MY’conclusion’? Our GREATEST natural resource remains the ever expanding HUMAN MIND. To my way of thinking, we gotta USE it, or we WILL lose it.

Totally agree. And knee-jerk reactions are not a good use of this natural resource.

We don’t know the context for a lot of these quotes.

Albert Einstein once said, “You can never solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created the problem in the first place”. Makes sense.

Yet, he also thought the atom could never be split, (See your ‘Prediction’ post, No.5.“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will everbe obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932)

Moral of the story? Even good ol’ Albert could get it ‘wrong’ sometimes …

Even so, we can but stumble forward … LEARNING, GROWING, and, with luck, ‘EVOLVING’ for the BETTER .

MY’conclusion’? Our GREATEST natural resource remains the ever expanding HUMAN MIND. To my way of thinking, we gotta USE it, or we WILL lose it.

Great debate Anthony. Thanks for posting.

p.s. jd – do you have a ‘public’ blog/website somewheres out there ?

I’m growing weary of this “irresitable force meets immovable object” debate.

Comments will be closed on this thread at noon tomorrow. Thank you all for participating.

-Anthony

I am through agruing with people like you. I have found that it only furthers your cause which is dangerous. Your mind is closed, and I am not interested in trying to open it. My only goal is to point out the dangers of environmental extremism so that others will not fall in the same trap. However, thank you for proving my point that the myth about “Global Warming” is all about leftist ideology and not about CO2 at all (another lie to add to the list).

As far as taking the bait, I think you are trying to bait me with the silly, leading questions. Since, like I said earlier, it only furthers the extremist’s cause while not adding to the discussion logically, I think I’ll pass.

p.s. Sorry about having to use the words such as “stupid”; however since Al Gore has spat in everyones face by telling everyone the debate is over, your side should expect what is coming to you.

2 & 3.
What we are needing is exploitable energy so that we can continue to power civilization. ( … call it what you will … )
There are several ‘alternative solutions’ in the works to do so:
1) biodiesel from ethanol or vegetable oils (including hemp) – [curious side-bar: did you know that during World War II, Henry Ford developed a car that could run on hemp-based fuel ??? ] –
2) combustible gases like methyl hydrates (methane) hydrocarbons and hydrogen.
3) nuclear fission also exists, as does
4) nuclear fusion and
5) cold (nuclear) fusion.
Unfortunately some of these above ‘solutions’ come with unsustainable planetary ‘costs’ that have not been sufficiently addressed, yet.
6) Solar energy,
7)wind and/or
8)wave energy are increasingly drawing attention and investment. The greatest ‘liability’ from these latter initiatives is constancy and ‘location’. Last but not least,
9)geothermal and/or
10)ground heat are largely ‘untapped’ resources.

Three things are needed to further develop these alternative ‘energy’ possibilities for greater integration: KNOW-HOW (aka SCIENCE), WILLPOWER and MONEY. Other issues must naturally be addressed on route: regulatory standardization and the development of a dependable infrastructure with equitable distribution for ‘all’(ie. no more rolling black outs highjacked by financiers…). By necessity, in America anyway, this demands a delicate balance of power between ‘big government’ and ‘big business’. The only way these two will play nice with each other is if they both can serve each other’s self interest. That is to say, governments want to stay in power and investment capital wants to realize profit. (Note our current predicament with the ‘oil oligarchy’ … ) Cue: ‘Joe Public’, ie. WE, the PEOPLE. In a FUNCTIONING democracy we have the OPPORTUNITY to vote for CHANGE. We can vote for those who are seeking a place in government to provide REAL opportunities for alternative energy development and integration. We CAN apply ‘pressure’. We CAN be heard. The money will follow.
In conclusion, my friend, this IS a VERY Political issue.

(See: http://www.rationallink.org/energy.htm for further analysis/support data for/of ‘alternatives’. And vote. )

Yes, No, and No.

At core, for those who DO know the difference –
We are Caretakers of the Planet, not ‘its’ MASTER.

Andrew, aka ‘timetochooseagain’, and Scott. Please excuse my stupidity and ignorance. We simple minds have trouble interpreting inventive grammar, poor syntax, and self-righteous inflammatory ‘arguments’ … Lets try again, for clarity and mutual Self-improvement, ok?

1. An oil oligarchy dominates the energy ‘business’. Agreed?
2. Alternative energy generating venues can’t REALLY get off the ground, en masse, until the dominating oligarchy is ‘defeated’. Agreed?
(HOW and by WHOM is not on the table at the mo … )
3. This is a ‘political issue’. Agreed?

How’s that for starters? Is there any common ground here or are ‘we’ just meant to rant and rave until we kinda feel better, and like, IN CONTROL?

Some of the following from The Environmentalists’ Little Green Book, ISBN: 0-615-11628-0, others from John McCarthy’s Quotations.

“We must reclaim the roads and the plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.” — Dave Brower, Friends of the Earth founder (also attributed to David Foreman, Founder of Earth First!, in his book Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching).

“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation by our elitist species [man] upon the rest of the natural world.” — John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer.

“If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.” — Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute.

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” — Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor of biology.

Ehrlich is the very same twit who said: “Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles…the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979…the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics.” — Paul Ehrlich, 1969 in Ramparts.

Let’s not forget: “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth like ours is the disease, not the cure.” — Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor of biology. And: “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

The Ehrlichs are not alone, however: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the United States. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Who came up with this elitist pap? Why, none other than Michael Oppenheimer, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. Name sound vaguely familiar? It should, he serves as a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not to mention being a leading light for Environmental Defense. Our first clash with Oppie was over an article he wrote for then Environmental Defense Fund’s quarterly claiming ‘global warming’ would cause sea level rises of some 200 feet by the middle of the 21st Century. As far as we can tell he hasn’t improved much.

UN wallahs tend to have a bit of a thing against the U.S., energy and technology: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

All I said was that if you really believe that Human industrial activity is going to destroy us all, then you are part of the problem by continuing to utilize the evil military industrial complex. Biting the hand that feeds, clothes, and heals you isn’t a good idea, really. I merely said that you must not really believe it since you haven’t given up your industrial ways.

As for environmentalism, yes there are a lot of extremists out there who simply make stuff up to further their agenda. Like the whole DDT scam, GM foods, CO2, etc. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace left because they had gone way off message. Many of the founders of these other movements have stated publicly that the death of the human race is the only solution. Yet you don’t see them volunteering to go first. Therefore they’re all hypocrites, and you appear to be one too. If that’s an insult, so be it, prove me wrong.

Your thinking is rather simple minded. If you don’t believe there are environmental extremist, then you are truly the “Denier”. Noone has ever argued that we don’t need certain rules when it comes to our natural resources. It is just when the “yes, extremist” with a cause start making thinks up (yes lieing) to get there way (like spoiled brats) that you become become fringe element “Socialist”. Your suggestion that quote, “we have not had much ‘choice’ concerning engery needs for decades because the ‘marketplace’ is dominated by the oil/big busiess oligarchy” is, for simplicities sake, stupid. Energy independence is the real problem and not altenative sources. The alternative sources will take care of themselves if allowed. The wako extremist environmentalist are truely against everything. Like has been said earlier, even if environmetalist do find a solution to alternative energy on thier own, if we give them a few years, they will have problems with their ownn solution. Energy independency, as far as America is concerned, has more to do with energy independence from other nations and not just from the ‘evil’ oil companies as you suggest. You know this, but you don’t care. It doesn’t fit with your religion, huh I mean political training. Why can’t you get past these simple thoughts? Oil is not evil. Capitalism is not evil. Drilling for a resource is not evil. Companies big or small are not evil. Capitalism = Freedom Socialism = Slavery Got it? Is there corruption in a free society? Of coarse, but I will take freedom with a few laws to balance it all out any day.

We have enough untapped oil on our soil and off our coast to last a long time. Will it run out? Of coarse it will, but not for a long, long time. We will adjust when the time is right and true science/innovation is allowed to flurish. In the mean time, lets make sure that the taps are turned on so that we don’t have to keep kissing Sadi Arabia’s a** every time they slow down production.

Final and most important thought: Environmental extremism is dangerous, and should be the real focus of our next election and not some trace gas (CO2). CO2 is not the cause of global warming or any real climate change. Any simple minded person can figure this out. This is all about environmental extremism and their crusade against capitalism or big business (oil companies) or freedom, whichever you want to inject.