll simply tell you I consider myself an independent and voted as such in the 2008 election. Further, you will find few who would like more to the see the US energy independent, which is why I support the electrification of our transportation and the promotion of nuclear power. I support these endeavors because they are not nearly as expensive or inefficient as the various alternative energy sources like corn ethanol and PV.
I've studied these technologies quite closely off and on for 30 years because I don't like the fact that we have to buy oil from foreign sources. The reality is that where it's appropriate, solar and wind makes good sense, but they're not viable in all parts of the country. And if they're remotely deployed, transmission costs can be quite high. Nuclear and fossil fuels don't suffer this problem because they can be deployed near the point of consumption.
You're welcome to your opinions on global warming. You're welcome to ignore the fact that the global average temperature has been decreasing since 1998, and you're welcome to come here and make assumptions about peoples politics and motivations. But we're also welcome to be amused with your rants and respond when you go over the line, which you have here.
The distrust comes from years of watching our government, and specifically the DOE, screw up and waste money. They just announced that they will no longer use the Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste. That cost 8 billion dollars and 22 years. Do you still want to trust them?
The President promised no new taxes on those making less than $250k, and yet he's passed a new tax on cigarettes, is considering a tax on health benefits and has just arm-twisted through the "Cap and Trade" bill by 2 votes in the House which will result in a massive increase in money leaving the private sector to the government. In my book, that's a tax, and perhaps the largest in history. Still want to trust them?
I am having too much fun to disagree.
I see Popsci like this:
There is so much information on what is popular at the moment and it passes too quickly when presented as "New". I learn from many people in specific areas and there are trade magazines and books for each field of science, tech, I.T, etc... More important than the Popsci magazine is seeing and talking to the variety of people who are interested in the "Whole Mess" that Popsci throws together into one read. This shows how quickly any one can pick up valuable information.
To manage the whole system outside of the magazine is up to us. Popsci just wants to sell another subscription and I can understand that. But the people who read Popsci and are willing to pay for it already show me "Interest" so I am allways agreeable to any way that people can get to teaching me something truly "New". Even if that "New" points out where I need to learn more. Critique when well accepted is the fastest way to learning something "New" about one's owned self.
The Part I do not get is why people hate Philosophy and embrace Politics. I would not go there if I was just learning something of "Value".
I like everyone even if they hate me for how I think.
Objective = Learn.
I was, and am, excited about Mr. Chu's appointment by Obama. I do not pretend to know one thing about physics, however, I wonder why Mr. Chu has allotted so many millions to biofuel research and not solar energy. Or has he, and you are not mentioning it?
From what we read about biofuels over the last few years, massive numbers of acreage of precious forests and jungles have been devastated in the interest of developing biofuels and that cannot be good for our environment.
On the other hand wind energy and solar energy are there for the taking, so to speak. If our government developed a low enough cost effective method by which I could install solar energy panels on my home, I would do it in a heartbeat. In fact, a local lumber/hardware chain in my area touts that this is available. However, upon further investigation I learned that the solar energy produced by the panels offered is not enough to 'energize' my home. So obviously more work needs to be done.
I welcome the scientific braniac vs the politician or business rep in this area, however, let's not overlook the obvious and most directly efficient method for all of America in the interest of tinkering.
And isn't it a welcome change to see that Mr. Chu is not flustered by the rantings of those over-puffed politicians who speak only in the interest of industries that have brought us to our knees in the first place and would continue to do so only in the interest of their bottom lines. Wall Street is by no means alone in their excessive greedy tactics.
There's certainly nothing wrong with research directed towards greater efficiency and a diversification of energy sources, but it's important to maintain some perspective, especially when reading this site and its publication. The DOE was created by President Carter, ostensibly to reduce or eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. In this regard, it has been an abject failure.
It is a bureaucracy of 16,000 employees, many very good scientists. They have produced valuable research under each administration, regardless of political affiliation. That said, there are limitations to what can be reasonably expected from some of the energy alternatives to which the DOE has given attention. In particular, photovoltaic solar remains prohibitively expensive and retains the limitations of cloud cover and inability to create power at night. There has been progress, however, in the last 30 years.
Our energy is likely to continue to be dominated by fossil sources for years to come. This is largely because the environmental lobby has made it very difficult to gain approval for siting and construction of nuclear plants. The current administration has done nothing to promote that form of power, even while it would be carbon free and as competitive as coal or gas. Wind and solar also make sense in some areas of the country, but they too have their limitations. It is sensible to deploy it where it's viable, but reasonable not to when it's more expensive than other sources.
As for those greedy corporations you accuse of making a profit, please be aware that they are publicly traded, and much of their wealth is shared through retirement funds. They have also delivered one of the highest standards of living in the modern world, making it possible for you to pick and choose the kinds of foods you eat and the conveniences you take for granted daily. If you increase their cost of production, you *will* pay for it when you go to the store. And your money will go to the government in the form of "carbon credits"; and from there, who knows whose pockets will be lined.
kstauff - Before you accuse others of personal insults and being biased, you might want to re-read your own posts. Have you read the work of Ben Santer? Do you even know who he is? If not, you have not taken a serious look at Climate Change/Global Warming. In the meantime you post your "opinions" and discount scientists who devote their lives to this subject. As for your 'link' - it takes us to a Commentary/Opinion page, hardly something on the level of true scientific results.
Regarding Yucca Mountain - you might want to do a bit of research on that topic also.
A cubic foot of see water weighs approximately 64.1 pounds.
Think about this for just a moment.
A cubic yard is 27 x 64.1.
10ft. or 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 x 64.1 = 64,100 pounds.
The average car is 3500 pounds and almost 20 feet long.
How much energy is contained in ocean current traveling through a 10 foot window at 20 miles an hour times 24?
There is no end and no beginning to how much energy can be collected from the ocean as ocean currents are in motion 24 hours a day.
What part of "I have a system" that collects incredible amounts of energy seems like a waste of time to talk about.
The wind has 1000 times the energy of solar. I can prove that on paper but yes there are requirements before I get into that mess with another person such as some one willing to listen without all of their opinions of how the wind and solar can be placed side by side. And the ocean current makes wind energy seem like a waste of time to talk about.
There is a world of difference between the three just as there is a difference between atomic energy, coal, oil, etc...
I am not dying for an audience. I am not looking for a parade, or what I stay away from most which is "Investors". I am happy with my private life. But to see where everyone is and where they could be going by helping each other does place me at odds with a promise I made to myself a long time ago to NEVER OWN ANOTHER BUSINESS in the U.S. because after closing one in 1997 I found out how many friends I really had.
Why is it so hard for people to look at science without their philosophy called politics? And the animosity created from conversations that add nothing...
If someone told me that they had a solution I would take them to lunch and at least look for the entertainment of my own curiosity and then laugh but not at them when their effort was a dream with no real potential. All effort that is applauded will make others more willing to step out on a limb to try a stupid idea that ends up having true and real potential.
I am not hungry so I do not need to be taken out to lunch.
I AM out to lunch as the name Robonvac is short for Robert on Vacation.
I pointed you out for several reasons.
1. You sound like my father who is a Republican.
2. Everything you have said is woven into politics.
3. You did address all of us who are not as intelligent as you clearly are.
4. Even if you voted down the middle you are now leaning way to right. And yes, you are right.
Science and what is popular have nothing to do with politics.
Politics is never objective. Who cares what Al Gore or any one on the left is doing. Well, let me clear that up as everything that anyone says becomes an argument once politics is involved. No matter how much more the president or any one screws things up will have no bearing once the correct ideas become available.
Any one who attacks another because of political ideology needs to be told to shut up. Solutions are needed. There will be plenty of people in the streets soon complaining about where the economy is headed. That is not my concern and when I or others present views that are not the "Right" way well then I am being singled out.
And I like quotation marks and sarcasm as I must tell you as you tell me. I have made my best friends that way so why stop now. Smile and remember that there is no skin off any of our knuckles with an avenue as this comment page to get to know more about each other. If people could meet and tell each other off and then go home then I would say that democracy works. All to often some one takes offense as they hold their opinions over human life.
Now about Oil, Nuclear, Coal, and all that the U.S. and other countries burn. The destruction caused by these over time has not hurt the earth but to say that human life has only become better? For the U.S. yes, but for the countries who have corrupt governments and deal with oil companies who leave behind only the waste and death of fish, plant, water, etc.. that the poor local people have to live with is beyond any reason I can find to hold up a red, white, and blue flag.
I can clearly explain why drilling is such a waste of time to the point where you would understand. But the politics just will never wash off. Politics were useful long ago but now the waste is all that is left like atomic waste. And there is no where to get get rid of all of the waste called Washington. I grew up in Bethesda and Potomac. How can I forget the smell of Greed, Power, and Bureaucracy.
I am not looking for the argument. The argument is in and throughout society. I would just like to learn something and many of the people who read Popsci get into interesting conversations. This one so far just points out where the U.S. is and is headed. I do not care where the U.S. is headed. The heading can be changed if enough people decide to work together.
Last of all. I believe in global warming and global cooling as they are both happening at the same time with no significant impact from what humans have done and are doing.
Enough Ranting. Sorry to all the others for the waste of space. Any one that needs to poke me in the eye can do so via e-mail. Cheers.
Climate change bill, the most talk about issue today in the government. One of the objectives of this is to create more jobs in the country, and some are uncertain with it. In times of financial needs such as these days, we need to look for several ways in order to live through global financial crisis. It helps to have a little casual income on the side. A little casual income could be derived from mowing lawns, raking leaves, or some other home based business. There are many ways to get casual income. A lot of people work from home, and a crafty person could find a way to make a little extra cash, like start a laundry business. It isn't the most pleasant thing in the world, but it could be worth it, and something like that could bring about some debt relief. For more tips, you may visit http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/07/01/laundry-living/
"That said, there are limitations to what can be reasonably expected from some of the energy alternatives to which the DOE has given attention. In particular, photovoltaic solar remains prohibitively expensive and retains the limitations of cloud cover and inability to create power at night."
But that's the whole point of allotting research dollars to this. Why is solar so expensive still? Let's find out how to bring it to a reasonable cost level for most Americans. If I can store electricity via solar power and be able to power my home for most of the day/evening (I am extremely frugal in my own use of our natural resources), I would be happy. If I have to forego electricity for a few hours a day, I wouldn't mind.
As far as the corporations and our standard of living, I do not agree at all. Yes, we have every item known to man available to us, but who cares? I don't need the overwhelming majority of it and most of it is made from plastic-another concession to fossil fuels. As far as food stuffs - no thanks. I like fresh stuff grown from the earth without all the chemicals added and the nutrients subtracted. We need to look at living a fresher more simple life overall.
Thanks for your comments, but we are definitely not on the same page.
Sheppard, your own words:
"Try goggling Ben Santer instead of listening to Rush and the like."
I consider this an attack and certainly an assumption about the people whose views you disagree with. Since we're citing scientists, you might want to look up Richard Lindzen at MIT and see what his views are as well. I do not find it surprising that there are scientists who believe that global warming is at least in part due to man-made CO2 emissions; in fact, simple physics dictate that this must be true.
What I strongly disagree with is the extent to which the excess CO2 is warming the atmosphere and the extent of the effects that scientist and now activist James Hansen ascribes to the gas. Instead of a reasoned discussion, the public has been bombarded by the media, Hollywood and Al Gore with fearsome predictions of an apocalyptic future. Unfortunately, the new priests in our culture are scientists and politicians who sway the poorly educated masses with such warnings of doom, all the while drawing from a public trough that is filled with money hot off the printing press. It's a system that allows bad science to be funded to further political ends, a vicious cycle of one dishonest hand feeding another.
I am certainly biased towards finding the truth. I don't take my orders from the Democrats or the Republicans, in fact I find partisanship to be distasteful and generally destructive towards finding solutions to problems. See? Now you really know a little more about me. I have a bias towards my own bottom line; I quite frankly don't care how much you choose to spend on energy or how you get to work. But when our politicians bring trumped up, Hollywood propaganda to Washington to scare the public into supporting a massive tax that will likely cost me thousands of dollars annually, you can be sure I'm going to have a position on the issue and say something about it, especially after taking the time to look more deeply into the matter.
"Any one who attacks another because of political ideology needs to be told to shut up. "
I haven't attacked anyone's political ideology, but I've certainly been pigeon-holed as some sort of right-winger nut job because I don't agree with the predominantly leftist notion that we're all going to drown under the sea.
After reviewing the comments here, it is clear to me that it was *your* post beginning
"Yes, I can see how anyone who does not agree with kstauff are clearly "Left" as there is only "One Right" way to "Think"." ...
that not only brought politics to the fore of this discussion, it specifically named me. So while you may like to try to elevate yourself above the politics in one comment, your own history shows quite otherwise. It stands on its own as evidence for your approach to discussion. Unfortunately for you, it apparently didn't occur to you that your comments are plain to see, regardless of the lofty position you placed yourself in later.
Now we are getting somewhere.
You seem so well prepared to fix the problems facing the U.S.
I have time to see how things will play out. In advance I must thank you for accepting the responsibility by not being in need of any one else's input. Just remember that science and government fix nothing. People with usually stupid ideas and who have a wandering curious mind seem to have a track record of actually doing more than those who study and make an attempt at imagination.
Thanks. And now I will just SHUT UP... ... ... --- ___ >>>