Reply To: Global Warming

[Brian H]

Rezwan, as you observed, the Green organizations are rolling in funding, and have the ear of virtually every political power center on the planet. Despite having contributed almost nothing except large expenses and significant indirect job losses to the world economy. And are VERY self-righteously sneering at and condemning anyone who points this out as being anything from a Denier to an ecological bandit to a shill for Big Oil. And worse; the flood of witlessly gratuitous insults is unending and pervasive. As a beneficiary of their approval, none of that would seem problematic to you, perhaps. If I sound adamant at times, it’s because the seriousness and weight of the information which is being actively suppressed is very great, and howlingly bogus generalities and “principles” are being taken and imposed as givens. And they are playing for all the marbles: full global control of all energy sources and uses, and the financial flows therefrom. Which is just about everything.

It might interest you to know that a decade ago I was a classic moderate liberal, pro-government, pro-green member of the majority, too, but with a strong belief in the power of genuine science. It was a gradual discovery of chicanery in the cases presented for AGW and a few related issues, and the consequences of 9/11, that popped the bubble. Along with an inveterate dislike for groupthink rhetoric and tactics being deployed to advance the left’s causes. (I was very sad Gore lost in 2000, but ecstatic that Kerry lost in 2004, on the political front.)
_________
Anyhow, back to FF; as to the ‘high-wiring without a net’, however iffy you think its chances of working out or paying off are they are multiples better than those of “renewables”, other than a few standbys like fission (ironically blocked and rendered politically incorrect by the same people now being forced to give it the “carbon-free” stamp of approval.) FF also has a payoff ratio so much higher than any alternatives there isn’t even a comparison. So it looks like this to me: low to moderate risk of failure, wildly net positive cost-benefit ratio. Nothing else qualifies. (For links documenting this on an ongoing basis request inclusion on the mailing list for Some Recent Energy News
by “John Droz, jr.” . His principal focus is wind energy, as the most egregiously misrepresented, but he covers the science and economics of the entire field. Very conscientious and professional job.)

As for the “free energy” comment, I have been trying to point out that it is very likely that it will often (though not always) be more, often much more, expensive to harness the low-quality (= low temperature, not up to industrial standards and useful levels) waste heat from FF than to simply accomplish the tasks that heat is to be used for directly with more FF electric output. You don’t spend $20 to save $10. Unless you’re in government.