Bob,

The most enlightening part of your link "A Path to Sustainable Energy --Scientific American" was the comments on/about it. And we know how you *scientific consensus* types are BIG BIG BIG on peer review. So here is some of what your articles author's peers had to say about it:

1)"As a physicist focused on energy research, I find this paper so absurdly poorly done that it is borderline irresponsible..."

2)"The November 2009 article "A Path To Sustainable Energy By 2030" is based on a false premise and then naturally develops the wrong solution..."

3)"Jacobson & Delucchi have convincingly shown that powering the world with their combination of measures is infeasible..."

4)"Pure garbage. Jacobson has written similar trash in the past. Charles Barton rips Jacobson's previous work to shreds:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/search?q=jacobson"

5)"Even though the costs are probably understated in the article, as fwegert points out, the costs alone make this idea impossible..."

Well well well! any other whiz bang proposals?

As for the skepticalscience website --we were already a wake up to it--in more ways than one!

Here is some of skepticalscience's "TEAM" telling us of their backgrounds (ie the thing(s) that make them especially qualified to adjudicate on matters of climate change)--QUOTE:

1) "Rob Honeycutt: Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2."

2) "Rob Painting: Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity"

3)"BaerbelW:... lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo"

4)"jg: John Garrett is a technical illustrator residing in Wildomar, California, USA"

Yes I will grant you, skepticalscience does have a good line-up of "geologists", but here Down Under, we were told early in the piece that geologists don't count --as they are not bona fide climate scientists!

To those of you think I have lost the plot, I now find I am in good
scientific company.

The following is to a link by an occasional contributor to OLO and an
occasional poster.

http://peakoil.com/consumption/the-propaganda-campaign-against-peaking-fossil-fuel-production

I thought it was a blank page at first but it is well down before the article starts.
I suspect that we might well have missed the boat and if we have we
might have to follow Belly's example and start gardening.

"It's bad enough he believes in pixy dust to power our lives, but he must be stopped from spreading dangerous lies about Obama care. He'll have some of our loony left believing it soon, & trying to get it introduced here. God help us"

"Australia achieves universal coverage through Medicare, a tax-funded public insurance program that covers most medical care, including physician and hospital services and prescription drugs. Most health services are financed and regulated by the federal government, although the states and territories have responsibility for public hospital care. Besides Medicare, roughly half of Australians receive additional coverage through private insurance, which the government subsidizes and which covers such services as dental care and private hospitals."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Fellowships/Australian-American-Health-Policy-Fellowships/The-Health-Care-System-and-Health-Policy-in-Australia.aspx

You folks already have Obamacare 2.0 or 3.0.

You enjoy socialized health care. We're still largely using private insurance companies to cover most Americans. Only the poorest and oldest get Medicare/Medicaid like all Australians do.

Our seniors don't get free pharmaceuticals like all Australians do.

Only some people get government help paying for private insurance but you folks get government subsidies.

Dental? We're on our own. You people have socialized it.

SPQR - I read through all the comments a few years ago and I could not find a single criticism based on fact. Only opinion. And very large amounts of misunderstanding.

Let's take your first comment -

"As a physicist focused on energy research, I find this paper so absurdly poorly done that it is borderline irresponsible.
....
The fact that they think hydrogen fuel cells and tidal power have any value in the energy future......."

Fact is, we now have tidal hooked to grids and hydrogen fuel cells are being manufactured and used. Anyone who was keeping up with renewable energy in 2009 would have know these to be highly likely. South Korea was constructing tidal generation at the time.

The "2)"The November 2009 article ... is based on a false premise and then naturally develops the wrong solution..."" fails to recognize that all our existing power plants will have to be replaced at some point and that is money we will spend one way or another.

This one - "3)"Jacobson & Delucchi have convincingly shown that powering the world with their combination of measures is infeasible..." simply argues that it can't be done in 20 years. The statement is based on an opinion but no facts.

It goes on and on like that.

One can legitimately argue that we won't convert in 20 years. Even Jacobson and Delucchi state that it would take significant political will to do so. What they have done is show that it is possible.

Let's get back on point. Jacobson and Delucchi have done the math to show that we could, in fact, power our world with nothing but renewable energy. That finding has been confirmed by other studies.

BTW, since the 2009 paper was written solar panels have become more efficient and very much cheaper. Wind has already reached 4c/kWh and we've discovered that we have much greater wind resources at 80m as opposed to the 50m level used in 2009. Our wind turbines are more efficient than what we had in 2009. All that makes the job easier.

Cut short on the previous one by word count.

Here's where we started -

"I doubt if there is any way known that solar and wind can supply the worlds current needs."

I gave you multiple sites demonstrating that we have more than enough renewable energy to power the world's current and future needs.
-.-.

The people you list at Skeptical Science are "reporters". They are not climate scientists. But they do a very good job of bringing the science together in a format that most people can comprehend.

Here's what I see you doing. You admit that you're not up to speed on climate and energy information. But when shown sources that could educate you, you look for some excuse to wave them away.

Do you understand what you're doing? What's more important to you, denying climate change or knowing facts?

-.-.

Someone mentioned the developing world. The developing world is installing a lot of renewable generation. The poorest are going solar. Already over a million people (a million in Bangladesh alone) have micro-solar systems that replace their kerosene lamps and cost them less than what they were spending for kero.

Just like the developing world skipped land line phones and went direct to mobiles they are skipping fossil fuel generation and installing renewables. They get the "free fuel" stuff.

Bob,
<<Here's where we started ...>

I think we started where you rode into town --John Wayne like-- to act as shotgun for the author, Jim Green.

Jim Green is a professional anti-nuclear campaigner and a member of the Australian Greens.The Greens in this country are renowned for supporting anything that undermines Oz's sovereignty.Their founder and former leader openly pranced around the world stage in support of --one person one vote -- world govt.So none of us are surprised when one of the Greens favourite causes, AGW, is associated with Agenda 21 and trillions of dollars worth of climate reparations.

Yes, renewable energy is the way to go. But you need to be able to give us a cogent plan without denigrating those who query aspects of it--and without spruiking every "extreme weather event" as sure fire proof of AGW.

As John Lennon might have said/sung:

You say you want a [Green-volution]
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's [cool solution]
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about [Agenda 21]
Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say [we've gotta reduce pollution]
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a affirmation
Well you know
[We're still waitin' on that plan]
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is bro [I aint takin' the bait].

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman [Pachauri]
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright