The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowin' in the Wind


Turns out Bob Dylan was right after all. A new study by Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson (via Stanford News Service) puts wind at the top of the list of energy sources to wean the world off fossil fuels and meet the challenge of reversing climate change.

"Clean Coal" isn’t. Nuclear carries unacceptable risks and a huge waste disposal problem, and ethanol is worse than oil.

With the energy transition now an urgent part of global economic recovery, this report provides a fantastic road map for the Obama administration. Here are a few highlights:

Best to worst electric power sources:

  1. Wind power
  2. Concentrated solar power (CSP)
  3. Geothermal power
  4. Tidal power
  5. Solar photovoltaics (PV)
  6. Wave power
  7. Hydroelectric power
  8. A tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Best to worst vehicle options:

  1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles)
  2. Wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles)
  3. CSP-BEVs
  4. Geothermal-BEVs
  5. Tidal-BEVs
  6. Solar PV-BEVs
  7. Wave-BEVs
  8. Hydroelectric-BEVs
  9. A tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs
  10. Corn-E85
  11. Cellulosic-E85

It’s not surprising that the Republicans with their "Drill, baby drill" mantra also supported the worst possible options with billions in subsidies and tax credits: Nuclear, coal, and ethanol. I am so grateful that we are not facing a business-as-usual McCain presidency. Eight more years of the fossil guzzling corporate gang-bang would have been more than the biosphere could take.

To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only "new-technology" vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and "flex-fuel" vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.

Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.

Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.

Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.

"There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession," Jacobson said. "Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.

Jacobson’s research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.

"That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels," Jacobson said. "We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all".

"Obviously, wind alone isn’t the solution," Jacobson said. "It’s got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power."

During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson’s lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. "Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy," Jacobson said. Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.

There’s only two things missing from the Stanford report: analysis of fuel production from waste streams–biomass and otherwise–and closed cycle algae production. Even absent those two promising biofuel solutions, it’s abundantly clear: the U.S. must continue to aggressively develop BEV’s whether or not GM survives. The Volt program should be promoted and expanded, whether by GM itself or its successors. Firms like Tesla Motors should be receiving federal money long before the big three. We cannot meet even the modest goal of 20% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 if we all keep driving vehicles with internal combustion engines. This early 20th century technology is killing us, and it’s not even necessary.  Won’t be long before these wheezing, belching behemoths will be consigned to the ash heap of once-useful technological oddities along with the venerable steam engine.

Driving an oil-burner should be seen as out of step as leg-warmers and bolo ties. (Wait, are those back in style?) As out of step as slavery or religion. (Wait, those are both still pretty big, too). OK, a final try: As out of step as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest. There.

Electric vehicles can be made far superior in every way to the old oil-burners. Saving the 15,000 lives now lost to air pollution is equivalent to saving over three times as many people as were killed in the Iraq war–every year. It seems like those are the kind of numbers that should inspire us to launch an all-out national effort. Not to mention the job-creation potential. Ignoring this transition further would be a near-genocidal form of willful ignorance. So are the carboniferous black days of black tar and black lung finally coming to a close? We’ll see if Obama with the backing of Al Gore and a blueprint from Amory Lovins can make this happen. There’s absolutely no reason why not. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Only the old extractive industries and old attitudes are on the chopping block. Hopefully as the joke goes, upon winning the election Obama did not get pulled by oil/coal executives into a darkened room–shown the Zapruder film–and asked "any questions?"

Comments (16 comments)

John Morales / December 13th, 2008, 1:31 am / #1

nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy

Huh? It’s a worry when an estimate includes “the emissions from the burning of cities resulting from nuclear weapons explosions potentially resulting from nuclear energy expansion”, but still, let’s look at Table 3 of the linked paper.

Technology/ Lifecycle/ Opportunity cost emissions due to delays/ War/terrorism (nuclear) or 500 yr leakage (CCS)/ Total
Wind/ 2.8–7.4/ 0/ 0/ 2.8–7.4
Nuclear/ 9–70/ 59–106/ 0–4.1/ 68–180.1

So carbon emissions compare at 2.8-7.4 vs 9-70 for nuclear – a ratio of 3.2-9.4 for actual use and operation (granting all the assumptions).

It only gets to a worst of 24.4 by factoring in “opportunity-cost emissions” – “The investment in an energy technology with a long time between planning and operation increases carbon dioxide and air pollutant emissions relative to a technology with a short time between planning and operation.”

Compare “Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr.” vs “Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10–19 yr.” – yet wind is given opportunity-cost emissions of zero, whilst nuclear is given 59–106 g CO2e/kWh. Given that this factor overwhelms the actual CO2 lifetime usage.

PS I’m all for wind power, but I sense an agenda here.
PPS I did try to follow the reference in the paper to #66 at, but it gave a “document not found error”.

k paul blume / December 13th, 2008, 2:41 am / #2

…and let us never forget the NIMBYs, for whom wind turbines are such an aesthetic affront.

Bulldada / December 14th, 2008, 7:39 pm / #3

Oh, C’mon. Noone really believes in “global warming” (or more accurately since the earth went on a cooling trend, we call it “climate change”) anymore.

The government wants to make CO2 a pollutant. Understand; this is what we breathe out. They want to make what you exhale considered pollution. That means, you as a human being living your life are causing the earth to warm! HA! It is so stupid….


Sadly, some people still believe it. They think there is a such thing as “consensus proofs”. These people have no right to dabble in science. They are communists in scientists clothes.

Oooh. Already I hear “straw man”. Give me a break. Naming something does not mean it’s invalid (unless you are an abusive parent.).

More and more scientists are “coming out” saying this shit is bunk. Blacksun: what kind of evidence will it take for you to “believe”?

I think you are intellegent enough to recognize that “global warming” er… “climate change” is a great way to usher in communism or at least bring capitalism to its knees (“Natural Capitalism” is Socialism if you look into it.) You got the balls to admit that?

There is an agenda… And it aint “saving the earth”.

BlackSun / December 14th, 2008, 8:05 pm / #4


this is a done deal. I refuse to be baited by you on this issue. Fossil fuels will be a thing of the past. People who massively profited from carbon releases may eventually go on trial for genocide. Mark my words. We’re on a perilous trajectory.

Yes, we breathe out a pollutant. We also shit and throw away a lot of trash. All life interacts with and changes its environment. When the changes are so great it gets out of balance and threatens the ability of the environment to nurture life, unintelligent life-forms fall victim to the changes and die. Intelligent life forms know that’s not inevitable, and that the environment must be brought back into balance. They have the wisdom and foresight to do so.

Sometimes that takes passing laws to reign in the Neanderthals who think it’s OK to keep profiting from digging carbon from under the ground and putting it in the atmosphere at rates millions of times greater than the natural carbon cycle.

That takes the courage to stand up to the short-sighted deniers and exploiters who can’t seem to understand the concept of closed loops and a renewable economy–a win-win for everyone. (Unless you work in a coal mine.)

It’s shameful that people actually stand up and defend really old and rotten ways of powering the world. Really? What a failure of imagination. Lighting shit on fire to run things is the best you can do? Why fight against better technology? I just don’t get it. Even if C02 weren’t a problem, resource depletion would be.

But C02 *IS* a problem, which just makes the situation that much more urgent.

Sorry dude, you’re on the wrong side of history on this one.

BlackSun / December 21st, 2008, 7:37 am / #5

I neglected to say here that in a renewable economy, even coal miners would get a better deal. They would no longer have to put up with dangerous conditions and work underground. Talk about win-win. There are far more jobs to be had creating carbon-free energy from available natural sources than extracting it. The only extractive energy source that makes environmental and economic sense is heat-mining, otherwise known as geothermal. That's nature's nuclear power!

Bulldada / December 14th, 2008, 8:50 pm / #6

Blacksun: So why do you not endorse a free market solution? The green movement is a on a roll. Hell 2 years ago it was at its peak. Is it because it’s failing now that you require a beuracrat to step in for your agenda?

Yu say: “People who massively profited from carbon releases may eventually go on trial for genocide”

In your dreams duder. By the way, are you not an accomplice to the crime? Do you drive a wind powered car? If not you are a hypocrite. Jesus christ, Black sun, Answer the question: Are you just in this fake green movement for socialistic ideas or are you really concerned about the enviroment?

I myself AM an enviromentalist. The water is polluted, the highways are covered with garbage… These are things that require real action. Phoney and debunked nonsence like global warming take away from real problems so politicians can gain more control. Try doing some research outside of

BlackSun / December 14th, 2008, 10:08 pm / #7


Free market solution: Check. Make fossil fuels pay their true costs which include, in the U.S. alone, 40,000-60,000 premature deaths each year from soot, and hundreds of thousands of pollution-related illnesses. (The 15,000 mentioned above is from tailpipe emissions, the higher figure is inclusive of industry and electric power generation). Beyond that, there’s not enough money in the world to pay for the climate damage. Within a generation, because of C02-forced glacial melt, 2 billion people could lack access to clean water.

Accomplices: Check. We all are. I’m just a little less than most. I drive a Prius that’s double the average efficiency. I buy green power from LADWP (10% renewable at present), and I also purchased carbon offsets. If renewable energy were easily available, I’d have already switched over to 100%. Thanks to the Republicans, we haven’t even moved toward that option for the past 8 years.

Debunked: No. You guys are like the flat-earth society. You can still find them out there, even after the spherical Earth was photographed from space. Oh, right, space flight was a hoax, too, and we didn’t go to the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job. If NASA didn’t go to the moon, why trust their climate data? Or the other 99.5% of scientists who corroborate it. Need I mention that the EU just adopted binding 20% reduction by 2020, or that the UN released its report affirming the overwhelming scientific consensus. Oh that’s right, it’s the dreaded plot to form a one-world socialist superstate.

Environmentalism: Cleaning up the highways and waterways while ignoring global warming is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you want a clean environment, embrace a closed-loop economy and sustainable renewable energy. The rest will take care of itself. Otherwise you’re trying to bail out said Titanic with a sieve-bottomed bucket.

Here’s a commercial film on solar from Dow Chemical. As they say "the paradigm has shifted."

Wind turbines will produce 10% of the world’s electricity by 2020. Film from leading wind turbine manufacturer Vestas.

Insurance companies are starting to price carbon into their premiums. They must know something the naysayers don’t. In 2008, the first U.S. coal plant was denied a permit based on climate concerns. The fossil BS will come to an end.

Kansas rejects two coal plants.

Georgia rejects coal plant.

Advocacy organizations:

Repower America (100% renewable electricity for America in 10 years)

350 (PAC for 350 ppm maximum C02 goal)

Global Warming and Climate Change Policy Page (Goddard Space Flight Center-NASA)

…once the process of change begins, once the momentum shifts, once the decisions are arrived at, then the task often becomes easier in the doing. As we start making these changes, we will see that they do strengthen our economies, they do create millions of new jobs, and they do improve the standard of living….Very simply put, it is wrong for this generation to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every future generation…They deserve better, and politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced. This crisis does offer us the chance to experience what few generations have had the privilege of experiencing, a generational mission, a compelling moral purpose, a shared cause and the opportunity to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and narrower concerns to embrace a genuine moral generational mission. —Al Gore, 12 December 2008


Bulldada / December 16th, 2008, 5:53 pm / #8

Do you realize how much you sound like a facist when you say:

“People who massively profited from carbon releases may eventually go on trial for genocide”, “Yes, we breathe out a pollutant.”, “Sometimes that takes passing laws to reign in the Neanderthals…”.

Call this an Ad Hoc argument, or a strawman attack, WHATEVER fancy names you give to honest questions as a way to avoid them, but you see, you are naturally an addict to END OF THE WORLD senarios. This ain’t your first one is it? I’m curious to know how you reacted to the Y2K scare.

Look, we don’t know if AGW is happening or not. I doubt it is. Too much proof against it (real proof, not charts). But you dodge the question I originally asked:

“I think you are intellegent enough to recognize that “global warming” er… “climate change” is a great way to usher in communism or at least bring capitalism to its knees (”Natural Capitalism” is Socialism if you look into it.) You got the balls to admit that?”

Is this your real goal? You have to admit, you (straw man alert!) did grow up in a communists dream world with END OF THE WORLD stuff all over.

The connections between your past and present are too close to be ignored.

By the way, I love your writings and think very highly of you. Hopefully are spats about this subject don’t piss you off too much.

BlackSun / December 16th, 2008, 7:14 pm / #9


Let’s throw out all the charged words like genocide, fascism, and socialism. Natural capitalism is not socialism. I thought Y2K was bunk. Climate change is not an end of the world "scenario," it’s happening right now.

Let me tell you a sci-fi story:

Once upon a time on a giant spaceship, a bunch of people found themselves on an extremely long journey with an unknown destination. The occupants’ parents had always lived on the ship. As far as they knew, the occupants would die on the ship, and many generations of their children will also have to live and die on the ship.

About 15 generations ago, the ships’ occupants used to live at a subsistence level, spending most of their time growing food in a section of the ship which contained soil. But at that time, there were only about 100 people on the ship. The people had no difficulty growing all the food they needed and the systems of the ship had no problem coping with the quantities of waste they generated.

Then, suddenly, people began to learn a lot more about the ship and its functioning. They found out that they could tap into the ship’s fuel source for other needs, and they built a teeming society with all sorts of conveniences which allowed them to live much better and healthier lives and reproduce much faster than before.

Population on the ship began to grow at an exponential rate, and eventually in 15 generations reached a population of 1,000, a level 10 times greater than it had been for most of the journey. Food was still plentiful, because people had discovered how to increase the yield of the soil by burning up still more of the ship’s fuel. Some of the same scientists who had discovered how to give people better lives began to notice some changes. The fuel was becoming harder and harder to pump and some of the pumps that were still working had started to run dry. When they plumbed the depths of the ship’s cargo hold, they discovered that the fuel tanks were more than half exhausted.

Then people began to have breathing problems. In measuring the ship’s carbon dioxide levels, they discovered that they had more than doubled.

Realizing that eventually the people on the ship were on track to poison themselves, they tried in vain to convince them that they had to find ways to both regenerate more fuel so the tanks wouldn’t run dry, and to reduce the deadly buildup of waste gases. They presented a method of regenerating fuel from dust collected from passing stars. It took a lot of manual labor and special techniques to convert the stardust to usable fuel. But it could be done. It was also expensive, but it promised to eliminate the use of any more of the ship’s store of fuel, and therefore to allow the ship to continue on its journey indefinitely.

There were factions on board the ship. People who stood to lose. The people who ran and profited from the industries which were burning the ship’s fuel called the scientists liars, and denied that the burning was the cause of the increased C02 levels. They even hired their own scientists to take measurements, which predictably showed that there was plenty of fuel left and that the levels of C02 were not really harmful.

But the more people investigated the claims, the more they were verified. The captain and top engineers all took a look at the fuel tanks and measured the atmosphere, and sure enough–the people were on track to exhaust the fuel and poison themselves.

Well, said the fuel burners, you don’t want to give up your cheap food and conveniences, do you? Of course not, said the people, we are just trying to feed our kids, and we can’t afford to pay more for food or energy. We’ll go broke. Life is hard enough as it is.

The scientists kept up with their warnings. But in another 2 generations, the fuel was exhausted and the occupants, who had burgeoned to 1,500 in a final gasp of fuel-based reproduction, were all dead.

The only people who survived were the heads of the fuel-burning companies aboard the ship. They had seen the end coming. So they arrested and killed the ship’s captain, chief engineer and scientists. They set aside extra oxygen in special chambers, which they barricaded and defended against the ship’s dying population with laser rifles.

Soon the ship was boarded by the galactic federation, who had received the captain’s final distress call. The fuel-burning traitors were put on trial and convicted of crimes against humanity.


The Earth is a lot bigger spaceship, and there is no galactic federation to come rescue the survivors. It doesn’t have to end this way.

BlackSun / December 17th, 2008, 11:22 pm / #10


Here’s the very latest non-sci-fi government report on Climate Change, which provides detailed information on glacial melt, worsening of North American droughts, sea-level changes and methane releases. It’s not catastrophic………yet. But there’s plenty of reason to be concerned. At over 400 pages, you might want to just read the executive summary:

Based on an assessment of the published scientific literature, the primary conclusions presented in this report are:

• Recent rapid changes at the edges of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets show acceleration of flow and thinning, with the velocity of some glaciers increasing more than twofold. Glacier accelerations causing this imbalance have been related to enhanced surface meltwater production penetrating to the bed to lubricate glacier motion, and to ice-shelf removal, ice-front retreat, and glacier ungrounding that reduce resistance to flow. The present generation of models does not capture these processes. It is unclear whether this imbalance is a short-term natural adjustment or a response to recent climate change, but processes causing accelerations are enabled by warming, so these adjustments will very likely become more frequent in a warmer climate. The regions likely to experience future rapid changes in ice volume are those where ice is grounded well below sea level such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or large glaciers in Greenland like the Jakobshavn Isbrae that flow into the sea through a deep channel reaching far inland. Inclusion of these processes in models will likely lead to sea-level projections for the end of the 21st century that substantially exceed the projections presented in the IPCC AR4 report (0.28 ± 0.10 m to 0.42 ± 0.16 m rise).

• There is no clear evidence to date of human-induced global climate change on North American precipitation amounts. However, since the IPCC AR4 report, further analysis of climate model scenarios of future hydroclimatic change over North America and the global subtropics indicate that subtropical aridity is likely to intensify and persist due to future greenhouse warming. This projected drying extends poleward into the United States Southwest, potentially increasing the likelihood of severe and persistent drought there in the future. If the model results are correct then this drying may have already begun, but currently cannot be definitively identified amidst the considerable natural variability of hydroclimate in Southwestern North America.

• The AMOC is the northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic, and the southward flow of colder water in the deep Atlantic. It plays an important role in the oceanic transport of heat from low to high latitudes. It is very likely that the strength of the AMOC will decrease over the course of the 21st century in response to increasing greenhouse gases, with a best estimate decrease of 25-30%. However, it is very unlikely that the AMOC will undergo an abrupt transition to a weakened state or collapse during the course of the 21st century, and it is unlikely that the AMOC will collapse beyond the end of the 21st century because of global warming, although the possibility cannot be entirely excluded.

• A dramatic abrupt release of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere appears very unlikely, but it is very likely that climate change will accelerate the pace of persistent emissions from both hydrate sources and wetlands. Current models suggest that a doubling of northern high latitudes CH4 emissions could be realized fairly easily. However, since these models do not realistically represent all the processes thought to be relevant to future northern high-latitude CH4 emissions, much larger (or smaller) increases cannot be discounted. Acceleration of release from hydrate reservoirs is likely, but its magnitude is difficult to estimate.

bulldada / December 18th, 2008, 6:12 pm / #11

“Flat earthers”, “Holocaust deniers” etc.

Words your dwindling type use to describe people who pay attention to science, reason and common sense.

Las Vegas gets more snow yesterday than the past 30 years. Malibu gets snow, L.A., Houston etc. etc.

The earth has been cooling for 10 years. The UN says the earth cooling is proof of global warming. That is just sad, desperate and laughable. It is sick to think that 20% of Americans still believe in AGW.

And you have the gull to say “You’ll be on the wrong side of history”.

One thing you have in common with the people you despise most, is that when the evidence smacks you upside the face, it only strengthens your convictions.

So FACE IT: Global warming is a hoax. You bought it. Time to refund what little you have left so that you don’t loose your dignity too.

PS. Answer the question.

BlackSun / December 18th, 2008, 6:46 pm / #12

OK, Bulldada. My dignity is doing fine, thanks. Remember we had this conversation. Now. I’m asking you not to comment further on climate stories. I know you don’t accept the science. You say you respect me, so we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

The daily winter weather is exactly as expected. Climate change is typefied by greater extremes. Hotter, colder, drier, wetter, depending on where you are, and what time of year. Study equilibrium in dynamic systems. When a forcing event occurs without the proper damping, you can get larger swings in both directions.

I presented ample evidence with links to NASA and another voluminous government report, with the highest caliber of corroboration. You chose to ignore all of it, and you do the same thing every time I post a story.

Who’s not looking at the evidence??

I will continue to present stories on the climate. It’s the most important issue of the day–bar none. It’s a big part of what BSJ is about. So I’m asking you to stop. I won’t respond to you any more on the subject. We are talking past each other.

John Morales / December 19th, 2008, 1:35 am / #13

Bulldada @7, you sure are one confused person. First, you accuse Blacksun of sounding fascist, then you say accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real is “is a great way to usher in communism”. Just wow.

Blacksun cites a report to Government and makes sense, you offer anecdotes and unfounded assertions, and appear to mistake weather for climate.

The World Meteorological Organisation’s annual report says “2008 is set to go down as the 10th warmest year on record, with global temperatures one third of a degree above the long-term average.”; NASA satellite data shows that “Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have shed more than 2 trillion tons of land ice since 2003”; Blair Trewin, a climatologist at Australia’s National Climate Centre, says 2008 has also been the coolest year since 2001, but Dr Trewin says

“… this year shows what it is like to have a cool year in a warmer climate.”
“It’s worth noting that globally we’re talking about the coolest year for seven years, but if this year had happened 15 years ago, I’d be talking about the warmest year on record,” he said.
“So take it as an indication of what sort of trend we’ve seen in the last couple of decades.”

Recently-reported NASA satellite data shows that Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have shed more than 2 trillion tons of land ice since 2003.
Scientists said the data collected by NASA’s GRACE satellite show signs of global climate change.

Etc etc. You’re in denial.

Bulldada / December 19th, 2008, 5:44 pm / #14

“I’m asking you not to comment further on climate stories. I know you don’t accept the science”

Typical of a liberal wanting to silence the opposition. Fine, I will not comment again on your site since it is clear as fetus pee that you cannot stand people who oppose your opinion.

“Climate change is typefied by greater extremes”

I thought it was global warming? Because AGW is proven not to be happening, you change the language? The earth is cooler… Because of global warming? LOL!

“You chose to ignore all of it, and you do the same thing every time I post a story.”

Wrong. I look at all of them and then check out what the truth is. Fact is you are wrong. You have an agenda and it aint “saving the earth”.

“I will continue to present stories on the climate. It’s the most important issue of the day–bar none.”

No it is not. Thats obvious, just look a little closer at the next bum you see.

“i won’t respond to you any more on the subject. We are talking past each other.”

Again, typical. Take the high road. You win a moral victory by ignoring me, or by -what I suspect- deleting my comments. Wow, your convictions sure are standing the test of time…

BlackSun / December 19th, 2008, 6:02 pm / #15


Again, typical. Take the high road. You win a moral victory by ignoring me, or by -what I suspect- deleting my comments. Wow, your convictions sure are standing the test of time…

I’m not deleting your comments. I’m asking you to respect evidence and you have declined.

From USA Today, regarding Obama’s science advisor:

The choice of Holdren, who has crusaded against what he calls “global climate disruption,” would be a clear signal that the new administration plans to tackle energy issues and fight global warming, Holdren’s friends and colleagues said. He’s an award-laden scientist comfortable in many different fields; some colleagues call him one of the smartest people in the world.

As Obama’s top science adviser, Holdren would manage about 40 Ph.D-level experts who help shape and communicate science and technology policy.

“Global warming is a misnomer. It implies something gradual, something uniform, some quite possibly benign, and what we’re experiencing is none of those,” Holdren said a year ago in a speech at Harvard. “There is already widespread harm … occurring from climate change. This is not just a problem for our children and our grandchildren.”

Holdren has taken his concern about global warming from university lecture halls to popular television.

“Basically the whole thing is accelerating,” he said in April. “Every time you turn around there’s a new report that says some aspect of climate change is happening bigger, faster, more dangerously.” He compared not doing anything about global warming to ignoring terrorism.

Holdren has been critical of people who deny that global warming is man-made and happening

“These people are just spitting into the wind,” he told The Associated Press in 2006.

If you think I’m an idiot about the climate, I’m sure in good company.

Bulldada, please don’t make me ban you. I really don’t want to. I want you to please stop making a fool of yourself about this issue. If you think I’m wrong, why keep coming back here? There’s a ton of sites where you can go and everyone will agree with you.

At this point, you’re bordering on being worse than the religious fundamentalists I’ve dealt with. If you feel the same then please feel free not to read any more of my bullshit.

BlackSun / December 20th, 2008, 8:14 am / #16

John Morales,

Thanks for your comments. I wouldn't be against nuclear power if the loops were closed and all existing waste reprocessed. The problem is so huge right now that the delayed Yucca Mountain repository would be filled practically to capacity with existing nuclear waste, which would have to be transported there from all over the country. Much better to establish regional reprocessing sites so as to not have to pay to dispose spent fuel which is actually an extremely valuable resource.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.