Michael Fitzsimmons

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

options: good point -you're probably right!

User217130: what is "ME geopolitical issues" and why does an oil correction of 20% after rising 500% mean that the theory is incorrect? oil is still over $100/barrel...nigeria is blowing up pipelines...one in turkey went up...iraq is still unstable...russia is at war in the caspian sea area and worldwide supply/demand is the tightest ever. please explain your viewpoint with more substance and maybe you can convince me i am wrong. it will take more than a sentence though....

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

longoil: thanks for your feedback. wrt hydrogen, i have seen some system designs where wind energy is used to generate electricity which is used to electrolysis which then generates hydrogen, at least in areas where water is cheap and available. hydrogen of this form could be used for many things:
1) it effectively "stores" the energy created by wind for use in those times when the wind doesn't blow
2) it is a potential for transportation, yet today, i agree is not cost effective or very user friendly.
to ignore an "energy" element like hydrogen, that is in such abundance in the universe, would be a mistake IMHO

wrt drilling: i didn't want to drill either, and i didn't want to use nuclear either. the problem is, we as a country have wasted sooo much time getting an energy plan together and implemented, we are facing economic ruin. from my analysis, we are going to need every bit of energy, from all sources (including nuclear and CS oil) in order to keep the economy from imploding. perhaps i am just a pesimist on the matter, but i started this rant 4 years ago, and everything i have seen (falling US dollar, an S&P500 that has been dead money, rising inflation, and of course, skyrocketing energy prices) simply reinforce my condidence that i am correct. it helps that pickens, mulva, and the CEO's of royal dutch, hess, and dow chemical are now saying similar things.

wrt respect to al gore, your comments and others to this thread effectively prove the point of my article: al gore and his advocates for whatever reasons are divisive - many people just don't buy it due to al himself, the science which they question, or whatever reason. the foreign oil economic argument is something more people will respond to. read my latest submission to SA to see why the pickens approach is better (if they publish it).

let's just agree to disagree on al. were it not for his efforts to publicize this crisis (i.e. a doer), alot of us might still be in the dark, or at least many years behind. look how far behind we are in spite of all his work. also, i am sure pickens has a big house or two himself :)

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

longoil: well, sorry, i disagree with you on this matter. i believe both al gore and t. boone pickens are Americans who care deeply about their country and their world, and both are working in causes which i too think are important: al gore educated the world on the causes of global warming and his warnings that we do something to stop the trends. pickens is working on solving the US energy crisis that American government, media, and citizenship are in complete denial about. as my article suggested, i believe pickens' approach solves both problems, although wind energy isnt the entire solution. my energy policy is much broader is pickens. i salute them both. as far as gore contributing "zero value", that would only be the case if he was wrong on the issue. i, along with the scientific community and nobel prize committee, believe he is and has been correct on the matter and there really isn't any serious debate on the matter any longer(except perhaps on this blog) :)

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

Igorisky: not sure where you got the 10x number on CO2 absorbtion, but i pretty much concur with all of your observations and prognostications. as you said, we are seeing more and more evidence every week, month, and year that goes by and the climate swings are more drastic and happening ever faster. that is one reason i recently added the blurb about population control in my energy policy:

thefitzman.blogspot.co...

however, from a humane perspective, i am against enforcing a population control policy. at the same time, i am a big fan of education...and if we only had world leaders that would discuss the energy, pollution, and natural resource strain of population growth, perhaps it would help.

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

freefall: i mention GW bush because so many people take what he says to be "gospel". they believed him when he was against global warming. after going to international conference after international conference and being the only one against the global warming theory (well, his buddy the PM of australia was too....but not the newly elected PM) and being embarassed by the science presented to him...bush finally came around and acknowledged it. however, i supposed until rush L. endorses it, there are many bush fans and radio listeners who are going to pooh-pooh science until the earth gets so hot their brains melt. i remember when the US used to be a country of science and scientists...now we are into "reality" TV and and rush L. - what a joke and symtomatic of our fall from world leadership. meanwhile, cheney forces the EPA to cut the requirements on coal emmissions, which is the biggest step backwards since one of the few positives from the Nixon administration (founding the EPA).

fireball: thanks for the kind words and the comments. wrt carbon dating of the ice-core samples, a few things are very interesting to me:

1) carbon dating has been an accepted scientific method for quite some time. it's been used in many varied geological and archaelogical situations without being questioned.

2) the carbon dating data of the ice-core samples prove and match the cyclicality of the Earth's climate history which so many people point to as saying "it's all just cyclical". yet, when this same technique also shows CO2 levels rising exponentially in the last 100 years, all of a sudden there are many theories as to why that data is "flawed"

3) the ice-core samples have now been tested by multiple independent international scientific groups, and they are all in agreement (99% anyhow). the only groups or scientist that i know of are the ones like the MIT guy who has been accepting money from XOM for years. he is pretty much marginalized by all credible groups, including the US governments own scientists, whose reports on global warming are very conclusive (at least before cheney altered them).

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

wow - alot of comments. thanks all. here some quick responses...i feel i am a bit of a bore because i continue to repeat the same old themes...but, what the heck. i keep hoping somebody can convince me that oil and global warming aren't real problems...hasn't happened yet. here goes:

spike: the reason i mentioned the californians was that, i just recently saw a poll where for the first time since the santa barbara beach spill, a majority of those in california were favoring off-shore drilling. personally, i don't think we have a choice. we can either get serious about energy, or, watch our economy, currency, and way of life dissapear. it is that critical IMHO. time will tell...

fireball: welp, like i said, i've made up my mind on global warming and the scenario 1,2,3 in my earlier comment has yet to be addressed by anyone on here. the amount of CO2 released by man's burning of fossil fuels, combined with the planet's continuing deforestation, mesh with the ice-core data samples. couple all that with the common sense observations any aware human can easily see about what is going on currently with our planet is enough to convince me of the problem. that said, REGARDLESS of the global warming debate, the point of the article was we kill two birds with one stone (although some say only one bird...) by addressing the oil supply/demand problem, which is the most imminent threat to the US.

lentz: i think the debate is comical as well. you tell me where all the additional CO2 from burning 85 million barrels of oil and millions of tons of coal a day are going? at least we agree on transitioning away from oil as most of your points are in my energy policy as well.

jackooo - they should have raised gasoline taxes in the 1990's when oil was cheaper. they should still raise taxes on gasoline...over time..gradually..with plenty of warning...to provide the kick in the ass Americans need to face reality.

maximo: *think* - that is good advice. nobody's thinking these days...everybody just has their agenda. i mean people still think george bush is a "conservative" republican. but he's not. he's grown the US government the biggest its ever been, taking away our liberties and privacy, grown the biggest fiscal deficit in history which has caused the US dollar to drop like a rock, opened our borders to illegals while proclaiming to be the leader of the war on terror, and cratered 50 years of American foreign policy. there is nothing conservative about bush - he's the most radical president we have ever had. yet, people still "think", he's a "conservative" republican. he isn't. i am.

mcgregor: "man wasnt the cause of previous cycles, so what was"? well, as many have said, the Earth's climate is cyclical and there are many reasons for previous changes (volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. etc). that said, these changes happened at specific times due to specific stimuli or, over hundreds of thousands of years. what we are seeing now is, over just the past 100 years, is an exponential growth of CO2 in the atmosphere which is NOT the result of a meteor strike or a bunch of volcanoes going off. what we are seeing now is the effect of burning 85 million barrels of oil a DAY and burning millions of tons of coal a DAY while at the same time the Earth's forests are being cut down to grow crops or harvest wood. the ice-core samples very clearly point out the exponential growth in CO2 in just the past 100 years so, compare that to the data from the last hundred thousands years and you will begin to comprehend.

thinkbig: if you were thinking big, you would see that george bush has done more to make us the socialistic utopia that you mention. we have the US dollar down 50%, we have the gov. taking over publicly traded firms on wall street and bernanke and paulsen wanting the gov to take over even more control of the financial system, and you have the gov now able to tap your phone conversations and basically do anything that want with what should be private data. so, think about all that. bottom line is this: under bush, the middle class has been gutted bigtime while the ultra rich are harvesting the country's wealth (i am not talking about people with a million or two dollars (they aren't rich, they just think they are), i am talking about the people with hundreds of millions and billions of dollars). that leads to a stratified social system where control is easiest to implement (especially via energy and food prices and availability - which is the next phase of their grand plan). thus why it is so important to get an energy policy in place, and thus, why those in charge are dragging their feet on it. their policy is to let the disaster unfold so they can "govern" by catastrophe. read the "shock doctrine" by naomi klein.

maximo: your last comment was dead on and better said than my article which was my attempt to make the same point.

fireball: the poles ARE melting and there will soon be only 1 or 2 more glaciers in "glacier national park". these are facts, not opinions...

freefall51: i, and the nobel prize committee, disagree with you. even bush has finally admitted global warming (or as he says, climate change) is a real phenomenon. i thought the leader of the "republicans" finally conceeding would bring along his troops just like rush limbaugh does, but, reading these comments, apparently that's not enough. maybe a few more years of evidence will bring those slow to embrace science around to reality.

calvin: unfortunately, wrt to a real energy policy, i would agree with you and it's gonna get ugly over the next decade.

mcgregor: tell the folks down in south florida and southern california that are fighting erosion of their seaside property that ocean levels are not rising and storms are not more destructive than in years past.

longoil: banging al gore on the money question is similar to banging t. boone pickens on his energy opinions because he can make money on the conversion to wind energy. as pickens said the other day on CNBC: "money?? i HAVE plenty of money! i am doing this because i am an AMERICAN and i care about the country my children and grandchildren will inherit". what about people who just plain give a damn? there are some you know.

optionsgirl: i'm glad that you like reading me. we are far apart on economics? so, you like big fiscal deficits, a weak currency, and tax breaks for billionaires? if you like bush's economics...they've been just great for the S&P500 huh? ok...sorry..i'll behave ;) you ask: at what point will it be unonomical to develop canadian tar sands? won't happen. they are in for the long haul and the oil majors all know it which is why they are investing there. COP is even going to work on a pipeline all the way to the gulf to refine the sludge. i think canroys are a good play for US investors because the canadian loonie will continue to show strength against the weak US currency, which in my opinion can only weaken further due to the policies of the administration. just put it in your IRA so you can get the favorable tax treatment. on specifics, i still can't detail it out cause i've been on an extended vacation and haven't had time to research them. but, i will soon.

kebu: all for electrified transportation...actua... any kind other than gasoline fired. it's in my policy.

morgan: i can't believe we are either! :)

lonie: well, i disagree. just because oil supply won't keep up with oil demand doesn't mean the world still wont burn millions of barrels a day for decades to come. and coal will continue to be relied on since we are sooo slow to deal with the energy problem in a realistic fashion and because of china. so, there are definitely enough fosil fuels to roast the planet. that said, i believe the economic and social turmoil due to the oil "problem" will happen first.

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

Ok - so, you disbelievers, someone tell me where all the CO2 from my 1,2,3 scenario above is going?

inscon: the ice core samples are hundreds of *thousands* of years.

john: you're right, there's alot of heat...most of it caused from high (and growing quickly) CO2 levels trapped in the atmosphere.

CLH: unfortunately, at this point, your comment is incorrect because nuclear can't solve the oil based transportation problem because we don't have a sufficient electric or hydro or nat gas (or other) based solution and infrastructure to replace the gasoline powered automobile. nuclear electrical generation could free up some nat gas, and my energy policy is all for it:

thefitzman.blogspot.co...

fireball and every one else: of COURSE climate change is cyclical, no one argues that. what we are arguing about is that the cyclicality is now around a rising temperature trend line whose slope is increasing at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands of years of data. it is pretty much a scientifically proven and accepted theory in the scientific community - even the US government's scientist. that said, cheney has been snuffing out the data and the comments of our own scientists' reports.

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

cjwirth: where?

Does Al Gore Finally Get It?

Thanks for all the comments. I've been driving all day and exhausted, so all I have to say is this:

I believe that global warming or climate change or whatever we want to refer to it is real. I believe the ice-core sample data, and I looked at two independent sets of data and understand that a third set exists which matches the other two. I also believe my own observations about what is happening in the world today. Everyone understands that climate change is cyclical. That is basic. What I believe is that burning of fossil fuels is releasing so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the cyclicality is now around a rising temperature trend line, and the slope of that trend line will exponentially increase as man increases fossil fuel usage. I'm an engineer, and I took thermodynamics and know a little bit about system analysis, so, consider this from just an objective viewpoint:

1) man burns 85 million barrels of oil a DAY (really think about that, we throw these numbers around, but imagine 85 million barrels of oil lined up on your local interstate highway....every day).

2) man burns who knows how much coal a day, most of it dirty

3) at the same time of 1) & 2) we have seen, and continue to see, deforestation of the Earth

how can the combination of 1,2, and 3 NOT have a materially impact on CO2 levels? and rising CO2 levels have been proven to affect global climate.

So, feel free to throw your arrows my way, I can take it. At the same time, I just keep watching the ice-caps melt away, the number of major storms worldwide increasing every year, temperatures increase, and drought and water problems multiply across the planet.

All that said, the real point of the piece is this, and alot of the comments prove it: the global warming argument is a polarizing one which prevents the REAL crisis (oil supply not keeping up with oil demand) from being addressed. We have oil at $130/barrel today and there are no real shortages yet. Wait until shortages begin to appear and panic sets in - then you'll see the price of oil really sky-rocket. At that point, I bet alot of people who doubted global warming and didnt want to do anything about it will wish they had supported it because of the economic and social disruption we are going to see due to our dependence on oil, and the subsequent lack sufficient quantities of it in the very near future.