"A wildly unscientific statement. Care to back it up?"

Tthoms, you have made a number of statements lambasting people for accepting climate change theory. You certainly are aware of the arguments for it, as well as the arguments about it and its relaitonship to hurrican severity. If you're "really concerned with the ever increasingly political and narrow-minded statements posted", then perhaps you yourself might be advised not to be doing what you decry. Many people would consider you narrow-minded and political by denying the link between climate change and hurrican severity, and you're definitely on a finge in denying/questioning human impact on climate change.

" Many seem convinced that their pet policy or technology is going to save the world and they seem to be hostile to anyone who thinks otherwise."

That's true.

"As far as I can discern, the larger the variety of energy sources, the better (and yes, there is even a place for petroleum and coal in that list as well)."

I believe some people are of the opinion that at some point or another we need to address the unsutainability of relying on finite, polluting resources. So, there's no inherent set number of energy sources that we should rely on, considering that clean and inexhaustible sources of energy are far more than sufficient to meet our needs. We don't need to use energy sources just because we can -- we've already tried that approach, and it's pretty clear that it creates a lot of trouble. That's why there's a website like this.

Willemsen:
Upon reflection I can see how I phrased my comment could be considered "lambasting". That's the problem with the written word (and my posting in the wee hours of the morning).
However, the statement generally stands. Yes I am aware of the arguments supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming. From the studies that I have read, most of these arguments are supported by computer models and the empirical evidence at this points seems inconclusive.
However, even if we say that global warming is a "given", and that man-made contributions to global warming is a possibility, and that sea surface temperatures could be raised by "global warming", and that increased sst may increase storm strength--which is a long list of "maybes", none of these add up to coal,oil or gas, causing the latest hurricanes.

Hurricanes of this magnitude have been seen many times before, decades ago, if not centuries, before the proposed effects of global warming would be significant. Again, most climate scientists would not claim man-made climate change causes hurricanes. They might state that there is a modelled possibility that such change could increase the severity of storms. That's it.

I guess, ultimately,what I'm saying is that too many on the board speak in absolutes, and it is a little scary. I don't know that man-made climate change isn't occuring, just as those who are inclined to believe it can't say it's a fact. I don't know that PHEV's aren't the way to go, and that gas to liquid, or nuclear power is.

Let's just, you know, ease up on the hyperbole a bit, be friends, and discuss issues with an open mind.

"I don't know that man-made climate change isn't occuring, just as those who are inclined to believe it can't say it's a fact."

Well, it's far too complex to ever have a certain answer, isn't it? And if it's actually occurring, then it might be a bit reckless to fuss over whether the probability is 90% or 93%. If you take that logic to its natural end, then no action based on any theory is justified. In fact, since virtually nothing is known with 100% certainty, then one can always question acting.

What's more reasonable is to assess probabilities and consequences. If this were an idle theoretical issue of little consequence, then we could debate about it for as long as we want to. But, that's not the case, so it gives a certain urgency to our inquiry. And, in this case, climate change theory went from a point of being treated very skeptically, and through decades of analysis and better and better tools for analyzing changes, a strong consensus has developed around the theory.

"Let's just, you know, ease up on the hyperbole a bit, be friends, and discuss issues with an open mind."

Absolutely. And let's keep consequences in mind as we discuss options. I think a lot gets swept under the rug when these things are discussed.

Amory lovins is a physicist and a polemicist who doesn't produce a damn thing except paper research and lives off the proceeds of endowments and charitable giving. His prescriptions cost him not a dime of his capital and actually provide a lucrative living. It some aspects he is similar to a preacher. In return for your dimes and dollars, you get uplifting or hell & brimstones sermons.

There is nothing wrong with that, more power to him.

His thesis is "small is beautiful" and "higher efficiency is better". Except when efficiency conflicts with pet nostrums. As such he is like lot of political philosophers before him. At least is not as outright coercive as another "Small is beautiful" political philosopher Mao Tsetung. Amory believes all industrial processes should be downsized. So did Mao. He want backyard windmills and rooftop solar collectors; Mao wanted backyard blast furnaces. Lovins does not have the coercive force to mandate it; Mao did. It is not at all clear that Lovins would even wish to use that coercive force if he had it, in all fairness.

The net result of that is that millions of backyard blast furnaces were erected in the "The Great Leap Forward", and it was soon obvious even before tens of millions starved to death, that it was a disastrous undertaking and produced tremendous amounts of Slag but little usable metals.

In Lovins case, we have created heavily subsidized cottage industries of windmills, and solar energy schemes. When the tax credits run out they sit there rusting in the Sun but thats OK too. Someday they might even become economic, but someday is not today or tomorrow.

The energy density in all these natural renewables is low, except for hydro and in the industrialized countries its about maxed out. But the third world is still building out its falling water. Three Gorges and the build out of Churchill Falls are big projects that will certainly come on line in the next decade.

The biggest criticism that is not yet fully appreciated with the low density prescriptions is the environmental problems that wind and PV create in large scale use. The Second Law of Thermodynamics effectively says you can never get an entirely efficient process; the lower the Energy differential the less efficient it becomes. Wide scale adoption of solar "renewables" in the form of radiation absorption, Solar or interference in the remediation of thermal differences by the atmosphere(i.e wind) necessarily create distortions in the overall absorption or re-radiance of the solar radiation. Another way of saying it crudely is: "What goes in, must come out, or stay inside" His prescriptions are inherently inefficient and can never be made more efficient than alternatives, What stays inside is Heat. Increases in heat are registered as increases in Temperature. In other words, Wind and Solar add to global warming!

Why isn't anyone pointing this out? For one its against the official dogma of the largely unscientific ideologues of the Green movement. Secondly, in spite of the proselytizing, there is not really a wide spread adoption of these highly inefficient technologies so the drawbacks are not manifest as was made obvious in Mao's small mountains of slag in every backyard. But it will.

Science already knows what the problem is it just has not bee widely disseminated yet or applied to the effects of wide scale renewable adoption. Learn what the scientific term "Albedo" means; that more than anything is the flaw in Lovins armor...