This whole bit about CO2 is a scam, because
CO2 is what you get when you get rid of dangerous stuff.

Additionally check out jerrypournelle.com for a recent piece on glaciation and how fast it can occur. And how much more dangerous it is than warming.

And BTW, what can limit/retard/prevent glaciation? Carbon Dioxide coupled with
Dihydrogen Monoxide.

If H Sapiens is having an effect on global climate, it is a beneficial one.

During the second half of the 20th century the western world gained an awareness of the need to control pollution. Engineers and applied scientists responded with an array of inventions to dramatically reduce toxic emissions, especially airborne.

The common thread to most successful measures to reduce air pollution is to to facilitate clean combustion. (Obviously, industrial processes involving the distillation, catalysis or blending of materials require containment technology.) Increasing the efficiency of combustion of hydrocarbons has both increased fuel efficiency and reduced the amount of toxic emissions. This was necessarily achieved by reducing dirty pollutants to clean, relatively inert CO2. (From this perspective, the idea of “CO2 pollution” is an oxymoron. By definition, pollution consists of toxins that are dangerous to children and other living things.)

The goal of 20th century environmental engineers was explicitly to simplify combustion exhaust to CO2 and H2O. This was a technical achievement to to rival the Apollo program. (Nobody seems to remember the killer smogs of 1950′s London … )

Now, the solution to the pollution problem of 50 years ago is portrayed as the cause of even greater danger to the entire planet.

There is good reason that EPA dragged its heels about setting CO2 emission standards, above and beyond the Bush administration’s embrace of the evil oil industry. There is not even one successful carbon sequestration pilot program anywhere on the planet, let alone an operating prototype. EPA lacks the technical knowledge to write applicable CO2 standards for power generation plants. (Not just coal powered plants, gas powered turbines will be the next target.) This is not because of stupidity or political fecklessness, it is because a) ALL of the existing regulations and protocols share the goal of replacing toxic pollution with clean CO2, and b) there is no “low hanging fruit” solution to this technical problem. Carbon dioxide is almost as chemically stable as water, therefore it is difficult to detect and difficult to trap. Rube Goldbergesque containment schemes can be drawn on paper, but there is no way to specify standards based on both empirical and theoretical knowledge. Nobody knows how to do it and nobody knows how to test whether anything done actually works. (Nicely specific carbon footprint numbers are extrapolations based on material mass balances, emphatically NOT on instrument measurements.)

So, the notion of global warming is threatening to upend the entire edifice of methodological and regulatory tools that so successfully mitigated air pollution in the western world. (Of course, new industrial powers like China have not even implemented the 20th century pollution controls, let alone carbon sequestration.)

On the other hand, assume that all tires, or a significant number are inflated at the exact (or close enough) optimum pressure. Would you build an energy plan around an optimistic assumption? Then why would you do so with a pessimistic one?

And why isn’t anyone questioning it?

That said, there’s a difference between the bayeux tapestry and a pile of old thread. The details matter because the pattern matters.

All too often overlooked in the discussion of electrical energy is the fact that while there
are elebenty-leven zillion ways to generate it, means of storing it are pitifully inadequate.

John McCain mentioned, then did not follow up, on establishing a $300 million prize for the invention of what Robert Heinlein called the “Shipstone”.

Shipstone is to Diehard as H-Bomb is to firecracker.

Imagine a battery no larger than a suitcase that could hold at least 3/8ths of a megawatt
and be rechargeable within the hour.

This technology would make total electric cars, homes, factories and (propeller-driven)
aircraft a reality.

The recharging could come from a variety of sources. Including orbiting solar stations.

Of course, hanging on an developing all this requires coal and oil. And a few nukes as well.

Horsehockey about tire inflation and tuneups
only serves to disguise what a certain number of people actually want: A forcible reduction in the number of human beings allowed to exist.

Harsh words on my part, but I will stand by them. Witness a certain poster hereabouts who wants to (a) nuke vast quantities of human beings and (b) deny all mankind the petroleum-based ability to produce enough food for the current population.

WE may need to stat yelling “conspiracy” at the top of our lungs.

Poor Ann, these are concepts she learned in school, but she is unable to coherently express them. They are Gaia propaganda anyway.

The leases that are being unused are either uneconomical or are tied up by environwacko’s – many as lucid as Ann – who oppose any activity on the land leased by those exploration companies.

I used to have to tune up my old 78 Celica every 10K miles or so, and even it required far less maintenance than earlier autos.

Modern engines use electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition systems. Platinum plugs last 50K miles or more. Many cars feature 100K mile tune ups. There just ain’t much left that you can “tune up.”