"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f61bb4b8-6b77-492e-9e01-aabdaadc0baf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 10, 11:57 pm, "ZN00B" <ZN...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ROBERT BRYCE
>
> Oct 16 2007
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce10162007.html
>
> Facts don't matter. Only spin matters.
>
> That's the main conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Al Gore was
> awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week.
>
> My complaint has nothing to do with the science of global warming or
> whether or not the current warming of the planet is due solely to
> manmade causes. Rather, it's this: Gore won the prize even though his
> do***entary, An Inconvenient Truth, concludes with one of the most
> blatantly absurd statements ever committed to film.
>
> Just before the final credits, in a segment that advises viewers as to
> what they might do to help slow global warming, the following line
> appears onscreen: "In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions
> to
> zero."
>
> Again, the point is not whether or not I agree with Gore's view on
> warming. Instead the objection stems from this obvious point: We
> humans
> breathe. And in doing so, we emit carbon dioxide. The idea that we can
> somehow negate the gas that results from our respiration--through the
> legerdemain of carbon credits, or compact fluorescent light bulbs, or
> fleets of Toyota Priuses is simply not possible. And the fact that
> none
> of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the
> movie--including, particularly, Gore himself--paused to consider the
> veracity of their declaration leaves me agog.
>
> Imagine any other do***entary--on virtually any subject--that
> concluded
> with a line that declared something like, "By the way, the world is
> flat." The producers and everyone associated with the movie would be
> the
> laughing stock of the modern world. And yet, when it comes to the
> claim
> that you can "reduce your carbon emissions to zero," Gore has been
> given
> a free pass. The obvious conclusion: facts and science don't really
> matter. What matters, it appears, is how dedicated you are to the
> cause
> of publicizing what Gore calls the "climate crisis." And thus, Gore's
> evangelism, not his facts, earned him the Nobel.
>
> Which brings me to my other objection: It's fine to say we have a
> problem with climate change. Perhaps we do. So what's the solution?
> Put
> another way, given that the Nobel committee--as well as lots of
> politicians and activists--agree with Gore that carbon dioxide is bad,
> then what?
>
> The world economy (and most living beings) depends, one way or
> another,
> on emitting carbon dioxide. And the overwhelming majority of those
> carbon dioxide releases are a byproduct of our consumption of fossil
> fuels. Those fuels allow us to be mobile, feed ourselves, stay warm,
> and
> generally improve our living standards. As Decartes might have put it:
> we are, therefore we emit carbon dioxide.
>
> And yet Gore offers no viable alternatives to the fossil fuels that we
> depend upon to sustain our civilization. What are his suggestions?
> Well,
> at the end of an An Inconvenient Truth, Gore and his fellow producers
> provide yet more proof that facts don't matter. In the same section
> that
> advises viewers about what they can do to fight global warming, Gore
> conflates the issues of global warming and energy independence by
> suggesting that they encourage the biggest scam of the modern era:
> ethanol. The text that appears on the screen advises viewers: "Reduce
> our dependence on foreign oil, help farmers grow alcohol fuels."
>
> Even a modi*** of research into the issue would have shown Gore and
> his
> pals that alcohol fuels--even with massive subsidies--are not going to
> make a significant dent in the world's fossil fuel habit. In fact,
> ethanol and biofuels in general may make global warming worse. A
> recent
> study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist P. J. Crutzen, published in
> the
> journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that biofuels made
> from
> rapeseed and corn release about twice as much nitrous oxide as was
> previously thought. Nitrous oxide is nearly 300 times more powerful as
> a
> greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The re****t's co-author, Keith
> Smith,
> from the University of Edinburgh, summed up the study, saying growing
> biofuels "is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the
> climate issue worse."
>
> Last year, Gore told Grist magazine that cellulosic ethanol would "be
> a
> huge new source of energy, particularly for the trans****tation sector.
> You're going to see it all over the place. You're going to see a lot
> more flex-fuel vehicles. You're going to see new processes that
> utilize
> waste as the source of energy, so there's no petroleum consumed in the
> process."
>
> But cellulosic ethanol is decades away from being viable. That's not
> the
> opinion of Big Oil, instead it comes from the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture. Last month, the agency's Economic Research Service
> re****ted
> that while cellulose-based fuels hold "some longer-term promise, much
> research is needed to make it commercially economical and expand
> beyond
> the 250-million-gallon minimum specified for 2013 in the Energy Policy
> Act of 2005."
>
> Just for the sake of argument, let's assume the USDA is wrong. And
> let's
> further assume that given enough federal subsidies, cellulosic ethanol
> has a big technical breakthrough and expands at the same rate as what
> we've seen with corn-based ethanol. It took more than two decades of
> fat
> subsidies before the corn ethanol sector was able to produce 5 billion
> gallons of ethanol per year. And today, that industry provides only
> about 1 percent of America's oil needs while gobbling up about 14
> percent of the country's corn crop. If cellulosic ethanol follows that
> same trajectory as what we've seen with corn ethanol, it will be 2030
> or
> so before cellulosic ethanol will be able to supply just 1 percent of
> America's oil needs. So the key question Gore must answer is this:
> does
> a 1 percent share of the oil market qualify cellulosic ethanol as
> "huge"?
>
> Gore advocates solar power and wind power as alternatives to fossil
> fuels. That's fine. What are the facts?
>
> Well, according to projections from the Energy Information
> Administration, both solar and wind will add lots of new generation
> capacity over the next two decades, but by 2030, the combined output
> of
> both sources will only total about 70 billion kilowatt-hours of
> electricity per year. That's a miniscule amount when compared to the
> expected annual electricity generation from coal (3,351 billion kWh)
> per
> year, nuclear (871 billion kWh) and natural gas (1,003 kWh).
>
> The problem is that wind and solar are both incurably intermittent.
> The
> sun doesn't always ****ne and the wind doesn't always blow. That
> means--unless we have a huge technological breakthrough that permits
> large-scale electricity storage or we are willing to live with
> frequent
> blackouts and brownouts--we are going to continue relying on the same
> power plants that we have now, and they use coal, uranium and natural
> gas.
>
> Those are the facts. It's unfortunate that the Nobel committee doesn't
> seem to care about them.
>
> Robert Bryce lives in Austin, Texas and managing editor of Energy
> Tribune. He is the author of Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of
> Texas, America's Superstate. His third book, Gusher of Lies: The
> Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence," will be published in
> March
> by PublicAffairs. He can be reached at: rob...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
> "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
You know you're doing a good job against the agw stupidity when one of
their silly lapdogs targets all your posts with crude personal attacks
and threats. Good job Bonzo.
]
Thank you.
--
Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
re****t the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
|
