Thanks, Don, for your patience is responding to questions I regarded as rhetorical.

I would add only this about the electric car issue:

A range of 300 miles and 8 hours to recharge is not that much of an issue for most people who don't commute nearly that distance on a daily basis, and who could then plug it in when they return home.

The price point is certainly high, but we still live in an age when people don't blink at dropping 50K on an SUV. And, more importantly, as competition and technology increase, prices will drop, just as they do with every new technology (a reason I marveled at those who stood in line for the new i-Phone when it first came out, or at my friend who spent $700 on a digital camera several years ago, when a much better quality one can be purchased for under $100 today). It's the way technology works, but we haven't let it develop with regards to alternative energies. Market forces don't see the value, so although market forces would take over, we need to artificially spur the market on in that direction, if we want the market to fix the problem. On the other hand, if the unseen costs of fossil fuels were factored in at the pump or on your electric bill, such technologies would become more competitive, and we would start to see prices drop, as innovation increases. Think of where we would be if energy technology had been progressing like computer technology in the last 30 years.

As for electricity to power those cars--it is indeed problematic if that electricity comes from coal, which is nasty for more reasons than just CO2. But, as energy technology and innovation improves, along with improvements in efficiency, coal-based electricity need not be the main source of that energy.

I will give you some musings on your questions, but perhaps not any answers. Your questions are valid. The problem is that the issue is far deeper than climate change, and our world's leaders are not addressing them.

You are right--few people are willing to pay a Mercedes price for an electric car that can only go 300 miles before needing an 8-hour charge. And we don't have the electrical generating capacity to operate even one third of our automotive fleet on electricity. But here's the dirty secret our politicians are not talking about. Petroleum is already in depletion worldwide. For each of the last ten years, new exploration has uncovered less reserve petroleum than we have used that year. And world oil production probably peaked last summer, about the time that the price peaked. (Ask yourself, given such high prices a barrel of oil was fetching last year, why couldn't the producers ramp up production to take advantage of the high prices? The answer has to be that they couldn't--they had reached a physical production limit imposed by geology, that the high prices couldn't overcome.) We simply won't be able to continue running our fleet on gasoline and diesel all that much longer, either.

The upshot of that is that our society will soon become far less mobile than it is. And at this point there's probably little that can be done to change that. I give it another ten years or so before things really begin to slow down.

Another thing that you may not have noticed. The credit crunch as hampered most peoples' abilities to buy new vehicles. We have had to resort to tricks--cash for clunkers--to keep sales up. We can't do that forever. Car sales are down, probably permanently. Nobody has the money for a new vehicle, even if they're still working, which many, as you know, are not. And many that are still working are making far less than they used to with no prospects that their high-paying jobs will ever come back.

We're keeping our old cars running, for example, because although our credit is OK, we can't afford car payments. So we fix things that go wrong and keep them running. And try to use them less.

If we burn less coal for electricity, we'll have to find another source of power. Lots of people are talking about nuclear, but the problem is that uranium is also a finite resource and will soon be in depletion, just like petroleum. And latest estimates are that coal isn't nearly as abundant as once thought.

So your questions are quite legitimate. One thing for sure--we won't be able to continue our extravagant lifestyles much longer. We need to be preparing to do more with less. We need to be preparing to learn how to do things for ourselves and to team up with others. We need to be re-localizing our economies. But the politicians aren't talking about that. They're only worried, after all, about the next election.

Way to address none of my questions.

Cheap oil is running out, our dependency on foreign oil is increasing with each passing year, and as China and India come into their own fossil fuel economy, competition for resources will increase.

These are facts. So we have a choice. We can either do something about it to prepare for the future and develop alternative means of fueling our economy.

Or we can label it an absolute joke and stick our heads in the sand. I suppose it wouldn't matter to us, as we might be dead before we really see the impacts of it. But if you have kids, perhaps you might care about their future.

I would say that there is an attempt to move away from fossil fuels, but it is failing miserably. I saw something in the paper today about a Tesla electric car, but this is not the 100k one, it's a 49k one. Really? $49,000? Who is going to buy that? Me? Nope? You?
Here are some questions...

What's powering the plants where that electricity is coming from?

The car has a range of 300 miles, and takes 8 hours to recharge. How will that work within our mobile culture?

Why won't China and India sign on to Kyoto? Why would they! They have 10's of millions of people without electricity and water.

Oh, and what about the 1200 limos and 140 planes flying into Copenhagen? Oh, I know...they'll just buy carbon credits!

This whole thing is an absolute joke.

Yes, if only there was some sort of means of getting the nations together to talk about this. Some sort of accord or summit...

In any case, if China and India don't move away from a fossil fuel economy, that

a. doesn't mean it is an excuse for us not to

and

b. only makes it far more of a national security issue when billions of people begin to compete for those dwindling resources.

I'm evading nothing as there was no question asked. Even if we did move away from fossil fuels, India and China will not. And who are we to tell them what to do?

Of course, if they moved away from fossil fuel economies, they wouldn't be doing that anymore, either. Once again, you evade the topic.

"imagine not having to try to defend our oil interests in the Middle East anymore."

Imagine. Well, I suppose China could do it. They've done such a bang-up humanitarian job in the Sudan, right?

'compassionate engagement modeled on Jesus'....sounds like the gospel to me bro.

There are a lot of very good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. Climate change is only one of them. National security is certainly another--imagine not having to try to defend our oil interests in the Middle East anymore.

Our economy depends on cheap, plentiful energy, which is supplied by oil. The nations that have by far the most oil are nations that aren't all that fond of us. We are well past the peak in our own oil supplies, so we become more and more dependent on these nations for our oil. It is far better if we free ourselves of this dependency, hence, the national security issue.

"Matter of national security that it is."

What do you mean by that?

"So I guess all that advertising from oil companies creating and developing alternative energy sources because of global warming are just propaganda."

It is, at least in part, probably propaganda. Oil companies are likely not seeking alternative energy due to some altruistic desire to develop more environmentally-friendly energy sources. Those sources are expensive right now, and companies tend to avoid costly practices unless they have a good reason to pursue them.

It is far more likely they are developing those alternative sources because they recognize, more than anyone else, that fossil fuel reserves are waning fast. And if they want to continue to make money, it is in their best interests to be on the cutting edge of energy technology, regardless of the kind of energy.

So, yes, it is probably propaganda. But on the bright side, at least they do seem to be moving into the alternatives direction...and it is in everyone's best interest to move away from a fossil fuel economy. Matter of national security that it is.

Thanks Buckeye,

Thirty years ago, wasn't Hanson (Al Gore's guy) preaching a coming ice age. I believe so, but know you will set me straight if I am wrong.:D

So I guess all that advertising from oil companies creating and developing alternative energy sources because of global warming are just propaganda.

Off the subject. Are you a Buckeye fan? I am.

"There never was a debate or a discussion of the science from the beginning until now."

ROLF!! That's patently untrue! Thirty years ago when the first papers were published expressing concern over the "greenhouse effect" and the possibility that fossil fuel burning could be warming the planet, those papers were greeted with--skepticism. As it should have. Scientists are naturally skeptical--that's what makes them good scientists. They want to see evidence backed up by facts.

Therefore, they went to work gathering data and testing more hypotheses in an attempt to falsify the early reports. As more and more data came in that supported the hypothesis that the earth indeed is warming up and that the warming is largely due to CO2 emissions, they became less skeptical. Near consensus among scientists is not evidence of a conspiracy; rather, it's evidence that they were unable to falsify the hypothesis.

"Amazing what millions in grant money will make people do to promote an idea and sell it to the masses."

Amazing the money trail that you global warming deniers seem to ignore (reported in http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/co...
"Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):
Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

"Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:
Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

"If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc."

I sincerely doubt whether available grant money to study climate change comes anywhere close to the $36 million that the fossil fuel industry has spent lobbying Congress, not to mention the money needed to put up all those climate-change-denial Web sites and other media efforts.

Please. Get your facts straight before making these kinds of ridiculous assertions.

"This year alone, EPYC has run nonviolent climate justice workshops with more than 8,000 young people (most with little or no contact with Christianity), inviting them amid our ecological crisis to become [eco]prophets and introducing them to an understanding of Christianity which provides a spirituality of compassionate engagement modeled on Jesus (rather than indifferent escapism dressed up in Jesus-drag that simply reflects the patterns of the world)."

Meanwhile their souls and eternal destiny remain in jeopardy just as they were before they became involved with this organization. I am not seeing the gospel of Christ being preached here. My opinion.

It is not certain yet that it was a hacker that produced the emails rather than a whistleblower.

And as for Ngchen's point of being too many conspirators and no whistleblowers. Amazing what millions in grant money will make people do to promote an idea and sell it to the masses.

What is the most astounding thing is how those who have bought into this propaganda from the beginning will not let go of it no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Looking forward to knowing the truth, one thing ClimateGate has done is awaken the public to the need of really looking into this so called "scientific consensus" and see if the data and the science really measures up. There never was a debate or a discussion of the science from the beginning until now.

It's too bad that the raw data was trashed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environme...

As for not trusting "burglars and thieves", I suppose we should have not gotten upset about Watergate then?

BlueCollar, see my comments on the Day 7 Countdown. There is little to nothing in there that casts serious doubt on climate science, not to mention the issue of trusting burglars and thieves (computer hackers) over researchers.

You may be right to a certain degree; however, we should remember the general rule against conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories generally do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny for the reason that there would have to be way too many conspirators, and essentially zero whistle-blowers. Knowing human nature, it seems unlikely. Furthermore, conspiracy theories are essentially unfalsifiable - the conspiracy theorist can always tag anyone who doesn't agree as being another member of said conspiracy.