Outspoken ASU prof draws ire..(GW)

[stephanie]

Corinne Purtill
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 11, 2007 12:00 AM

Arizona State University climatologist Robert Balling attended the premiere of Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

He served on the United Nations' climate-change panel and studies how drought and warmer temperatures will affect the West.

He bikes to work and eats organic food.

But environmentalists hate him.

Balling, 54, has spoken and written extensively against the widely held scientific view that the documented rise in global temperatures is the result of human activity and that serious consequences will result.

Even if humans are warming the planet by causing the buildup of greenhouse gases, he says, the doomsday scenarios forecast by many climate scientists may never happen.

His views have elicited outrage from environmentalists and scorn from some fellow scientists.

They've also resulted in conference invitations and research grants from industries with a stake in debunking the large body of research that supports a link between human activity and global warming.

Despite his notoriety as a hero of the skeptic crowd, Balling's research and lifestyle contain some surprising contradictions.

He is in charge of climate studies at the Decision Center for a Desert City, an ambitious ASU program that looks at how drought will affect the Valley.

He's a registered independent and lives a lifestyle that the hardiest environmental activist would recognize as green.

His outspoken views and the criticism they get have put ASU in an awkward position as it tries to shape itself as a leader in climate-change studies, ASU officials said.

Balling seems bemused by his reputation among activists.

"Somehow I've been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell," he said. "There's just no tolerance right now."


The critic gets criticized
For most of his career at ASU, Balling's work focused on climate issues such as the urban-heat-island effect, drought and desertification - many of the same themes now viewed as possible consequences of climate change.

He was head of ASU's Office of Climatology for 16 years.

In 1992, he wrote a book called The Heated Debate. The book assailed several aspects of mainstream climate science.

Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh began quoting the book. Sales took off. An invitation to address the directors of a coal company followed.

His reputation as a global-warming skeptic was made.

Balling has been booed at public appearances.

A fellow climatologist publicly dismissed his widely circulated critique of An Inconvenient Truth with the observation that "some people believe the Earth is flat, too."

In May, Vanity Fair magazine published a cartoon labeled "Dante's Inferno: Green Edition." Balling was in the eighth circle of hell.

The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and a host of scientific academies have endorsed the conclusion that global temperatures are rising and that warming is likely the result of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity.

"It is fair to say that it is not absolutely certain that the warming we have observed so far is largely due to human activity, but (it) is very likely. And it is virtually certain that continued rises in greenhouse gases will lead to significantly more warming," wrote Eric Steig, a professor at the Uni- versity of Washington, in an e-mail.

Balling's research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.

His positions have modified over time. Today, he says that about half the warming recorded since 1975 can be attributed to greenhouse gases.

Research questioned

read the rest and comments..
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1111balling1111.html

[glockmail]

....

But environmentalists hate him. ....

His views have elicited outrage from environmentalists and scorn from some fellow scientists. ...

"Somehow I've been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell," he said. "There's just no tolerance right now."



Very telling of exactly what types of people these enviro-nuts are.

[diuretic]

He's owned. Zero cred.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

[glockmail]

He's owned. Zero cred.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling


How does that "own" him?

[theHawk]

Makes me proud of my Alma Mater!!

[diuretic]

How does that "own" him?


Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]

His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He can write what he likes but everything he writes is going to be tained by the knowledge that he has an ideological barrow to push. He has been funded by certain interests to which he is beholden.

[glockmail]

He can write what he likes but everything he writes is going to be tained by the knowledge that he has an ideological barrow to push. He has been funded by certain interests to which he is beholden.


By your logic Hillary Clinton is tainted by George Soros and the Chinese government.

[diuretic]

By your logic Hillary Clinton is tainted by George Soros and the Chinese government.

And she may well be. I would think all the candidates are owned by various interests - maybe not Kucinich or Paul, but certainly the others are beholden.

[glockmail]

And she may well be. I would think all the candidates are owned by various interests - maybe not Kucinich or Paul, but certainly the others are beholden.
So a scientist has to be poor or independently wealthy to be credible.

[actsnoblemartin]

Disagreeing means, you must be destroyed according to the kook left


Corinne Purtill
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 11, 2007 12:00 AM

Arizona State University climatologist Robert Balling attended the premiere of Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

He served on the United Nations' climate-change panel and studies how drought and warmer temperatures will affect the West.

He bikes to work and eats organic food.

But environmentalists hate him.

Balling, 54, has spoken and written extensively against the widely held scientific view that the documented rise in global temperatures is the result of human activity and that serious consequences will result.

Even if humans are warming the planet by causing the buildup of greenhouse gases, he says, the doomsday scenarios forecast by many climate scientists may never happen.

His views have elicited outrage from environmentalists and scorn from some fellow scientists.

They've also resulted in conference invitations and research grants from industries with a stake in debunking the large body of research that supports a link between human activity and global warming.

Despite his notoriety as a hero of the skeptic crowd, Balling's research and lifestyle contain some surprising contradictions.

He is in charge of climate studies at the Decision Center for a Desert City, an ambitious ASU program that looks at how drought will affect the Valley.

He's a registered independent and lives a lifestyle that the hardiest environmental activist would recognize as green.

His outspoken views and the criticism they get have put ASU in an awkward position as it tries to shape itself as a leader in climate-change studies, ASU officials said.

Balling seems bemused by his reputation among activists.

"Somehow I've been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell," he said. "There's just no tolerance right now."


The critic gets criticized
For most of his career at ASU, Balling's work focused on climate issues such as the urban-heat-island effect, drought and desertification - many of the same themes now viewed as possible consequences of climate change.

He was head of ASU's Office of Climatology for 16 years.

In 1992, he wrote a book called The Heated Debate. The book assailed several aspects of mainstream climate science.

Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh began quoting the book. Sales took off. An invitation to address the directors of a coal company followed.

His reputation as a global-warming skeptic was made.

Balling has been booed at public appearances.

A fellow climatologist publicly dismissed his widely circulated critique of An Inconvenient Truth with the observation that "some people believe the Earth is flat, too."

In May, Vanity Fair magazine published a cartoon labeled "Dante's Inferno: Green Edition." Balling was in the eighth circle of hell.

The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and a host of scientific academies have endorsed the conclusion that global temperatures are rising and that warming is likely the result of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity.

"It is fair to say that it is not absolutely certain that the warming we have observed so far is largely due to human activity, but (it) is very likely. And it is virtually certain that continued rises in greenhouse gases will lead to significantly more warming," wrote Eric Steig, a professor at the Uni- versity of Washington, in an e-mail.

Balling's research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.

His positions have modified over time. Today, he says that about half the warming recorded since 1975 can be attributed to greenhouse gases.

Research questioned

read the rest and comments..
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1111balling1111.html

[diuretic]

So a scientist has to be poor or independently wealthy to be credible.

No, a scientist has to be objective and must be seen to be free of ideology (of any persuasion) and not funded by special interests.

IF this bloke wasn't a regular contributor to overtly political publications and IF his research wasn't funded by special interests THEN I wouldn't be able to make claims like I have.

[avatar4321]

No, a scientist has to be objective and must be seen to be free of ideology (of any persuasion) and not funded by special interests.

IF this bloke wasn't a regular contributor to overtly political publications and IF his research wasn't funded by special interests THEN I wouldn't be able to make claims like I have.

So what you are saying is none of the global warming advocates are credible because they take money from socialists and environmentalist wackos correct?

thanks for destroying your position:)

[PostmodernProphet]

By your logic Hillary Clinton is tainted by George Soros and the Chinese government.

given.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No, a scientist has to be objective and must be seen to be free of ideology (of any persuasion) and not funded by special interests.


so the only credible scientist is one who isn't doing research........

[glockmail]

No, a scientist has to be objective and must be seen to be free of ideology (of any persuasion) and not funded by special interests.

IF this bloke wasn't a regular contributor to overtly political publications and IF his research wasn't funded by special interests THEN I wouldn't be able to make claims like I have.

Obviously you've never been in a similar position that he has. I have and personally known several others and we were all willing to bite off the hands that fed us for sake of the truth, and would do so in a New York minute. After all, in the end we would all gain notoriety, thus more cash and perks from the opposing side. The fact that you attack the man based on his funding source rather then his actual work tells me that you have no basis of technical argument, or that you are intellectually lazy.

And the Cato institute is hardly an overtly political organization. It is a conservative think tank “Promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Its mission is stated plainly at cato.org. Millions are familiar with them as they publish a little brown book with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reprinted and sell it for one dollar.

[Nukeman]

Obviously you've never been in a similar position that he has. I have and personally known several others and we were all willing to bite off the hands that fed us for sake of the truth, and would do so in a New York minute. After all, in the end we would all gain notoriety, thus more cash and perks from the opposing side. The fact that you attack the man based on his funding source rather then his actual work tells me that you have no basis of technical argument, or that you are intellectually lazy.

And the Cato institute is hardly an overtly political organization. It is a conservative think tank “Promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Its mission is stated plainly at cato.org. Millions are familiar with them as they publish a little brown book with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reprinted and sell it for one dollar.I'd rep you but I have to "spread some around":clap:

[diuretic]

Obviously you've never been in a similar position that he has. I have and personally known several others and we were all willing to bite off the hands that fed us for sake of the truth, and would do so in a New York minute. After all, in the end we would all gain notoriety, thus more cash and perks from the opposing side. The fact that you attack the man based on his funding source rather then his actual work tells me that you have no basis of technical argument, or that you are intellectually lazy.

No, I've never been an academic - so what?

I can't critique his work because I'm not a scientist but I can express concern about his funding sources. It seems he has been successful in getting those businesses to fund his research. Now, it seems to me that those businesses must like what he's producing because they keep funding him. If his peers are onto him then they'll take issue with his methods, his results and the source of his funding. If he wanted to appear to be completely objective then he would have refused or not sought funding from sources which would represent a prima facie case of conflct of interest.


[QUOTE=glockmail;
And the Cato institute is hardly an overtly political organization. It is a conservative think tank “Promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Its mission is stated plainly at cato.org. Millions are familiar with them as they publish a little brown book with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reprinted and sell it for one dollar.[/QUOTE]

The Cato Institute is overtly political, it's a libertarian think-tank. I don't care where he publishes but as a scientist I would have thought he'd be publishing in peer-reviewed journals predominantly. If I were a scientist I think I'd tend to stay away from any overtly political institutes/publications lest my objectivity be questioned.

[diuretic]

So what you are saying is none of the global warming advocates are credible because they take money from socialists and environmentalist wackos correct?

thanks for destroying your position:)

I'm saying none of the above. You either mistakenly think I am or you're deliberately misrepresenting my position. Which is it?

[diuretic]

so the only credible scientist is one who isn't doing research........

Is that a question or a statement?

If it's a question then it's misplaced. A credible scientist must be doing research or they're not a scientist.

[glockmail]

[1]No, I've never been an academic - so what?

[2]I can't critique his work because I'm not a scientist but I can express concern about his funding sources. It seems he has been successful in getting those businesses to fund his research. Now, it seems to me that those businesses must like what he's producing because they keep funding him. If his peers are onto him then they'll take issue with his methods, his results and the source of his funding. If he wanted to appear to be completely objective then he would have refused or not sought funding from sources which would represent a prima facie case of conflct of interest.

[3]The Cato Institute is overtly political, it's a libertarian think-tank. I don't care where he publishes but as a scientist I would have thought he'd be publishing in peer-reviewed journals predominantly. If I were a scientist I think I'd tend to stay away from any overtly political institutes/publications lest my objectivity be questioned.

1. I never said you had to be.
2. You don't have to be a scientist- just look at the opposing argument. Oh that's right, there isn't one. Again, if his scientific peers could take issue with his research then they would. Instead, like you, they attack him for “not being objective”. As I said before, but you chose to ignore, if it were about money then he would gain notoriety, thus more cash and perks by jumping to the opposing side.
3. Again, the mission of Cato is plain. There’s nothing “overt” about it. Nor is it the only place where the guy publishes. Its just the one that you know about, since you get the news from his opposition.

I’m really sick and tired of y’all attacking the messenger, simply because his message doesn’t agree with your preconceived notion of reality.

[PostmodernProphet]

Is that a question or a statement?

If it's a question then it's misplaced. A credible scientist must be doing research or they're not a scientist.

then you contradict yourself.....since all research is paid for by someone......and you have stated that no scientist is credible if they accept money from special interests......

research is funded because someone presented a proposal to a foundation or organization......if it meets with acceptance the research receives funding.....research which does not further the goals of the foundation or organization do NOT receive funding.....

[glockmail]

then you contradict yourself.....since all research is paid for by someone......and you have stated that no scientist is credible if they accept money from special interests......

research is funded because someone presented a proposal to a foundation or organization......if it meets with acceptance the research receives funding.....research which does not further the goals of the foundation or organization do NOT receive funding.....

I wonder about his opinion of Al Gore and his global warming scare. He's neither a scientist nor funded by disinterested parties.

[diuretic]

1. I never said you had to be.
2. You don't have to be a scientist- just look at the opposing argument. Oh that's right, there isn't one. Again, if his scientific peers could take issue with his research then they would. Instead, like you, they attack him for “not being objective”. As I said before, but you chose to ignore, if it were about money then he would gain notoriety, thus more cash and perks by jumping to the opposing side.
3. Again, the mission of Cato is plain. There’s nothing “overt” about it. Nor is it the only place where the guy publishes. Its just the one that you know about, since you get the news from his opposition.

I’m really sick and tired of y’all attacking the messenger, simply because his message doesn’t agree with your preconceived notion of reality.

I don't have a preconceived notion of reality, I like to check as I go along to make sure I'm still in touch :coffee:

I was merely making the point about credibility. If US academics have to go cap in hand to businesses to ask for funding for their research then it seems to me that questions of appearances of conflict of interest are going to be raised.

[diuretic]

then you contradict yourself.....since all research is paid for by someone......and you have stated that no scientist is credible if they accept money from special interests......

research is funded because someone presented a proposal to a foundation or organization......if it meets with acceptance the research receives funding.....research which does not further the goals of the foundation or organization do NOT receive funding.....

I have been known to contradict myself, but not this time. I don't know how funding is done in the US (see above) but if its the individual academic who has to raise the money then that can cause problems. That's all I was saying.

I would have thought the funding request would have gone through a university committee - and come to think of it, it probably does - but my point still remains that - and I don't care who the scientist is, what their antecedents are etc. - they need to be kept at arm's length lest they be seen to be beholden to special interests.

[AFbombloader]

He can write what he likes but everything he writes is going to be tained by the knowledge that he has an ideological barrow to push. He has been funded by certain interests to which he is beholden.

Wow, a whoping $40,800 a year, of which his university takes half. Give me a break.

Why is it that is someone takes a grant from an oil company he is "owned" but if the grant comes from any other organization they are not?

AF:salute:

[manu1959]

I have been known to contradict myself, but not this time. I don't know how funding is done in the US (see above) but if its the individual academic who has to raise the money then that can cause problems. That's all I was saying.

I would have thought the funding request would have gone through a university committee - and come to think of it, it probably does - but my point still remains that - and I don't care who the scientist is, what their antecedents are etc. - they need to be kept at arm's length lest they be seen to be beholden to special interests.

everyone is beholden to a special interest of some sort....

[diuretic]

Wow, a whoping $40,800 a year, of which his university takes half. Give me a break.

Why is it that is someone takes a grant from an oil company he is "owned" but if the grant comes from any other organization they are not?

AF:salute:

They could well be owned. If it was around the other way and, say, the Sierra Club was funding an academic, I'd still have the same misgivings.

[diuretic]

everyone is beholden to a special interest of some sort....

"Mindworkers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your dodgy research grants!" :laugh2:

[glockmail]

...

I was merely making the point about credibility. If US academics have to go cap in hand to businesses to ask for funding for their research then it seems to me that questions of appearances of conflict of interest are going to be raised.

It seems to me it was your entire argument.

[diuretic]

It seems to me it was your entire argument.

Funny thing is I'm not fussed if I was "wrong". My concern was that his credibility was affected both by his funding sources and by his apparent - I say apparent because I've seen nothing to suggest he writes for left as well as right (including libertarian) publications - ideological bent. I can't comment on his work because I'm not qualified to do so, but I can express an opinion about perceived biases. I'll leave the professional shredding to his peers.

[glockmail]

..... I'll leave the professional shredding to his peers.

From the article that we are discussing:


His views have elicited outrage from environmentalists and scorn from some fellow scientists.

"Somehow I've been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell," he said. "There's just no tolerance right now."

Balling has been booed at public appearances.

A fellow climatologist publicly dismissed his widely circulated critique of An Inconvenient Truth with the observation that "some people believe the Earth is flat, too."

In May, Vanity Fair magazine published a cartoon labeled "Dante's Inferno: Green Edition." Balling was in the eighth circle of hell.

It appears that the professionals have no scientific basis to "shred" him, and instead are resorting to villification as you have.

[diuretic]

From the article that we are discussing:


It appears that the professionals have no scientific basis to "shred" him, and instead are resorting to villification as you have.

Too much chili in the curry Glock - I haven't "villified" him. It's not my style either in a forum anonymously or in real life personally to "villify" anyone. I merely pointed out that his sources of funding were possibly inappropriate and that he has a propensity for writing for right-wing publications which are owned by institutions which have a blindspot on the topic of human-influenced climate change. That's not villification.

[glockmail]

Too much chili in the curry Glock - I haven't "villified" him. It's not my style either in a forum anonymously or in real life personally to "villify" anyone. I merely pointed out that his sources of funding were possibly inappropriate and that he has a propensity for writing for right-wing publications which are owned by institutions which have a blindspot on the topic of human-influenced climate change. That's not villification.

When someone says that a scientist has been "owned" and is "beholded to special interests" and therefore his body of work and knowledge is not worth discussing, I consider that "villification". But maybe that's just me.

But the fact remains that others have clearly villified him, by anyone's definition. And they obviously do so because they can't counter his arguments with scientific facts.

I have been on the recieving end of these types of "scientists" many times in my career. The play book is always the same: After losing the scientific debate, attack the messenger. The more vile the attacks, the more likely the attacker has HIS special interests to defend.

In this case the Al Gore types are making millions obtaining grants, fellowships, and selling books, research, carbon offsets and various snake-oils to cure liberal guilt.

IT IS PAINFULLY FUCKING OBVIOUS.

[diuretic]

I don't think my comments have gone far to damaging his reputation.

Now, I've never been an academic but I am aware (from friends who are academics) that it can be a savage world - "publish or perish" and all that. So I'll take your point about internecine attacks and probably leave my comments there.

[stephanie]

:laugh2:I've loved the debate going on over this post...that's what it should be about...

My reason for posting this...is that the GW extremist(Al Bore included) is trying to ram this down our throats, saying THERE IS NO MORE DISCUSSION, it is a consensus...Then why is it Al Bore won't sit down and discuss and debate this with anyone? Why are the skeptics about this being shouted down as nuts, idiots, and threatened to be blacklisted from a job...

Think about it....??

My personal opinion on this...is it is a scam...
We humans can not control Mother Earths CLIMATE....Why do you think the environmentalist moved away from calling it GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE....They can't loose....the climate is always going to change...NATURALY....:laugh2:

Guess what the ENVIRONMENTALIST get out of this BIG SCARE.....MONEY...LOTS OF MONEY...

And another thing the environmentalist get out of this....is they worship the earth(hey I love the earth and do my part in conservation of it)...But what environmentalist hate....is the humans who they think is destroying their GOD...

But I have to wonder if they even care that much for the Earth...

I think their biggest motivator is the almighty GREENBACK...and that's not green energy I'm talking about....:laugh2:

The more people they get to fall for their scam the more GREEN----BACK they get...Hey I have no problems you all giving your hard earned greenbacks to these people, but I refuse to give my money to a bunch of KOOKS....thank you.....:cheers2:

[glockmail]

Exactly. Let's debate the science instead of attacking the messenger. Whenever that is done the GW wackos fall on their face.

[diuretic]

Exactly. Let's debate the science instead of attacking the messenger. Whenever that is done the GW wackos fall on their face.

It would be nice if the science could be debate instead of the various messengers being attacked, I agree, that would be a very useful state of affairs.

[glockmail]

It would be nice if the science could be debate instead of the various messengers being attacked, I agree, that would be a very useful state of affairs.
The enviro-nuts are not interested in debate. Their motives are not a clean environment. If they were they would support nuclear power, windmills in their back yards, gas and oil exploitation here in the US. Some facts:

1. Methane is being released from the ocean floor into the atmosphere every day from shallow deposits. It is 5 times worse a "greenhouse gas" than the CO2 released when it is burned. Therefore exploitation of "natural gas", releasing pressure on shallow deposits, should be a goal of environmentalists. But it's not.

2. 95% of oil spills are transport related. Therefore exploitation of sources close to where they are used, minimizing transport, should be a goal of environmentalists. But it's not.

[diuretic]

So somewhere in between the claims of one side or the other there's got to be reality.

I hope so.

I'm not an enviro-nut. I'm Mr Suburban. I'm well aware of the potential for extremists to use issues such as the environment or animal welfare to try and attack various industries. I'm not that subtle. If I oppose something I go at it, I don't put on a shell. And I don't like Trojan Horses. I do believe we need to address global climate change - not in the manner of Earth First, but in the manner of someone who is looking for balance.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have been known to contradict myself, but not this time. I don't know how funding is done in the US (see above) but if its the individual academic who has to raise the money then that can cause problems. That's all I was saying.

I would have thought the funding request would have gone through a university committee - and come to think of it, it probably does - but my point still remains that - and I don't care who the scientist is, what their antecedents are etc. - they need to be kept at arm's length lest they be seen to be beholden to special interests.

sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but ever since glock got his new avatar I have been avoiding threads where he posts.....

you think that university committees are free from political agendas?.....the origins of the whole global warming hoopla can be found in universities making money off research grants......

[diuretic]

sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but ever since glock got his new avatar I have been avoiding threads where he posts.....

you think that university committees are free from political agendas?.....the origins of the whole global warming hoopla can be found in universities making money off research grants......

Firstly, I am with you on the avatar. I think I may have to (reluctantly) sue Glock.

I don't know much about university committees and their agendas. I was only ever a student, not an academic. However I did read The History Man and I did despise Howard Kirk, the leftist everyacademic I suppose, so yes, I take your point.

[glockmail]

So somewhere in between the claims of one side or the other there's got to be reality.

I hope so.

I'm not an enviro-nut. I'm Mr Suburban. I'm well aware of the potential for extremists to use issues such as the environment or animal welfare to try and attack various industries. I'm not that subtle. If I oppose something I go at it, I don't put on a shell. And I don't like Trojan Horses. I do believe we need to address global climate change - not in the manner of Earth First, but in the manner of someone who is looking for balance.

I'm on record here are saying that we should err on the side of caution, which is why I support nuclear power, wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod and nearly everywhere else, and exploitation of US oils and gas reserves. enviro-nut policies against these measures actually create more greenhouse gasses and more pollution.

[Yurt]

I'm on record here are saying that we should err on the side of caution, which is why I support nuclear power, wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod and nearly everywhere else, and exploitation of US oils and gas reserves. enviro-nut policies against these measures actually create more greenhouse gasses and more pollution.

No, with modern nuclear power, we don't need wind farms off the coast. Besides, if you want to put something in the ocean, put something that gathers the energy from the waves.

Modern nuclear power is safe. Necessary. Important. With modern NP we can develop greater energy. The power of nuclear energy has not even been touched on. We "use" it, but we don't really exploit it. Why? Because it is dangerous. So ok. But, with today's tech, we can have energy that stems from this source. And then, exploit it.

Oil runs deeps, so do pockets.....

[glockmail]

[QUOTE=Yurt;155863]....Besides, if you want to put something in the ocean, put something that gathers the energy from the waves. ...
.QUOTE]

Vertical ocean turbines could use the power of the Gulf Stream. I'd like to see a cost/ benefit on that as well as potential impact on coastal European climate. http://pesn.com/2007/08/17/9500490_FreeFlow69/

[PostmodernProphet]

ran across this, thought it might be appropriate....

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jlv/lowres/jlvn460l.jpg