Questions for Obama from 350.org

I am one MIT grad who knows that CO2 is plant food, that water vapor is the true greenhouse "gas" on this planet, that the southern ice cap is expanding, that mankind does better when it's warmer, that temperatures peaked in 1998 while CO2 density increases every year, that we are in an interglacial, that CO2 levels have been higher in the non-industrial past, that climate models did not predict the cooling of the last decade, that solar radiation and ocean currents dwarf the effects of anthropogenic effects, that oceans release CO2 when they warm, that thousands of scientists refute global warming, that research spending is skewed in favor of GW research, that Mars and Jupiter are warming, that it was warmer in the near (1930s) and medium (1300s) past, etc. I applaud the American public who is beginning to discern the falseness of the GW hoax.

Mike B. MIT '85

What about the president's blatant disregard for Nuclear Energy? Isn't that the only source of carbon free baseload electricity that has a remote chance of replacing coal? If you really want greenhouse gas reduction, why not demand the president push for expansion of Nuclear Energy?

To (2): It's been reported that Al Gore took one science class in college adn received a "C". I'm not sure that's the person you need to be referencing for a scientific review of anything.

On (3): The artic ice is still there. Since the artic has NOT melted, perhaps this question should be redone.

carbon levels up, earth temp cooling...what part of your argument collapsing don't you get??

Seems like it would have been more appropriate for Obama and entourage to requisition an Acela car from Amtrak rather than fly Air Force 1 up to Boston. Set an example by leaving smaller carbon footprint.

Our country is so far behind the rest of the industrialized world on Green Tech and energy rights it's going to take two terms for any progressive to get any new federal protocols in place.

Prepare for so called conservatives to do what they do best about things like this, just like they have for the last 15 years: Sit on their hands while screaming at the top of their lungs.

Electricity alone is the future of energy. Let’s make it as cleanly as possible.

When I read questions like these and perceive the reasoning behind them, I marvel that anyone can take it seriously. Example: Question #3 refers to the melted Arctic and destroyed pine forests in the west (where I live). Both are just fine thank you. Your data is flawed. Your adgenda is subversive and covert. Who are you really? I have a suggestion for all the "greens" who are desperate for behavior reversion: You, en masse, forsake your cars, computers, air conditioning and heat, plumbing, processed foods, quit working for corporations, stop using tampons and diapers, forsake artificial light, toilet paper, firearms, the banking system, artificial birth control, & levis. If your cause is so popular, the impact of your behavior change will save the planet. Leave the rest of us alone.

"What about the president's blatant disregard for Nuclear Energy?"

What about nothing. There is no "blatant disregard for Nuclear Energy".

Nuclear Energy is currently the most expensive of all generation technologies and we don't even know what to do with the spent fuel. See the DOE, “Increasing costs in the Electric Markets” report from 2008, page 11.

Distributed generation is the future of the grid.

I'd add another question. Something like, "If you really take this seriously and believe sea levels are rising, why are you still spending so much money to restore a city on the Gulf Coast that is below sea level and surrounded by water on all sides?"

Amazing the ignorance here. Pine forests OK? NOT in the Rockies where I am now looking at two dead mountains. Drive I-70 out of Denver with your eyes OPEN. Earth cooling? Turn your thermometer right side up -or check the science.
Have you any notion of what lies in store if you are wrong? What gives you the right to play Russian roulette with the planet?

"Nuclear Energy is currently the most expensive of all generation technologies and we don't even know what to do with the spent fuel. See the DOE, “Increasing costs in the Electric Markets” report from 2008, page 11."

.... Ok, this is the kind of blatant disregard for the facts that is putting nuclear energy in the position it is in today. I'm a nuclear engineering student at MIT, and frankly am disgusted at today's address. Obama called for "Safe Nuclear Technology" which has existed since the 70's. There has never been a significant amount of radioactive contamination of the environment by the US nuclear power industry. More radioactive material has been released into the enviroment from the burning of coal than in the history of the US nuclear power industry. If that isn't safe I don't know what is.

About the fuel, there is this process called recycling, whereby spent fuel and high level radioactive waste can be reprocessed and reused as fuel. They already do this in france.

Nuclear power production is already cheaper than wind and far cheaper than solar, the only reason it is not cheaper than coal or natural gas is due to the nonexistence of federally guaranteed loans for nuclear power plant construction.

Currently nuclear power accounts for ~20% of the power generated in the US. Wind and Solar are lumped into the "other" category, which produces about 5%. Even if they manage to double these two you are now sitting at maybe 10% total generation, still half that of nuclear, and a very very long ways away from actually running the nation off of it.

Put together the numbers, wind and especially solar will never be able to deliver the kind of output that is needed. Nuclear currently accounts for 80% of the carbon free electricity produced in this nation, and frankly is the only way to replace coal.

The issue is that the vast majority of people are completely ignorant of the facts surrounding nuclear, and jump at the chance to call it down for being unsafe. Nuclear power is the only way we can completely repower america if you are shooting for a carbon free power grid.

I won't even get started on fusion, that is what I'm working on.

I'm not a scientist or even a science major but I support the last comment about the need for increasing Nuclear Energy. All you have to do is research it a little to realize it has a very good safety record since the 80's

We all need to look at the MSR Molten Salt Reactor for which Alvin Weinberg was a strong advocate. The latest design concept that grew out of 25 years of research and experimentation is now called LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) The current DOE and governing Nuclear bodies are too stubborn and arrogant about catching up on the science behind this little known fact. The fact that the MSR was top secret and has thousands of pages of research and reports on the success of this reactor experiment is now being ignored by establishment Kirk Sorensen and Charles Barton have made the material available for viewing and both have blogged extensively on the subject. The Thorium Energy Alliance had their first conference this week in Washington DC. Weinberg and Thorium will one day be household names and hopefully will become common knowledge in the near future if the planet is to be saved.

How bout if we solve the problem of how to handle nuclear waste before we build any more plants, then look at the total cost of nuclear power?

I was amazed to learn that all of the spent fuel EVER produced to date from U.S. nuclear plants would fit into a 7 foot pit the size of a football field. Storage is a poiltical issue not a physical nor scientific one. Nuclear energy is the lesser cost answers if you believe the sky is falling.

It is astounding to me how ignorant the majority of the comments here are (especially that '85 MIT grad. Which NeoCon Think Tank do you work for?) America has been quite lucky in how buffered it has been from climate change for the most part.
Why don't you ask anyone who lives in Europe, Africa or even Australia for that matter if the planet is warming? ONLY IN AMERICA is it even under discussion as to whether or not the climate change crisis is an issue, or of any other source than man-made.
And if conservatives want to call this a money issue... fine. The rest of the world will move forward on green tech, and we'll be left in the dust, just like we were with the auto industry.
And yes, nuclear is a clean solution, unlike the myth of clean coal. Talking of which, why are we closing Yucca Mountain after spending all those millions of dollars for a safe nuclear storage facility?

If the North Pole was all gone, you and I would not be here; its' melted for the first time in Man's history that you can take a boat and go across it. And the old companies can't wait to get in and start drilling. The forest around my home in the mountains are all dying and now are gone forever. What was left dried out, a good fire fuel and a fire burn the most of the homes away. Too much of anything, like CO2 will slowly make plants start to chock, like too much oxygen will kill you. Like the many commits here that are so one sided, good thing the UN, 2,000+ real scientists agreed 8 years ago, that its real.
We do live in the Age of Stupid. And the ignorance here is so high, its above 350... and if you don't know what 350 is, see it in the paper tomorrow, Front page, New York Times. Most people read so little, yet can talk so much as if we are out to get them.

Ignorance is defined as having a lack of knowledge, being unaware, or subjectively choosing to ignore pertinent information on a subject. I hope we all can look in the mirror and honestly begin to understand ourselves before we begin to discuss this topic, we are all ignorant in one way or another. A major misconception within this climate ‘debate’ relates to root cause analysis. We are all observers, we see the world changing environmentally, and we yearn to find the actual cause, some of us blindly, some of us on ‘green’ faith, and others with pure science. How do we humans correlate between cause and effect? The one unifying characteristic and/or strategy among us should be the Scientific Method, the unprecedented building block of the scientific community of thought, experimental technique, hypothesis, and general theory. To paraphrase: the scientific method states in order for a theory to be proven one must attempt to refute, invalidate, negate or overall challenge it to the point were it physically cannot be disproven within the realm of human knowledge. This is necessary in the attempt to minimize outside influences of bias and prejudice when testing a theory or hypothesis (though due to human nature bias and prejudice cannot be completely taken out of the equation). If it makes it past those rigorous standards then it can officially become a theory/law (which continuously will be challenged for the rest of its existence). Without that there is nothing, just speculation and/or your standard schoolyard urination contest, excuse my French, between sides. Consensus does not make a theory, for example there was a consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it, or the earth was flat, how did those theories turn out? All I am trying to say is that believe it or not Mike B. is stating facts in all of his significant and challenging accounts of pure observation. Somewhere, sometime recently the structure of the scientific community broke down, bias and prejudice began to increasingly influence the thought and theory, I blame this on politics and money, which throughout history has stuck its ugly nose in again and again, if we humans could only learn from the past. It seems the ‘consensus’ has pigeon-holed itself in the thought that the only potential cause for climate change currently can be attributed to the anthropologic industrial effect. This is a pure manipulation of the scientific method and a mockery of our collective movement as knowledge-seeking humans. Why isn’t there research refuting the anthropologic industrial effect, probably because it is too convenient for governments to control people with fear. Whatever the reason, we are off the path of pure scientific research, we are missing the opportunity. I urge every ‘scientist’ to look past the ‘consensus’ and do what they signed up for: to challenge everything, even if it may disprove one’s own theory, as the scientific method states. Solar output, water vapor, solar system climate change, volcanic activity, insufficient measurement techniques, incalculable computer models loaded with bias, and natural variability (to mention a few) all contradict human-induced climate change. Please look into those topics before we continue allowing the unknowing governments to regulate us into control, based on false information and fixed records. Overall it is unfortunate that an unproven theory is the standard for our current government-mandated regulations, to deceitfully increase tax revenue, and we can do nothing about it, pretty much because everyone is blindly falling into the ‘green’ trap.

Believe it or not I promote conservation, the reduction of pollution, the creation of more energy efficient machines, allowing our world to be more sustainable, energy independence, etc. but I am also a realist, and can comprehend that something beyond our power most likely is responsible for the ever-variable climate we continue to live through and observe. To those who are caught up in the ‘green’ era, this post may be difficult for you to grasp, but there are standards for everything, and in this case the only way to differentiate between true science and pseudo science is to broaden your thoughts and understanding, humans aren’t solely in the equation when it comes to this type of analysis, and when looking at the big picture we may have extremely little to absolutely no affect on the outcome of our planet’s state of climate. Look to the scientific method, that’s where we will find our answer…someday.