Battle of the Spin Machines: Coal vs. Nuclear

And on that final point, sir, we can agree.

do I think that mankind has (or can) permanently upset the balance of the planet in a mere 300 years? No wayWe don't need 300 years. We can do it with the push of a button.

Let's just say that I have several decades of scientific fear-mongering-that-didn't-pan-out on my side.Yes, Earth is getting warmer. It has since 1970. From 1940-1970, Earth got cooler.We're in an interglacial period, so we'd be expected to get warmer, for whatever reason.We're dealing with trends and forces that take tens of thousands of years to manifest. We've been measuring for a couple of hundred, and with extreme accuracy for about 25-30. Geologically speaking, we've caught a blip.Are we too inefficient with our energy consumption? You bet. Internal combustion engines only average 7-percent efficiency. (93% is radiated as heat through the engine block or the brakes.) We can do a hell of a lot better.Now, for the clincher: do I think that mankind has (or can) permanently upset the balance of the planet in a mere 300 years? No way. Especially when you look at the progress we've made in just the last 30 or so.When you consider what that "energy consumption" has bought us in terms of understanding, production, innovation, achievement and progress. Look at life expectancies, and look at what we're promising future generations with regards to opportunity. I wouldn't trade that away to go back to 1730.I mention 1730 for a reason. That decade was marked with extrememly cold winters worldwide. We have documentation from around the world, and tree-core samples that show how the biosphere was affected. Scientists have dubbed this a mini-Ice age. For the most part, we've been trending upward since then -- and that predates the Industrial Revolution.See also: Krakatoa. One good volcano did more to the planet for a three-year stretch than any amount of smog-belching factories.SHORT FORM: I agree with you in principle that we need to be more efficient with energy policy. I disagree that we only have a few years to save the world.The gigantic fallacy in Al Gore's polemic is stated in his title, "Earth in the Balance." We are NOT an Earth in balance at all. We live on a planet that has demonstrated a wide range of chaos and flux and change over time, due to forces we can barely understand.To assume that the Earth has a "balance" is to assume that the "now" is the way it always was. That today's Sahara was never underwater, that today's Everest was never beneath the crust, that today's French shoreline has always been populated by topless white women.The "fact" that Gore wants to wave 900 studies in my face is impressive. That they are all grounded in the premise of a stable Earth is not so impressive.Now, go fetch me some sensible CAFE standards, with a side of hydrogen fuel cell research. I'm hungry for some innovation.

I agree with your general point.In this instance, however, I was referring to the fact that in your comments on other posts, you have suggested that you don't believe that global warming is a real problem that we have to deal with -- but rather, an invention of self-interested scientists.If I was reading your comments correctly.

You're not the only one on that middle ground thing. It's one of the worst features of highly-fractured partisan polarization.The assumption used to be that if someone had a different policy idea than yours, you gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for a clarification of goals.Then it changed to "If his policy is different than mine, I assume the worst possible intention on his part and proceed."Now it's "any policy different than mine is not only wrong, but it is wrong for the most evil and selfish of reasons."This is the new climate of communications, and one that all PR/Marketing types need to steer cleanly through.Scott, when you tell me that you're for the Kyoto treaty, it's not right for me to assume that you're a closet socialist who wants to use it as a crutch to cripple an evil capitalist free-market economy.Neither is it right for you to assume that my defense of Big-Oil profit margins is ipso facto proof that I am on the take from ExxonMobil. (Hell, if I was, don't you think I could afford a snazzier blog template?)Sadly, we've all fallen prey to the urge to jump to conclusions about others' motives. Mea culpa. Tu culpa.

Ike, you've never sounded to me like you believed in middle ground -- frankly. But I'm glad you do!Now, if we could also agree on the need for U.S. automotive fuel-efficiency standards to be at least as high as China's -- then we're talking.

Ah, you've found my middle ground.I'm all about efficiency. And nuclear is the cleanest form of mass-produced energy we could hope for.I'm just loathe to completely shut down economies that feed so many people around the world, drive scientific and medical innovation, and generally improve and extend life -- all in the name of arbitrary quotas.Go nukes!