jmark

White House Planning Climate Strategy Release for Third Week of September

Van Jones is not trustworthy, watch out for him.

2010 Nissan LEAF EV: Coming to a Freeway Near You

What will be the source of the electricity to power such cars? How much energy is required to produce such cars? Why assume that, on the short to medium term, the presence of enthusiastic venture capital indicates that Americans will embrace these cars (outside of greenie-villes)?

Noticed the Oil Backup?

"Trivia" is often in the eye of the beholder; the big picture comprises details. Thanks for this informative article.

New U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Displacing Canadian Gas

Here's a link to a map of the RUBY pipeline:

www.rubypipeline.com/d...



On Jul 09 12:32 PM jimmy46 wrote:

> A new pipeline, called RUBY, is already being planned to take Rockies
> gas to California """""
>
> ANY ONE KNOW THE ROUTE THIS PIPE WILL TAKE?

Cap-and-Trade and the Cheap Energy Illusion

Overall, the more comments I read on this website, the more I wonder who the heck most of you people are. Is this site some sort of political blog?

Obama's Energy Bill: A Recipe for Economic Destruction

This type of "perversion" is in the eye of the beholder. For alternate views on paleoclimate data and interpretations (including ice cores) in the context of AGW, see Section 3.1 of the following report:

www.heartland.org/publ...


On Jun 30 11:20 AM Davewmart wrote:

> I was previously mildly sceptical of global warming, but in my view
> this is conclusive:
> www.sciencedaily.com/r...
> Correlation does not prove causation, of course, but a one-for-one
> correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over hundreds of thousands
> of years mean that you would have to make some pretty spectacular
> assumptions to get to a conclusion that temperatures are unlikely
> to rise this time is step with CO2 concentrations.
> Least hypothesis is that temperatures will rise to the same level
> as they were before with similar levels of CO2.
> Hanging on to the proposition that they won't is now simply perverse.

China Pays Too Much for Oil in Iraq at $16 a Barrel

If it's not true and we stupidly spend trillions of dollars on it, then we will have wasted trillions of dollars that could otherwise have been spent productively to do things that really help people, like providing developing countries with clean water, energy, and anti-malaria measures. What the heck would Pascal know about it?


On Jun 25 11:34 PM mkreisel wrote:

> It's time to get off oil when there is still enough left.
>
> You don't want to wait until you are tapping the last few drops.
>
>
>
> As for the global warming debate, I think it's more like the Pascal's
> Wager:
>
> If it's not true and we don't do anything about it, we don't gain
> anything either.
> But if it's true and we don't do anything about it, we are SCREWED!

Much MUCH More Oil than Needed

The large amounts in storage worldwide may reflect the persistent contango in prices; for as long as this condition exists, it's a major money machine for traders.

The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008

frflyer:

Is it you who is trying to fool me?

I am a hydrogeologist, not a climate expert. Expert climate scientists are not of a single opinion regarding AGW. Maybe you're right, maybe not. I have read many of the experts' books and reports, including the most recent IPCC report. I like to think that I am even-handed in assessing scientific hypotheses, and the related logic (or fallacies of logic). CO2 increases plant fecundity, but it is not a fact that it is causing global warming. Scientific debate is healthy. Do you think all of the opinions in the following link (so-called Senate Minority Report on AGW) are exclusively those of crackpots?:

epw.senate.gov/public/...

I find many of those comments rational and valid. The issue of AGW is not settled.