The heat is on. Fox News special review

[wacki]

Michael Davis told me to post a trip report so here it is.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised to see they said global warming was happening. They also stated stats saying 80% of americans polled believed it was happening so I was happy about that. They interviewed glacial scientists, mentioned the vostok ice cores (although very briefly and basically told us nothing about them), ripped apart GE's ecomagination (and similar advertisements) and the Kyoto treaty which was also good. They also mentioned climate change causing hurricanes, draughts, floods, etc and how the temp of the earth has risen. Then it went all down hill.

When talking about the fight for global warming they thought it was important enough to spend over 20 minutes (guestimating) interviewing the director of "the day after tomorrow" Linky and how he replaces the lightbulbs in his house with energy efficient bulbs. They also spent another 10 minutes or so interview the wife of Larry David from HBO’s "Curb your enthusiasm" and how she gave away her husbands hybrid at http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/. They interviewed random Hollywood figures, how 8 year old kids at a "global warming camp" learn to power little plastic fans with solar cells, a racecar driver that loves to race off of ethanol, and a CEO of a motor company using wonderful buzzwords like "we have scientists working not only on the next generation of fuel cells but the generation after that".

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
2) ITER and how it’s been in gridlock for 19 years and 358 days.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER
5) Why hybrids don’t save energy due to increased construction energy costs
6) Why hydrogen in itself isn’t going to help global warming because we still need to use fossil fuels to create it.
7) Offshore wind turbines
8) ocean thermal energy conversion
9) Fuel cells Achilles heel = not enough platinum to go around
10) severe lack of physicists in this country
11) interview any Nobel laureate
12) interview any physicist
13) carbon sequestration
14) interview Jerry M. Melillo
15) Mention C12/C14 data
16) This image: http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2084/3way8fp.png
17) peak oil
18) how shale oil will release massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere

I could go on and on and on….

Seriously, what is the point of having the show? They spent more time interviewing celebrities than scientists. All they had to do is watch the PBS/Edward Norton Strange Days series and Richard Smalley’s video and plagiarize. The only person on the show that said "come up with alternative ways to make energy" was a little boy at "energy camp". What a joke.

Here, let me help you FoxNews:
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_O...31101_300k.wmv
http://smalley.rice.edu/
www.pbs.org/strangedays


PS. Feel free to e-mail a link of this post to fox news. That used to be my favorite news station and now I think it’s a joke.

Atleast it seemed like their hearts were in the right place. Still, the show probably motivated maybe 2 people and left everyone in the dark about what our energy needs really will be in the future.

wacki,

Thank you. How do we get our folks in DC to do anything except rattle on and on? They each have their agendas and special interest debts.

If they won't pay any attention to science, who will they listen to?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a mediocre plan.

Let's start with one basic idea.

We will never run out of gas.

Oh, of course, the amount of gas in the world is finite, for sure. No doubting that. But we won't run out. The price will only get higher and higher.

Now, as the price of gas grows higher as the supplies run lower, demand for alternative energy skyrockets, and with demand comes massive private r+d investments by companies with a massive incentive to come up with an alternative fuel.

Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it? People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

Oh...and by letting the private sector handle it, you also don't have one other irritating problem. See, when you tax gas, you aren't just taxing gas. You are taxing EVVVVVERYTHING. Guess who that hurts the most. It's not the rich.

Will

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a mediocre plan.

Let's start with one basic idea.

We will never run out of gas.

Oh, of course, the amount of gas in the world is finite, for sure. No doubting that. But we won't run out. The price will only get higher and higher.

Now, as the price of gas grows higher as the supplies run lower, demand for alternative energy skyrockets, and with demand comes massive private r+d investments by companies with a massive incentive to come up with an alternative fuel.

Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it? People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

Oh...and by letting the private sector handle it, you also don't have one other irritating problem. See, when you tax gas, you aren't just taxing gas. You are taxing EVVVVVERYTHING. Guess who that hurts the most. It's not the rich.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

This is stupid wishful thinking. God I really hate people so committed to an idea that it blinds them to reality. I don't want us to start working on this problem when oil is $200 per barrel and the economy is [censored] and famine returns to many parts of the globe.

That's not soon enough and that's not good enough, and if you're happy with that because it fits your view of how the world should work then you're an idiot and deserve the chaos for which you yearn.

I want this problem solved now. Barring that as soon as possible, and I don't care if government or private industry finances the R&D and capital investment.

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

Also, FYI to the OP, if you don't know already, Smalley died a couple days back. So that sucks.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want us to start working on this problem when oil is $200 per barrel and the economy is [censored] and famine returns to many parts of the globe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "us"? If *you* want to start working on it, get to work. Lots of other people have already started, what are you waiting on?

[ QUOTE ]
I want this problem solved now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, go for it.


[ QUOTE ]
All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people are doing something. You aren't. What are you complaining about? That you can't force other people to do work that you personally want done?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
We will never run out of gas.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. We can extract gas from coal, shale, etc. However, those processes will wreak absolute havok on our atmosphere by increasing CO2 emmissions many fold. Did you not see that in my original post?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

www.iter.org/
solid state batteries
www.ocees.com/
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec...ml#development
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtl...f-aa653124a093

All emission free, all in gridlock. All of which are either ran/discovered by nonprofit research groups or ignored by private investors.

I could go on.

Again, my challenge of opening up a college biology/chemistry/physics textbook and counting how many novel inventions/discoveries were made by private industry vs. nonprofit groups goes unanswered.

[ QUOTE ]
People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, scientists work for money and profit only. That is why Einstein, Smalley, Watson, Crick, Darwin, Madame Curie, and all of the other greatest scientist were so ungodly rich. *sarcasm* I swear, anyone that gives answers like this has absolutely no clue what drives the best scientists on the planet. Many, if not most, of these people would much rather ride a bike to work than drive a lexus. If they were so driven by wealth many NASA scientists would start managing a restaurant. Why? Because that highschool dropout often gets paid more and doesn't have to pay off school loans.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate further?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER


Care to elaborate further?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://tinyurl.com/aque9


and from journals

http://tinyurl.com/duygt



You lazy bum. Maybe you should work for Fox News. :-P Oh well, atleast you are asking questions.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
6) Why hydrogen in itself isn’t going to help global warming because we still need to use fossil fuels to create it.

[/ QUOTE ]

nuclear power [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
www.iter.org/
solid state batteries
www.ocees.com/
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec...ml#development
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtl...f-aa653124a093

All emission free, all in gridlock. All of which are either ran/discovered by nonprofit research groups or ignored by private investors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gridlocked by what? By government intervention? Or by a market that finds them uninteresting? Either the system you advocate is producing results counter to what you claim it will, or the technology you advocate is not performing well enough to satisfy those whom you seek to force it upon. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, my challenge of opening up a college biology/chemistry/physics textbook and counting how many novel inventions/discoveries were made by private industry vs. nonprofit groups goes unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because all it shows is that government can use force to distort results. We don't need a "challenge" to show that.