Arjay

You are right about the sun. When I was at university, our physics faculty was leading the world in solar power technology – guess what, now the world’s leading country in solar technology is Germany (China is not too far behind) and do you know where they got the expertise? That's right, good old OZ – the brain drain as you may know it. Thank the federal government for allowing this to happen. We are now buying back this expertise when we could have used it, and profited by it, ourselves.

You’re not convinced about CO2 being the major culprit? There is direct evidence if you really are bothered to look (see previous post) but the average jock has neither the time nor the apparent inclination to look for it, let alone understand it from a scientist in a 350 word forum such as this. Look, if you are seriously sick and 98 out of 100 specialists say we have to operate, what are you going to do – ask for another opinion? Well there is a 98% chance that anthropogenic global warming is real - do you really want to risk the planet as we know it on your uncertainty or ambivalence?

I agree with you, we (everybody) has to become more autonomous in regards to energy needs, AND how we use energy – we have to live in a more environmentally sustainable way. We should not just be dependent on coal, or ‘clean coal’ for that matter. Let us look at our attitudes and behaviour as well as all alternative energy supplies.

Spot on Chris Shaw. In addition to the US Military's prolific use of oil, their intentions to take control of environmental engineering (particularly to gain control of weather) is well documented.

The United Nations General Assembly became alarmed at this manipulation of weather long ago and on 10 December 1976 the UN General Assembly approved a Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. However, by labelling projects as peaceful programmes - 'pure research', 'solar energy projects', or 'industrial resource development', governments were able to avoid censure.

Who knows what has occurred with weather manipulation since then!

And because our "leaders" are addicted to war, there is no guarantee that any beneficial research will be free from military exploitation.

During the 80's, global rocket launches numbered about 500 to 600 a year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. The release of chemicals into the atmosphere from rocket launches is massive and Valery Brudakov, (a Soviet aerospace engineer) calculated that just 300 launches of the Space Shuttle alone could eliminate the Earth's ozone layer in its protective capacity. Changes in the ionosphere bring about corresponding changes in Earth's weather and climate.

The US Military has been dumping toxic chemicals into the ionosphere for decades!

In a press briefing on 28 April 1997, US Secretary of Defence, William Cohen actually advised: "Others are engaging in an eco-type terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, setting off earthquakes and volcanoes remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves. The military has a habit of accusing others of having capabilities they already hold."

Mythical science, Dr Coles, benign CO2 anthropogenic emissions and activities? I don't think so!

The "global warming" (aka "climate change") train is now under full steam and out of control, heading who knows where?
All that is certain is that a lot of people will, eventually, be hurt.
The "peak oil" scare is a sign that the drivers think they may be running out of credibility on the CO2 front (the coal tender is getting low) so they are talking about demolishing the carriages.

A good article.

I've been saying this two pronged arguement for years.

Why do we fund terrorists in these oil rich countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi, via their economies, when we can find other alternatives? Let them starve from lack of a market. Second, there are alternatives to fossil fuels, its just that to get it started, an initial investment needs to be made.

Venezuala and Cuba are expanding oil and if the US got over its paranoia towards socialism, they could negotiate much of their own needs within their own region. They are too arrogant to do so. So they and we buy from terrorists instead.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Sheesh, I am sure that the Saudis are trembling in their boots
now, in case they can't sell their oil :)

Get real people lol. Fact is the West is hooked on oil, demand
is rising, if Aussies don't buy it, the Chinese will etc.

If the US were really concerned about terrorism, they would
never have put dummies like Bush/Cheney into the White House.
They have given extremists more reason to increase their
activities then anyone else. But I'd say
that understanding is over the head of the average US elector. Rove still managed to scare
them with Osama under the bed etc.

Not everyone in the Middle East is a religious nut either.
Just like here, there are secularists and extremists. We
have our share of religious nuts, just like they do.
Last I read, only around 25% of Iranians regularly go to
a mosque, which is pretty similar to USanians going to church.

The biggest threat to Arab regimes, is in fact other Arabs.
The culture is still very tribal, so eveyone is looking over
their shoulders. The Saud clan know that if they get it wrong,
another clan will soon replace them. Thats exactly why they
invest so much of their money in the West, its safer then in
their own countries.

All these cultural differences were of course overlooked by the
Whitehouse and the neocons, as they charged into Iraq. History
tells the story.

The one Westerner who still commands respect in the Middle East
is in fact Bill Clinton. He has the intelligence and people skills,
but puritanical America was more concerned with a bit of oral
sex, rather then look at the big picture. They should have given
Monika a pay rise, to keep him happy and get his mind back on
the job :) Fact is the world would now be a better place if they
had. The American religious right are just as much a threat to
world peace as Islamic terrorism, IMHO.

LOL Yabby - that was hilarious!

Good post too overall, except that I still reckon that we've got to get over our addiction to oil - which seems to be inevitable anyway.

I believe that's called 'adaptation', which in this case might simultaneously involve a reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, and also a major funding source for the sustenance of the more extreme Islamist project.

I'd actually prefer that the Chinese (or whoever) self-destructed than we did - although one always lives in hope that humans might actually be able to work together beyond the tribal level to assure mutual survival at some level of civilisation and comfort :)