The discussion started with this link to

"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?"

I replied:

One of the links from that page is to an Al Gore interview where he simply states that the core of the earth runs at millions of degrees and that there’s enough geothermal energy under the US to last 35k years.

Replies and links from THAT page point out that the core runs more like 7000 degrees, and that geothermal wells in Europe have been crushed by shrinkage of the boreholes as heat was extracted, and may have caused earthquakes in the process.

It’s another "religious" thing, to try to get into that argument. Other than I think Al Gore may be the Antichrist, but what do I know?? :)

Win replies:

Gore isn't the Antichrist? :)

Ken:

Gore is simply deluded. He has neither the skills, influence or evil required of that position. The fact that so many people believe in what he is saying is simply proof that P.T. Barnum was right.

Kathy:

OK - put aside any discussion about "Global Warming per Gore". The planet of Earth IS undergoing changes, just as it has for eons. Should we ignore those changes which represent a natural progression? OR not. Gore blew his wad too early. He has come off as the "boy who cried wolf". After all the breast-beating, pro and con - a natural change in climate is to be expected. Is it so far off or radical in change? Dunno, I'll be dead by the time it really makes a difference.

Should humans plan for it? If it is theoretical planning, sure - it won't hurt. The side benefit I see from the whole thing is that maybe alternative energy sources might have more investment, interest and results if we try to focus on getting away from oil dependence which would enhance national security. To me, that is the gold nugget.

P.S. - try to find the recent Saturday Night Live clip of him, it's hilarious. He could have a third (4th?) career as a comedian. Really a good job!

Win:

Climates change. It's part of the natural forces of the earth. But we can't stop it, nor can we alter it, which runs counter to Gore's entire thesis. And the more his theories get proven wrong, the more outlandish his claims get. Ken, you're right: he's a modern P.T. Barnum. Gore wants to profit from the alteration of our economy to a green one.

I'm all for being more green, as long as it doesn't cost me more. That's the ONLY way to get it adopted in the mass market to have any kind of material impact -- well unless you want to put in some kind of technocrat-administered cap and tax system and drive up the cost of "bad" energy to make green energy parallel in cost, regardless of how much damage it will do to the economy ...oh wait, that's what Obama wants to do!

Hey I got a great, "novel" idea -- let's just DO IT ALL. If we invested more in solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, coal, AND domestic crude oil, we MIGHT be able to get to 70%+ energy independence. But it's sheer folly to argue that we can get to complete independence.

Kathy:

Do you actually read what I write? I said (in brief): Ignore Gore, he marketed badly.

Climate changes are normal and natural.

Do we plan that long term? I said theoretical planning is fine.

Dependence on oil: It just makes sense to me to investment in alternative energy producing sources. And I don't care how it is done as long it produces results. And there lies the "Big Q". I'm not convinced on cap'n'trade, but it's better'n a poke in the eye.

Now - some political and hard-knock reality: Coal has a tremendous amount of employees, knocking that industry out would be a killer. Winding it down? Notsomuch. Clean Coal? Not convinced yet. Nuclear?

Much as I absolutely HATE it, it just may well be the best answer. We need to invest in safety solutions to make me feel more comfortable with it.

Win:

Kathy, We should not wind down ANY energy industry right now. We should be EXPANDING ALL OF THEM.

Gore is the figurehead for the misguided environmental movement that seeks to dominate the debate and impose its government-controlled socialistic model on all of us.

Kathy:

The point I was trying to make was that to invest MORE into coal may not be prudent. To maintain levels of research may be, but so are gas, electric, biofuels, nuclear. It should be a multi-pronged research drive. Don't discount coal, but don't assume expansion. It's a very expensive and dirty business, much more than natural gas or even nuclear. (comparing odds of problems not actual damage incurred).

I still think hemp is a good direction to go.

I reply:

No, silly, it's a better biofuel source than corn, but has a "reefer madness" stigma associated with it that no congressmonkey will go near.

Saw a neat article in today's paper about co2 sequestering in porous limestone and sandstone subterranean domes and bubbles. It takes a lot of energy to do it, like adding 12- or 24-megawatt power plants to do it, but the economics of pumping co2 into the ground have very good paybacks, according to the article ... with some reliance on subsidies and stimulus cash to get it going, some believe it could be a 20%/year investment return, thanks to energy and co2 credits! Sign me up for THAT!

But to cap off my part of this thread about one of my favorite topics, y'all are right. 1) follow the money. Gore's little fingers want to be part of consulting, speaking tours and investing [and POWER and CONTROL] as the system revs up. And 2) yes, it is / has become a religious issue, seldom tainted or influenced by facts. That's one reason I'm deleting my posts from current.com and collecting them as a possible basis for some future writing.

There are just too many religious morons around on the MMGW field. Here, for example, is a recent post at current from one of the zealots. I try to not even read [their] posts any more...

Data means nothing to [that person] and logic is powerless against their built-in, well-fortified positions. So sad, but there are lots like them out there.

Ken:

What is it about Democrats and their fear of open and honest debate?

Gore has frequently and loudly declared that the "debate is over" on man-made global warming.

Now Dean has made the exact same statement about this countries head-long plunge into socialism: http://www.breitbart.tv/howard-dean-declares-debate-between-capitalism-and-socialism-to-be-over/

Whatever you think about the topics themselves, the tendency to disparage the other side and to declare that any further discussion is not only useless but counter-productive because there can be no additional information produced by that discussion (everything is known, our knowledge is perfect, everyone except a few nut-cases agrees, let's get it done), is fundamentally wrong.

And we have seen the tendency to fudge and delete the data in order to ensure that the debate cannot take place.

What is it about Democrats that they cannot honestly debate their position, but must declare that any such discussion is moot?

Kathy:

It is a skepticism - that a Dem cannot have an open and fact-based discussion with a Rep. Same might apply to a Libertarian or an Ultra-conservative. Dem's were heavily bit over the past 8 years and sometimes it is a bit like a Stockholm Syndrome. A bit of hyper suspicion of motivations. First place a Dem looks when someone poopoohs climate change is: Are you taking monies from coal companies? (and similar questions).

There is a more than a bit of fear of change on BOTH sides of the argument. If one could get them to call it climate change and not blame it on humans and just focus on things like clean air and water most of it could be settled amicably. Sounds simplistic, but getting to the bottom of such an issue takes simple solutions to start the dialogue ball rolling.

I DO understand the not wanting to debate. I cannot debate it with my husband anymore than I can debate evolution. I know there is change, as expected, in the climate. I know evolution occured because of my exposure to fossils growing up. I saw proof in my own hands. I saw changes in pollutive stuff when I couldn't drink out of a stream and the haze above my head was not from a fire, but a human created machine. I cannot debate him because he is convinced I'm wrong and I'm convinced he's wrong. We both have stubborn German in us. We are different and that's OK! I don't have to "win" the arguments. I just have to work with like-minded individuals around those who aren't and solve the problem. In my case it's evaluating impact on the environment, business, financials, risks vs. benefits - you know the drill.

Ken:

Kathy, I see the immediate aspersions on motives (do they work for a coal company) as less questioning motives and more name calling. If you can label your opponent with some name that your hand-picked audience disapproves of (racist, sexist, homophobe, works for a coal company, etc), then you have successfully shut off debate as your opponents positions aren’t worth considering. Same tactic as Gore and Dean are stating explicitly: no debate is possible, either because the debate is over or because the other side is tainted and unworthy.

I agree with you that there are some subjects that two people who love each other dearly just simply cannot get into. My ultimate example of this is James Carville and Mary Matalin: happily married, but bitterly opposed to each other's politics.
My guess is that Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger are the same. But hey, if those couples can make their marriage work, the rest of us have no excuse... :)

But there is a difference between two people in a marriage who love each other, and people who want to lead and represent the people of this entire country. It is their obligation and duty to debate these issues, and then proceed based on their best estimate of the good of this country. Simply shutting off debate is childish and cowardly.

Kathy:

"childish and cowardly"

I would say it applies to both sides - and equally. I just heard something from a talking head on TV: they are all acting like talk show hosts!

How true is that?!

I also sense a whole heckuvalot of taking things personally. The storied "comity" in the Senate is gone, gloves are off. I smell desperation, a deep desire to be a winner in the eyes of the American people with little regard to majority opinion, just the audience of the day. Two of the most honest quasi-politicians I've ever heard of are Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura. They didn't seem to give a flyin' eff if someone agreed, this is what they believed. That guy down in Florida (Congresscritter) who said something to the effect of "Die Sooner" gets more respect from me than a Vitter in Louisiana railing against sex outside of marriage or whatever his soup du jour is.

Kick 'em all out and re-earn the right to be in office. Get them legit challengers.

David D chimes in:

Problem is that people believe the debate is about climate change or global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) or whatever you want to call it. We know this for certain because there are all sorts of graphs w/pretty pictures and lines 'splaining what it means. And both sides have them.

And they have nothing whatsoever to do with the real agenda.

The debate is really about creating a new world order under one global authority using a socialist/communist model as its operating basis. It's about redistribution of wealth. It's about the destruction of the private enterprise, free enterprise, private ownership of property and wealth model that is the fundamental basis of capitalism and free-market economies. (Yes, I will agree that there does need to be some effective level of oversight). The environment is merely the battleground of choice because it can be rationalized as being global in scope.

If you don't believe that, look at the proposed solutions to climate change and see who is most hurt by them, who stands to benefit and who stands to make money. It's not about clean air or reducing CO2. Carbon credits do not reduce CO2. They simply allow (force) money to be moved from one entity to another (redistributing wealth, but exactly to whom and why should THEY get it?); the exact same about of CO2 is produced. So exactly how does that help the environment? (Of course, someone is richer and someone else is poorer and the air is still exactly the same as it was.)

It's all a con job, and too many are falling for it. That's why the debate has to be over. If real debate is permitted, the charlatans will be found out. Can't have that. Watch and follow the money.

Kathy:

You are talking a multi-leveled chess game, one which most folks aren't capable of understanding much less playing. That's reality. There are some who can appreciate 3+ levels, but even fewer the 12 level game.

"You go to (the chess game) with what you have and not what you wish you had," to paraphrase Rumsfeld. Can you drag folks up to the 12th level? Good luck with that one!

Ken:

Everyone Must Go. EMG is looking better and better.

Tom agrees:

TTBO. Throw The B4st4rds Out. All of 'em.

I repeat my previous contention that "None of the Above" should be on the ballot for every race. If "None of the Above" gets more votes for Dogcatcher, then we don't have a dogcatcher for the length of the term. And if "None of the Above" wins the election for your state's Senate seat, then you only have one Senator for the next six years. If "None of the Above" also wins the *next* Senate seat election, then both seats are vacant. In my wildest dreams, I sometimes fantasize that "None of the Above" wins enough seats that some political body can't come up with a quorum, and the whole body (city council, county commission, US House of Representatives, whatever) doesn't meet for the next 2/4/6 years....

Dave S. replies to Kathy's "problem is..."

Sorry, there may be a few folks who think they can achieve a "new world order" but I certainly believe that there are enough folks in America, Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc. that would fight it that it will never happen. Have a little faith in mankind. :)

Ken:

Dave, Unfortunately for your theory, one of the people who believe in the new world order is currently our President, he has many allies in this belief in leadership positions in the Congress, and he has already appointed another one of them to the US Supreme Court.

The Politico has it right: Obama is more interested in being President of the world than in his current more limited job.

But I agree that many people will fight this movement. Maybe the next President will be among them, you never know...

Dave S:

Ken, I respectively disagree with your assertion about Obama. However, even if it were true, we are in agreement that it would be fought.

Ken:

Ok, we can agree to disagree on Obama’s position on this. But do you believe that Gore's goal is the new world order, with America simply being one of many nation-states which are bound by world courts and UN mandates to transfer wealth from the rich countries (which somehow exclusively means America: odd thing, that) to everyone else? Or do you believe that he has deluded himself into believing his completely unsupported hype about "Human beings (again, meaning exclusively Americans) are 100% responsible for the planet having a fever"? Or do you believe that he is simply a charlatan, making money off of the latest politically correct agenda?

But in any case, I am glad that we are on the same side in fighting their new world order agenda, even though we might disagree on who our allies and opponents are...

Dave S:

Ken, I do not believe any of your thoughts on Gore.

I believe that he believes that there is climate change underway and that a very large portion of it is caused by man's large usage of carbon fuels since the large 1700’s and the resulting large amounts of CO2 in the air. This is not inherently bad except that he believes the results of this are likely to dramatically change the conditions of some areas of he world, particularly the coast lines, and could, in time, displace large portions of mankind causing large economic uncertainties in some areas of the world. In the worst case, he believes these economic changes could wreck havoc on modern civilization.

He also believes it could change some of the currents of the oceans and push us into an ice age.

If his worries were to come true, that might not be good for mankind.

Win interjects:

"If his worries were to come true, that might not be good for mankind"

And what about if he's wrong Dave?

And if he is wrong, and we have become independent of foreign oil, than that is good also...

Ken:

But Dave, so much of his evidence has been publicly discredited. The "hockey stick" graph, the admission by NASA that they faked the numbers (using September numbers for October and then being "surprised" at the rate of global warming), the deliberate massaging of data and then the deletion of the original data so that no one can verify the numbers, and the most recent admission by many of the most passionate scientists that they deliberately discredit any publication which airs opposing viewpoints and they are using the peer review process to not publish anything that doesn’t follow the party line.

But I guess once "the debate is over", minor things like facts don’t mean anything. Sigh.

Win:

Ken, I disagree with this assertion on Gore. He just wants to make money and be adored by his flock, and has no ethics about how he does it.

Ken:

Oh, we know that he is a snake oil salesman: that debate is over... :^)

The only question is whether he honestly believes his snake oil is helpful to people, or whether he is an out and out scammer.

Dave S.

Ken, I never said I agreed with everything he said. I just think that he believes what he was told, not that he is part of a great conspiracy to take over the world as you seemed to suggest.

Many times leaders want to believe something so much (It must be right!) that they ignore arguments against what they want to believe. Another example is Bush II’s and Cheney’s beliefs that there were WMDs in Iraq.

As for me, all I have to do is look outside and believe there is climate change underway. Is it as bad as Gore says? I don’t know. Is man part of the cause? Probably at least part of it. Makes a lot of sense if you pump as much CO2 into the air as we have over the last 200 years. Is man all of the cause? Probably not. Do I want to live through a ‘little ice age" as the world did in the 1700s? Probably not.

Does it make sense regardless of whether climate change is going on to get this country off its dependence on oil from totalitarian states and to reduce significantly our trade deficit? Yes. So for those reasons I support many of the actions he suggests, not because Gore may want to rule the world.

David D.

If all of that were true then why do the climate alarmists spend so much time and effort promoting policies and programs that don't seem to really do a whole lot to actually really improve the environment. All of the most prominent programs being advocated first and foremost aim to take money from one group -- the developed nations, the corporate entities -- and give it to...........well, to whom exactly?

Cap and Trade is being held up as a major cure-all by the alarmists. What exactly does it accomplish? It states that if your carbon "footprint" is over some certain (arbitrarily?) assigned level, you have to pay some amount to someone. To whom? What do "they" actually do with the money? (and remember the sum will be huge) Who decides who "they" are and what qualifications someone might need to become "they"? Are there real, enforceable requirements to use the money to actually do something productive to help the environment?

In the end, is the environment any better off because of C and T? C and T has increased the cost of goods produced/doing business. Over-the-limit entities have paid someone an amount of money -- essentially a Carbon tax. Do you not think that cost will be passed on to the consumer? So, ultimately, it is the consumer who pays the Carbon tax.

And, you might say that is how it should be. And you would be right. Up to a point. That point is where you need to justify the rationale for charging the consumer extra. The rationale is that the tax is to help the environment.

So where are the results? And what happened to the money.

Of course, then there's the argument that only the developed, industrialized countries should be subject to such taxation. The rationale there is that those countries are responsible for the alleged mess we're in. Developing and under-developed countries would be exempt from the taxation because they aren't responsible for the current mess. Allegedly.

And that might in fact be true, at least partially. But it's irrelevant if the original premise -- we need to cut down on carbon emissions -- is in fact valid. If that's really the objective, then the new rules should apply to all. Past sins are a moot point if the real issue really is climate change.

Of course, if the real issue is transfer of wealth, then the current plan being advocated works just fine.

And the alarmists really are very happy with this approach. What will happen to the money? Look at who will get to decide. Then look at who the most vocal alarmists are. Doesn't it make you wonder just a bit?

Don't get me wrong; I really am in favor of helping to not screw up the environment. I just don't think that climate change policies, applied globally but not uniformly are the answer. We'd get better results and probably far greater cost-efficiency if we addressed the basic stuff closer to home. Clean up the waterways. Go after the obvious polluters. We have plenty of laws on the books already that can and should be used. We don't do the easy, basic stuff that's right in front of us. What makes anyone think we're ready for or capable of effectively implementing globally applied programs?

Global programs are doomed to fail; there are too many different variables in too many geographies for a comprehensive global policy to succeed. And, too many ways for too many to cheat.

Ken:

What I mostly object to is the very thing that you just did: conflate the actions recommended to combat man-made global warming, and the actions needed to improve the economic condition of this country (reduce our dependence on all oil and specifically foreign oil).

There is no connection between those two issues in any way, except that Gore and his disciples combine them to be able to besmirch the motivations of their opponents: "the only reason you oppose us is that you are working for the foreign oil companies".

I fully endorse reducing our dependence on oil, foreign and otherwise. I want to reduce our dependence on coal, foreign and otherwise. I have had a solar water heater on our house for over a decade, and I only turn on the electric water heater a couple months out of the year. I am an enthusiastic supporter for research into wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc, none of which are production ready but hold out great promise for reducing our energy costs and the economic power of our stated enemies. Our new house will be primarily propane (we will try for propane refrigerator and freezer, though I don’t know if the technology is there yet) with a solar water heater as well as the minimum electrical services necessary (lights, computers, TV, etc).

But I think Gore is a loon, who learned a few talking points years ago (all of which have since been discredited) and who is parroting them without having the vaguest clue what he is talking about. But I also think he is riding this issue both for his personal aggrandizement (financial and otherwise), as well as his goal of enforcing these rules at the supra-national level, bypassing all the messy foolishness of national sovereignty and voters and the will of the people and the economic well-being of this planet: he knows what is best, the rest of us should shut up and fall in line. After all, the debate is over...

So please don’t think that everyone who wants to reduce pollution and would prefer not to send lots of money to fund al Qaeda via oil payments to Saudi Arabia also thinks that the evil Americans are deliberately causing global warming just for fun.

They are two separate issues, and need to remain separate.

Dave S.

David, I never said I was in favor of cap and trade. You raise some good points. I just believe we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil coming from dictator-run countries, and we need to reduce our foreign trade deficit. Much of that money goes to these dictators and then is recycled as financing of terrorists.

Yes, doing some more drilling is part of the solution, more atomic is part of the answer, clean coal (if there is such a beast) is part of the answer, conservation is part of the answer, efficiency is part of the answer, and finding the big replacement for oil is part of the answer.

I would love an initiative from the administration that covered all of these that the Republicans were also behind. Lovely wish. I just hate seeing the argument that any effort is part of an effort to "rule the world" which is where this discussion started.

Ken:

Dave, With all respect, you did it again.

Gaining independence from foreign oil is the part that everyone agrees on. We may differ as to whether we need to focus on research for solar/wind/geo-thermal/whatever or focus on drilling domestically, but the goals are the same.

The "rule the world" goal is solely from the man-made global warming people, who may or may not care or believe in man-made global warming (it really doesn’t matter if they do or don’t), they are using it to ram through horrific policies in the UN which over-ride US sovereignty by imposing rules on both international and domestic manufacturing and commerce.

Stop treating these as the same thing: they aren’t. The man-made global warming people’s (Gore, Obama) goal is a socialist one world government, while the people who want independence from foreign oil (you and I, and I believe everybody else on this list) span many political goals.

Win:

Ken I don’t think it's a half want one thing and half want the other.

I see some Republicans who want it all -- more supply of ALL types of energy and less demand for petroleum in particular. Can someone name more than 2 or 3 token Dems who think that way? Any that are in leadership positions?

Ken:

I don’t agree.

The Republicans focus on what can be done short-term (domestic drilling for oil, mining for coal and nuclear), and give lip service to longer term research of as yet unproven technologies like solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc. Short term vs long term thinking.

The Democrats focus on the capabilities that might someday be available for things like solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc, while opposing any effort which might give short term relief (drilling, mining, nuclear). Long term vs short term thinking.

Unfortunately, we need both types of thinking to solve this problem, and nobody is doing that. Sigh.

Ken, there is a lot of truth in your comments here...

Win:

I don’t quite see it that way, but hey.

I see a pragmatic approach that says increase energy supply today AND invest in research to make alternatives commercially viable. And I see an idealistic, aspirational approach that wishes alternative sources were viable and seeks to make them more commercially viable by heavily subsidizing them and raising the cost of traditional sources.

Yes, those are a bit extreme, but fundamentally one group seeks to have the market drive this and the other seeks to have government drive it.

And Win, the path as usual is probably somewhere in between.

Many really big investments in this country have required the government to finance the initial investment.

• Railroads: Financed by giving land to the railroad companies.
• Superhighways: Built by the government in the 50’s and 60’s.
• Airplanes: Much development via WWI and WWII investment.
• All forms of space technology (GPS, satellite communications, etc.)

Dave S.

Ken, yes these are two issues. However, many of the actions for solving one will help solve the other. Thus there is a connection...at least in my opinion.

Gore may be much of what you say he is...doing all this arguing for personnel benefit. I just don’t see it as an effort to create some great global world order. With him or Obama as the leader. That is where this discussion began. So...as on so many issues, we will just have to agree to disagree on this "world order" question.

First rev. 2009.12.04