Energy, Global Warming and Research: Get Real

By January 15, 2008Energy, Innovation

Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, rebuts the alarmists and dreamers who prefer feel-good solutions and wishful thinking to the arduous and expensive research needed to address global warming. From “Reality Deniers“:

I am astounded by the naiveté of those folks who seem to think there is some magic, non-polluting energy source out there that “Big Oil” has been hiding from us until all of the petroleum runs out. As these reality deniers continue to drive cars and fly in airplanes, they deny the fact that mankind’s dependence on oil is not out of choice, but necessity.

It makes me cringe when I see bloggers and pundits say things like, “What’s the downside of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions? Even if we’re wrong about man-made global warming, we’ll end up with better energy technologies and cleaner air. And if we’re right, we’ll save the planet!”

The only problem is, no matter how serious you think global warming will be, our current renewable-energy technologies and conservation will make virtually no difference to future global temperatures.

Spencer also has smart comments about education, entertainment and the need for nuclear energy.

Along those lines, we note that the presidential candidates all seem to have a line about the need to increase energy R&D. It’s as if that’s a brand new idea, and doggone it, why haven’t Congress and the private sector thought of that before.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this – all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can.
    Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have 27,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case – the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative.
    This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step “just in case”.
    If anyone would like company information you can go to

  • Dan Pangburn says:

    Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows: If the carbon dioxide level from Lawdome, Antarctica is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature since 1880 from is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from and earth temperature from determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. If Lawdome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to ±1.5ºC (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998. As shown at ,for most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present. The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put American freedom and prosperity at risk.

Leave a Reply