The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God's sakes. It's not some mystery. One hundred and fifty years ago this year, John Tyndall discovered CO2 traps heat, and that was the same year the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania. The oil industry has outpaced the building of a public consensus of the implications of climate science.
But the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!-physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is "unequivocal," which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world.
If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now.
Needless to say, I like Al Gore's challenge to America to "shift its entire energy sector to carbon-free wind, solar, and geothermal power" in the next 10 years.
It's an ambitious challenge, but one that would provide a massive influx of jobs, save consumers money, dramatically reduce pollution, reduce our dependency on "conflict" oil and improve national security, and nearly halt our contribution to global warming.
Much of the pushback has been over cost. US News & World Report's James Pethokoulis, for example, estimates the cost of switching our power infrastructure to non-carbon-emitting sources within the next 10 years to be $5 trillion trillion. Yes, that's a lot of money, even when you consider five years of the Iraq War has cost around 3 trillion dollars.
But does that cost have to be borne solely by taxpayers? The liberal use of tax credits and incentives could help push this along. Or why not low-interest government loans given, say, to homeowners to increase the energy efficiency of their homes? The loans could easily be paid back with the savings in energy costs.
Here in Montana, we're uniquely positioned to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Our state abounds in ideal sites for wind farms; we've got plenty of fuel for biomass furnaces; and we have great potential to generate energy from hydro and geothermal sources. But most of all, we have people who want to be independent and self-sufficient. Why not tap that resource?
I would like to get conservatives aboard this project, especially those of the free-market variety. While I think this is a fantastic goal, I do get nervous hearing advocates bandy about terms like "the Apollo Project"; I mean, do you realize what a waste of taxpayer money NASA is right now? The last thing we need is a gargantuan federal agency cooking up plans for centralized control over energy reform.
That's assuming they're not totally subservient to the oil industry.
So...any suggestions on how we could do this here in Montana?
The day Gore won the Nobel I started an open thread begging the question, "What effect will this have on the presidential race?" An article in today's New York Times discusses the effect it has already had on the GOP contenders.
The main reason I thought to ask "Gore '08?" was not some inclination that Gore would then ride into the race on a white horse, jousting all comers. To the contrary, it is unlikely that would happen. One of our more conservative readers immediately suggested that the Nobel committee was participating in a political stunt, completely ignoring the fact that the committee itself indicated that Gore and the IPCC scientists would split the award. The reason for this was that in the opinion of the committee the IPCC had worked towards a more conservative scientific solution, while Mr. Gore had worked towards a political advocacy solution. Note the word "political".
The award has lent even more deserved credibility to the issue of climate change to the point that GOP candidates are now changing their tune. Fred Thompson, who several months ago scoffed at the idea that global warming even existed is now saying we should do at least some little thing to stop it. The GOP is looking like a bunch of "flip-floppers" on this one, for sure, which in my humble opinion benefits all of the Democratic candidates. Up until this point John McCain is the only Republican candidate who has any credibility on global warming.
The thing is, global warming is real, it has been real for some time now, and the IPCC contains a host of scientists who are as conservative as they come, as well as a host of scientists who aren't. This is a consensus and it spells bad news for whoever makes it onto the Republican ticket.
It's official. Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to "spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundation for fighting it." Gore shared the award with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Obviously the award is a great honor, not just for Gore, but for the United States . In these times when our government is instigating war, violating human rights, and fostering discord at home and abroad, Gore's prize still reminds the world that there are Americans willing and capable of working for positive change. So, congratulations to Al Gore, and congratulations to the people of the United States for the Nobel Peace Prize, the most prestigious humanitarian award on the planet.
Now comes the buzzing and hubbub.
First, taking the prize has stirred up the efforts to draft Gore for a run at the presidency. A "draft Gore" group has bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to urge him to run - and we know how much attention those ads get! Gore still maintains he's not in the race?yet! Still, most folks think Gore won't run, including me.
Second, and as expected, the rightie long knives have come out to try to explain why the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless, and that the award committee must be a pack of liberals, and that Gore's winning the award is a signal for the Apocalypse. After the years-long hyperbolic attacks on Gore's character, the rhetoric in response to this little bit of news has ratcheted up to comic levels.
There's not much to say to this criticism. Instead, I recommend popping open a beer and watching these folks chase their tail around in a circle. Or not. The Sox are playing the Tribe tonight, and it hit me this postseason that it's 2007...and the Indians are still using this logo. Why the Cleveland organization clings to Chief Wahoo is beyond me. To protest the logo, I suggest dropping a sawbuck on a Fightin' Whities! t-shirt, proceeds from which go to a University of Northern Colorado scholarship fund for Native Americans.
You have to hand it to professional climate-change deniers. They're good at obfuscating. Take an editorial that appeared in today's Chicago Sun-Times, "Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny." The op-ed takes Al Gore's recent plea from The Assault on Reason to reject the "distortion of science," and turns it against Gore himself, by "refuting" climate change by challenging "scientifically" some symptoms of climate change Gore identified. In effect, the author accuses Gore himself of distorting science.
It should come as no surprise to anyone who's followed this issue, that the whole piece is complete cr*p.
