Gingrich on the Pelosi ad: Conservatives need to be part of this debate

posted at 6:30 pm on April 23, 2008 by Allahpundit

Via Newsbusters. Conservatives demand an explanation, and an explanation they shall have:

I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

But here’s what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of “Just yell no!”

I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.

As I’ve said before, this is just the sort of logic lefty environmentalists should be encouraging. But, er, isn’t he being disingenuous in saying the jury’s out on man-made global warming when he called for “urgent” steps to reduce carbon emissions in his debate with Kerry last year? The two positions aren’t contradictory — he may simply be taking a “better safe than sorry” approach — but doubtless many of the people e-mailing him are global warming skeptics and he’s leading them to think he himself is more skeptical than he probably is.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

and revitalize the use of nuclear energy.

seanrobins on April 23, 2008 at 11:05 PM

A simple question: what does nuclear energy have to do with the price and availability of transportation fuels?

Answer: NOTHING!
We do not have an electrical generation problem; we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, with deposits many hundreds of feet thick. Most of our electricity comes from coal and will come forom coal, unless the Left pulls the plug (with the help of dumbshits like Gingrich), which of course, will result in a massive Depression and civil war. I don’t think even those useless clowns are that stupid.

We have a transportation fuel problem. Let’s solve our real problem and not make up irrelevant solutions.
How about AWNR? How about Alaska basin? How about offshore Florida and Atlantic or California? How about oil shales and heavy crudes, or liquids-from-coal?
We’re always going to import much of our oil, but why not find and use more of our own?

TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

…..but why not find and use more of our own?

TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

That is the $120.00/gal question, isn’t it?

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:03 AM

blink on April 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Blink, you are aware that it takes energy (coal, oil, natural gas, etc…)to produce electricity, don’t you?

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Blink, you are aware that it takes energy (coal, oil, natural gas, etc…)to produce electricity, don’t you?

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM

I believe that his answer to that was hidden in plain sight.

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Hey Gingrich, the global warmers themselves have told us this is pure fraud, so why don’t you just kiss our collective behinds ?

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

Kyoto represents the first componet of an authentic global governance…

French President Jacques Chirac
at the Hague in November of 2000

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Wrong, TexasJew. If we had cheaper, cleaner sources of electricity we could gain more support for converting to electric vehicles. We could even use grid power to make hydrogen for fuel cells to charge the batteries.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Cheap?
Nuclear is MUCH more expensive than coal, and will continue to be. We still can’t figure out where to store the waste. Permits can take 15 years. Hydrogen is another pipe dream.
Relatively little oil is used in our present electricity generation. It’s 52% coal, 20% nuclear, then gas, hydroelectric, then oil and a fraction geothermal, waste, and a miniscule fraction wind and solar.

Electric cars mostly replacing our present vehicles is a pipe dream right now. I’ve been hearing about this bs for three decades. It is not right over the horizon, that’s for sure. How many electric cars do you see on the highway every day?

Running off into nuclear-land is not going to get us out of this crisis anytime soon, and even if it did, it doesn’t affect our real, immediate problem. It’s a fig leaf for politicans and others who don’t want to deal with the real problems we have RIGHT NOW.

Cheap nuclear energy? You must be kidding!!

TexasJew on April 24, 2008 at 12:22 AM

I believe that his answer to that was hidden in plain sight.

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 12:10 AM

I’ve been in the energy business for over 30 years.
I don’t think he knows what the hell he’s talking about.

TexasJew on April 24, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Newt is accepting green/left premises:

- The “natural” state of the earth is to be preserved, not exploited.

- Human progress and achievement are not “ecology” and must therefore be limited and, when possible, reversed.

Newt seems to be saying that the debate is over which side can best act upon these premises, conservatives or the green/left. But if you accept these false premises in the first place, you’ve already let the green/left win.

Halley on April 24, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Those lowly Frenchies can make nuclear work right so surely those in our colonies should be able too.

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 12:34 AM

But if you accept these false premises in the first place, you’ve already let the green/left win.

Halley on April 24, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Yes, if one accepts the premise that the earth is made of green cheese then that would make us all mice.

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 12:37 AM

TexasJew on April 24, 2008 at 12:22 AM

We’ve been around a few times on this issue before and I know you are knowledgeable on this issue and I respect your opinion and agree with most of what you say.

But the point I think you are missing is that nuclear is so very expensive because of all of the regulation and litigation the power companies have to endure in order to build the plants. The cost is driven up twenty tims, fifty times or a hundred times what it should be.

You are absolutely correct that we MUST push for coal fired plants in the near term. BUT… for the long term we ALSO need to deregulate and protect the power companies from frivolous litigation so we can have cheap and plentiful nuclear power as well.

We are about the only advanced country in the world that’s not building new nuclear plants. We have solved the storage problem… but the left just won’t except it and they are KINGS in the courts. They also won’t let us build new refineries which are desperately needed.

Bottom line is the Left and the Greenies are the problem. There is no shortage of ways to make plenty of cheap power, the watermelons (green on the outside and commie red on the inside) are choking us to death. If we don’t get their choke hold off of us soon… we will have a REAL energy crisis.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 12:37 AM

Yes, Holmes……. the Earth is made of Green Cheese!

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:47 AM

I’ve been in the energy business for over 30 years.
I don’t think he knows what the hell he’s talking about.

TexasJew on April 24, 2008 at 12:29 AM

I’ve been alive for over 43 years, and I don’t think you know what the hell your talking about…….

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:51 AM

Blink, you are aware that it takes energy (coal, oil, natural gas, etc…)to produce electricity, don’t you?

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Not if your using Nuke power. There is hydroelectric also, but I don’t know that we have too many more good places to build hydro-electric dams, but I’m sure we could find at least a few more places if we had the will to do so.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 12:53 AM

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 12:53 AM

You see and you observe.

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 12:58 AM

How about AWNR? How about Alaska basin? How about offshore Florida and Atlantic or California? How about oil shales and heavy crudes, or liquids-from-coal?
We’re always going to import much of our oil, but why not find and use more of our own?

TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

I’m with you a hundred percent on that! But once again it’s the watermelon problem. Watermelons in the courts (I’m talking about green on the outside and commie red on the inside) in the congress and probably global-warmer-McCain in the Whitehouse. But yes… by all means… drill it all, it’s ours, lets use it and drive oil prices down.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 12:53 AM

(coal, oil, natural gas, etc…)

…. of course, Nuke power, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, …… then there is this guy….

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Yeah, he’s cracking hydrogen and you can do it with any kind of water. Its old technology and it’s good technology, we should move to it. It is impossible to run out of hydrogen because we have oceans of it…. and you crack the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen…. burn the hydrogen… it recombines with oxygen in the air and you get the water back.

It’s an endless supply…. but you need power to run the “crack” process…. that’s were Nuke power comes in.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Wrong, TexasJew. If we had cheaper, cleaner sources of electricity we could gain more support for converting to electric vehicles. We could even use grid power to make hydrogen for fuel cells to charge the batteries.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Electric cars are impractical, and they pollute in ways that most folks do not realize. { Disposal of a really big battery.}

Johan Klaus on April 24, 2008 at 1:25 AM

It’s an endless supply…. but you need power to run the “crack” process…. that’s were Nuke power comes in.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 1:13 AM

In the words of “Inspector Clouseau……. Problem solved…”

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 1:32 AM

Maxx-

Scientists at Penn State have made the energy-wasteful method of “cracking” H20, to extract hydrogen, moot.

Their ingenuity is now seeking start up funding for this new scientific avenue.

And their clever bacteria promise both to recycle organic wastes and ferment us a whole mess of cheap hydrogen for future fuel cells needs.

Nuke plants will have to get by on their own merits.

profitsbeard on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 AM

profitsbeard on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 AM

But, is it practical and cost effective?

Johan Klaus on April 24, 2008 at 1:51 AM

Johan Klaus-

But is it practical and cost effective?

From the interviews I’ve heard and the research I’ve read, it sounds far cheaper and simpler than the traditional “cracking”-water-with-electricity methods, and gives a second benefit of reducing environmental organic wastes- so a win-win.

Our native ingenuity will trump all alGore-y hand-wringing and panic.

profitsbeard on April 24, 2008 at 1:59 AM

Sorry, Newt..I will not submit to this global warming bullsh*t.

j0 on April 24, 2008 at 2:17 AM

profitsbeard on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 AM

I’ve heard of that, didn’t know if they were really having success or not. Sounds good to me, I’m all for it. And yes, electrolysis is not a very efficient way to make hydrogen, but if you get the cost of electricity down enough… who cares.

We should not give up on getting Nuke plants whether we use the spare energy for hydrogen or not. Nothing so good as having plentiful, spare, backup power. Rolling blackouts in California each year is just nuts and unnecessary, we are not a third world country, but we will be if we leave the liberals in charge.

Nukes make huge amounts of power, I hope we don’t just scratch them off the list because lefties don’t like them.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 2:29 AM

Problem solved

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 1:32 AM

The problem is not solved…. but not because of a lack of technology…. but because of the politics. The green enviros are killing us.

Maxx on April 24, 2008 at 2:35 AM

There is no way that John Kerry agrees to a debate on the global warming hoax with Newt Gingrich unless he knows ahead of time that Newt was going to throw the match. Newt is a pretty good sophist and a major weasel.

Newt is going around now saying that conservatives need to be independent. That is because he wants two liberal politcal parties. Imagine if someone told liberals that they need to abandon party politics and become independent. It’s funny watching some people like Sean Hannity buy into this sophistry.

Buddahpundit on April 24, 2008 at 3:13 AM

First of all, I want to be clear: I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

Then why make a commercial that intimates the opposite? I’ll tell you why, to gain a piece of the power pie any way they can, even if it means being dishonest to the American people.

peacenprosperity on April 24, 2008 at 6:32 AM

As a big fan of Newt’s, I’m disappointed and dismayed that he’d allow himself to be used in the Pelosi ad. Sure, we must be part of the debate. But being part of the debate doesn’t require that we take their side in it, or be used by them against our own interests. This was a most unfortunate move, IMO.

petefrt on April 24, 2008 at 7:47 AM

Newt is a brilliant man. Just because he makes a commercial about the environment with Pelosi doesn’t mean he’s a liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He’s right about energy policy. We have nuclear ships (notice the government doesn’t report to its own EPA when it comes to fueling ships with nuclear power) in the navy that need to re-fuel every 20 years, but the same environmental wackos who don’t like buring oil whine about nuclear energy.

This is all political theater for the Democrats. Newt actually wants to leave our children a cleaner environment. I don’t know any conservative that would argue that point.

orlandocajun on April 24, 2008 at 7:54 AM

it would be good to focus on innovative methods for reducing smog. However, this can’t happen as long as we are told that reducing CO2 is more important.

Yes, exactly my point.

Doncha know notin’? You won’t die from asthma, but the whole world will die from AGW.
blink on April 23, 2008 at 10:46 PM

I hope you’re being sarcastic, because people do die from asthma.

SouthernDem, would you care to debate the science? If so, then GAME ON, BABY.
I’ll even let you start. Please explain the mechanism by which CO2 will supposedly continue heating the earth.
blink on April 23, 2008 at 11:06 PM

No, not really. Why would I argue something I don’t know to be true?

SouthernDem on April 24, 2008 at 7:58 AM

Gingrich=deceptive opportunist for profit and power

maverick muse on April 24, 2008 at 8:08 AM

Nuke plants will have to get by on their own merits.

They do in Japan and France now.

maverick muse on April 24, 2008 at 8:11 AM

The only time you reach across the aisle, is to slap some sense into the liberals…

right2bright on April 24, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Sorry Newt. Not buyin it!

epluribusunum on April 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM

newt arnold, why oh why? idiot

custer on April 24, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Nuclear power is not necessarily the most expensive. It is made that way by all the anti-nuclear idiots using the court and regulatory system to delay it with the intent of making it more expensive. This was made clear thirty years ago. Nuclear power is not unsafe even including spent fuel storage. The only lack of safety comes from the poor decisions of the MBAs running the central stations (as in all central stations).

The addition of a single (or preferably two) what used to be called fast breeder reactors would convert all long half-life radioactives into new usable fuel and relatively easier to dispose short half-life daughter elements. The European and Asian community know this and are building more of the FBs. If we do this, we don’t have to mine much more uranium, but the down side is that terrible A-bomb making stuff is created. Oh heavens, we can’t do that. I’m from an oil and natural gas state. If you guys don’t get a little smarter, we really ought to let you freeze in the dark. By the way, check this link: https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/308904.pdf It is to the Lawrence Livermore energy flow chart for the US (it is dated).

Old Country Boy on April 24, 2008 at 9:38 AM

The point is, regardless of the science (and their isn’t much) behind AGW, conservatives do not have a voice in policy. So, don’t buy into it? Well bully for you. Have fun with your windmills and solar cells because that’s what the left wants for power generation. The refusal of the right to engage means the left wins by default.

It also doesn’t matter if coal plants are more efficient and less wasteful than nuclear power plants (they aren’t, but let’s pretend) because neither are being built. The price of gas isn’t high because of some crude oil shortage. It’s high because of a lack of refineries. The damage the greenies have already done is measurable. Therefore, it’s best to engage now.

Even if AGW is crap, there is still a need for efficient and reliable power sources.

Krydor on April 24, 2008 at 9:51 AM

The Penn State technology to use bacteria to generate hydrogen and a small amount of electricity from fermented cellulose looks good on the surface, although someone would have to do an energy and cost analysis to determine whether it could be scaled up to generate hydrogen on a large enough scale to power a vehicle. If this really works, the major benefit would be the ability to use cellulose (present in grass and wood, which humans cannot digest) rather than corn, which is the equivalent of burning food not very efficiently. If this process generates 0.3 volts and protons, but an additional 0.2 volts are needed to release the hydrogen, when the process is “turned off” the 0.3 volts could be stored in batteries, then an electrical circuit could be used to “turn on” the batteries to provide an additional 0.2 volts to liberate the hydrogen when it is needed.

I’ve long respected Newt Gingrich, but he has unfortunately “drunk the Kool-Aid” on this one. At a time when more and more evidence is accumulating that the effect of CO2 on climate is negligible (climate change is driven mostly by sunspots, cosmic rays, and ocean currents, about which humans can do nothing), why should a conservative like Gingrich jump on a bandwagon to spend trillions of dollars trying to reduce emissions of soda-pop gas for minimal benefit? Gingrich needs to do his Science homework before jumping in (political) bed with Nancy Pelosi.

Over at a scientific blog called co2science.com, there are hundreds of scientific articles on experiments showing that plants grow faster, and increase crop yields, if the CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere. If we do NOTHING about CO2 emissions, we will probably end up with a greener, more fertile, but not necessarily warmer, Earth.
Question to Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi: What’s wrong with that?

Steve Z on April 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Haven’t you heard? Global warming has been cancelled!

Earth’s average temperature hasn’t increased since 1998. The oceans are actually cooling (according to NASA’s Aqua project).

The catastrophic AGW models depend on water vapor (a potent ‘greenhouse gas’) creating positive feedback from warmth trapped by increasing CO2 (a trace gas in our atmosphere). Recent studies show this assumption to be false: the water vapor forms clouds, which provide negative feedback.

If the models are wrong, then the hypothesis is wrong, and there is no crisis.

Is there anyone on this board who can get to Gingrich and let him know?

More important, by far: Is there anyone here who can get to John McCain’s advisors and let them know?

MrLynn on April 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM

“Green Conservatism”. What a steaming pile.

Spanglemaker on April 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM

elraphbo on April 23, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Hey Republicans, how about a counter offensive? Instead of trying to debate the issue while accepting the premise. Start your damn movement. Conservatives need a Hero. We have a scapegoat. Liberalism and Al Gore… Food prices going up, Fuel prices up, Homes in Foreclosure… Yes there will be some Capitalists pig’s that can down too…Like Ted Turner, Rupert Murdock, GE, collateral damage….
We don’t sit down with Hamas, AQ, Iran and terrorists in general. We should not be debating with Environmentalist Wacko’s…

There are enemies among us… DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

elraphbo on April 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Yeah my eyes popped out of my head when I saw this commercial. But to the McCain voters, you will be endorsing this in the future. Gingrich is just putting his foot in the water to test it, McCain and a Democratic congress will make the picture above a reality. Keep getting bamboozled. McCain will give you a Souter.

LevStrauss on April 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM

blink on April 24, 2008 at 9:23 AM The waste can very safely get dumped into a desert floor in the middle of the Pacific (I’m not joking).

How.

Johan Klaus on April 24, 2008 at 11:16 AM

So what?? Really big batteries aren’t going to kill the planet. The fraudsters claim that CO2 will. They shouldn’t care about a tiny battery disposal issue.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM

If everyone is driving electric cars, there will be a major battery disposal problem.

Johan Klaus on April 24, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Let the market solve the problems and keep the government out of it.

Johan Klaus on April 24, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Instead of convincing the left on the hoax of global warming, Gingrich is going to their side which in my opinion is wrong. There is no way to get the left to have a reasonable debate on this issue. This has been proven time and again. I just don’t understand why can’t the right get the left to come to our side. Everyone have to pander one way or the other.

mariloubaker on April 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Hey Newt:

You don’t start a “debate” with “I surrender”!!!

After you have surrendered the premise, there is nothing left to discuss!!!

Congratulations on a dumb move which has permanently discredited you. You will be remembered much longer for this single act of stupidity than for your genuinely good and innovative ideas.

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 12:03 PM

I’ve been alive for over 43 years, and I don’t think you know what the hell your talking about…….

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:51 AM

I’m a geologist, and a successful one, and you are an old confused fool.

TexasJew on April 24, 2008 at 12:04 PM

TexasJew:

You are ignoring the fact that energy sources are, to a large degree, fungible!!!

This means that the more nuclear power you allow to be used, the more plentiful all energy sources will be!!! More nuclear energy would mean that we could stop the silly use of natural gas in power plants and use the gas to heat homes (where nuclear is impractical): thus reducing the cost of heating homes.

And as for the nuclear waste problem, it was solved before you ever entered the industry (see “Breeder Reactor”). A successful breeder reactor demonstration plant was built in the 60′s, and then the technology was promptly outlawed by an ignorant, Luddite Congress responding to the bleatings of brain-dead, science-impaired, anti-nuclear activists. Until we remove the impediments from Congress, only Europe will be able to recycle nuclear waste instead of storing it.

Want to bring energy prices down? It’s simple: make energy abundant!!! Stop shooting ourselves in the foot and use coal, nuclear, gas, wood, solar, squirrel, or whatever!

But DO NOT let government discriminate against energy sources or pick “winner” energy sources. Political interference only distorts and disrupts the market and makes stupid, inefficient, dysfunctional, and expensive choices: e.g.: Ethanol.

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Again, so what? Piles of batteries won’t destroy the world.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Doesn’t matter, people will claim that they do. Then there will be lawsuits, then there will be environmental impact studies on battery waste damaging the environment and killing _______ (fill in with species of your choice). Then there will be bipartisan congressional hearings on the matter and they will find that, while it is inconclusive, we can’t really take the chance in being wrong. Then we will have 60 Minutes investigative studies on the environmentally damaging effect all these new batteries have on humans and animals alike. Then, once research grants start funneling towards those scientists who arrive at a predetermined conclusion, a “consensus” among scientists will magically appear. Documentaries will come out scarring children about the harmful effects of battery waste, and governments around the world will demand that international action be taken. See, it’s not about whether batteries are harmful, it’s about whether or not people can be made to believe that they are harmful. Just like people have been made to believe that CO2 is harmful. Again the debate is not about the environment, otherwise the dems wouldn’t be demanding that Bush force OPEC to increase supply, as they are doing this very day. But people can go ahead and believe that our government is really seeking a “solution” if they want.

Weight of Glory on April 24, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Batteries are inefficient and full of toxic metals that must be mined. The batteries must be manufactured. That takes real energy sources, not phony substitutes.

Charging a battery: electrical –> chemical. Lossy and wasteful.

Discharging a battery: chemical –> electrical. Lossy and wasteful.

Recycling and disposal –> energy intensive and wasteful.

Dream on. What am I saying? That won’t stop them, will it? See Ethanol scam and food shortages.

Feedie on April 24, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Weight of Glory, I have no idea what your point is.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 1:27 PM

This thread began as a thread about Newt’s appeal to “us” republicans to be a part of the debate in offering solutions to the causes of Global Warming in general. The folks here began to brush off Newt’s appeal because we are, in fact, taking part in the debate, and we are doing so by calling into question the whole notion of man-made global warming, rather than simply accepting the premise (which, ironically, requires no debate) and moving onto the “solutions” portion of the equation. You have been writing about how battery powered vehicles don’t do as much damage to the environment as the internal combustion engine, an assertion that I cannot judge, having no background in that subject matter whatsoever. Thus, my point to your comments is, no matter what the solution is, it will be, it must be, made into another problem. Your solution of electric power, whether better than oil or not, will be made out to be just as bad and harmful as anything else. So place my previous comment with this one, and I hope that it clears things up.

Weight of Glory on April 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Average efficiency of internal combustion engine is around 20%. The great advantage comes from fueling with high energy density gasoline. The extra cost of hybrids is energy wasted and resources wasted in added complexity. An efficient European diesel beat a Prius.

Feedie on April 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM

“Yes, Holmes……. the Earth is made of Green Cheese!”

Spoken by a loud Martian Tourist.

davod on April 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM

“You are ignoring the fact that energy sources are, to a large degree, fungible!!!”

The most fungible is oil.

davod on April 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Halley on April 24, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Exactly right. And that is exactly why Newt Gingrich and the idiot “conservatives” who think like him are so wrong.

2Brave2Bscared on April 24, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Hey Republicans, how about a counter offensive?

elraphbo on April 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM

I second the motion. How about a “People First” initiative? (and let the polar bears, trees, rats, and spotted owls form their own government and stop hijacking ours!)

More energy. More transportation. Cheaper food. Better life for our children. More of everything for everyone…except government!

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM

The most fungible is oil.

davod on April 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Absolutely right: I had intended to include “oil” right before “squirrel” in my list of energy sources. Probably should have included hydrodynamic and thermal, too.

And by the way, I don’t accept that oil is a “nonrenewable” source based on my observation that we keep finding a lot more every year. Comments on this from folks in the oil business?

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Feedie on April 24, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Absolutely right on batteries. Batteries are only storage for energy which ultimately must come from somewhere else.

The science-challenged Eco Facists have confused “batteries” with an actual “energy source.” Hence their arguments for electric cars, Segways, etc. are silly and scientifically flawed: these things are net energy losers.

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM

landlines,
I don’t accept that oil is non-renewable either. We may eventually tap out, but not for a long time. “Peak Oil” is an idea that’s been around for a while, but it’s the latest fashion scam to keep us from drilling for more and forcing people into a low power, impoverished life-style. As you say, known reserves continue to increase as they are discovered.

If you ignore the politics in this article, it’s a fascinating look at the Russian theory (abiotic or non-fossil origins of oil). The Russians find oil where it’s supposedly not to be found.

Feedie on April 24, 2008 at 6:13 PM

2006 Electrical Production Costs (cents/KWh)
Natural Gas 6.75
Wind 4.93
Hydropower 6.04
Photovoltaic 42.72
Coal 2.37
Nuclear 1.72
Petroleum 9.63

Thank me!

trs on April 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM

I just saw the original ad on Fox (during Britt Hume’s show, sadly).

Says Newt: “Our country must take action to address climate change.”

This is the language, word for word, of the Algorites, the Global Warm-mongers, the Chicken-Little Climate Hoaxers.

So either Newt was being disingenuous, or he has all along accepted the ‘consensus’ arguments of the IPCC.

These leftists want to fool the American people into curtailing US growth, and into sending a huge percentage of the American GNP to ‘developing’ nations to compensate for our CO2 production.

To hell with Newt.

The issue for John McCain is this: Are you going to support this anti-American, unscientific agenda? Are you going to be suckered into causing the decline and fall of America?

Someone has got to get his ear, and let him know that if he will stand up to the Warm-mongers, and speak up in defense of plentiful, cheap, energy from coal, oil, and nuclear power, all of which we can have in abundance, the American public will support him. They don’t want to hear what America’s doing wrong; they want to hear, once again, “It’s morning in America, and the future is bright!”

If not McCain, who is going to lead the ‘Grow America’ movement?

Speak up. I’ll help.

MrLynn on April 24, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes

Last time I checked that list would belong to common sense more than green conservatism.

mycowardice on April 24, 2008 at 8:26 PM

The issue for John McCain is this: Are you going to support this anti-American, unscientific agenda? Are you going to be suckered into causing the decline and fall of America?

MrLynn on April 24, 2008 at 8:02 PM

John McCain. “I can feel nothing warmer at all! That is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I a flat-earther? Am I a denier? Am I not fit to be President? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. “Oh, it is very hot!” McCain said aloud. “It has my highest approbation.” And McCain nodded in a contented way, and gazed outside, for he would not say that he felt no Global Warming. The whole staff whom he had with him looked and looked, and felt no warming, any more than the rest; but, like John McCain, they said, “It is so warm!” and counseled him to always say that he felt warm when he was out in public. “It is warm, hot even!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general warming, and John McCain gave Al Gore the title of Imperial Master of Global Warming Science.

So John McCain went in procession, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable warm it is! what a warm day it is!” No one would let it be perceived that he could not feel warming, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid or a flat-earther or a denier. No day of John McCain’s had ever been as warm as this one.

“But I’m freezing my ass off out here!” a little child cried out at last. “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father: and one whispered to another what the child had said. “But it is cold out here!” said the whole people at length. That touched John McCain, for it seemed to him that they were right; but the thought within himself was, “I must go through with feeling all the Global Warming, I dare not risk to do otherwise.” And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and all proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.

MB4 on April 24, 2008 at 9:53 PM

. . . And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and all proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.

MB4 on April 24, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Alas, an all-too-believable prospect!

Well done, MB4.

MrLynn on April 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM

2006 Electrical Production Costs (cents/KWh)
Natural Gas 6.75
Wind 4.93
Hydropower 6.04
Photovoltaic 42.72
Coal 2.37
Nuclear 1.72
Petroleum 9.63

Thank me!

trs on April 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Not that I doubt you… but if you have a link, I would like to have access to this infomation.

Maxx on April 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM

MB4 on April 25, 2008 at 1:18 PM

MB4, are you for higher taxes. If so, which kind?

Entelechy on April 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3