First of all I don’t “believe” in anything. Belief isn’t in science and if you find it then be suspicious of it. I accept the hypothesis of global climate change, in this case warming, by the evidence thus far. Which makes it a theory. The E-mails not withstanding. They don’t contradict many other sources of information out side of themselves or the weak humans who worked to manufacture it. They are ferreted out eventually and science adjusts to it like with “Piltdown Man” was a successful fraud for 50 years.

Even the “hokey stick” rise of CO2 and corresponding changes in weather and general climate too by other means has been verified, again.* So who is the fraud again? Who are those who wish to make the truth into a hoax and a hoax into the truth? Why the CONG of course and the billions they continue to make as they are the strings that connect all of us to them. Their slaves in effect. [See Scientific American November 2009-pp 21-22.]

It has been found that with most people that when their point of view is directly contradicted by evidence they will not only stay with it they will become more ardent in their support of it. A problem we all face. I didn’t set out to accept GCC when I first came upon it any more than evolution or that germs cause disease (instead of deamons) but I researched, like a bellatrix, and am convinced of the evidence is sound. It is consistent.

Regardless of the speed with which governments act, the love affair with vehicles opens a surprising path to sharply reducing the need for fossil fuels.

Revolutionary new technology makes possible electric cars in which batteries will be superseded. They will need no recharge.  Another breakthrough promises hybrid engines that will need as fuel only one gallon of water for each thousand miles of driving.

The article:  5 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy   on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org  outlines these breakthroughs leading to cars and trucks that need no fossil fuel or recharge.

Magnetic generators promise to make it possible to demonstrate their potential by cutting the cord on a plug-in hybrid. Once that occurs, it will become possible to comprehend that, in the future, cars will no longer need to plug-in.

It will then be obvious that new science and new technology exists. As that fact is absorbed, it will dramatically alter many existing assumptions about energy.

With accelerated development, production of solid-state one kilowatt magnetic generators may prove possible in a year or so. These may initially be the size of a six pack of soda. A pair will provide power identical to that available from a wall socket. With further development, the volume is expected to shrink.

Engines which will eventually power hybrid vehicles will be powered by fractional Hydrogen. The only fuel will be a small quantity of water. A prototype small engine, under development, appears to make possible a replacement for a natural gas burning household furnace, requiring only about 200 watts of electric input.

Development of a larger engine capable of powering a hybrid with fractional Hydrogen is straightforward. This system will be called Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits - ECHO.

The problem of distributing Hydrogen is ended. These engines simply sip water.

More advanced versions will become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling electricity to the local utility. Some are already experimentally beginning to purchase electricity from parked plug-in hybrid vehicles. This is known as Vehicle to Grid (V2G) power. Delaware is leading the way.

Since a magnetic generator, or an engine fueled by small amounts of water, will run when the vehicle is parked, owners can look forward to future systems that can wirelessly transmit up to 150kW of electricity to the local utility. This has been called Super V2G.

When a car or truck with such an engine is parked, the engine can continue to run. An alternator will supply power to the utility.

Payments to car owners driving such a hybrid, or a car powered by magnetic generators, are likely to prove substantial. The cost of many vehicles might eventually be paid for by utilities as they purchase power.

Skepticism and disbelief? Of course!

However, independent laboratory validation of one remarkable breakthrough has taken place at Rowan University. It produced far more heat than can readily be explained by textbooks, indicating a new source of energy is involved.

The lead scientist at Rowan is now a Fellow at Cambridge University. He seeks UK laboratory reproduction. Similar efforts have begun in Norway. Our national laboratories and other universities should rapidly reproduce these experiments!

The Rowan validation began the process of proving that new technology can allow one barrel of water to replace two hundred barrels of oil!

These technologies can let the love affair with vehicles change much of what is currently believed about energy.

How many jobs will be created by revolutionary technologies that need no fossil fuel or recharge?
Imagine the positive impact of vehicles that can wirelessly sell electricity to the local utility when parked - and on a cost competitive basis replace any need to build coal burning or nuclear power plants!

All that remains is to accelerate the process!

To: Night-Gaunt:

Let me, first, commend you on your tone. You have maintained a high level of civility—and that’s good.

It would take far too long a post to give an adequate reply to your questions, so let me just give a short response.

Pseudo-science means any theory advanced by anyone in any field whatsoever where only confirming or supportive evidence is presented, and where no conceivable evidence can overthrow the theory. Science, on the other hand, is based on the search for evidence to overthrow or disconfirm a theory. One of the predictions of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was that light would “bend” when passing a heavy body. That prediction was tested. The theory stood, but tomorrow someone might find a fact that didn’t match the predictions and then the theory would be overthrown.

Both creation science and climate science as practiced by at least some people are pseudo-sciences, religion if you will, and not science. You ask me if I believe in evolution, well no, I don’t believe in anything, for belief is a mark of religion, not science. If the facts support evolution, then evolution is reasonable, no matter what I believe. Belief and science are mutually exclusive.

Many people cite evidence like melting glaciers and loss of ice at the poles as evidence of warming, which it is, then make huge jumps to claims about the rate of warming, the cause of warming, and the consequences of warming, and accept no argument (all religions are this way) and accept no criticisms (again, all religions are this way), and mark any criticism or dissent as being the work of devilish people, agents of death, employees of oil companies, and other irrelevant ad hominems.

As we progress in this inquiry, I think you will find that climate science as currently done has been dealt a death blow. The IPCC is discredited, Al Gore is a fraud, the CRU (where the emails came from) will have to be shut down, many so-called scientists will be fired, and we will have to start again to find out the truth of this situation, then discuss and decide what, if anything, can be done.

It sure would help if the pundits at Truthdig actually did some research before taking sides:

Peter Taylor - Climate Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUYcfsaSnw

Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The Global Climate Change Report to the President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjxfObsFLA&NR=1

Dayahka you give Climate Science such short shrift calling it “pseudo” on what basis? You dismiss not just visual data but historical data both of glaciers (98% are shrinking) to other areas you don’t even mention. So your argument needs to be augmented. I see that if it doesn’t fit your criteria (what ever that is) I’ll bet it is too high for science to ever attain? We know far more than you let on or are willing to admit. They don’t know it all but that is okay that is how science works. How are you on evolution? Germs causing disease?

The information is accumulating and it doesn’t look good. Sure we have had Ice Ages in the past as we have had heart attacks but that doesn’t mean humans aren’t involved in it happening now. Just as high cholesteral in our diets & smoking promote heart attacks. Humans are the only known species that has actually changed our earth in ways no other form of life has. Including creating chemical chains unseen in nature.

Take the oceans of the world, they are pale ghosts of what they were in the 1850’s. A fine example of what puny humans have done to the vast oceans. Near grave yards and if the temperature continues upward they could turn sulfuric from the bacteria that find it to be a good place to breed outside of their small conclaves right now, just like 250 million years ago—-they were involved in the largest extinction of the Permian. Read up on that.

You haven’t looked at the evidence or you wouldn’t be so dead set against it. Why? Are humans too puny to do such a thing? Would 6 billion Amazon ants kill a mammoth? Yes they could. Diseases are small but enough of them kill much larger organisms including humans. So individually we are small but our combined efforts over the centuries can take a toll on the earth. Take and take and give nothing but refuse back will accumulate.

You’re half right. The main thing right now is about the solutions, but Climategate or Algoregate has shown us that Climate Science is to the “left” what Creation Science is to the right—both are pseudo-sciences. So in fact it is about the science and about the solutions.

By the way, the science may be pseudo-, but the conclusions could well turn out to be as right as they could be wrong. We might well be having global warming, though that is far, far, from being established (and isn’t established by citing stuff like the glaciers are melting), or it could be cooling, though that, too, is far from being established. But in either case, the problem is to establish the cause or causes, and the cause or causes of either cooling or warming are unknown. To be sure, we suspect some causes, but our climate science is in its infancy and no one has any idea how the climate system really works or what drives it.

So, you’re wrong; it is about the science and the causes. But it is also about the solutions proposed. If humans are principally responsible (as AGW claims), then maybe we can do something about it, but maybe not. None of us alive today will know if we can even if we implemented a “solution” today. Are you willing to implement a vast, global alleged solution that may benefit only the advanced nations and their criminal financial systems? Wouldn’t it be better to respond to problems as they arise—like the continent-sized garbage dump in the Pacific (and probably all other oceans)? Like how do we distribute food when harvest fail as they have in the US and India and elsewhere? How do we get water to people who need it (like maybe outlawing all flush toilets and using waterless toilets instead, globally)?

Copenhagen should be canceled until Algoregate has been investigated and resolved; another year of waiting will not hurt. China and all other nations should boycott this farcical meeting.

Cooling? Not a chance. Since 1998 it may have been cooling relative to it but not overall before it. No matter what those e-mails say. Too much evidence in the environment to show otherwise.

hello. is this where Al Gore comes out of the closet as an alien from another galactic dimension, and he is only trying to prepare humanity for the upcoming catastrophic global event; that he is not at liberty to talk about? or is my farting causing all this? i can not understand why governmentals do not just blatantly rob monies from our accounts, instead of posturing all these schemes. seems the lawyering alone could guarantee them lives of pomposity.

Mr Mr. Robinson’s article has some fascinating numbers in it, a welcome reprieve from that ... never mind.

What will be interesting is how nations react over the next 20 years when it becomes obvious that disease becomes more rampant in a warm climate and that we either must change our economic models or face—hmm—extinction?

No, that’s not right.

Eternal damnation?  Wrong genre. 

How about: Mass poverty and starvation, an extension of what we have now, only worse.

Yes. That seems where we’re headed.

What will be interesting is: Will the world come together right now over the ecosystem?

Or will it continue to spew its seeds of destruction in the form of weaponry disseminated across the globe?

Right now we’re too busy fighting wars to give cultivating the ecosystem anymore than a wink and a nudge. 

Mouth carbon dioxide. Breathe what the poor heart would silently deny and dare not mention: 

We think we’ll just conquer the world and liberate all the resources we need. 

Ho-ho-ho-he-he-he-ha-ha-ha. 

The question is: Will we stick with that delusion as we catapult toward unimaginable hells? 

Or will the better part of humanity, the part that walks on a wire between the towers instead of blowing them up, will that part of humanity lead us to a better world, where people thrive without killing off the very ecosystem that allows them to survive?

Let’s work for the latter. Please.

Cap and Trade isn’t a tax, which we could use, but a scam to keep the polluters free to pollute with minimal fee$. A carbon tax directly tied to carbonless energy is needed to give us a fighting chance but even so the lag time could be as long as 20 years or more. And if we pass the tipping point it will take much longer and even more drastic changes in how we live and how we create and sustain ourselves. Billions too many means billions of people will die. Most of them will be the poor, the very poor, who make the least impact on our ecosphere.

Promises are only good if they are kept. Take note Barak H. Obama and you have failed so far in that.

Beware of the coming Ice Age! The torrid zone has expanded by 2-3 miles, water level up by 1”, seas continue to warm changing its chemistry, tropical disease in Italy for the first time! Oh yes, damn that new Ice Age. The E. Antarctic does have some accumulation, the West however still is shedding vast amounts of ice. Once the land ice melts then we will sea much greater sea level rise.

For opponents of climate policy reform:

Gosh, folks !  Doesn’t the phrase “total annihilation of all natural life” at least make you pause momentarily as you toss yet another empty plastic bottle out your car window? 

I guess denial is the mantra of all who count on being dead by the time Earth closes up shop completely.

I like the picture for the article. Reminds me of the opening credits of that 60’s TV series, The Prisoner. The ominous ball rises from the depths to show the boundaries of the prison, and then reigns in the prisoner, returning him to his lavish cell. As Obama heads to Copenhagen I hear the echo of Chavez “Are you a prisoner?”

My son asked me to feed his goldfish the other day, and as I dropped in the food flakes he warns me, “careful dad, if you put in too much it will eat itself to death”. That’s the problem with goldfish, they can’t suppress their interest of immediate gain; scarcity of food or nutritional content of that food in the environment must have made any need for appetite control unnecessary for the fish. But we’re much smarter than goldfish aren’t we? I mean isn’t the brain a fantastic survival tool? We’d never succumb to greed’s siren song when our children’s future might be at stake? Or is global warming just another golden opportunity for profiteering… scarcity is the wellspring of profit.

The “green, is the new red” environmental movement, have themselves to blame, for being taken over by rabid belief scientist using “peer-review” as an exclusive tactic. Then further co-opted by subsidized millionaires changing the message from sustainability to carbon tax.

The scientific models and source codes are the issue, scientist and environmentalist cannot run away from it. The studies of the Climate Research Unit(CRU) of East Anglia University is based on these source codes and subsequent “I can make it up” IPCC models. These models are the basis for carbon tax!

The climate is changing, I believe that, but belief is not science, the very definition of science is scepticism.

The CRU themselves have no way of getting around their own ”hide the decline”...a memorable phrase does’nt get any better… 

Lets say global warming is real, even if we plastered every building in this world
with solar panels and photovoltaic, we would not be able to postpone the inevitable REAL change.
So why not prepare? What only…0.5-2 degrees? Can the “change” message be any more meaningless?

Our God complex has to be neutered, perhaps a Pompey? George Carlin…why have you done this to me? I use to be an environmentalist campaigning for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth…

Those bloody polar bears are drowning but increasing in population, being shot by the hundreds each year and oh yes, the ice caps are increasing…no “lets make it up” they are melting. Just 10/20 years ago…we were scared into the ice age cometh!

The green movement is dead…it no longer has the moral right to move the peoples of the world into sustainable technologies…after accepting Al Gore (that CO2 tax billionare beneficiary).
The free market will regulate the energy industry with peak oil nearing 100 dollar barrel.

Sustainability will be forced upon us by the earth…we will be punished for assume mother natures role…I believe.