Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

[Heracles 417]

My brother, when it comes to your health or the health of the environment, the market is the last entity I'm going to look for to watch my back.

Steve I agree with you on this one. The fact is that these ivy league corporate jocks running so many of the industrial companies could not give a ###### about the average Joe, let alone his safety or the environment. Gary you know I have right wing views but right is right and wrong is wrong. Companies like Exxon would still be selling leaded fuel if it was not banned by the government.

The governments job is to look after it's people. What I would do is give these companies an option. Either develop or work towards clearly defined environmental standards or pay at least an extra 45% tax, per dollar generated.. Trust me, overnight you will see these new technologies which apparently would never work a week ago spring up from companies like exxon..

PS I am sick to death of our reliance on the middle east for oil anyway. That alone should be a major factor on why gasoline should be phased out and fast..

Edited February 6, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The government or some watchdog group keeps the companies in line with pollution.

That's a pretty vague statement to take on trust...

I don't have a problem with that as long as that government acts in a reasonable manner and use sound scientific reasons for any sanction. If a company is bealching sulfer or benzine into the air then shut them down until they have it fixed. But I firmly do not believe that this Global Warming thing is settled in any way. To do such a radical shift of our economy and culture over something that MAY be or think might happen is much more irresponsible.

So you don't really think that environmental concerns (as far as it impacts the environment and not people) should supercede economic concerns?

[dalegg 143]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

do you support nuclear power, steven?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

do you support nuclear power, steven?

From what I studied and understand about it - no. Two reasons - we don't have a viable, long term solution for the permanent and safe storage of nuclear waste. Secondly, they compromise our safety should someone try to blow one up.

For sustainability, we should be focusing and investing in renewable energy, IMO.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

do you support nuclear power, steven?

From what I studied and understand about it - no. Two reasons - we don't have a viable, long term solution for the permanent and safe storage of nuclear waste. Secondly, they compromise our safety should someone try to blow one up.

For sustainability, we should be focusing and investing in renewable energy, IMO.

all well and good, but won't happen. depending on mother nature for energy isn't wise. either people will have to switch to nuclear power, or we'll continue to have coal, natural gas, and even oil fired power plants adding to the haze in our atmosphere. unless, of course, you want to carpet the entire usa with solar panels and wind generators. even teddy kennedy does not want wind generators off the coast of mass.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

do you support nuclear power, steven?

From what I studied and understand about it - no. Two reasons - we don't have a viable, long term solution for the permanent and safe storage of nuclear waste. Secondly, they compromise our safety should someone try to blow one up.

For sustainability, we should be focusing and investing in renewable energy, IMO.

all well and good, but won't happen. depending on mother nature for energy isn't wise. either people will have to switch to nuclear power, or we'll continue to have coal, natural gas, and even oil fired power plants adding to the haze in our atmosphere. unless, of course, you want to carpet the entire usa with solar panels and wind generators. even teddy kennedy does not want wind generators off the coast of mass.

You are wrong my friend.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

do you support nuclear power, steven?

From what I studied and understand about it - no. Two reasons - we don't have a viable, long term solution for the permanent and safe storage of nuclear waste. Secondly, they compromise our safety should someone try to blow one up.

For sustainability, we should be focusing and investing in renewable energy, IMO.

all well and good, but won't happen. depending on mother nature for energy isn't wise. either people will have to switch to nuclear power, or we'll continue to have coal, natural gas, and even oil fired power plants adding to the haze in our atmosphere. unless, of course, you want to carpet the entire usa with solar panels and wind generators. even teddy kennedy does not want wind generators off the coast of mass.

You are wrong my friend.

can you be a bit more specific?

[dalegg 143]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Everytime I hear this "Lower our dependency on foreign oil" statement, I always wonder what is the difference to the environment whether the oil is foreign or domestic?

Blaming foreign oil for global warming is silly enough because I'm sure the emissions created from burning our own oil produce the same amount of CO2. It's not even fair to blame terrorism on our dependancy on foreign oil if you think about it. The extremists in the Middle East don't want us to stop buying their oil, they just want us to stop influincing the policy over it. If we sat back in the U.S and waited for oil to arrive on our ports at $200 a barrel without actually sullying their sacred sand with our infidel feet, they could concentrate on other reasons for hating us.

Go back and reread the posts because that's NOT what I said or implied at all. What I'm saying is - instead of trying to debate science in a public forum, why don't we talk about other issues concerning energy, s.a. reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Debating Global Warming is a distraction for a lot of our problems concerning energy consumption and our quality of life.

Okay, I'll buy that. But it has come up in the debate before. I think I even heard President Bush use it in the context of trying to solve the problem- which made me think about it more.

[Heracles 417]

For sustainability, we should be focusing and investing in renewable energy, IMO.

In the US that is not even an option. Australia is almost as large as the US in terms of land yet has only about 20 million people and is find it very hard to pull it off.

The quickest and easiest way to slow down global warming is to convert all fossil fuel burning power plants to nuclear..

I wonder if people would support a ban on burning wood..

Edited February 6, 2007 by Infidel

[one...two...tree 2,762]

can you be a bit more specific?

Yes. Read below...

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough

Stefan Lovgren

for National Geographic News

January 14, 2005

Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.

The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.

"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."

Infrared Power

Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.

The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.

"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."

The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.

With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.

Electrical Sweaters

The new material could make technology truly wireless.

"We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless."

He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.

"A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity."

Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances.

Cost-Effectiveness

Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict.

"This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said.

In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.

The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness.

At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts.

But that could change with the new material.

"Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

For sustainability, we should be focusing and investing in renewable energy, IMO.

In the US that is not even an option. Australia is almost as large as the US in terms of land yet has only about 20 million people and is find it very hard to pull it off.

The quickest and easiest way to slow down global warming is to convert all fossil fuel burning power plants to nuclear..

I wonder if people would support a ban on burning wood..

I like the way you think.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

I think that's the key phrase - at the moment the technology is simply not as efficient as conventional methods of power generation, and that makes it cost somewhat more than the cost of the materials. We’re not there yet I’m afraid.

20 years ago cell phones had car size batteries that lasted 4-6 hours (if you were lucky). These days, you can power your phone for over 48 hours without a recharge on a cell the size of a matchbook.

These things are being improved upon all the time - right now though, expecting solar power to take off significantly in the next 5 or even 10 years is a bit like expecting an overnight cure for AIDS.