Consensus? What consensus?
 

The Myth of Manmade Global Warming Consensus Explodes





https://images.dailytech.com/nimage/8710_monckton.jpg
Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change

"Considerable presence" of skeptics


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."


The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune?s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Yup, I've always found the manmade global warming science a bit shaky. Forget who said it but there's a quote that goes something like "The good news is we don't seem to be causing global warming. The bad news is that we don't seem to be causing global warming" meaning of course that if we pulled out all the stops and went 100% carbon neutral, it would do nothing to arrest a natural process. It's possible that we've actually held it up, through control of forest fires and draining of swamplands, preventing massive CO2 and methane releases. There's convincing arguments that solar output is solely responsible and may shortly reverse the process by declining and giving us a mini ice-age.

However, since much of the prevention effort also conserves resources and reduces other forms of pollution, I think that it has been a positive "scare" overall and something we should continue to strive for into the future.

Even if we burn all the oil on this earth in the next 50 years, we probably wont make a difference on global warming. You can always told yourself that, but still, the point is much more that we wont have oil anymore, and oil kind of build our modern industrial world.

I find it troubling that the same processes that raise the temperature in small scale controlled environment experiments by increasing CO2 levels by the same amount as the increase since the industrial revolution are dismissed as not being valid on a large scale.

I find it troubling that ice core samples going back 70,000 years show a direct (but delayed by between 100 to 200 season) correlation between variation in atmospheric CO2 and the temperature. Natural increases in CO2 (to a high of about 270 ppm) resulted in a global temperature increase about 150 seasons later. Decreases in CO2 (low of about 190 ppm) resulted in decreases in global temperatures starting about 150 seasons following the decline.

I find it troubling that the present CO2 level (now about 360 ppm and rising) is an additional 1/3 higher than it had been during the highest levels of the prior 70,000 years, and almost all that increase has been from what might have been a natural high point of about 250 ppm of 150 years ago.

I am not able to wish away that concern, even if others can.

https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/pr...te_crisis.html

Proved: There is no climate crisis

Here is some more fuel to the co2 producing fire.

OM

LugNut, I understand your concern.

But my concern lies with spending trillions of dollars and slamming the brakes on multiple world economies for science that is disputable (and not the-world-is-too-flat kind of disputable).

And, I don't classify that as wishing away a concern, but rather seeing things realistically and not emotionally. Not that I'm saying you are guilty of that, it's just that it seems to be the main argument for that course action.

IMO it's a bit like the millennium bug/y2k problem*, the only reason it wasn't a big problem is that people got scared enough to take precautions, so in retrospect, the lack of calamity and chaos seems to suggest that the risks were overblown. However, if no-one had taken it seriously, then what might have happened?

In other words, although personally I don't see it as a big a problem as it's made out to be, it could be if not taken seriously and sensible measures are not taken. Sensible IMO means doing those things that make socio-economic sense, not killing off half the third world by starvation to use an energy source that doesn't appear to be all that more carbon friendly than fossil fuels. That is sort of the equivalent to as if we turned all the computers off in 1999 and transcribed everything to paper and manual filing systems, we'd still be waiting for the government committee on certified software and hardware design to report back so we could start using computers again.

(* I got interested in that back in '97 btw, and went through about 30 computers before I found an ancient 286 that had the worst form of the bug, then made a patch that took all of about 10 lines of q-basic.... it was so trivial, and in so limited a number of systems I was somewhat stunned about all the brouhaha.)

at times, the moon cannot keep the earth from wobbling on its axis. during those times, cataclismic changes in climates can occur.

i wonder if this happened today if the enviro nuts and political left would blame GW and say "We told you so!"

It's funny that alot of people think we can't possibly change the climate just a little bit..but we made a damn good job at ****ing up our ozone layer..or is that natural too?

As humans that has been on the earth for thousands of years it makes no sense to have to cover up with solar screen when we go out for more than 15 minutes at risk of very severe sunburns.

I see the underlying issue is that other nations desiring to emulate our standard of living are going to need "our" share of other nation's resources.
We in the US apparently see no need to conserve or reduce emissions, despite being the most wasteful and most polluting society on this planet, because it is apparently our intent to prevent other nations from industrializing to the scale that we have. The US's problem is being spun from one of our own excessive consumption, to one of competition for those resources we consume at such a prodigious rate.
"China's taking our oil!" No, China is using the best of western free market models to pay higher, (or in Sudan, moralize less), for the assets we used to take for granted or take for a few AWAC aircraft. If we could only keep China, India, and other 'second world' economies from growing and equaling the US and western Europe in standard of living and the accompanying emissions and waste, then there is just that more for us (or US) to continue to squander and dump. Not so? We b1tch about the use of fossil fuels they use, and at the same time b1tch about the loss of farm land when they instead build clean energy hydroelectric power plants.
I believe our national attitude is quickly becoming one of "They need to be happy with their rickshaws so we can keep our Denials."
Ooopps, Dr. Freud, did I write that? That should have been Denalis.

Lugnut,

you bring up a few good points, just don't make the mistake generalizing ALL Americans as wasteful (and full waist for that matter :p ).

also, do not forget china and india have not implimented clean air legislation, at least not as stringent as the US.

finally, their must be a level playing field in regards to pollution legislation. certainly the country allowing for more margin of error will get more industry! and don't get me started on taxes!

Guess who's really at fault as to why China and India are not implementing clean air legislation or why they did not sign onto the Kyoto Protocol?


https://worldnetdaily.com/index.php/i...p?pageId=69909

Throughout the Clinton administration, Gore was "Mr. Environment." He directed negotiations at virtually every U.N. Climate Change meeting during the 1990s working toward the Kyoto Protocol. When the negotiations stalled in Kyoto in 1997 because the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution directing the president not to accept the Protocol unless it applied to China and India and other developing nations, Gore flew in to save the day. Despite the Senate's resolution, Al stood before thousands of U.N. delegates in Kyoto and announced that he had instructed the U.S. delegation to be "more flexible" in their negotiations. At the last moment, the Protocol was adopted, without participation by developing nations.

================================================== =

yep, Al's done a lot for the environment alright.

Here's more about Al Gore's Kyoto Protocol "flexibility":

https://sovereignty.net/p/clim/kyotorpt.htm

Enter Prince Albert

A flock of helicopters rattled the windows of the Miyako Hotel until the Vice President's chopper landed on the hotel's heliport and deposited the most important person to attend the negotiations. Environmental NGOs proclaimed that Al Gore would deliver the dynamite necessary to break up the log-jams that plagued the proceedings. Gore's contribution to the celebration was hardly a firecracker. His speech to the delegates contained the usual rhetoric to which he appended "I am instructing our delegation right now to show increased negotiating flexibility if a comrehensive plan can be put in place."

Disappointment descended upon the delegates; environmental NGOs were outraged. A report published by the Climate Action Network was headlined "Gore's Climate Fraud," CNN ran clips of Gore campaigning in 1992, criticizing President Bush's inaction on climate change, contrasted by Gore's statement made to the Kyoto delegates. A spokesman for Friends of the Earth (FOE) stood before TV cameras reading from Gore's 1992 book Earth in the Balance, in front of huge banners with the words "Gore in the Balance." Gore's presence did create a minor ripple in the negotiations. Although Gore refused to define "increased flexibility," it took only minutes to learn (through our corridor intelligence systems) that Gore had authorized the American delegation to increase the U.S. negotiating position from reductions to 1990 levels to a target 3-1/2% below 1990 levels provided that China would accept some kind of language that could be interpreted as an agreement to accept some kind of commitment at some point in the future. The corridors were abuzz for nearly two hours until word was passed that China was holding firm, flatly refusing to accept any language that could be construed as accepting commitments to reduce emissions.

We can only imagine the frustration that must have accompanied Gore's report to Clinton, who, in recent weeks, gave the Communist Chinese government a 21-gun salute, a red-carpet White House reception, a port at Long Beach California -- and nuclear technology. The Chinese government reciprocated with a resounding no to Clinton's demand for "meaningful participation" by developing nations.

In the palatial Presidential Suite, (one floor above our humble bedroom-press room-broadcast center) Gore convened one of those unofficial non-meetings that never occurred, attended by the ministers from Japan, the EU (Luxembourg, UK, and Netherlands), to ponder the next step in the negotiations after the Chinese rebuff. The meeting concluded at 2:00 am after our corridor scouts were asleep. Chairman Estrada (Argentina) announced that a new revision of the negotiating text would be issued at 3:00 pm Tuesday, less than 24-hours before the scheduled adjournment.

At 8:00 pm the announcement came. The Chairman's new revised text included differentiated targets that would grant Australia permission to increase emission by 5% above 1990 levels while requiring the U.S. to reduce emission by 5% below 1990 levels by 2010. Japan's target was set at 4-1/2% below 1990, and the European Union's target set at 8% below 1990 levels. Still no movement by China on the all-important compliance by developing nations. Again, the delegates retreated behind closed doors, not to be heard from again until Wednesday morning -- a scant few hours before the delegates would be climbing onto airplanes heading home.

Wednesday, December 10, was scheduled to be the day the agreement would be adopted. The day's program announced a plenary session at 3:00 pm, followed by scheduled news briefings from the Secretariat and from most of the major delegations. A reception was scheduled at 8:00 pm at the Kyoto Concert Hall -- to celebrate. Three o'clock came and went. On the schedule board, all the times changed to "TBA." Five o'clock, seven o'clock, still no word from behind the closed doors of several working-group negotiating session. A flurry of speculation circulated through the corridors; "it may be about to blow-up." Finally, a little past eight, Chairman Estrada emerged, obviously weary, to announce that the working groups had all reported, and that he would take the reports and produce still another "final" draft of the agreement which would be ready at 11:00 pm. Delegates would then reconvene to consider the changes.

Relieved, but exhausted, the delegates, observers, and reporters found places to nap, places to eat, and some returned to their hotels for a shower and change of clothes in preparation for another night-long vigil. We had radio programs scheduled every two hours throughout the night. We expected to be able to report the final outcome of the conference, but the negotiations were still going on. At 7:35 am, on Thursday, December 11, -- just hours before our flight departed -- a friend who had spent the night at the conference hall slipped the final, final, amended agreement under our hotel room door. The delegates had finally agreed on the language of the document, although they still had to clear several other agenda items before the actual formal adoption. It was finally done. At nearly noon, after a marathon all-night negotiating session, the deal was finally complete. The position so confidently presented by the President and Vice President of the United States had been overwhelmed by China's tenacity. The President said that any target beyond returning to 1990 levels would be "unrealistic." In the end, he accepted 7% below 1990 levels as a target -- a reduction in excess of 40% from current levels of emission. The President said he would not accept an agreement that did not require "meaningful participation" by developing countries. In the end, he accepted an agreement that requires nothing from developing countries. The only reference to developing countries in the agreement specifies "no new commitments." The White House caved in, crumbled, and turned America's energy policy over to the United Nations.

==================================================

not many democrats or environmentalists will admit today that Al Gore messed up a good opportunity for developing countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

More with this crap? The hippies are just making this up to get rich by saving the environment then?

Were you also one of those people that believed cigarettes weren't harmful and it was just a big conspiracy?

What does any of this have to do with gas? Do you think gas prices are high because of global warming? I think it's the other way around. I think the conservatives finally realized that we have a problem and so they are finally caving in and acknowledging global warming in order to get the public motivated to quit our oil addiction.

Our economy isn't going to crash... Getting off of oil is going to create all kinds of new opportunities. Could be the next New Deal. Instead of exporting all our money to the middle east we'll be spending it within our borders. Oil companies have been using lobbyists to keep us on that old technology for far too long. Not to mention that they have had their people directly in control of our gov't for some time now (Clinton, Bush, Cheney). And they will continue to hang on to it until there is no more money to be made from oil. Unfortunately, the oil is never going to run out!

Oil makes us weak as a country. It makes us dependent on countries that hate us. Essentially we're funding terrorists every time we fill up at the pump. Even if you buy domestic oil, you're fueling the demand for oil in general. We need to supplant that old technology with something home grown right here in the states so we can cut this leash to the middle east. I don't mean that we should quit oil right away. But all the new generation of cars, trucks, planes etc should be on some alternative power source. This will reduce the demand on oil and all the old gas-fueled engines can live out their useful lives.

The technology is there it just needs some infrastructure put behind it.

so much for making things up. the debate is not about cigarettes.

it has everything to do with gas. gas prices are high because of lack of supply...lack of supply was caused by people convinced of the fear of global warming.

on the contrary, it's the global warming theory that is now showing holes. we are in trouble now because of the fear created by global warming.

call it oil addiction, the fact remains that nothing can replace oil 100%. since we still need oil, the debate as to whether we increase domestic drilling or not is a valid debate.

the economy isn't going to crash? where have you been? the economy is crashing!

that's just it, instead of sending all of our money overseas, keep it here by drilling more domestic oil while we transition to alternative energy. how come you still can't understand that? you expect us to keep buying oil until alternative energy replaces oil 100%, THAT WILL NOT HAPPN ANY TIME SOON!


WRONG! Oil doesn't make us a weak country, IMPORTING OIL makes us a weak country. it's totally amazing how you can't logically analyse the problem and pin point the actual root cause of the problem.

yes, we are funding terrorists while we keep importing oil, and since alternative energy can't replace oil overnight, isn't the logical solution is to drill for more domestic oil until alternative energy is able to replace oil?

where will you get the funds fast enough to ensure that alternative energy gets the attention it deserves? you certainly won't get it while we keep importing oil.

again, the only way to not fund terrorists, to increase funding for atlernative energy, and to ensure we don't have another energy crisis is to drill our own oil.

infrastructure that will not appear from thin air without funding...funding that can be increase with increase in domestic oil...domestic oil that we can phase out when alternative energy increases in capacity,

take the blinders off and analyse the actual problem. all the reasons you gave are great but you still haven't offered any solid steps as to how we will get out of oil and have alternative energy replace our energy needs.

you agree that it's bad to keep sending money overseas....what do you propose we do to stop it? are we to stop driving our cars now and wait for 100% fossil fuel free cars? I don't know about you but I have a family to feed and I need to drive a FOSSIL FUELED CAR in order to get to work.

oh and to add to that....apparently Al Gore can't live without oil either since it's been caught on camera that his limo was idling with the A/C on for quite some time while he was delivering his speech for alternative energy!

Al Gore is a dumb-*** and would never have turned environmentalist if he had been given the presidency (I wont say "won" because he did in fact win it). I hate democrats. I'm not a big fan of Obama but I'd take him over Mccain. That's not saying much cuz I'd take just about anyone over them both. So now that we have that out of the way...

There is no gas shortage. There is plenty of gas available outside of the middle east. Drilling for oil will make a lot of rich people get even richer. Unfortunately it's going to cause all kinds of irreversible damage, but hey, people will get richer. Will gas prices go down? Hell no! Gas prices WILL NEVER GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY. The most gas will ever go down is less than a dollar per gallon. More like .50. That's just business.

Yeah the economy is bad now but it's not a disaster like the great depression or like you see in some other countries. If this economic down turn is all we had to worry about if we instantly dropped gasoline and switched to alternative energy then it would be well worth it. But there's no need to instantly and completely shut off the oil.

Maybe try getting your info from somewhere other than conservative talk radio and Fox news. You simply can't trust any American media because it's in corporate hands. Oh wait, it's LIBERAL. Yeah right I wish it was! I wish someone could direct me to some of this liberal media.

How do I propose we solve the problem? Well we seem to have billions of dollars a day to drop bombs in foreign countries. Troops are dying, the bad guys are winning. We're not any safer... Why not use SOME of that money to build a network of electric "gas" stations or natural gas stations? Or Swarzenaeggers (forgive the spelling) electric highway? Anyway I never proclaimed myself to have all the answers. I could brainstorm ideas at best. But anyone can plainly see that we are on the wrong path. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. There are plenty of possible solutions, but conservatives just want to go with what will make the most money for the companies lobbying them. BUT AT WHAT COST? I will have grandchildren 10 years from now. By then, people like you will be a bad joke. Just like how the woman with a hole in her neck preaching against smoking while toking a cigarette is a bad joke. That was a SIMILIE.

So enough with emulating Hannity PLEASE. Bad enough I have to listen to it at work!

And stop pretending like drilling for oil now is going to be instant and cost-free while building alternative energy sources is cost prohibitive and will take too long. Last I checked, off-shore oil rigs, oil pipelines, refineries, and transport networks cost money, take a long time to put in place, are vulnerable to accidents, weather, and terrorist attacks. Windmills, geothermal plants, tidal power, etc seem like pretty viable options by comparison.

Stop pretending like the technology isn't here! The technology has been up and running for over 20 years. Not only in other countries but right here in the states!

Stop pretending like the money isn't there. If congress can write Bush a blank check to borrow money from Japan and China and throw it at the middle east, then they can write a much smaller check to build infrastructure and fund research and development. (this happens to be the cause of our lagging economy btw)

If Bush and Clinton hadn't each vetoed requirements for stricter mpg on SUV's we wouldn't be paying the gas prices we are now. The SUV craze proved to the oil companies that people were willing to pay much more for gas. With so little regulation (we don't want to be like Venezuela and pay 12 cents a gallon after all) and with their hands in government, there was nothing stopping them from increasing gas prices. Originally they shut down refineries for "maintenance" to justify it but they don't even bother doing that anymore!

Logical not emotional right:) . I do agree that even if CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, I'm still not 100% convinced it has NO correlation, I do agree there is much emotion behind the argument. I do think though that we should focus on preserving and restore what natural glory this country has such as wetland, old growth forests, and water ways because there contributions are not measuralbe.

is that right?

In the long run we'll have to find an energy source that is a powerful and as versatile as petroleum is or changing to it just won't work. Wind and solar are not powerful enough or versatile enough to do the trick, and are little better than add-ons. You can't grease your mower with hydrogen, nor can you use it in the tens of thousands of products and services made from or modified by oil and its by-products.

Nuclear is good in that it frees up natural gas for other things and is clean. It is safe and efficient, and if the greenies and their lawyers would leave them alone the power companies could build more new, smaller plants in a number of locales. Technologies have evolved from the 60's, even if the hippies haven't.

To change the petroleum paradigm would require changing the world with something new and improved, and we simply dont' have a single equivalent energy source yet.

New technologies are wonderful, and they will eventually have their days in the sun. But don't think for a moment that any new energies will be as cheap as, or cheaper than, oil was in it's cheap days.

Energy companies are, by their nature, money-making companies. Any group of people in charge of such an important resource as energy will be sure they won't be left out of the Rich Sector. Why should they? They are in business to make money, and that's what they're doing.

I don't like paying too much any more than anyone else, but this thing called petroleum will find it's price in a new and growing world economy regardless of the whining of Americans that still can't operate a soft gas pedal or brake pedal.

It's the new world order that everyone is complaining about, and the operating manual is written in languages other than American English.

And, most of all, changing everything for a not-well-fleshed-out utopian 60's kind of ideal seems kind of weak to me. The Co2 boogeyman is not what we should be spending our money on.

at least we agree on something. Al Gore is a dumb a**, although I don't hate democrats, their my comic relief.

no shortage of gas? do more research please. one of the main contributors of high gas prices is increasing demand. if demand is higher then supply is lower.

drilling for oil wil make a lot of rich people get richer, that's capitalism. it's also a fact though that drilling for more domestic oil will lower the deficit, increase supply - hence lower the price, and allo the US to be not at the mercy of the middle east. that's common sense. the law of supply and demand is universal, if we increase supply, the price will GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY and until you can find an economist that can prove that the law of supply and demand does not work there is no way in hell you can say so otherwise.


I thought you said the economy is not crashing, and now you're admiting the economy is bad. way to do a turnaround. stop contradicting yourself.

alternative energy STILL CAN NOT REPLACE oil 100%. show me how it can? you just can't!

LOL! now you are totally in the dark. if you can't see that 90% of the media isn't liberal then I'm not surprised that you're totally misguided. you still haven't shown ANY SINGLE FACT THAT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CAN REPLACE oil 100% right now.

we have dollars to drop bombs because we have no choice but to do so. if we are using 100% domestic oil then we wouldn't need to go fight a war someplace else as you liberals call it.

using some of that money to build electric gas stations would mean that we will have governemnt controlled enterprise. Socialism anyone? oh, wait, that's the main liberal agend in the first place, socialism.

I agree, you don't have all the answers, you don't even have a clue as to how our economic system works. We are not practising socialism. capitalism works with private enterprise. in order for your "electric gas stations" can get built PRIVATE ENTERPRISE would need the fund to use for it. if you do not allow PRIVATE OIL COMPANIES to increase their revenues then they will be unable to convert the infrastructure to alternative energy. that is what you are missing! It is called private enterprise and the government need to allow them to make the money and not penalize them. Russia, China, and other oil companies that are outside of the US are all being allowed by their government to increase their revenue, hence you will find (if you would only do the research) that US oil companies ARE ACTUALLY SMALL COMPARED TO OIL COMPANIES OUTSIDE OF THE US. if we do not allow US oil companies to increase their revenues then we are doomed to repeated energy crisis.

now I'm emulating Hannity. you are so off base with all of your theories is not even funny anymore.

I agree that Alternative energy needs to be increase, but you still can not see that there's no funds for it. if you socialize it (as you're implying) it will not work as efficiently (as any government entity has shown). if you want o live in a socialized system, move to China. Here in the US the system is capitalism and the government needs to work within that system.

do some more research will you.

show me how alternative energy won't be cost prohitive and will not take a long time? YOU CAN'T! AS ALWAYS, YOU CAN'T!!!!!!

drilling for more domestic oil will have an instant effect on oil future prices. that's a fact.

if drilling for more domestic oil will take time, alternative energy will take an even longer time! solar panels are only 18% efficient at best and the wind doesn't blow all the time, converting all cars to plug in electric cars in a very short time will put a strain on current power plants and will result in energy shortages. As I've said before the infrastructure is not there yet and you keep holding on to the pipe dream that we can convert everything quickly. We can not convert everything quickly. you can not and will not replace oil quickly as some of you are implying. again, if you can do so, prove it!

[uiStop pretending like the technology isn't here! The technology has been up and running for over 20 years. Not only in other countries but right here in the states!

show me where I said that the technology is not here yet? there's plenty of new technology that can do so, if only there's funds to manufacture them en mass! again, there's no funds to do so.

you're right, Congress does write blank checks and borrow money from Japan and China, and GUESS WHERE MOST OF THAT MONEY IS USED FOR? TO BUY OIL! again, the debate goes back to whether we're going to keep buying oil overseas or increase domestic drilling. Again you are so way off base with everything that you're saying.

WRONG AGAIN, if we would've started increasing domestic oil supply, we wouldn't be paying the gas price we're paying now. it's all supply and demand. lack of supply is increasing the price.

refineries need maintenance. refineries within our borders are well over 30 YEARS OLD!!!! not one single new refinery have been built for 30 years! the current refineries we have are outdated and are aging. as any mechanic or engineer would tell you, the older the machinery the more maintenance you need!!!! again, you are so off base, do some more research!

Which is why I'm against more domestic drilling until we get serious about the alternatives. Better to save it for the things we can't replace it for.

I agree with you.

Why did it take an oil crisis to cause GM and McCain to preach EV's to the American public? -I think the answer is that the American consumer had to feel the price at the pump to feel compelled to purchase an EV. The good news is that consumers are now buying hybrids faster than they can make them.

The next step here is to see if Americans will purchase and use EV's. Once we can get a favorable answer we will be on our way to dependence on coal and wind. Until GM can make EV's, we are stuck drilling in the deep waters of my home state's coastline.

your entire post was well said, but i fancy this statement in particular. i've used a similar one myself.

to the moveon.org crowd: PLEASE, by all means, MOVE ON!!!

this planet is STILL quite spacious, go live somewhere else!

the question is - will they even consider moving to a socialized country and lose their liberties? at the very least, they will actually have plenty of stuff to protest about if they move to a socialist country.

many of them demand that the governement does something, yet fail to realize that our economy works within the capitalistic system. why don't they just get out of the closet and declare what they are really asking for - a socialistic state.

good point however...

MOST people cannot (or should not) buy a hybid or E car. this is precisely why i support a comprehensive plan to drill NOW and work towards alternative fuels as well.

world economics is a delicate thing, cold turkey ain't gonna work!

Fact: The world does not produce enough ceramic capacitors and other high end electrical components needed to satisfy the demand that selling 400,000 electric vehicles in the US would create. I am experiencing this problem with my battery charger right now!

People are paying a premium for Toyota Prius hybrids. They are used to purchasing overpriced automobiles, the H2 is a wonderful example of this.

As time rolls on in the next 5 years, the US will transition it's vehicle fleet to electrics slooooowwwllly. We will pay an ever increasing premium for gasoline which will satisfy the middle east. Consuming their oil gives us a tactical edge, watch the "Road Warrior" for a first hand perspective of this.

good points here as well. again there is a but...

just as the housing bubble did burst, so too will our endless over borrowing. loan approval is even now getting tight. how many could afford a fully electric vehicle tomorrow(if it were possible) anyway?

same goes for the fuel prices. if no relief comes, we WILL have an economic crash. so many have cut back already, next will come massive stale consumer activity, then deeper recession, lastly depression(maybe worse than the first one).

5 years, NO WAY, i drive a truck for a living, won't happen. MAYBE, just maybe, trucking companies could start conversion to biodiesel and/or hybrids on are large scale.

i've often thought about extracting our own oil while continuing to suck the middle east dry. still, refining our own oil would bring down the price of foreign oil and strengthen the US dollar assuming we export(we should). China and India, in years to come, will help consume if we go independant of the middle east.

I never meant a conversion of long haul trucks, the limitations of debating over the internet! The thought of car companies pillaging the public with overpriced electrics scares me to death. The public's response to overpriced electrics will be negative and our economy will be on the road to a very uncertain financial and political future.

We will consume the supply of oil in the gulf rather quickly because we have all of America's best drillers right here in the oil corridor (Houston to Baton Rouge).

In positive news, this article about an electric Mini Cooper in 2009 came out yesterday! https://www.engadget.com/2008/07/22/e...n-summer-2009/

I feel promoting electrics is the most partriotic thing I can do right now.

There is no doubt many of the new electrics and hybrids will have some sort of premiums attached to them before the drive home, and used examples may not be as cheap as one might want, Wife and I are on the waiting list now for a Prius and there don't appear to be any premiums attached to it. There is the sticker price, and that's what we're paying.

That doesn't include, of course, the premium attached to advanced technology taking a dump and the premium dealer charges that will be incurred. I'm not looking forward to that!

But, the Wife is one of the pocket-protector crowd and is enamoured of advanced electronics.

limitations indeed. i didn't think that's what you meant. my thoughts were in regards to trucks being the greatest of oil and fuel guzzlers. certainly large transport vehicles will keep us dependant on oil for quite some time.

no doubt E cars must be mass produced(and driven) before that tech makes it to commercial vehicles, if at all.

as the rest of the world increases its consumption of oil, alternate fuels will not be able to keep up with demand. i see first hand in my personal budget and at work the importance of drilling now. it seems support in congress for it as well as failing confidence in global warming may make it happen soon.