Clean burning, liquid CO2 sequestration underground, coal – works for me.

How about getting the energy from coal, something that the US has a lot of. Or tar sands (Canada has more than the US, but both have a lot.)

“GIGO

Garbage in, Gospel out”

LOL!!! I will never forget (or fail to use) that phrase!

Ditto oil drilling in and off America. Lefties decided it was better to off shore the risk to third worlders. Thank God they hire Halliburton so that oil can come back as snowboards and laptop cases.

We could of lived in gentrified cities. Perfect for mass transit, post industrial information economy. But the left said no to common sense crime control, and people grabbed their families and fled to the ‘burbs. It’s too bad about the working stiffs left to fend for themselves with criminals on one side, race hustling thieving politicians on the other and a good dose of lay about union workers and five to a room illegal immigrants. Sad really, pass the brie.

Kids could grow up under one roof, but there was a notion that have two separate roofs was better. I suppose some of those kids are in now in Iraq fighting. Little did they know. But, what the heck, many of the troopies were from urban abandoned schools anyways, where PhD’s could run sociological experiments for generations. Where they all supposed to go to grad school? Nice.

It is odd that today‚Äôs left which laughed at mom and dad’s old boat Chrysler, now each have a car, plus the vacation house, or the lust for one, and way more material stuff than their ancient parents. Somehow I don’t think today‚Äôs Sierra Cluber uses less energy although they preach more about it. What‚Äôs that word?

And now that the song is the same but the words are barely different, I’m supposed to believe the spiel? A spiel with a good dollop of state power and topped off with a bit of financial good for themselves? I am supposed to trust these people?

From my ‘dead giveaway’ link above, re the pro-AGW fixation on the “who is arguing” issue:

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president’s assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

Yes, let’s remember that them ole economies is whut is feeding all us little fellers the world over.

If history is any guide, it doesn’t seem to bother totalitarians much at all, if all us little fellers are spending our excess time & energy in bread lines, so that we can use the ration stamps that our government gives us if it likes our behavior.

Oh, I know –what a ridiculous scenario –except that it’s a large part of the story of modernism.

And the Beast is smart. It’s not repeating the mistakes of the 20th century, it’s going slower and softer this time.

How about low cost energy, say ocean waves or nuclear, to do the electrolosis that produces H2; and using the H2 to produce expensive energy, say in a car or power plant. Then, even though you lose energy in the conversion process, you still make money in the economic process?

And the jihadists have to go find jobs rather than blow up infidels.

A number of scientists on the “No Global Warming” side are employed by corporations that are involved in the production and sale of carbon based fuel. Others by political think tanks that see global warming as a threat of bigger government and more controls over private industry.

You can, generally speaking, separate many of the pro and anti groups by their employers. If you have examples where this isn’t the case, I’d be interested to see them. So far, most of my research has led me to this conclusion.