alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
                                                                                                   
 
 V.18 No.15 | April 9 - 15, 2009 

Ortiz y Pino

A New Manhattan Project

Drastic situations call for drastic solutions ... and, boy, is our situation drastic!

Our national appetite for fossil fuels has brought us to the brink of economic and environmental disaster. Continuing to import petroleum and natural gas will leave us extremely vulnerable to the market manipulations of foreign governments.

Yet we appear to have simultaneously begun an irreversible decline in our domestic production of those critical fuels. We need more and more energy, but we can’t fill even half of our demand through our own supplies.

The result is that we are suddenly in the grip of a national stampede to develop “energy independence”; to find new “sustainable” or “renewable” energy sources; to live simpler, healthier lives “off the grid” (or at least significantly reducing our consumption of electricity and conserving other sources of power).

A scavenger hunt of global dimensions is underway. Wind, solar, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, agricultural and microbial options are all being pushed by various factions of experts and entrepreneurs eager to help break our addiction to petroleum.

Given enough time, I’m confident those thousands of stubbornly independent garage tinkerers, backroom chemists and inspired inventors can be counted on to eventually produce the breakthroughs in technology or design or materials that might prove capable of leading us out of the fossil fuel desert and into the Promised Land of Green Energy.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of time.

You’ve seen the Al Gore movie; you’ve read the scenarios involving greenhouse gases, melting ice caps, rising ocean levels, the very real possibility that the point of no return might be reached and it will be too late to prevent catastrophe. So you know we probably don’t have the luxury of waiting patiently for an accidental, providential or serendipitous silver bullet to plop into our collective lap.

Drastic situations call for drastic solutions ... and fortunately, we have a few successful precedents from recent history, examples we can look to for how we might accelerate producing renewable energy in sufficiently large enough amounts to make a difference.

In the case of both the World War II-era Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project of the '60s, a president launched a well-financed, coordinated effort of public and private resources focused on achieving a single, easily explained goal for the country: unleashing the power of the atom (Manhattan) and placing a man on the moon (Apollo).

Each effort succeeded, and in the case of energy independence from petroleum, I think we can safely count on widespread public support were President Obama to launch a Manhattan (or Apollo) Project for the Twenty-First Century.

During the state’s recent legislative session, Sen. Carlos Cisneros sponsored Senate Joint Memorial 33, which passed easily. It calls on our Congressional delegation to push for a concentrated national campaign. Such a campaign would produce adequate alternative energy to put us on a course toward 100 percent alternative sources within the decade.

The key to SJM33 is that New Mexico would be the logical site to locate the initiative.

We have the natural resources (wind, solar, geothermal, agricultural and lots of publicly owned acreage to devote to the task) and we have the intellectual resources (two national labs, a network of university and private sector high-tech research and development organizations, a concentration of PhDs from Las Cruces to Los Alamos, and the supercomputing capability at Intel) to effectively create the model right here in our state.

What we lack is the financial wherewithal and the political will at the highest levels in Washington to make it happen. SJM33 didn’t get a lot of press when it was debated and approved because it calls on the Obama administration to commit $7 billion each to Los Alamos and Sandia for the project and another $7 billion to a consortium of state universities in New Mexico to pull it all together. Twenty-one billion dollars at the time seemed unrealistic, so few reporters took an interest.

Until the administration began dishing out that kind of money right and left. Now it seems downright frugal.

The man behind SJM33 is a Croatian émigré macroeconomist named Miro Kovacevich who now lives in Santa Fe. He chose to come to New Mexico four years ago because he is convinced this is the ideal spot to successfully produce a new Manhattan Project for sustainable alternative energy. Kovacevich persuaded Gov. Richardson, Cisneros and the rest of the Legislature. Now he is pushing Obama about the idea.

Our competition is Texas (where T. Boone Pickens is pushing hard for his own vision of sustainable alternative energy) and California (where Arnold Schwarzenegger believes there is a case to be made ... just because it is California).

Our new president has announced his intention to make public policies that are as consistent with scientific evidence and research findings as possible. And so the decision of where to locate a national effort for renewable energy might actually fall on what state has the best resources, not the most votes.

And in that case, we have an awful lot of evidence on our side.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Public Comments (38)
  • Please indulge me for a moment here.  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 2:27 PM ]

    Let's play a little game of "what if".

    I would like to propose a scenario and pretend, just for the moment, that it is true. The scenario is in two parts.

    Part 1). Let's just say that the hundreds of highly qualified scientists worldwide who claim that global warming is a myth and that it was cooked up for purely political reasons are right and that qualified and verifiable data confirms there has, indeed, been no global warming in the past nine years in fact, within the past few years, measurable global cooling has occurred.

    Stay with me now and don't get upset, remember we are only pretending.

    Part2). Let's say that the abundant and inexpensive energy that we have enjoyed over the past hundred years or so, which is totally unprecedented in the history of the world, is a fluke and the reality is that energy is just not normally so easy to extract from nature or perhaps not possible to extract from nature or perhaps it is possible but our technology is a hundred years or more away from doing so. Suppose, just for purposes of this discussion, that oil is ALL THERE IS and all of the "renewable" energy sources, as enticing as they may appear are, in reality, like a perpetual motion machine, - an impossible dream.

    Okay. Now, if you are still with me on this, IF, just for purposes of discussion, the above scenario were true, what would we do? Keep in mind our enormous appetite for cheap energy. Should we continue to chase rainbows and assume the worst regarding global warming even though actual world climate data suggests otherwise? What do you think we should do given the above set of circumstances?

  • you've been indulged plenty  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 2:45 PM ]

    To no good effect. Most recently by me.

    I know you have to save all your very scarce free time for writing important corrective essays like the above, but if you want to make your point without sounding like a nutjob, you will have to cite some references. Otherwise it's just more baseless yapping.

    Bring on the "hundreds of highly qualified scientists" and "actual world climate data" please.

  • The situation I proposed  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 4:42 PM ]

    is hypothetical however, I will provide you with a few references. I could provide many more of course, if you should so desire. Enjoy!

    Visit Page

    Visit Page

    Visit Page

    Visit Page

    Visit Page

    Visit Page

    Visit Page

    And last but not least...

    Visit Page

  • Hundreds  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 5:27 PM ]

    Not.

    Here's a more complete list of skeptics than you provided and there are less than 40 names cited.

    Of those listed, you'll note that only a handful actually believe global warming is not occurring. The rest have more particular--and scientific--bones to pick.

    Can you come up with the remaining 160-odd scientists to make "hundreds" true? Or was that just "pretending" too?

  • Okay  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 6:46 PM ]

    Visit Page

    You know it is quite risky to use Wikipedia as a reference as it has often been shown to be incorrect.

    I hope you took the time to read my previous links - or at least the first one which gives a pretty good overview of how we got to were we are on this.

    At this time, I would like to remind you that I originally proposed a "what if" exercise.

  • Here are names of 400  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 6:50 PM ]

    complete with full details.

    Visit Page

  • Sorry, my mistake  [ Thu Apr 9 2009 6:52 PM ]

    I guess it's now over 700 scientists around the globe.

    Visit Page

  • The Inhofe Report  [ Fri Apr 10 2009 8:32 AM ]

    ... is widely questioned and is not remotely a scientific document. Those 700 names were compiled by Inhofe and his staff. Many "scientists" are TV weathermen and economists, not climate scientists. Many discovered they were on his list of "dissenters" and requested to be removed from the list--but weren't.

    So thanks for the disinfotainment. If you're a believer (and you clearly are) you can continue believe in the veracity of this list, and you will probably not want to read the variety of sources debunking it:

    Inhofe recycles unscientific attacks on global warming, NYT’s Revkin gives him a pass

    Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...)

    Inhofe's Report: Why It's Wrong

    Inhofian Reporting: Peerless work?

  • Ah, yes, the famous Morano list of 700 "dissenting scientists"  [ Fri Apr 10 2009 10:30 AM ]

    Which include such luminaries of the scientific community as Chris Allen, a local TV news weatherman who doesn't have so much as a meteorology degree and who thinks the main reason to be skeptical of global warming is that it dismisses the role of god in the global climate, as well as such noteworthy skeptics as Dr. Steve Rayner, who published a criticism of the Kyoto protocol and found himself on Morano's list. Dr. Rayner has critiqued the Kyoto protocol, but, like the vast majority of climatologists, he find the evidence for anthropogenic global warming convincing and has asked repeatedly to be removed from this list, to no effect.


    Last edited [4/10/09 10:31 AM]
  • more like  [ Fri Apr 10 2009 11:33 AM ]

    Moron-o list. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

  • I was having...  [ Fri Apr 10 2009 11:39 AM ]

    just an ok day. Then I read Greenleys comment...now my day is effin awesome.


    Last edited [4/10/09 11:39 AM]
  • Yes, I know about Senator Imhofe,  [ Sun Apr 12 2009 7:40 AM ]

    He is not a scientist, he is a politician and as such, he undoubtedly has an "agenda".

    But of course, the exact same thing can be said of Al Gore, he's a politician, he has an agenda, and he is not a scientist.

    And yes, many of those on Imhof's list are not scientists either but then many of them are and even those who are not are in closely related fields and in a position to have an informed opinion. The point is that in spite of the Gore contingent's insistence that the issue of human induced global warming is finalized and resolved beyond any doubt, in fact it is not, there are very genuine reasons to question the issue including good reasons to believe that solar activity has a far greater impact on earth's climate than anything man can do.

    In science, skepticism and dissension are usually welcomed as an important part of the scientific process and no issues are ever absolutely closed to further questioning. There is always room for new ideas, new theories, new points of view as additional information is always being discovered especially as regards a complex issue such as earth's climate and the Gore contingent's strongarm tactics in attempting to muzzle any dissenting views on global warming are more reminiscent of the persecution inflicted on non-believers by religious zealots than anything related to science and should raise red flags all over the place for anyone with an open, scientific mind. Yes, some of the scientists on Imhofe's list have requested to have their names removed but there is every possibility that their reasons have more to do with wanting to avoid the persecution inflicted by Gore's storm troopers on any member of the scientific community that dares to oppose him than anything else.

    Jerry, I'm curious, why do you not question part 2? If for no other reason other than you seem to want to argue about every issue I bring up.

  • Hotrod...  [ Mon Apr 13 2009 11:42 AM ]

    A local weatherman with no degree is qualified to offer an informed opinion on a very complex climatological issue? Sorry, no. Sure, he can have an opinion, but there's no reason to think that his opinion has any basis in reality.

    As for increase in solar output... Do you think that the vast majority of scientists who study the climate, and who have concluded that global climate change is primarily anthropogenic don't know about this? Of course they do. It's been built into the models and the effect is tiny and insignificant. There has been no long range increase in median solar output, and the recent increase is very small and cyclic on a short duration which doesn't tend to drive long range deviations as seen in climate data.

    The scientific community is, of course, open to dissent and this is part of what makes it self correcting. So, far from being a reason to believe a few random people, many of which are either not scientists or don't specialize in the subject matter in question, it's a reason to believe the majority consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real and well validated. There is plenty of dissent as to the degree of change, the types of effects that will be seen, and whether or not normal carbon sequestering processes on Earth can mitigate some of the effects, but there is little question that the effect is real and caused by humans.

    I would also like to point out the false parallel you draw between Al Gore being a point man for political action on climate change and other groups, such as that led by Imhofe. Gore started out by listening to the conclusions of scientists, and then set about to work on gaining political support for working on these issues. Imhofe started out with a political position, that of the status quo, and set about to try to find "scientists", or at least people who kinda sorta look like scientists to uninformed laymen, who would back up and give an aura of credibility to his political actions. These courses of action are not at all similar, and only a fool would consider them equivalent.

  • impact?  [ Mon Apr 13 2009 2:36 PM ]

    The point is that in spite of the Gore contingent's insistence that the issue of human induced global warming is finalized and resolved beyond any doubt, in fact it is not, there are very genuine reasons to question the issue including good reasons to believe that solar activity has a far greater impact on earth's climate than anything man can do.

    Wait a minute.. impact on earth's climate? What impact?

    I do agree with you, though, that Gore's "strongarm"ing people with his "storm troopers" has got to stop. Next time his office comes up for election, I'm voting him out. 16 years is long enough!

  • Sorry to not get back to you for a while,  [ Thu Apr 16 2009 8:01 AM ]

    I've been busy with various "real-life" issues which are, in fact, ongoing however, briefly, no, John Coleman is not a scientist and nor is he a detective or an investigative reporter and yet he has done a highly credible job of tracking down the manner in which Al Gore formed an incorrect view of the causes of global warming at an early age and how those views then became cast in concrete in his young and impressional mind. Of course, years later, it was an easy step for him to seek out scientists who would support his predetermined mindset regarding human induced global warming via the introduction of C02 into the upper atmosphere and of course also, the lure of huge government grants didn't hurt either. Here is a link to Coleman's article, it's worth a careful read. Visit Page

    Sloppy, I follow this issue quite closely, as time permits, and a strong correlation has been shown between the incidents of solar flare activity and the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth. Of course it would be remarkable indeed if the earth, and other solar system entities, did NOT progress through cycles of warming and cooling totally of their own accord based on solar activity including the present cycle. Nobody in their right mind would expect something as complex as climate to be absolutely constant and never change from year to year, decade to decade, or century to century. Absurd.

    It would be my guess that Mr. Gore himself is having certain inner doubts regarding his own global warming hypothesis which leaves him few options, at this point, except to attempt to squelch any opposing viewpoints rather than look the fool that he really is in front of the whole world while we pick up the tab for his prideful nonsense.

  • You just don't get it, do you?  [ Thu Apr 16 2009 12:31 PM ]

    No one is saying that variations in solar output don't contribute to the climate, nor does anyone think that the climate is constantly and eternally stable, with or without human activities. I can't believe that you trot that sort of completely obvious nonsense out there as if you've discovered some amazing new theory with pompous blather like:

    "Of course it would be remarkable indeed if the earth, and other solar system entities, did NOT progress through cycles of warming and cooling totally of their own accord based on solar activity including the present cycle."

    Yes, it would be remarkable indeed. And, that's exactly why the Earth's climate DOES vary with solar output. To bring this up as if no one knows it and make as if it's the big secret behind what's really going on with the climate is kinda like claiming you've overturned Einstein's theory of general relativity and its prediction of gravitationally induced curvature in space-time because you've made the stunning new discovery that things fall when you drop them. Stop the presses! I've discovered something totally new!

    The latest IPCC report covers the contribution of changes in solar output to global climate change. It's all worked out in great detail with lots of supporting data. I suggest you read it.

    Guess who figured out there's a correlation between sunspot activity, solar flares, and total solar output? Climatologists.

    Guess who figured out what happened during the Maunder minimum and the associated "Little Ice Age"? Climatologists.

    Who tracked the Dalton minimum and calculated its effect on climate? Once again, climatologists.

    And who wrote the fucking IPCC report that includes the effect of solar variance in climate change and concluded that its total contribution is less than 10% of the climate change effect coming from anthropogenic sources? That's right! Climatologists.

    You'll notice that there's a lack of local TV weathermen in the developers of the IPCC report, and you'll also notice that there's a lack of local TV weathermen in the names of people who've made important discoveries about the climate.

    John Coleman is a 74 year old crackpot who made his living standing in front of a green screen and reading things off a teleprompter. He is not a credible source of scientific information. See: [link]

    There he is in all his glory. He's a cranky old man who thinks he knows what's going on simply because he's old and cranky, and his climate change denial schtick is the equivalent of standing on his front porch in his PJs, shaking his fist, and yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

    So he can trot out a few scientific facts like the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, so what? That doesn't make him a scientist any more than the incessant use of the word "quantum" by that newage fraudster Deepak Chopra makes him a scientist.

    Also, to address some of the claim that the old crank makes, here's a graph of surface temperature data, hot off the satellites from NASA: [link]

    OK, so there are two slightly lower points in the last couple years, but that doesn't make a trend. Look at how variable the data is normally. Those last two years are well within typical variance for a continuing upward trend. They're not at all statistically significant, and Coleman's claim that climatologists are now talking about a new ice age based on this data is utter nonsense.

    You don't know jack about this issue, Hotrod, and neither does Coleman.

  • Oh I get it pardner, I get it.  [ Thu Apr 16 2009 7:03 PM ]

    Say what you will about John Coleman, he's done his homework and he has all his ducks in a row and furthermore, you know it! Otherwise, you wouldn't be getting so aggressive and upset. He and I are both old enough and we've seen enough to know a good bullshit story when we see one and this one is a real beaut! This is a bullshit story of absolute Biblical proportions. Betcha without grant money, all those climatologists would be like rats abandoning Gore's sinking ship - and I think you know that too, or you will if you live long enough to acquire a sufficient understanding of human nature. My previous statements stand, especially the last paragraph regarding Gore himself having personal doubts. Watch him sometime when he speaks, watch his body movements and listen to his voice, he is a very nervous and insecure man - as well he should be. He knows, probably better than anyone else that his life could easily end in disgrace, dishonor, and utter, abject failure should reality cut off the limb he has crawled out on and prove him wrong. Recall that Gore's views on the subject were formed at a very young age and came from a climatologist/mentor who himself, had come up with the co2 story in an effort to secure grant funding and later recanted the entire concept.

    It would appear that the issue is moot anyway as our disintegrating economy will probably eliminate the possibility of our making too many foolish attempts at "fixing" our climate and possibly save Gore's ass in the bargain. HA!

  • Whatever...  [ Thu Apr 16 2009 8:36 PM ]

    ...you guys say, I still want those kids off my lawn.

  • No, Hotrod, you don't get it.  [ Fri Apr 17 2009 1:46 PM ]

    And don't call me "pardner". Your suggestion that I'm so vigorous in slapping down nonsense like Coleman's is because I secretly know he's right is about as plausible as, for example, suggesting that you're so vigorously and single mindedly set on attacking Al Gore (who, by the way, isn't a scientist and is far from the last word on climate change) because you find his combination of chubby cheeks, beaky nose, and little beady eyes [link] so beguiling that it fills you with strange and confusing sexual lust, which angers you and drives you to attack him.

    I'm intent on stamping out pseudoscientific hogwash where I see it because it's delusional information which misrepresents what scientific thinking has concluded on the subject. If it was "intelligent design" or newagey crap like "quantum healing" or other such bullshit which tries to don the mask of science to lend credibility to a bunch of nonsense, I'd be just as strident in point out the shortcomings, factual errors, and fallacies in it. I hadn't even heard of Coleman before you posted about him, but I've heard that argument ad nauseum from conservative shills since the early 90s. It's that old and tired of an argument, and it's out of touch with what the data shows.

  • Don't bother Hotrod with data!  [ Fri Apr 17 2009 3:23 PM ]

    This is the guy who thought mass murder was the same as civil disobedience. Simple little mistake.

    His tactic when presented with overwhelming arguments that challenge his beliefs is to say "I'm right and you know it! Otherwise you wouldn't be so upset!" That's right up there with "So's your mother!"

    He's a troll. He keeps hanging around here looking for "bleeding-heart liberals" as clueless as he is, hoping to get into a Crossfire-style shouting match. Your pesky old data just gets in the way.

  • Been out of town on business but I'm back. Did you miss me? Well sure you did.  [ Sun Apr 26 2009 8:03 AM ]

    Ok Pard. Let's try it YOUR way.

    Let's say, just for the sake of discussion that James Hanson is NOT the scientific fraud who manipulates his data to suit his hypothesis as he appears to be and let's say, also for the sake of discussion that Al Gore is NOT the opportunistic, self-serving, disingenuous political snake oil salesman that he appears to be. Also, just for the moment, we will forget that both of these clowns are making millions upon millions off of the global warming scam that they have devised.

    With me so far gentlemen?

    Okay, as regards AGW, we have now supposedly already passed some sort of imaginary "tipping point" from which there is no turning back and the earth will continue to warm no matter what we do. Within a few short years, all the ice will melt, the seas will rise, coastal cities will flood, there will be mass starvation, disease, plague, death, and civilization as we know it will cease to exist. Perhaps, the extinction of mankind will shortly follow - all possibly within only about 20 years - according to Hanson.

    Great. Let's party! I mean if we are all doomed as these yo-yos have indicated, why not do everything we always wanted to do? Blow a few lines for breakfast, drink a ten martini lunch, and fuck your little sister all afternoon. Why are we maintaining this puritanical veil of civilization if our hypothetical barrel is within a few short meters of the hypothetical falls? Why not fire all of the guns at once and explode into space? I'll tell you why. Because it's all BULLSHIT, that's why. NOBODY in their right mind truly believes any of it.

    For Christ's sake, Mr. Gore flatly refuses to even debate the issue. That right there should raise all kinds of red flags to any REAL scientist. Look at this...

    Visit Page

    The whole damn story is just too Biblical to have much validity and if you don't "get" that, I'll be pleased to explain it to you.

  • Well, that sure looks like a credible and balanced new article.  [ Sun Apr 26 2009 2:27 PM ]

    It's about as credible and balanced as the guy who was not given a chance to speak: the right honorable 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who if he doesn't suffer from inbred insanity, tertiary syphilis, the acute psychosis brought on by a good old fashioned attack of hepatic porphyria, or any of the other neurological impairments common to British royals, is still a nutjob with a journalism degree, and not a scientist of any sort, who believes the Chinese sailed across the North Pole in 1421 and found it completely free of sea ice, and in fact uses this highly improbable and completely unproven bit of alternative history speculation as a major point in his global warming denial tirades. In other words, he's a kook. I don't care if he was an advisor to Thatcher. All that means is not only is he a kook, he's a kook with a right wing bent. Alberto Gonzales was an advisor to President Bush, and he's such a dimwitted ideologically driven hack that I wouldn't retain his services as a lawyer to help me fight a parking ticket.

    Before you get your knickers in a twist about the alleged evil machinations of the global warming conspiracy and the information they supposedly suppress, you might want to do a little more looking into just who is being shown the door at these sorts of presentations.

    As for it being doom and so we might as well give up... no, it won't be doom, just like the current economic crisis won't be doom, the 1918 flu epidemic wasn't doom, the black plague wasn't doom, WWII wasn't doom, the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 weren't doom, and so on. It'll be expensive, dangerous, and drastically change the global economy and culture, plus result in a lot of needless death and displacement, just like the other crises I listed. The reason people don't advocate going down in an orgy of self destruction isn't because people don't think this problem is real, it's because sane people look at data, make decisions based on credible information, and then seek to solve the problem, not blow their fucking brains out when it looks like things might be a little tough.


    Last edited [4/26/09 2:29 PM]
  • Okay, okay. I'll spell it all out for you  [ Sun Apr 26 2009 2:40 PM ]

    According to the Bible, in the beginning man lived in this beautiful garden in total accord with, and totally in tune with, nature - innocent, pure, perfect. But, man (Adam) could not resist the temptation to taste that nasty ol' apple and thus, was no longer innocent and pure so God tossed his ass out of that perfect garden, that is, man was no longer in accord with perfect nature and was, in fact, somehow separated from nature, contrary to nature, and ultimately, capable of evil against nature, unless he watched his step very carefully indeed. There are many among us who, even among those who claim to have renounced any belief in Biblical stories, continue to maintain the view that mankind is somehow separate from nature and contrary to nature, when in actuality, nothing could be farther from the truth. This persistent concept that nature is good and mankind is evil is right straight out of the Bible and it's total crap. Man and nature are ONE totally regardless of what mankind does and how he chooses to do it.

    Okay, now let's get back to our friends Mr. Gore and Mr. Hanson, the self appointed high priests of the religion of global warming who are trying sell us the Biblical story all over again that is, the earth is this perfect and beautiful place, a virtual Garden of Eden, pure and innocent but evil man is acting in a way that is contrary to nature and will destroy the garden by burning fossil fuel unless he is forced to halt these evil ways (And also, by the way, does penance in the form of making the high priests incredibly rich).

    Further to that, as God said to Noah, "The fire next time" so, true to form and Biblical prophecy, we are now being told that mankind will be purged and purified of his evil co2 producing ways by, well, if not actual fire, then by heat anyway.

    Like I said, the whole damn story is just too Biblical to have much validity but does make a cracker of a bullshit tale. I can't wait for the movie to come out.

  • But Gore refuses to debate ANYONE about  [ Sun Apr 26 2009 2:48 PM ]

    these issues, why? Because he fears embarrassment and humiliation of course. Gore knows that Monckton is a knowledgeable force to be reckoned with and cannot risk the kind of scrutiny that he would be subjected to under such a circumstance. Like I said, red flags all over the place.

  • Of course, any religious leader will tell you  [ Sun Apr 26 2009 4:54 PM ]

    that the best way to maintain unapproachable sovereignty is to categorically and systematically deny any opposing view, conduct a witch hunt to weed out and destroy or discredit any skeptical voices, and above all, never publicly debate the issues at stake. That is why you will never see, for example, the Pope hold a public debate with an atheist regarding the existence of God and you will never see Father Gore publicly debate ANYONE regarding global warming. Rather, the Pope and Father Gore will simply issue statements from on high which they will claim to be beyond question and then they will depend on their foot soldiers, their pawns, their dittoheads, their lemmings, such as yourself for example, to keep their ball rolling. It's a very old technique and a very old story.

  • Why should Gore have to debate anyone?  [ Sun Apr 26 2009 8:36 PM ]

    He's trying to enact policy change on a position that most people agree with. Why should this mean that he should debate any random guy who disagrees with him. And, regardless of what you say, Monckton is not knowledgeable, nor is he a force to be reckoned with. He's a crackpot who thinks that Chinese navigators sailed across an ice free North pole nearly 600 years ago. This is not a credible position. Anyone who blindly admits that sort of idea into his thinking simply because it agrees with his preconceived notions is not a person who you should debate with. This is a person who has a major failure of critical thinking.

    It's kind of like me debating with you... you keep bringing up these crackpots like Monckton, or trotting out these widely discredited lists of supposed scientists who deny the general consensus because these agree with your preconceived notions. You have yet to even so much as admit that an international conference of research climatologists, a far more credible source of information, might actually have a point. Furthermore, you keep aiming for Gore for some damn reason, attributing to him pope-like sway over the, as you would have it, cult of climate change. Gore is a useful sideshow. He manages to get most of the facts roughly correct, and does a lot of public speaking and politicking. He's following the conclusions of thousands of scientists, and they're the ones to listen to, not him. Gore could be given another award tomorrow and thereby be tragically killed in a horrible swollen ego accident due to the final unsustainable inflation of his self-worth and it wouldn't matter to the direction of climate research. Research would still show the same conclusions, and people would still be working on the issue. So, why should I debate you? Well, I'm not subjecting all of Congress to it, so it's just my time to waste, for starters. If I were seriously trying to set public policy, and I had the option of telling someone with as bad of information as you keep trotting out to go get stuffed or debating you in a room full of people who have lots of other important issues to deal with, I'd tell you to go get stuffed.

    As far as this "biblical" qualities of the whole saga... My personal view, and the view of many scientists, is that a good approach would be to build a shitload of nuclear power plants, starting right now, along with a lot of solar and wind power, and, if that doesn't work, build machines to scrub CO2 out of the air on a massive scale and bury it in a suitable geological deposit. In addition to engineering the climate, we can use this scrubbed CO2, along with a good dose of concentrated solar radiation, to manufacture carbon neutral hydrocarbons for fuel, which would allow us to proceed with the use of hydrocarbon chemical fuels in a sustainable way. If all else fails, we can consider seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective particles, depending on whether the models of how that might work show enough benefit, or try other sorts of daring engineering projects. This hardly sounds like being cajoled into returning to live in harmony with nature. All the ideas I've just mentioned are being researched as we speak. The impacts are being assessed, prototypes are being built, and so on. We are obviously, as you seem to think is a stunning revelations, part and parcel of nature, and we're on a limited planet. If we're going to continue to see a growing, or even static, population and a rising standard of living, if we're going to continue with the technological and cultural progress we've made, we need to start assessing all the impacts of our actions and closing the loop on our energy and manufacturing processes so that there remains a viable biosphere to support us and sufficient resources to continue our civilization. It's as simple as that. Acknowledging that we now know enough to realize that we need to change the way we do things or suffer serious negative results is hardly a case of us being chastised by an angry god. It's more a case of growing up and seeing that actions have consequences, and attempting to make choices that maximize good results and minimize bad ones.

    Sure, there are some dippy hippie sorts who get the idea that it's important but think the only solution is to live in mud huts and eat a diet of brown rice and lawn clippings, but that's a tiny minority of people. Claiming that this represents the core of people concerned about global climate change is like claiming that anyone who owns a gun is a bloodthirsty homicidal maniac. Sure, there are some of those out there, but they're fortunately rather rare. There are also people who think that owning a gun does automatically make you a homicidal maniac, but those people are clearly nuts, and that's kind of what you're sounding like at the moment.

  • Of course JV, Gore would be a fool  [ Thu Apr 30 2009 7:08 PM ]

    to debate anyone on AGW just as the Pope would be a fool to debate an atheist on the existence of God - so it won't happen. As far as your debating me is concerned, if you look back to the origin of this discussion you will see that it began when I proposed a strictly hypothetical situation as an interesting exercise however, first someone called Jerry and then someone called Jonas Venture immediately jumped up onto their little soapboxes as though they'd been bitten by a rabid dog and started preaching, wagging accusatory fingers, and making a general nuisance of themselves.

    I'm totally with you pal on the nuclear power thing, not much question that this is were the future of producing vast amounts of electric energy lies. That's great when it comes to maybe heating our homes or making lights and mixmasters work. Only problem here is the storage issue as regards the transportation thing. Batteries just haven't changed that much in a hundred years or more and oil is pretty damned efficient in terms of storage and transportability. Last I heard, nobody has yet flown a 747 full of people and baggage from NY to LA on a fucking battery or even driven an 18 wheeler tractor trailer rig load of refrigerated lobster tails from Maine to Kansas City. Even the oh-so-trendy Pious has a gasoline engine cleverly hidden away amongst it's mega-load of green???? batteries. Let's also keep in mind that the roads themselves are made of what? That's right, oil! Not to mention, most plastics, many medical and pharmaceutical products, in fact many thousands of items that are a part of all of our daily lives that cannot be replaced with nuclear energy.

  • Did I ever say  [ Mon May 4 2009 1:41 PM ]

    there was anything wrong with using petrochemical products for building materials, pharmaceuticals, or plastics? No.

    Also, if you really think there has been almost no advancement in batteries in the last hundred years, you're a complete idiot. Lithium ion batteries today are significantly better than they were just five years ago. Twenty years ago, early cell phones, like the Motorola "brick" were the size they were largely due to low density batteries. Modern laptops and other portable devices would be unwieldy and impractical without the advances in battery technology just the last couple decades have seen, let alone the advances of the last century.

    So, you can't effectively power a passenger jet or a long haul truck with batteries, so what? I've never claimed you could. In fact, I've never even had anything bad to say about chemical fuels. They're devastatingly effective for high density power storage with reasonably low cost conversion to mechanical power. I think they're great, actually. But, we don't have to get them from petrochemicals. We can make carbon neutral hydrocarbon liquid fuels from air, water, and sunlight. I even mentioned that up thread. You don't really read anything I write, do you? Your mind is totally shut and incapable of even assessing anything you don't agree with.

    Carbon neutral hydrocarbons can be made, potentially, for about $3.00 a gallon. Of course, building sufficient infrastructure to do this at a scale to meet the fuel demands of the US will take decades, and, ultimately, the conversion of available power to useful transportation using this method is less efficient than use of battery powered vehicles for most applications, so I expect it'll be used for jet fuel, long haul trucking, racing fuel, and expensive luxury cars. I fully expect the Ferrari of 2030 to be gasonline powered, I just expect that gasoline to be manufactured in a carbon neutral way.

    As far as me jumping on you for your innocent little hypothetical, what you've done is the equivalent of saying in response to an essay on the need for more cancer research that, hypothetically, you don't think cancer kills anyone at all, and it's all just the evil chemotherapy and radiation that's used to treat it that kills people, and suggesting that we treat cancer with homeopathic "medicine", bleeding to balance the bodily humors, coffee enemas, or, if that fails, waving a crystal wand over the patient's ass, and going on to link to a bunch of bullshit by new age conmen about how all this supposedly works. And now, you're hurt and surprised that an oncologist shows up to call you on your bullshit. Are you really that far out of touch with reality that this surprises you?

    I know far more about the subjects of energy generation and the climate than you do, and, given your demonstrated lack of an ability to discern scientifically credible sources from crackpots and apparent inability to actually read anything anyone's written without immediately dismissing anything you don't a priori agree with, I know more about these subjects than you ever will.

  • My failure  [ Fri May 8 2009 7:05 AM ]

    to get you to admit that there is a possibility that you may be wrong about human induced global warming probably says far more about you than it says about me.

    Science must always doubt itself, question itself - else it becomes DOGMA.

    In science, there are no closed doors, no final answers, no absolutes. Hypotheses and theories must ALWAYS be debated. Science is always in flux, as someone such as yourself ought to understand.

    No one in science ever "knows" anything and arrogance, such as yours, has no place in science. Methinks you are more of a politician than a scientist Sir.

    No, larger batteries, such as might be used in a car are not much better than they were a hundred years ago which is why electric cars are not much more practical today than they were then which is why we aren't all driving around in electric cars. DUH.

    Maybe "someday" we will see fit to spend the billions upon billions to produce carbon neutral hydrocarbon liquid fuels in useable quantities but right now we have gasoline for under $2 bucks AT THE PUMP. DUH.

  • You're an idiot, Rod.  [ Fri May 8 2009 8:51 AM ]

    >"In science, there are no closed doors, no final answers, no absolutes. Hypotheses and theories must ALWAYS be debated. Science is always in flux, as someone such as yourself ought to understand."

    I don't think these words mean what you think they do. What you've stated is basically true, but what you think it means is completely wrong. What you've conceptualized it is a strawman view of science that nutjobs like you frequently use. If science were unable to come to any conclusions at all, and everything was always in flux, then it would be useless. So, while science as a whole always has change in it, there are some things we can say, not with absolute "capital T 'Truth'" certainty, but within the specifications of the resolution of our current theories and data. For example, if I'm operating a catapult, I can use a fixed value of gravity and basic kinematic equations and be pretty damn accurate. If I'm calculating the orbital behaviour of a satellite, I can use Newton's laws, and the law of universal gravitation, and be close enough. If I'm operating a phase correlation locator system, like the GPS network, I have to use Einstein's laws of special relativity to get accurate positions. So, we have different theoretical structures which have varying levels of resolution. These levels of resolution are always there, but in many situations the added accuracy isn't needed. The advancements don't invalidate the utility of the preexisting theories, it just extends it. Then of course, there's the question of whether gravitation actually bends space-time, or just looks like a bend in space-time, and what exactly it is on a fundamental level. So, the foundations can be reassessed, theories can be modified and extended, but a correlation seen at a particular scale and well substantiated by data isn't up for reconsideration. The model or theory will come with its own error bars, which is why no one is quite sure what climate change will look like in a century, and no one can say for sure that it will drive a hurricane in this particular month, or melt that particular glacier at such and such a rate, but taken as a whole, and applied to the level of resolution we need to know that there will be widespread and drastic changes, it's not up for debate, even though science continues to expand and change the basic theories underlying it, producing more accurate models and better predictions.

    You are the one who doesn't understand science. Retreating to the whole "science is always up for debate" argument, and misunderstanding that idea in such a way, is one of the classic tropes of the scientifically illiterate. I've heard that same line from a dozens of anti-scientific fools trying to pick apart everything from evolution, to climate change, to relativity or quantum mechanics. Invariably, these are people who insist that science must change or become dogma, therefore it must accept some totally unsubstantiated piece of bullshit cooked up by some kook. Here's a hint for you: that's called pseudoscience. It tries to look like science, but it isn't.

    Also, you still don't know shit about batteries. Have you ever seen a 100 year old battery? Taken one apart? Measured the performance characteristics? Talked to battery engineers? Even lead acid batteries, like the one in your car, have advanced. Do you even know what a really large scale battery looks like? Here's a hint: it's not lead acid. Have you ever even heard of a vanadium flow-cell bank? Is Tesla using lead acid batteries? Is Phoenix? Are any of the new generation of electric cars using lead acid? No.

    As for carbon neutral hydrocarbons... yes, gas is about $2 a gallon now, and a couple years ago it was pushing twice that, and a few years from now, who knows? Manufactured gasoline, whether from solar reforming of CO2 and water vapor or thermal depolymerization of organic waste, will give us a product that has a much more easily controlled price which will be stable over the long term, and which is not too drastically higher than current prices. Ultimately a slightly higher and stable price is more economically beneficial than a wildly fluctuating price which is sometimes lower and sometimes higher than the stabilized price. You can feel free to add economics to the list of "things Hotrod doesn't know shit about".

    Also:

    >Methinks you are more of a politician than a scientist Sir.

    What is this? The early 19th century? Are you going to challenge me to a duel next? Take off your white glove and slap me in the face with it? Insult the style in which I powder my wig? Why is it that kooks so often adopt this sort of stilted language? Methinks it is because, you, Sir, are of the belief that it gives gravitas and substance to your puerile blather, &C. Nope, sorry, it just makes you sound like a nutcase. It's also a style which is rampant among right wing and Libertarian pseudointellectuals. Is there some sort of special right wing kook edition of Stunk and White out there that you guys all use? I'll give you ten points for conforming to the classic style of an ill-informed and delusional dipshit with an inflated sense of worth, but, in my opinion, that's not really the sort of contest you want to win.

  • Yikes!  [ Sat May 9 2009 7:42 AM ]

    That's an extremely scathing post there JV! I'm impressed to say the least, and gratified that you feel my ramblings warrant that much effort and time out of your obviously busy schedule but the fact that you HAVE done so rather than simply ignoring, me as say, Jerry, sloppy, and others who disagree with me generally do, again says more about you than it does about me and suggests two possibilities. a). That you are an immensely insecure man, you feel threatened by me, and therefore obligated to verbally attack me. Or b). That you understand that my views may have merit and some basis in fact which absolutely terrifies you and throws you into denial mode and THAT terrifies you even further. In either case, I clearly smell fear, the sort of fear that a cornered small animal exhibits, lashing out and slashing with its tiny claws. I am greatly amused.

    Oh yes, one more thing you are wrong about, I have never "called you a Nazi".

  • No, you didn't directly call me a Nazi,  [ Sat May 9 2009 10:27 AM ]

    You just suggested that I'd support Hitler in 1938. Clearly, a world of difference. You really need to cut it out with this passive-aggressive routine. Your use of the "I never SAID that, I just GUESSED it" routine is about like someone who says "You know, I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are black, but..." followed by a horrifyingly racist comment. It's childish and it's passive aggressive. Similar with "Hey, I didn't call you a Nazi" as a way of distancing yourself from saying I'd have been a supporter of Hitler in 1938. It's the same damn thing, you're just using passive aggressive wording to give yourself an "out". That doesn't work, and you know it.

    I also find it funny that you think I'm threatened by you. That's absolutely hilarious, and pretty much proves my point that you seem to be an ill-informed kook with an inflated sense of self-worth. I keep replying because it's good batting practice. It's easy to swat you, it's something I can do with one eye open while sipping my morning coffee, and you keep popping back up for more. You're like one of those inflatable toy punching bags with the face of a clown on it. You punch it and it pops right back up, still grinning like an idiot and ready to be punched again.

    I have a lot of spare time, so having my own willing punching bag gives me some mild amusement.

  • I am mildly amused  [ Sat May 9 2009 7:57 PM ]

    that you are mildly amused.

    You have called me an idiot, and worse, however, my shoulders are broad and I am thick skinned but all that aside. No, I did not "call you a Nazi", I did not suggest you were a Nazi, I did not say or suggest that you would have been a supporter of Hitler in 1938. That's just your own paranoia whispering things into your ear. I simply inferred that you are too quick to trust the word of your elected leaders and I drew a comparison between your good self and the many who have made similar mistakes in the past, FOR EXAMPLE, the many honest, well meaning, trusting citizens of Germany in 1938. Understand?

    Yes I could attempt to set you straight on many other issues I'm sure, but I will let it pass and I will let you have the "last word", as I know how important that is to you.....


    Last edited [5/9/09 7:59 PM]
  • Arguing with Hotrod...  [ Mon May 11 2009 5:47 PM ]

    ...is an exercise in futility. He simply will not entertain reason, logic, or even continuity. Yes, it can be amusing to watch him flail around in his own little world of intentional stupidity, but, like the inflatable clown he most resembles, Hotrod always pops back up with another fallacy, change of position, or bullshit wordsmithery.

    Ultimately, Hotrod's continual use of bad reasoning and fallacious argumentation boil down to his often repeated bullet points:

    a) "I must be on to something because you are trying to deny what I say"

    and

    b) "My big, big brain scares you."

    Still, JonasAdventure, you've done a good job for the rest of us and your efforts are appreciated. Hotrod's provocations are simply that--provocations. He is performing in the same way his mentors--Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.--perform.

  • You are right about one thing robertmcat,  [ Thu May 14 2009 6:05 AM ]

    "Arguing with Hotrod is an exercise in futility". That is correct in your case at least because regardless of how much my words, phrases, and meanings are bent, distorted, and twisted by yourself and others, in the end, I am generally right and you are generally wrong and you know it. One more thing you are wrong about, my "mentors" are not "Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.". I think for myself and that concept scares the hell out of you doesn't it? In the end, all that you, JV, and others are able to do is attack me personally on the most infantile level such as calling me names like "clown", "idiot", "illiterate", and more. How pathetic!


    Last edited [5/14/09 6:12 AM]
  • I didn't call you a "clown"  [ Thu May 14 2009 12:02 PM ]

    I said your rhetorical gymnastics resemble an "inflatable clown." And that just scares the hell out you, doesn't it?

  • "I am generally right and you are generally wrong and you know it"  [ Thu May 14 2009 12:13 PM ]

    That's it. Go start your own blog and be right all the time over there. You're fired.

  • Scary is right.  [ Fri May 15 2009 4:21 PM ]

    I think for myself and that concept scares the hell out of you doesn't it?

    Yes, it is rather scary to watch, but not in the way you think it is. It's scary in more of a "watching Mr. Magoo drive down a busy street" way than anything else.

 
Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
 

  • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; minimize, maximize and close using the little icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
  • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
  • alibi.com
  • Latest Posts
  • Most Active Stories
  • Latest User Posts
  • Highest-Rated Posts
  • Most Active Users
  • Web Exclusives
  • Latest User Blogs
  • Latest Chowtown Reviews
  • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
  • Recent Classifieds
  • This Week's Alibi Picks
  • Albuquerque
  • Duke City Fix
  • Albuquerque Beer Scene
  • What's Wrong With This Picture?
  • Reddit Albuquerque
  • ABQ Journal Metro
  • ABQrising
  • ABQ Journal Latest News
  • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
  • NM and the West
  • New Mexico FBIHOP
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • Only in New Mexico
  • Mario Burgos
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • High Country News
  • El Grito
  • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
  • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
  • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
  • Slashdot
  • Freedom to Tinker
  • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.