Well I think you do.
Otherwise why post an article on?

Before you say that you really dont. There was a cow tipping incident in Swoope, VA last week. You could care less about that, so you didnt publish an article on it.

freudian slip.

Sorry to go off topic for a second...

An ACTUAL American hero:

SEAL to Get Posthumous Medal of Honor

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,152462,00.html

This is the story told in the "Lone Survivor" book I've mentioned before. Don't look for this story in the corrupt/biased/liberal press tonight.

Interesting choice of names for the peace prize.
Maybe it should be called the
ICBL Prize?
Doctors w/o Boarders Prize?
Shimon Perez Prize? (jointly won by Arafat, but u left that out)
Yitzhak Rabin Prize? (jointly won by Arafat, but again you left that out)
Nelson Mandela Prize?
Dalai Lama Prize?
Desmond Tut Prize?

You seem to have the opinion that only people you dont like win that prize. So you belittle the prize and in turn you belittle the people that win it.

Very Christian of you.

You are right Kahn.
I have been watching Fox News all this morning and there hasnt been anything.

steve,
I don't know which lie to address first; it was discussed this morning on Fox and Friends, and Lt. Michael P. Murphy's story is on the Fox Website.

Once again, stevozero's credibility suffers under the weight of truth.

Kahn and Dasein libsbane-

A little off topic are'nt you? But then again that's exactly where you want to be on this subject isn't it.

Face it and deal.

DL,
Not trying to lie. I havent seen it. I dont watch Fox and Friends sorry.

Please provide a link to the story on www.foxnews.com

Its not on the main page.

Instead it seems Anna Nicole Smith is more important to Fox News than a SEAL being award the Medal of Honor posthumously.

:(

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct11/0,4670,MedalofHonor,00.html

The only way you can find it is by using the search function.

That damn liberal biased Fox News. Why are they burying a story like this DL?

;)

We don't expect you to be respectful of this award. We are used to having to drag you ultra-conservatives into the modern world, kicking and screaming. The American story of is one of liberalization and justice, the positive things this country has represented around the world, all being forced down your throats. You're always pulling up the rear, and the climate change issue is no different. A day late and a dollar short.

Seriously, why do you have to belittle everything you don't agree with here? I realize this blog is run from an extremist position, but can't you find some journalistic integrity to apply to your blogs?

Theodore Roosevelt, one this nation's greatest presidents, also won that award while in office. Do you look down on him as well?

By the way, Al Gore was not awarded that prize alone. He won it with a team of scientists who have devoted the last 30 plus years of their life to global warming.

Could it be that people from all over the world, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, even Conservatives and Liberals, can find common ground on this topic? If you can unite people from diverse backgrounds on a common goal, doesn't that bring us a little closer to peace in this world?

Steve,
If you don't watch Fox and Friends then how could you have "watching Fox News all this morning"? That's the only show on Fox News in the morning!

I don't have a problem with the Nobel Committee giving an award jointly to Algore and the IPCC, but what I don't understand is why the Peace Prize. If the Goracle and his followers have their way, continued economic development in the third world will be halted. How that will enhance world peace eludes me completely.

Anthony Watts has a great photo of Algore upon learning that he had won. Seriously, would anybody here buy a used car from this bozo?

My vote would have been for President George W. Bush. I guess freeing 50 million people from tyranny and giving hope to generations of millions more, just doesn't cut it.

You could care less about that, so you didnt publish an article on it.

It's "couldn't care less," stevojerkweed, and "didn't."

Desmond Tut Prize?

Is this guy related to King Tut, stevodumbarse? Or did you mean "Tutu?"

I have been watching Fox News all this morning and there hasnt been anything.

It's "hasn't."

Why are they burying a story like this DL?

They buried both this story and DL? What happened to DL?

A little off topic are'nt you?

At least stevodipstick's brother attempts to use an apostrophe, albeit between the wrong letters. It's "aren't," Zerojuevos.

Otherwise why post an article on?

On what?

Could it be that people from all over the world, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, even Conservatives and Liberals, can find common ground on this topic?

Sure, westmich, once someone writes the truth about it, and not the inconvenient truth, riddled with lies.

I hope this propels AlGore to run for the WH in '08; Mr. and Mrs. Slicky Blue Dress deserve retribution for what they did to him in 2000.

You're always pulling up the rear

You're always putting your nose up AlGore's rear...

Mark,

How do you spell sour grapes? Al’s got it all going on! You can’t keep a good man down.
Let’s see…
He won the popular vote in 2000, he’s won an Academy Award, and now he’s won the freekin' Nobel Peace Prize! What an American Hero!
Mission Accomplished Mr Gore! Mission Accomplished!

Semper Fi

Mark,

How do you spell sour grapes?

Posted by mack55 at October 12, 2007 02:00 PM

Bingo!!

The Conservative Right seems to have an aversion toward anything with the word 'Peace' in it.

Now, perhaps if they could instigate a prize to be awarded to a candidate who promoted war and kick-ass diplomacy throughout the world, someone from the lunatic conservative fringe would be a shoo-in.

Congratulations to Al Gore. My deepest gratitude to Michael Murphy, and my heartfelt sympathies to his family.

This award is just a weak attempt at giving Al Gore's cause and the international committees on climate change legitimacy.

There are those in the international community that wants to soak the US with carbon taxes and fees or whatever would have been committed to in the Kyoto Agreement.

This Nobel Prize has become a joke. If you are not a leftist, a tyrannt, a liar etc. etc. then you would not qualify. Some previous winners did deserve but lately the recipients have been less deserving.

Sour grapes? Jimmuh had to pay for his, I'm told. I wonder how much AlGore had to shell out to be up there with the likes of Jimmuh and Yasser...

The evangelicals speak up:

http://www.christiansandclimate.org/

It's the die-hard conservatives that are the boat anchor on this issue. As usual.

I think Rush Limbaugh should have contested the award!

Speaking of Rush, has everyone checked out his auction on eBay?

He's selling the original copy of Reid's and the DIMocrats' "smear letter" -- with the original signatures of the 41 DIMocrats who signed it -- including Hillary! The winning bidder also gets a "Halliburton" briefcase in which the letter is secured 24 hours a day!

Proceeds will go to "The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation [which] encourages the spiritual, moral and intellectual development of children through education."

Rush has challenged Reid and his DIMocrats to donate a matching amount -- to show their support for America's military.

There's a link to the auction on Rush's site.

AAR

Kiefer-

Where do you get your inside information on President Carter's Nobel award? Also, what is a neocon?

Steve,
If you don't watch Fox and Friends then how could you have "watching Fox News all this morning"? That's the only show on Fox News in the morning!
Posted by: DL.
-----------------------------------------------
DL,
Are you SURE about that? Maybe you get a different feed than I do.
American Newsroom and then FoxNews Live the rest of the morning.

;)
------------------------------------------------
Kahn,
dont get me wrong, I think this SEAL should be front page news. But ya know what? Fox News, CNN, etc doesnt care.

Do you see Mark Noonan making a blog topic about this wonderful hero that died for our country?

Nope. Instead he makes a blog post about Al Gore.

Did ya see any conservative blog making a front page post about this hero?

Go figure.

Looks to me like just about all news sources dont give a shit about this guy.

Michelle Malkin has Lt. Michael P. Murphy on her front page. Though her prime blog post is about how she is afraid to debate Ezra Klein on S-CHIP and that the Frosts are welfare cheats. Her blog is the best nincompoopery on the internets.

Ahh, AAR, The Marines. The branch of the service that wants to pull out of Iraq and redeploy. Guess they are all "phoney soliders".
Or maybe this is this the noted scientist, comedian and character assassin Rush Dimbaugs attempt to relieve guilt. Not that he is capable of feeling any. Guess he's maxed out on tax deductable charitable contributions this year...

I was just over at The American Thinker, very interesting article on how by awarding Gore and Co the Nobel Peace Prize the committee is going against Alfred Nobel's express wishes. Might be interesting read.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/al_gore_and_the_mission_of_the.html

aaa - you KNOW thats crap. Right?

Kahn,

"alex d'ranged" is the typical Liberal, who obediently parrots the lies and propaganda the MoveOn.Org-Democrat handlers feed their mindless robotic minions!

AAR

Can someone please enlighten me as to what in the hell an environmental movement has to do with PEACE?

Did Algore prevent a war between greedy capitalist lumber yards and loving, earth-worshipping vegan-hippies?

I think Alfred Nobel needs to resurrect and tell these idiots what the word PEACE means.

Congratulations to Mr. Gore.

Al Gore:
Won popular vote in 2000
Nobel Peace Prize
Oscar, Best Documentary
Emmy for cable channel

Bush:
In the running for least popular president ever.

-LiberalMind

OT/

Watch the Glenn Beck program at 6 pm on CNN. Glenn Beck interviews Pastor John Hagee for the full hour about the End Times. I agree with Pastor John Hagee. I believe we are living in the End Times. Watch Glenn Beck's interview with Hagee tonight at 6 pm.

If you haven't done so already, convert to Christianity. Accept and believe in God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior!
:)

That's 6pm PST and 9pm PST.

ALGORE Nobel Laureate!!!!! wooohhhhoooooooo!!!

Now if the leftist moonbats will only draft him for a Presidential bid, my year will be complete!!!!

BTW Spook, That picture you posted??? Doesn't ALGORE look like a penguin??

Steve,

No, it is just that the Nobel Peace Prize has become a politicised piece of .... excrement ... over the past twenty years or so. Once they gave it to Menchu for her pack of lies, that was pretty much it - the prize had become a plaything of leftists with an agenda.

As soon as Reagan gets a peace prize and Menchu and Arafat have theirs revoked, then it will be a prize worthy of honor again.

Let the swift-boating begin!

Plane?

Swiftboating begin? We've already been pointing out the paucity of actual efforts and results in Gore's life...what's to begin about it?

Plainjane, if by swiftboating you mean telling the truth about a phoney I shall oblige you....

Gore claimed in his convention speech prior to his nomination as the Democrat Presidential candidate: "I enlisted in the Army because I knew if I didn't go someone else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee would have to go in my place.

He enlisted in 1969 and spent most of his time Ft. Rucker, writing new paper articles, because he told the recruiter he had worked as a journalist for the New York Times part time while he was at Harvard. Just a small stretch...he was a copy boy.

Despite Gore's original claims of combat experience, he spent less than 5 months of the typical twelve month tour in country (that's Vietnam for all of you leftist draft dodgers). He spent every minute of his tour as a rear echelon puke, meaning he hid on the base a scrupulously avoided anything that looked even remotely dangerous.

He was assigned as a noncombat "information specialist" to the Army's 20th Engineer Brigade headquarters at the Bien Hoa military base near Saigon. Gore's immediate supervisor has confirmed that his posting came with explicit instructions to baby-sit him and make sure he was never in danger. He had the distinction of being the only enlisted man in the entire war to have a body guard.

Not five months into his tour, he was given a special dispensation and one way ticket home to attend college. (Gee that reminds me of another phoney. Must be in the Dem politicain playbook.)

He enrolled in divinity school and dropped out shortly therafter with failing grades.

His application for a Purple Heart, for callouses he received while makeing up stories about combat, was rejected.

OK I made up that last part. But I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Another phoney democrat war hero.

Seems like Kerry and Gore aren't the only phoney democrat war heroes:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200601\SPE20060113a.html

Phnx,

And what was really sad about that was that it was the elder Gore's way of ensuring that his son had proper war bona-fides for a future Presidential run. When the elder Gore was knocked out of Democratic Presidential prospects, he turned his attention to the younger Gore and Gore's whole life was nothing but preparation for running for President. The defeat in 2000 stung, but from the moment Gore conceded in 2000 he began laying his plans for come back - this Peace Prize (massaged out of a Nobel committee committed to poking America under President Bush in the eye) is just part of the plan - as was his movie "An Inconvenient 'Truth'".

While Gore couldn't guarantee an Acadamy Award or a Nobel Prize, he knew what he needed to do to get nominations for both - and even if he hadn't won, it would still have been a feather in his cap on the left for him to have been nominated. Gore did learn one thing out of 2000 - it is the leftwing base of the party which drives the nomination (Gore had to lurch leftwards in 2000 in order to stop Bradley, after all), and Gore has been carefully cultivating the left, knowing that with careful handling, he can call on them at will to support him...and I think he will, very shortly.

While denials still float about out there, there has yet to be a Shermanesque refusal to run for President on the part of Gore - with an Academy Award and Nobel Prize in his pocket, with the environmentalists pleased with his work on global warming, with Gore having complete purity on the war (Gore made some tepid pro-American noises early on, but Gore was also one of the first to loudly denounce President Bush over the war), all that remains is an announcement.

Right now, Hillary is sweeping all before her - it is percieved on the left that Obama and Edwards can't slay the dragon, and also might very well lose the general election. They don't like Hillary on the left, but they are at their wit's end (well, they would have to have some wit to be at the end of it..say they are at the end of the vacuum between their ears)...all they dreamed of is fading like a mirage...war ended, Bush impeached, relentlessly leftwing policies (as the American people want, it goes without saying - the far left is convinced that the majority is with them)...what to do?

A Gore announcement, even as late as mid-December of 2007, would take the political world by storm, and he would simply light up the far left like a firecracker...you just wait. He's going to do it.

Steveocar -

The reason Mark et al are leading with another round of hatred for Gore is so that they don't have to talk about the stunning rebuke of Bush and his Iraq policy that was issued today by Gen Ricardo Sanchez - just the latest in a long line of distinguished General officers who have the courage to say the Emperor has no clothes.

If you'll recall, Bush once said of General Sanchez, who commanded US forces in Iraq during 2003-2004: "Rick Sanchez has done a fabulous job. He's been there for a long time. His service has been exemplary."

Well, from today's NYT:

In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was "living a nightmare with no end in sight."

In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan" and denounced the current "surge" strategy as a "desperate" move that will not achieve long-term stability. ...

"There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties" and guilty of a "lust for power." ...

Ouch. No wonder these dead-ender Bush-bots want to fixate on bashing Gore today.

So sorry Mark - the SCOTUS isn't going to reverse this win by Gore...

I don't believe this. My goodness people, come to your senses! This is such freakin' crap! It's gotten so that not only has Gore Derangement Syndrome become the right-wing equivalent of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, the Goracle Myth has taken the place of the Global Jewish Conspiracy Myth of the 1920s and 30s.

I'm getting truly disgusted with this nonsense. It's getting sickening.

Rico,
You are right. It's sad when an American winning the Nobel Prize is considered by some to be an attack on America. There was a time when we all would have been proud.

Ricorun, you're correct. It's sickening. Someone who narrates a fictional documentary and refuses to debate the contents [which are obviously NOT science] wins a Nobel PEACE award?

What is the connection here, other than being a liberal loon? And the loons here proclaim 'sour grapes'? Agreed, these grapes are rotten, but no jealosy. And he deserves to be in the same group with Jimmy Carter and Arafat, so I say well deserved Fatman.

Gore won. Good for him.

He didn't win Florida. Multiple recounts of the contested ballots prove that. In your own words...Move On.

SEW: Ricorun, you're correct. It's sickening. Someone who narrates a fictional documentary and refuses to debate the contents [which are obviously NOT science] wins a Nobel PEACE award?

It's more than Gore, more than the Nobel prize. Gore is a spokesman, a messenger. The Nobel prize is a symbol, an icon. They represent the underlying substance, but they are not the same.

And what do you know about the science? I mean really?

Regardless of how you answer the last question, I argue that climate change is in itself only one part of a much broader underlying substance. There is considerably more to it than that. IMO, buying into everything Gore suggests on the one hand and doing nothing on the other is a false dichotomy. Both alternatives are likely to be far more expensive than recognizing the challenge of alternative fuels and addressing it with reason.

By all means, let's Move On.

Aaron,

Please don't forget to note that General Sanchez also says we must fight it out until victory is secured. Amazing how all the lefties taking not of Sanchez today fail to mention that part...

Casper,

Yep, we all would have been proud but for the way the left has politicised everything and thus led the way to a man who has no business winning a peace prize being awarded same. Gore did a slide show...Teddy Roosevelt actually helped secure peace between Russia and Japan. Get the difference?

Aaron,

And your comment about FL 2000 shows what you are really all about - just hating, hating, hating because you feel that your side was robbed in Florida.

Really, let go of the bitterness...

Where do you get your inside information on President Carter's Nobel award? Also, what is a neocon?

Two things for you, catatonicgene: 1. Tell me why you insist on misspelling my name, and I'll provide you with proof about Jimmuh; and 2. Once plaindumbcowjane gives us her definition of neocon, I'll give you the real one.

So, Sanchez retired as a LtGen? Maybe, just maybe, he was passed over for his fourth star. Anyway, stay tuned for the Sunday lib talking-head shows; I'm sure Sanchez will be the focus...

"Regardless of how you answer the last question, I argue that climate change is in itself only one part of a much broader underlying substance. There is considerably more to it than that. IMO, buying into everything Gore suggests on the one hand and doing nothing on the other is a false dichotomy. Both alternatives are likely to be far more expensive than recognizing the challenge of alternative fuels and addressing it with reason."

Like I said Rico, it's sickening. This Nobel is a PEACE prize! And your answer to the PEACE prize is alternative fuels. Man, this fog is thick.

"It's more than Gore, more than the Nobel prize. Gore is a spokesman, a messenger. The Nobel prize is a symbol, an icon. They represent the underlying substance..."

Rico, Global environmentalism has become a religion, Man Made climate change is the fundemental tenent of belief, the priests are those in the leftists media who tout this religion, Gore is their prophet. Anyone who speaks out against this nonsense is condemned as a heretic.

Gore has reached another level of conciousness at which we mere mortals can only wonder.

As President he can transform himself from prophet to MESSIAH...

SEW: Like I said Rico, it's sickening. This Nobel is a PEACE prize! And your answer to the PEACE prize is alternative fuels.

Somewhere in there is a legitimate point -- namely, what's the connection between peace and alternative fuels? In a nutshell, it is my studied opinion that continued reliance on fossil fuels will not only antagonize global warming (which itself could have a destabilizing effect depending upon how rapidly things change), it also perpetuates global instability by requiring us to vie for the remaining oil and gas reserves -- which, unfortunately, are mostly under the control of countries that don't like us that much. If we attack Iran and they respond by sabotaging the pipelines in Iraq and making the Strait of Hormuz a risky place to go sailing, what do we do? If Venezuela suddenly decides they want to switch trading partners, what do we do? What would be the effect on our economy?

So yeah, I do believe the whole issue is very much tied to peace. Whether Gore and/or the IPCC is right on every issue, or whether some hold up Gore as some kind of prophet is beside the point. Likewise, whether Gore's personal lifestyle makes him a hypocrite is also beside the point. I happen to think it does, though perhaps not as much as some others. At any rate, you don't have to be a saint to act on, or call attention to, an issue the Nobel committee deems worthy of note.

Keefer-

I just mispelled your name because it seems to bother you, that is it. Now where did you get your info. that President Carter bought his prize. And what are the particulars about the bribery. Finally, what is a neocon in your view.

I've seen a lot of debate over whether Al Gore's work on bringing global warming to the public's attention technically qualifies as peacemaking. But only right wing lunatics like you guys would suggest that because liberals like Gore and Carter have won it, the prize is now 'bogus'. Congratulations. Your rantings no longer have any connection with reality.
And your sites namesake is so meanspirited and petty that he could not even put partisanship aside for one day and call to congratulate the winner- who we should be proud of right? What a Pathetic loser.

If we attack Iran and they respond by sabotaging the pipelines in Iraq and making the Strait of Hormuz a risky place to go sailing, what do we do? If Venezuela suddenly decides they want to switch trading partners, what do we do? What would be the effect on our economy?

It might mobilize this country to finally move away from fossil fuels in a rather rapid fashion. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.

To you heretics we say..

Environmentalism is the only religion acceptable to Gaia, who recognizes no separation between religion and state.

To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next.

Why not surrender to the truth? Escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. As for those who have expressed their respect and admiration for Environmentalism, and acknowledged that it is the truth and demonstrated the support and sympathy for the enviromentalwackos and their causes I say to them, isn’t it time you stopped sitting on the fence and came over to the side of truth? …Abandon unbelief and accept the truth.

There is no God but Gaia and Algore is her prophet.

***********

Has a kind of familiar ring to it doesn't it.

Spook: It might mobilize this country to finally move away from fossil fuels in a rather rapid fashion. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.

There's an old saying of which I am fond: poop or get off the pot. I'm pretty sure that would be the poop that would get us off the pot. But if it happens it won't be pretty. The trouble with global warming (or "climate change", or whatever this week's popular meme is) is it's a very slow event horizon. Even if we were to eliminate all GHG emissions today it's unlikely the effects would be seen for another generation. That's a hard thing for the human psyche to wrap its collective head around. We tend to need a catastrophic failure (or poop) to get us off the pot.

I submit that it's possible, just possible, that convolving several interests into essentially one solution is God's way of directing us. But I suppose you don't have to believe in God in order to see the inevitable. It might help, though.

Ooooh, not taking the Goracle/Boracle seriously really stirs up the anthill of rabid Libs, doesn't it?

I loved this passage: "We don't expect you to be respectful of this award. We are used to having to drag you ultra-conservatives into the modern world, kicking and screaming. The American story of is one of liberalization and justice, the positive things this country has represented around the world, all being forced down your throats."

Deconstruction:

The the oft-proven failures of Socialism is reinvented, Orwellian-style, as the "modern world", and "kicking and screaming" about efforts to drag America BACKWARDS into this world and undo the progresses of a free market capitalist system is portrayed as a negative.

As for the rest of this statement, " The American story of is one of liberalization and justice, the positive things this country has represented around the world, all being forced down your throats.." well, it makes no more sense than most uber-Liberal rants. The "American system" has traditionally been one of individual freedom, the antithesis of Socialism, and therefore has never HAD to be "forced down (conservative) throats".

This paragraph is a masterpiece of Lib doublespeak. It is much like the rest of the movement. The honest word "liberal" has been co-opted to mean its exact opposite, as Liberals are the most ILliberal group in the country. Those who scream about "tolerance" and "diversity" are the most intolerant, and the diversity represented by different political views is simply not---tolerated. They call themselves PROgregessive, while in actuality being REgressive, determined to take us back to the Bad Old Days of socialist regimes. No fancy new ideas for them, by golly---no modernization of the educational system by introducing competition via the implementation of a voucher system which would allow students of all economic classes more equal access to quality education, no reform of an outdated and inefficient Social Security system by allowing OWNERSHIP of SS accounts and freedom of choice regarding how those accounts are invested, no admission that labor unions are now not advancing the welfare of the worker but are merely corrupt power brokers for political interests. No, the PROgressives are really the exact opposite---to borrow a phrase, "kicking and screaming" at the prospect of actually moving FORWARD on anything, but determined to move the other direction.

And just what IS an "ultraconservative", anyway? Someone who really really REALLY believes in the Constitution, in capitalism as the best illustration of personal freedom, in true freedom of choice? Much like the word "neocon" it goes undefined, while we on the right have no trouble whatsover in defining the difference between liberals and radical rabid Lefties.

Sometimes we use sentencese and paragraphs to do so, sometimes we just list names: plainjane, kblack, errortime, westmich, Casper, Liberal"mind"....

The tunnel vision of radicals would be amusing if it were not so annoying.

The problems of today are solved by the technology of tomorrow. This means, for you uber-Libs, that we don't develop answers till we have problems. This is why we didn't refine petroleum until we had cars that needed gasoline. This is why we don't yet have answers to the dual problems of over-reliance on fossil fuels and dependence on foreign sources for those fuels.

How long has it been since those two interrelated problems were really identified and realized? Not all that long. But once they were, efforts began to solve them.

No, they are not solved yet. But we are making progress. Just look at the advances in just the past decade in the development of ethanol, biodiesel (probably the least appreciated of the new fuel sources) and solar and wind power, as well as in the possibility of using hydrogen. It's amazing, and inspiring, to see how far we have come in such a short time.

But there have been obstacles, and aside from those stemming from technological problems these have almost all come from---the Left. Yep, folks, the same guys who are bowing down at the Altar of Gore are the ones who block wind farms because they might interfere with "views" or kill some birds, who block the production of more silica for use in solar collection panels, who fight the use of nuclear power to replace other methods of making electricity, who refuse to allow the building of oil refineries in the United States, who block drilling in various areas (as many as they can) for various reasons loosely lumped under "environmental concerns" and so on.

With the advancement in solar technology, solar collection panels should be cheaper than ever. yet they have not come down in price. Why? Mining silica is blocked. New technology should make wind turbines more and more popular, but we haven't seriously expanded our 'wind farms'. Why? They're too close to wilderness areas or favorite yachting grounds.

Gore said, years and years ago, that he hoped for the end of the use of the internal combustion engine. OK---so what does he propose replace it? I haven't seen an answer to that, other than just increasing government control over just about every aspect of our lives.

The free market system can solve these problems, but that is not the goal of the socialist Left. They don't WANT the free market system to achieve anything---it should be the State, always the State, in everything the State.

Now I am going to offend our resident strident Libs by actually discussing IDEAS.

Ethanol: Not the best answer, as without significant government subidies it is unaffordable. The production cost per gallon is astronomical. The downside: So far it depends mostly on corn. Corn requires huge amounts of water and fertilization to produce, which will have a negative effect on different aspects of the environment.

Biodiesel: Can be made from any oil source, many of which have much less impact on the environment. If we would allow the production of agricultural hemp, for example it would provide vast quantities of hemp oil in addition to the fibers, which make superior rope and fabrics. Rape seed produces a lot of oil (canola oil) with far less consumption of water and fertilizer. Research into dryland sources of vegetable oils could result in opening up huge areas of now-unproductive land for agricultire as well as reducing the demand for petro-diesel. Warm-water shipping now prefers to use biodiesel as it is safer in case of spills, as well as being less polluting when burned.

Solar energy will remain largely untapped until and unless we open up the development of the materials needed to manufacture solar collectors. We can already store concentrated solar heat in saline banks hot enough to produce steam to generate electricity----using this technology in other applications could significantly reduce the need for other sources of heat and power.

I've seen major advances in wind turbine technology. But we have to get out of the NIMBY mentality.

WE ARE DOING SOMETHING. The complaints of the Goriacs seems to be that THE PEOPLE are doing something, not the State. Because that's what it really comes down to----the conflict is not between the users and the savers, or the belief system of man-made global warming vs the natural climate-change side----it is between those who want more and more intereference from, and control by, the State vs those who want free enterprise and the free market to address problems as they arise.

Almiranta: Now I am going to offend our resident strident Libs by actually discussing IDEAS.

Ideas! What a concept! As it happens I'm full of them. Well, full of something anyway. Allow me to offer my own thoughts on top of yours. This is a topic I've thought a lot about. If anyone wants sources I'll try my best to provide them. But for now I'll just go free-form...

Ethanol: Not the best answer, as without significant government subidies it is unaffordable. The production cost per gallon is astronomical.

Actually, that's becoming less and less true in quite a hurry. Ethanol from simple carbohydrate stocks like corn, soy beans, sugar beets, etc., doesn't offer much of a long-term solution. Cellulosic biofuels is a different story. For one thing, producing biofuels from cellulosic stocks like landscape trimmings, tree pruning, switchgrass, etc., reduces the strain on landfills. Thus, it recovers the cost of dumping in landfills. Additionally (relative to simple carbohydrate stocks) it fixes more carbon in the soil, requires little in the way of fertilizers, can be grown in marginal soils that are unsuitable for food crops, dramatically reduces the impact on food crop prices and purity (e.g., breeding corn, et. al. for consumption vs. fuel use runs at cross-purposes, and introduces the possiblility of contamination between fields), requires little or no irrigation, prevents erosion, and can be used as wildlife sanctuaries.

There are basically two ways to ferment cellulosic stocks into biofuels (albeit with many variations). One is acid hydrolysis, which is, for all intents and purposes, coming on line right now. That's the up-side. The down side is that it is carbon-positive, meaning that the amount of carbon currently expended in the processing and use cycle exceeds the amount of carbon returned to the soil during the growth cycle. But it's still better than simple carbohydrate ethanol, and much better than fossile fuels. Given the current price of gasoline, the cost of acid hydrolysis fermentation of cellulosic biofuels is pretty competitive. But that assumes the offset from landfill costs, so its scale is limited.

The second method of fermentation is enzymatic fermentation -- basically using bugs (microbes) to do the job. At present enzymatic fermentation is both complicated and costly, involving many steps. However, there are some new techniques coming on-line, or might be in the near future. One of the most promising is the Q-microbe, which is a naturally occuring microbe that eats just about anything. A test plant is expected to come on-line in the next year or so. If successful it could bring the cost of producing ethanol from cellulosic stocks BELOW that of simple carbohydrate producion. And this is a technology that is not scale-limited.

Additionally, various labs have been working on various types of modified organisms to ferment cellulosic stocks into biofuels (ethanol, butanol, even gasoline(!)) in one step. Some of these guys appear to be getting pretty darned close. Of particular honorable mention is Craig Ventor, the guy who was instrumental in making the human genome project come in well before schedule and considerably under-budget. He recently announced that his group has succeeded in synthesizing an entire chromosome! Un.Freakin.Believable. If successful in getting his new bugs to reproduce with reasonable efficiency, he will have a scaffold upon which to build all sorts of cool new bugs -- bugs which can produce ethanol, butanol, gasoline, or pretty much anything you want, as well as some that can scrub the atmosphere of CO2, methane, or whatever. The guy is incredible.

Biodiesel: Can be made from any oil source, many of which have much less impact on the environment. If we would allow the production of agricultural hemp, for example it would provide vast quantities of hemp oil in addition to the fibers, which make superior rope and fabrics.

This is new to me. I'd like to know more.

Solar energy will remain largely untapped until and unless we open up the development of the materials needed to manufacture solar collectors. We can already store concentrated solar heat in saline banks hot enough to produce steam to generate electricity----using this technology in other applications could significantly reduce the need for other sources of heat and power.

I guess this issue reverts back to what you said about silicas, and the limitations on their production. I'd like to hear more about that, too.

Now let me throw out a few more ideas...

Alternative fuel viability is dependent upon issues of both economy of scale and diversity. In the case of scale, solar technologies are a prime example. The cost of solar technology could drop considerably if put into broader use. But still, there is the problem of dealing with refuse, which as I understand it is a big issue. Wave technology is another one that could only be efficient if deployed on a big scale. And as I understand it, that technology currently suffers from some significant technological hurdles. On the issue of diversity, one of the things impeding progress on the most local scale is the fact that in most areas the energy grid is not equipped to be two-way. In other words, if you as an individual generate more energy than you use, you can't supply the excess back to your supplier. As far as I know, only certain areas in Arizona are set up to do that. In their case the excess comes from solar panels -- they tend to have a lot of sun in Arizona. But in other areas it could be backyard windmills, or a water turbine in the stream running by your backyard. If you happen to own a cattle farm you could harvest methane. All kinds of things are possible -- if properly incentivized. And it wouldn't cost all that much to do a lot of these kinds of things. Not relative to how much it might (and probably will) if they aren't.

This is getting really long, but I thought I'd throw out a couple more things. First, can ANYONE explain to me why enhanced geothermal systems (EGS -- also known as hot dry rock, or "HDS") technology research is not properly funded? I have heard very little on the down-side, and a great deal on the up-side of this technology. I don't get it. Am I missing something? EGS technology has the potential to be deployable almost anywhere, is local and scalable, has minimal surface environmental impact, essentially no emissions, and could, in fact, offer a way to sequester excess carbon far below the surface if deployed in conjunction with coal burning utilities -- or established oil wells, for that matter. Because it relies on the earth's internal temperature it is an essentially unlimited resource (at least in the long run -- it might require established sites to remain dormant after a generation of use to allow the internal temperature to re-build). And most of the cost is in the initial capital investment -- i.e., drilling the well holes. I really don't understand why EGS technology doesn't get more notice.

Finally (whew!), to the extent that we continue to employ heat-generating utilities -- nuclear powered, coal powered, or gas powered plants -- starting now, we have to start thinking about how we can make them compatible with paired water desalination plants. One of the big potential problems with climate change -- perhaps THE biggest -- is that it is very likely to lead to a redistribution of rainfall. Some places are likely to get wetter, some dryer. Unless we can compensate for those changes it will lead to mass migrations, which could lead to political instabilities. It seems to me that we have to start thinking about this stuff.

Let me ad more to the mix. Coal Liquefaction. There are already several processes for converting coal to gas. The biggest problem is that it would increase the CO2 released into the atmosphere. The plus is we have lots of coal.

My personal favorites are wind and solar energy.

BTW, Almiranta,
I was surprised to see a conservative push for the use of agricultural hemp. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%. It was one of those things that makes life interesting.

Casper: Let me ad more to the mix. Coal Liquefaction. There are already several processes for converting coal to gas. The biggest problem is that it would increase the CO2 released into the atmosphere. The plus is we have lots of coal.

Coal liquefaction is also expensive. How expensive is dependent upon the grade of coal (or oil shale) in question. Additionally, building plants to perform the conversion also requires a significant amount of capital investment. That's the down-side. The up-side is that the vehicles and plants already designed to combust fossil fuels don't require any modification. These are the hard issues.

Just curious... what do you know about EGS? By the way, at the bottom of the article I just cited is a link to a report where they go over the technology, the hurdles left to conquer, and the economic variables involved. In a way I see this challenge as a kind of "space race", wherein the hidden technologies are so much more valuable than the obvious ones.

Casper, I screwed up. The proper link is this one.

Ricorun,
Very interesting article. I knew that Iceland has used EGS for decades, what I didn't know, was how much of it is available in our country. Very exciting.

I think ultimately, we will be using a combination of EGS, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, and coal to produce the electricity we need. The advantage to all of them is we have all of them here.

"One of the big potential problems with climate change -- perhaps THE biggest -- is that it is very likely to lead to a redistribution of rainfall. Some places are likely to get wetter, some dryer. Unless we can compensate for those changes it will lead to mass migrations, which could lead to political instabilities. It seems to me that we have to start thinking about this stuff."

I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada become a major destination for many, especially if parts of the Arctic thaw out.

Interesting quote from President Klaus, who also said (an exact quote):"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so."

Congrats, Al. Wish you would run. Can't blame you if you don't. To paraphrase another "Al": Moral, ethical and intelligent people such as yourself have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Let the opposition begin.

"Or is it the Menchu Truth Prize? Or the Carter Coward Prize?"

Surprising that you would have so much contempt for the Mother Teresa Heavenly Phantom Prize. She must have received it while it was still "old school".

Quote-Unquote" As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques have a grotesque provenance: “Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.”

What is the greatest crisis that the species faces today? Good luck, blogs of President Bush, but your country needs you. You may say I'm dreamer, but all you need is love. And a shot in the face, like the President. Wake up!