Don’t we all chuckle to ourselves when we hear people explain what the energy industry is going to be like in the year 2100? Our world changes so fast today—and that rate of change is only accelerating—that it makes very little sense to speculate on what flavor of renewable energy will be in vogue 85 years hence—or what flavor of anything else will define the world at that time: the state of the art in medicine, information technology, warfare, geopolitics, life elongation, space migration, etc.
We’ve all seen that our lives, individually and collectively, take radical and unforeseeable twists. In particular, the things that worry us most never happen, and the things that cause us the most pain totally blindside us. (more…)
I have two main theories that address our transition from fossil-based to renewable energy:
1) The challenge the world faces in phasing out fossil fuels is both absolutely imperative and ….totally impossible. It’s akin to the paradox: what happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable object? A few more decades of pumping the exhaust from fossil fuel combustion into our skies will destroy our civilization. (more…)
Businesses that have taken advantage of the incentives that the US government has offered them on products and processes that lower emissions can save a lot of money. Here is a snapshot of what businesses are doing on their own to lower emissions and go green:
With each passing year, people realize our dependence on fossil fuels is hurting the world we live in. Climate change as well as climbing prices have driven a global search for alternative energies. Scientists everywhere have taken up the call, and some of their solutions are as creative as they are bizarre. Keep reading to learn about some amazing projects for renewable energy that you might not know about—but that are already underway:
Waves to Energy
Everybody has heard of wind farms, but farming waves is a different story. (more…)
Apparently, I grossly misinterpreted the words of Thomas Fuller whom I quoted below. Accordingly, I preface the following article with the following:
I have to ask if you can be factually correct about anything after your misquote of me. The words you think I am using to attack Michael Mann were actually part of an open letter to Ken Cuccinelli, who was trying to prosecute Mann. …and in a post about libel… what a maroon.
Open Letter to Mr. Cuccinelli, Attorney General
Sir, As co-author of a book (Climategate: The CRUtape Letters) that was harshly critical of the performance of Michael Mann and his colleagues, I write in criticism of your decision to investigate Mr. Mann for potential violations of state laws on fraudulent payment of claims.
Mr. Mann has been extensively investigated regarding his work product, and although I consider his actions to be often unprofessional and politically oriented, neither I nor any of the people interviewed for our book have any doubt whatsoever that Mann performed the scientific work he has been commissioned to do, or that he engaged in any fraudulent actions.
No matter what has prompted your investigation, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted as a witch hunt. If you are in fact investigating a credentialed scientist for results that do not suit your political opinion, that interpretation is correct. Unless you can reveal to the public prima facie evidence that shows cause for this investigation, I beg you to reconsider. There are ample avenues of professional and academic recourse for people like me who think he has done something wrong. But being wrong is not a crime, and intimidating scientists not a path that this country, including I presume Virginians, should ever pursue. You may consult with colleagues in Salem to determine how long it takes to live this type of thing down.
Sincerely,
Thomas Fuller
Readers who may be following the personal attacks on climate scientists who make assertions about the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are most likely familiar with Dr. Michael Mann (pictured), arguably the poster child for this phenomenon. From ThinkProgress:
Michael Mann’s defamation suit against Mark Steyn and the National Review took another step forward last month, with D.C. Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg again rejecting a motion to dismiss the suit….Mann sued Steyn, National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and CEI analyst Randy Simberg in 2012 over what he claims are defamatory articles accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. (Simberg called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”) (more…)
Sometimes I’m optimistic about the outcome of the climate disruption issue, but other days it’s hard to maintain that sunny outlook. However you slice it, the French fellow quoted in this article is correct: developing countries cannot be denied the right to develop. As he put it: “An agreement that would leave some countries to consider their growth hampered by its provisions will not be accepted.” (more…)
At least once a week, I get a request from someone, somewhere in the world, asking about our 2GreenEnergy internships. Over the years, 10 or so of these have worked out, each one an utter delight. I’ve made many fine new friends, these young people have learned a great deal and improved their skills in researching and writing, and the world is a better informed place as a result of their work.
Having said that, most requests don’t work out. (more…)
An old school chum who happens to be ultra-conservative comments: Depend on this: everyone in America and the Western industrialized democracies WILL have non-polluting electric vehicles, re-charged with electricity produced by renewable resources, when it makes economic sense for the market as a whole and for individuals…and not one minute before.
I don’t disagree, but I have a few different responses that I hope will clarify what you’ve written here: (more…)
Don’t we all chuckle to ourselves when we hear people explain what the energy industry is going to be like in the year 2100? Our world changes so fast today—and that rate of change is only accelerating—that it makes very little sense to speculate on what flavor of renewable energy will be in vogue 85 years hence—or what flavor of anything else will define the world at that time: the state of the art in medicine, information technology, warfare, geopolitics, life elongation, space migration, etc.
