It was only a matter of time.

[Peter]

Wood chips made the State of the Union. Here's to you, Mr. Chip.

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/images/pix_00081.jpg

[Guru of Nothing]

Wood chips made the State of the Union. Here's to you, Mr. Chip.

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/images/pix_00081.jpg

How much wood would a wood chip chip if a wood chip could chip wood?

[Guru of Nothing]

I'm thinking it might serve my own best interest to learn to read and speak Chinese.

Just a hunch.

[Guru of Nothing]

If we can go ahead and make this the "official" State of the Union thread ...

Am I mistaken, or did Bush broach (D.C.) ethics, and IMMEDIATELY segue into gay marriage?

[Peter]

Yeah, he lumped a bunch of shit into a phrase and when it hit the applause line, it look like the attendees had no clue what they were applauding.

[Guru of Nothing]

Virginia governor eyebrows ... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!

[Spurminator]

I sense a theme in the Response...

I'm young, so help me understand... Have SOU addresses and responses always sounded like canned campaign speeches?

And they wonder why people don't vote.

[Guru of Nothing]

I sense a theme in the Response...

I'm young, so help me understand... Have SOU addresses and responses always sounded like canned campaign speeches?

It reminds me of a high school student body campaign speech.

It's pathetic.

[Guru of Nothing]

He's like the Ron Burgundy of politics (VA Gov)

[Guru of Nothing]

Frist plays the "terror" card when pleading for bipartisanship.

[scott]

Can I be the first to ask... why the fuck would we want to use Wood Chipis to make ethanol?

There are already other feedstocks to ethanol production aside from corn... in fact Sugar Beets are probably the most efficient feedstock. And given how long it takes to grow a fucking tree, I'm thinking Wood Chips is not a good idea.

Anyway, that's just my random Wood Chip comment.

Anyone get a count of how many times "activist judges" was tossed out?

[Peter]

Frist plays the "terror" card when pleading for bipartisanship.


It's the GOP ace card.

[Guru of Nothing]

Can I be the first to ask... why the fuck would we want to use Wood Chipis to make ethanol?

There are already other feedstocks to ethanol production aside from corn... in fact Sugar Beets are probably the most efficient feedstock. And given how long it takes to grow a fucking tree, I'm thinking Wood Chips is not a good idea.



Hey Scott, can you please provide an "alternative fuel for dummies" link, something that explains to me how wood chips or sugar beets can reduce America's dependance on Middle East oil. ... Or, you could just tell me.

Thanks much in advance.

[scott]

I'll avoid silly catch-phrases like "reduce our dependence on Middle East oil" because until cars start running on happy thoughts - it's just that... a catch-phrase.

However... Ethanol 101 goes something like this... ethanol is pure alcohol, refined from the sugar found in crops like corn, sugar cane, sugar beets, etc. Where wood chips come into play, I have no clue. Ethanol is a gasoline blend stock that (get this) actually reduces the supply of gasoline where is replaces traditional blendstocks like MTBE. I won't go into the specifics of why, but to meet specification, you need to blend more traditional gasoline components into your blend using ethanol than you did using MTBE. Now, cars can be designed to run on specs with higher ethanol - but that is another story.

Hydrogen is talked about as the other big "alternative fuel" but currently the most efficient source of hydrogen is... get this... OIL. Hydrogen is not a viable fuel source for cars for other reasons - it's highly volitile so you can't pressurize it enough to get it to the point where you aren't lugging a trailer full of highly dangerous hydrogen around just so you can go 100 miles.

Personally (and I admit I am biased here - I have personal, professional, and financial reasons to have this opinion... but I can assure you that it's also my opinion as an economist and not just someone who works in the oil industry... if you can believe that), I think the push for alternative fuels (as it exists today) is misguided. Pres. Bush is right in that we reduce our need for Middle East oil via technology - but it isn't the technology to turn wood chips in to ethanol. We need to focus on more fuel efficient engines and if you are dead set on hydrogen, make an engine that can go 300 miles on a small tank of hydrogen that is protected enough so that it won't create a massive explosion in the case of a fender bender. After you have that engine, then worry about more cost effective sources of hydrogen (like the quite abundant thing called water).

[Yonivore]

I'll avoid silly catch-phrases like "reduce our dependence on Middle East oil" because until cars start running on happy thoughts - it's just that... a catch-phrase.

However... Ethanol 101 goes something like this... ethanol is pure alcohol, refined from the sugar found in crops like corn, sugar cane, sugar beets, etc. Where wood chips come into play, I have no clue. Ethanol is a gasoline blend stock that (get this) actually reduces the supply of gasoline where is replaces traditional blendstocks like MTBE. I won't go into the specifics of why, but to meet specification, you need to blend more traditional gasoline components into your blend using ethanol than you did using MTBE. Now, cars can be designed to run on specs with higher ethanol - but that is another story.

Hydrogen is talked about as the other big "alternative fuel" but currently the most efficient source of hydrogen is... get this... OIL. Hydrogen is not a viable fuel source for cars for other reasons - it's highly volitile so you can't pressurize it enough to get it to the point where you aren't lugging a trailer full of highly dangerous hydrogen around just so you can go 100 miles.

Personally (and I admit I am biased here - I have personal, professional, and financial reasons to have this opinion... but I can assure you that it's also my opinion as an economist and not just someone who works in the oil industry... if you can believe that), I think the push for alternative fuels (as it exists today) is misguided. Pres. Bush is right in that we reduce our need for Middle East oil via technology - but it isn't the technology to turn wood chips in to ethanol. We need to focus on more fuel efficient engines and if you are dead set on hydrogen, make an engine that can go 300 miles on a small tank of hydrogen that is protected enough so that it won't create a massive explosion in the case of a fender bender. After you have that engine, then worry about more cost effective sources of hydrogen (like the quite abundant thing called water).
I think the key is going to be in extracting hydrogen from ambient air on the fly.

Technology that is way, way, way down the road...

[exstatic]

Brazil uses Ethanol as 40% of their fuel nationally right now in their dual use cars. You can also use existing infrastructure, stations, etc. I think you have to go this way as a step towards the H engines, scott. Back in the day, it cost over $3 a gallon to distill the corn ethanol. Now its about 20 cents for the cellulose brand.

Of course, I don't believe Bush will take any meaningful steps in either the direction of ethanol or H. That would be like the Crips announcing that they are opening rehab facilities to wean all of their junkie customers. Bush 41 and Bush 43 are still in bed getting it on with the entire Saudi royal family, so I expect this is just a soundbite.

[exstatic]

Where wood chips come into play, I have no clue.
scott, they have enzymes now that will break down and convert the cellulose in plant waste, wood chips, etc. into the sugar, and you no longer have to waste the "food" part of the plant. Harvest the corn on it's cobs, and convert the rest of the plant into ethanol.

[Vashner]

Didn't he do "Need some wood" 2 years back?

[Vashner]

Brazil uses Ethanol as 40% of their fuel nationally right now in their dual use cars. You can also use existing infrastructure, stations, etc. I think you have to go this way as a step towards the H engines, scott. Back in the day, it cost over $3 a gallon to distill the corn ethanol. Now its about 20 cents for the cellulose brand.

Of course, I don't believe Bush will take any meaningful steps in either the direction of ethanol or H. That would be like the Crips announcing that they are opening rehab facilities to wean all of their junkie customers. Bush 41 and Bush 43 are still in bed getting it on with the entire Saudi royal family, so I expect this is just a soundbite.

Clinton sucked the same Saudi BEEP...

Really Saudi love to hang out in Houston. You know it's 1981 and they have a rented convertable with longhorns on it. At the H town Petrol convention.

Saudi really has been good friends with us for the most part and assholes never even thank them for that sweet saudi juice that takes us to work, play and travel.

Ungrateful pussy liberals that STILL drive fucking cars and cry about prices.

Give up your car and i'll fucking belive you.. otherwise your a prision bitch to Saudi too.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_gotwood.jpg

[spurster]

Bush is probably itching to bomb Iran, but his advisors keep telling him that will cause the next energy crisis. As a result, energy independence (and the closely related wood chips) has found its way into his vocabulary.

[Nbadan]

I've read studies that say that you can't produce ethanol at a rate where it is producing more energy than it is taking to produce. The whole alternative energy shell game is a farce, although when the technology merits, hydrogen is appealing. We should work on mass-producing the new hybrid technology the FEDS recently announced that uses your cars breaking fluid to power the hybrid engine, instead of just a feul cell. If we could get our cars to average 50 MPG, the energy crisis would virtually dissappear.

[scott]

Brazil is naturally advantaged because they have abundant supplies of the 2 most efficient feedstocks in Ethanol production: sugar beets and sugar cane. In fact, even with our tax incentives, imports for ethanol feedstocks from south america still pour in... corn simply cannot compete.

I spoke with some folks in our alternative fuels group today and the consensus was that wood chips = stupid. Even with the cellulose technology, sugar beets/cane is still more efficient.


If we could get our cars to average 50 MPG, the energy crisis would virtually dissappear.

While I don't think it would "disappear" it would at least prolong the impending doom - hopefully long enough for viable alternative energy to be developed.

[Peter]

Looks like Bush cited what America may have an advantage in. Can't wait to pull up at the wood chip station and fill up the truck.

[hussker]

http://www.noble.org/Ag/PlantOfMonth/switchgrass/grassplant.jpg

SWITCHGRASS!!!

[scott]

Looks like Bush cited what America may have an advantage in. Can't wait to pull up at the wood chip station and fill up the truck.

And that would be counter to smart trade... a tax incentive for a less incentive feedstock is a de facto import tariff on the more efficient feedstocks.

[Peter]

No doubt. Just being facetious.

[boutons_]

All bio-fuels are total bullshit.

Plants take nurtrients from the soil, often an ancient soil enriched over 1000s of years.

When the plants are removed from the soil for bio-fuel, the nutrients go also. Eventually the soil depletion of nutrients requires, guess what?, replenishment with oil-based fertilizers and pesticides.

For converting sunlight into chemcial energy, which is the core process of bio-fuels, when all other inputs are considered, bio-fuels really suck.

Trees are particularly nefarious, because trees are enormous sinks for/fixators of atmoshperic carbon, the dominant green-house gas ( carbon dioxide in, photosynthesis, oxygen out ).

Europe and America were de-forested horribly in the last 1000 years before we realized the value of trees in fixing carbon. Now, it's Brazil's, Africa's, etc. turn to destroy their forests, most commonly by slash and burn, dumpiong 1000s of tons C02 into the atmosphere every year.

[exstatic]

When the plants are removed from the soil for bio-fuel, the nutrients go also. Eventually the soil depletion of nutrients requires, guess what?, replenishment with oil-based fertilizers and pesticides.
Guess what? That happens whether we throw away the sheaves and stalks, or turn them into ethanol. Bad argument.

[boutons_]

February 2, 2006

Energy

Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The energy proposals set out on Tuesday by President Bush quickly ran into obstacles on Wednesday, showing how difficult it will be to take even the limited steps he supports to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil.

On the day after he declared in his State of the Union address that the United States was "addicted to oil" and had to wean itself from a century-old habit, Mr. Bush drew some support for putting the issue more prominently on the agenda but also skepticism about how achievable his goals really were.

"Every administration since the early 1970's has struggled with the issue of rising oil imports and the right mix of policies to deal with them," said Daniel Yergin, the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and the founder of a consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Some people would just say, 'It's world trade, we sell Boeings and we buy oil.' But since oil is intertwined with geopolitics, people worry about vulnerability and whether oil is a drag on our foreign policy."

Diplomatically, Mr. Bush's ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States' Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to ask Mr. Bush's office "what he exactly meant by that."

Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives.

( iow, the only sector wildly enthusiastic is .... the US oilco's. )
Scientifically, researchers said ethanol and other alternative fuels were still years away from widespread commercial use.

Economically, energy analysts said Mr. Bush's goal of reducing Mideast oil imports would have little practical benefit because oil was traded in world markets and its price was determined by global supply and demand, rather than bought from one country by another.

"If the United States was zero-dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but the rest of our allies among consuming nations were just as dependent, then a disruption anywhere is a price increase everywhere," said Lawrence Goldstein, the president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a policy analysis group in New York.

Mr. Bush, like other modern presidents, has talked since the earliest days of his administration about weaning the United States off oil, but mostly by supporting an increase in domestic production. On Wednesday afternoon, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh's radio program that the administration would continue to push to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

( yep, ol' dickhead always has a hard-on for Mother Nature )

The difference on Tuesday was Mr. Bush's emphasis on alternative energy sources that he had not made a top focus in the past: better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen cars, ethanol from wood and agricultural waste, solar and wind technologies and what he called "clean, safe nuclear energy."

The president's tone was so changed, in fact, that some analysts said he sounded like a Democrat. Dan W. Reicher, who served in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said Mr. Bush's ideas showed "an uncanny resemblance" to some Clinton efforts.

Mr. Bush's main departure from many Democrats and another source of resistance to his energy plan is his opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars. Mr. Bush has also opposed any effort to impose a higher gasoline tax.

( 70% of US oil goes to transport. Where the fuck does else should conservation be emphasized, stimulated, research subsidized? dubya/dickhead don't want to conserve oil because that would hurt their buddies' exorbitant profits by oilco's.)

Many economists contend that a significant increase in the gasoline tax could lead to sharp changes in American behavior, because it would give consumers strong reasons to drive more efficient vehicles and give manufacturers incentives for innovative cars, including hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity.

( duh! )

In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a gasoline tax of 46 cents a gallon, up from today's federal tax of 18 cents, would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent over the next 14 years.

But when asked why Mr. Bush had not called on the public to sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that "many Americans believe they're already sacrificing by paying the prices they're paying for gasoline and heating oil and natural gas."

Other analysts praised Mr. Bush's support for ethanol, but said that alternative fuels would not answer the administration's biggest fear about oil at the moment, the prospect that a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program could disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle East.

"The State of the Union address was good politics and good policy, but it doesn't address the most pressing problem," said J. Robinson West, an official in the Reagan administration and the chairman of PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington. "The thing that they're really losing sleep about at the White House is the crude supply from Iran."

Specifically, the White House is worried that pressing Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions could cause the Iranian government to retaliate by cutting off its oil supply to the world, as one economics minister in Iran threatened last week.

( so, Iran has the USA/world as its hostage. )

The administration's more immediate international brushfire after the president's address was Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil supplie. Analysts said they were startled that Mr. Bush had singled out the Middle East with implicit criticism, and on the very day that the Saudis provided important support for American interests at a meeting in Vienna of ministers from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

At the meeting, Saudi Arabia blocked an effort by Venezuela and Iran to reduce the group's oil production.

In Washington, Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador, said he was puzzled by Mr. Bush's words in the speech. He said he wanted to know if reducing American dependence on foreign oil also applied to other suppliers to the United States. "Is that a declaration that the U.S. is going to work to be independent of Canadian oil, Mexican oil and Venezuelan oil?" he asked, adding, "I see no threat from America from receiving its oil from the Middle East."

On Capitol Hill, Republicans praised the president's overall goals, but sounded notes of caution, with representatives of oil-producing states leading the way. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he was enthusiastic about nuclear power but questioned whether the government should be subsidizing alternative fuels like ethanol.

"It loses some of its shine when it becomes another government support program for an alternative fuel, which seems to be the pattern here in Washington," Mr. Cornyn said.

Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, even seemed to contradict the president's alarms about high energy prices. "America runs on energy that is both abundant and available at prices we can afford to pay," Mr. Barton said in a statement.

Energy analysts said the push on energy policy at the White House came in large part from Mr. Bodman, a former professor of chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as the former president of Fidelity Investments. Republicans said Mr. Bodman's push dovetailed with the view of Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, that high gas and home heating prices would be a potent political issue. Congress and the administration have at times sent conflicting signals about their priorities, further complicating Mr. Bush's prospects of pushing through his proposals.

The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

( but dubya gave the energy cos a $15B susidiy last year to the energy co's. for research. Anybody watchig what return that $15B brings? )

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

The budget for the laboratory, which is just west of Denver, was cut by nearly 15 percent, to $174 million from $202 million, requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930, said a spokesman, George Douglas. The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.

Reporting for this article was contributed by Edmund L. Andrews, David D. Kirkpatrick, David E. Sanger and Matthew L. Wald in Washington, and Danny Hakim in Albany.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[Darrin]

Trees are particularly nefarious, because trees are enormous sinks for/fixators of atmoshperic carbon, the dominant green-house gas ( carbon dioxide in, photosynthesis, oxygen out ).

Europe and America were de-forested horribly in the last 1000 years before we realized the value of trees in fixing carbon. Now, it's Brazil's, Africa's, etc. turn to destroy their forests, most commonly by slash and burn, dumpiong 1000s of tons C02 into the atmosphere every year.

This is a great point. It's common knowledge that trees convert carbon into oxygen, however, there is a disconnect with the idea that as for de-forestation continues, it's not just the carbon they fail to convert, it's also releasing carbon into the air. In cases of rainforest de-forestation, the carbon released can be as old as 75 years. The more excavation of coal and other minerals from the earth, we are also releasing trapped carbon dioxide.

Essentially, we're burning the candle from both ends - eliminating the source of oxygen and also releasing volumes of old carbon into the air.

[xrayzebra]

All bio-fuels are total bullshit.

Plants take nurtrients from the soil, often an ancient soil enriched over 1000s of years.

When the plants are removed from the soil for bio-fuel, the nutrients go also. Eventually the soil depletion of nutrients requires, guess what?, replenishment with oil-based fertilizers and pesticides.

For converting sunlight into chemcial energy, which is the core process of bio-fuels, when all other inputs are considered, bio-fuels really suck.

Trees are particularly nefarious, because trees are enormous sinks for/fixators of atmoshperic carbon, the dominant green-house gas ( carbon dioxide in, photosynthesis, oxygen out ).

Europe and America were de-forested horribly in the last 1000 years before we realized the value of trees in fixing carbon. Now, it's Brazil's, Africa's, etc. turn to destroy their forests, most commonly by slash and burn, dumpiong 1000s of tons C02 into the atmosphere every year.

Trees cause global warming. So we are told. Cut them all down. Use
them to run cars.

[xrayzebra]

There is one way, really easy way, to cut down on our reliance on ME oil.
Drill here in the good old USA. Tell the environmentalist to go suck a lemon and
start drilling in the arctic region and Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast.
There are ample reserves to almost take care of all our needs. Just got to go
get them. But the wackos get everyone worked up about ruining our little
corner of the globe. I wonder why everyone wants to move to Texas, I mean
we have all those dirty oil wells and refineries.

[boutons_]

"we are also releasing trapped carbon dioxide. "

Global warming is causing the arctic tundra to melt, also releasing 1000's tons, more? of CO2 frozen in the ground.

[boutons_]

Scientists Debate Issue of Climate's Irreparable Change

Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; A01

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm,

( of course, excluding Repug politicized scientists, who, like A/G Gonzaelez, will produce on command whatever science or legal interpretation that suits Repub political objectives, which are only unchecked power for Exec branch and further enrichment of the riche + corps ) the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute:

widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades;

dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse;

and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.

While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise.

The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever."

( "Waterworld" :lol )

Last year the British government sponsored a scientific symposium on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," which examined a number of possible tipping points. A book based on that conference, due to be published Tuesday, suggests that disintegration of the two ice sheets becomes more likely if average temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century."

The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur.

( Repbug science position is to err on the side of do-nothing recklessnes )
"There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."

( aka, "needs further study, so let's do nothing" )

This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen said senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly.

When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who did not want to be identified. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.

"They're trying to control what's getting out to the public," Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. "They're not willing to say much, because they've been pressured and they're afraid they'll get into trouble."

But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with scientists to ensure they are not misquoted.

"People could see it as a constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection."

( .... of the Repubs, to the detriment of the USA and world. The Repugs have done nothing for the USA or world in 5 years. )

John R. Christy, director of the Earth Science System Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said it is possible increased warming will be offset by other factors, such as increased cloudiness that would reflect more sunlight. "Whatever happens, we will adapt to it," Christy said.

( yeah, just like in New Orleans we'vd adapted to risk of high waters )

Scientists who read the history of Earth's climate in ancient sediments, ice cores and fossils find clear signs that it has shifted abruptly in the past on a scale that could prove disastrous for modern society. Peter B. deMenocal, an associate professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said that about 8,200 years ago, a very sudden cooling shut down the Atlantic ocean conveyor belt. As a result, the land temperature in Greenland dropped more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade or two.

"It's not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years," deMenocal said. "The magnitude of what we're talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we've withstood in human history."

These kinds of concerns have spurred some governments to make major cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. Britain has slashed its emissions by 14 percent, compared with 1990 levels and aims to reduce them by 60 percent by 2050. Some European countries, however, are lagging well behind their targets under the international Kyoto climate treaty.

David Warrilow, who heads science policy on climate change for Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that while the science remains unsettled, his government has decided to take a precautionary approach. He compared consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to the strategy of the Titanic's crew, who were unable to avoid an iceberg because they were speeding across the Atlantic in hopes of breaking a record.

"We know there are icebergs out there, but at the moment we're accelerating toward the tipping point," Warrilow said in an interview. "This is silly. We should be doing the opposite, slowing down whilst we build up our knowledge base."

The Bush administration espouses a different approach. Marburger said that while everyone agrees carbon dioxide emissions should decline, the United States prefers to promote cleaner technology rather than impose mandatory greenhouse gas limits. "The U.S. is the world leader in doing something on climate change because of its actions on changing technology," he said.

( what reduction in CO2 emissions have the Repugs achieved, or stimulated ,with their "technology"? )

Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea.

"For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Yonivore]

Wasn't the planted supposed to have been frozen by now? I seem to recall this same type of "chicken-little" bleating over global freezing in the 1970's.

The problem always seems to be that the consequences are so far down the road that no one who claims the doom to come is still around to be held accountable for all the billions and billions of dollars spent to avoid something that was never going to happen anyway...or, at the worst, was going to happen regardless of what we did and what it cost.

I really wish environmentalist would STFU sometimes.

[ChumpDumper]

With any luck, global warming will be cancelled out by nuclear winter.

[Yonivore]

With any luck, global warming will be cancelled out by nuclear winter.
There ya go! That's looking the bright side...uh...mmm...the *extremely bright side!

*Brightness determined by proximity to detonation, results may vary and are not always typical. Void where prohibited.

[xrayzebra]

There is one way, really easy way, to cut down on our reliance on ME oil.
Drill here in the good old USA. Tell the environmentalist to go suck a lemon and
start drilling in the arctic region and Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast.
There are ample reserves to almost take care of all our needs. Just got to go
get them. But the wackos get everyone worked up about ruining our little
corner of the globe. I wonder why everyone wants to move to Texas, I mean
we have all those dirty oil wells and refineries.

Funny none of the Liberals want to address this issue. Why?

[Duff McCartney]

I've pretty much given up the hope that in my lifetime any kind of alternative fuel that doesn't pollute will ever see the light of day.

It's just not gonna happen. Not in our lifetime, more and more I see that in the end, it'll be a last second breakthrough that happens when there's about 10 gallons of gasoline left in the entire world and people are shooting each other for a drop.

[xrayzebra]

Saw in the paper this morning where Cuba wants us to start drilling for oil
in the off-shore waters. They are in talks with US now. Valero is also involved.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_CUBA_OIL_SUMMIT?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[spurster]

Drilling in the good old USofA could be part of reducing energy dependence on ME oil. You'll get some percentage points for that, but it's not helpful by itself.

BushCo's answer up to this point has been US drilling plus pie in the sky 20 years from now. Building nuclear point plants is not a bad idea, but there needs to be some leadership to get a nuclear waste storage facility going. Unfortunately though, BushCo has refused to increase car fuel efficiency standard. And it would be a cold day in hell to have a gasoline tax increase to help reduce consumption and encourage mass transit.

Oh, yes and here's a gem that fits right in.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/energy/article/0,2777,DRMN_23914_4328252,00.html

Layoffs in store at NREL
Up to 100 scientists may go as Congress slashes budget
By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News
December 20, 2005

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden plans to lay off as many as 100 scientists and researchers, or 11 percent of its total staff, beginning early next month as it faces drastic cuts in its budget.

The fiscal 2006 cuts, estimated at more than $20 million, or 10 percent of its $200 million budget in fiscal 2005, are the result of Congress earmarking or diverting a big chunk of federal funds toward other projects.

In fiscal 2006, Congress cut the Department of Energy's budget for all renewable energy programs by more than 35 percent. As a result, DOE, which funds NREL as well as other national labs, has cut the total amount it will give the lab in Golden. NREL does research in wind, biomass, solar and hydrogen technologies.

[scott]

There is one way, really easy way, to cut down on our reliance on ME oil.
Drill here in the good old USA. Tell the environmentalist to go suck a lemon and
start drilling in the arctic region and Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast.
There are ample reserves to almost take care of all our needs. Just got to go
get them. But the wackos get everyone worked up about ruining our little
corner of the globe. I wonder why everyone wants to move to Texas, I mean
we have all those dirty oil wells and refineries.

You are gravely mistaken as to how much oil is available domestically, and even if you weren't you are still ignoring the benefits of free international trade and the fact that all oil is equal.

Nice try though.

[boutons_]

http://www.creators.com/0129/LK/LK0202g.gif

.


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpswi/2006/wpswi060203.gif

[scott]

Relevant link alert:

http://wired.com/news/politics/lifescience/0,70455-0.html?tw=wn_index_25

[xrayzebra]

^^Your link is a crock. Global warming is about political influence and money.
Ours in particular, money wise. You can polute if you pay for the privilege under
the agreement.

[xrayzebra]

Want to read what really may be causing global warming, check out the following
link: Don't drink the water:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[scott]

The link I provided isn't really about Global Warming, so thanks for nothing.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

scott knows what he's talking about but i am forced to take his argument with a grain of salt now that i realize he's in the oil business

[xrayzebra]

The link I provided isn't really about Global Warming, so thanks for nothing.

Well you could have fooled me. Or is it you just don't agree with what
the author said. That water vapor causes most of the so called
global warming.