But Glenn Beck Is The Crazy One

CHU: Not law of physics but yah gotta actually, you know, build fission reactors by the dozen, develope fusion power or make huge orbiting solar power satellites beaming microwave energy back to earth, a reality. 'cus otherwise hydrocarbons are it, lackwit.

Aside from which , anybody care to raise their hand and guess that Africa may have serious oil and gas reserves they could develop, if only they were so badly managed?

"There is no law of physics that says prosperity is proportional to carbon emissions," Chu said.

In other news, Charlie Sheen stated, "There is no law of physics that says you can't put peanut butter on a hot dog or ketchup on blueberry pie."

What a maroon.

Who is this "Chu" guy and why are they using pictures of David Suzuki in the article posted? LOL

"We believe we have to decrease our use of energy to allow headroom for the developing nations to grow their economies..."

Who are 'we'? The Obama administration?

What does decreasing our use of energy have to do with allowing developing nations to grow? I have a total disconnect here.

Decreasing our use of energy means decreasing our national productivity. Why do we want to decrease our national productivity?

Is there someone in the Obama administration, aside from Robert Gates, who can speak any sense? Who voted for these idiots?

16MPG- The way I read this, that's exactly what they're talking about. Shrinking the US economy, to allow developing nations to grab a piece of the production, is the ultimate goal.

Odd, Chu did not recommend that Americans turn off their television sets. That would save significant amounts of energy. With less exposure to advertising, Americans will consume less as demand generation descends - which is better for the planet in many ways. Fewer natural resources used for consumer products, less energy used moving goods, warehousing them, shelving them in retail facilities...

Why would he not recommend such an obvious and beneficial step as to recommend Americans turn off their televisions sets. For good.

I have no affinity for the flip-flopping buffoonish clown act that Beck presents as "conservatism". But I'd never call someone making six figures "crazy".

Particularly when there is so much true political insanity to be found locally:

http://tinyurl.com/y92eorx

"There is no law of physics that says prosperity is proportional to carbon emissions," Chu said.

No - that's actually a law of economics. Physics doesn't deal with prosperity, Bozo.

Progressives (socialists/marxists) like Chu always claim the pie can never grow. Therefore, the greedy US, and by extension us Canucks, must eat less so others can have more. (Remember that these rules don't apply to our rulers!) Conservatives, or realists, understand that you can make a bigger pie. The truth is progressives don't care a whit about developing nations. The greenies wish to cull the planet of undesirables (banning of DDT and prevention of the use of technology in 3rd world nations) and rationing energy is a key component of their plan.
I don't believe they are idiots, though that's what it seems like to rational people. I vote for evil.

Just in case anyone missed what kate found here...

A)"we have to decrease our use of energy to allow headroom for the developing nations to grow their economies"

B)" law of physics that says prosperity is proportional to carbon emissions"

The Nobel Winning part is this...

If A is true than B is False. If B is True than A is False. Both cannot be True at the same time...

So it is more than logical that both A and B are False and the Dr Chu is insane.

16MPG says "Is there someone in the Obama administration, aside from Robert Gates, who can speak any sense? Who voted for these idiots?"

Idiots.

I missed the "No law" part in my cut and paste in Option B sorry for the poor edit and review

When I read crapola like that I am motivated to go and buy a nice big steak and fire up the BBQ.

In fact, the lunch men has just been written.

Co2 infused meat . . . . hmmmmmmmmmm good.

Paint your roof white, and no black cars either? somewhat related, but not new news...

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/

who voted for these idiots? well, idiots mostly... :)
exactly

And in the side links:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=88480

"The Obama administration failed to meet a deadline for submitting a court-ordered analysis of the environmental effects of offering new leases to drill in Alaskan coastal waters, the oil industry said Thursday."

Being on your knees is a rather degrading way of increasing headroom.

This is really sad. Here we have, to be fair, one of the smartest people around (he did win a Nobel Prize in physics) spouting crap like that. He's smart enough to know that, in fact, prosperity bears quite a strong relationship to carbon emissions, yet he chooses to ignore that.

illiquid assets - thanks; your analysis is perfect. But remember, in the virtual world of Obama and his boys, contradictions are not relevant.

“white roofs everywhere”

Everywhere? On the Canadian prairies, too much heat ain't the problem.

"Being on your knees is a rather degrading way of increasing headroom."

- Speedy...

Yes but it explains all the bowing President Obama has been doing lately.

The very top of mankind's pyramid is energy. It's the keystone to physics, chemistry, economics and life. The more accessible energy becomes, the more active is our growth. That's not just a matter confined to the political pharisee ridden corridors of science. It's a truism applicable to everything.

Restricting access to energy is the antithesis to mankind's progress and will bring on another dark ages. Increasing man's access to energy while learning how to use it in new inventive, effective and efficient ways is true progress. Without progress, mankind ceases to have much value. We'll all be doomed to the fate of starving North Korean slaves caught in a neverending big brother totalitarian existence. We will be stripped of the wonder and enlightenment that pushes us to become greater than we are.

Without energy to drive a nation a dollar is just another worthless piece of paper...and so becomes our societies.

It's hard to imagine a man was elected president of the greatest nation on earth with so much contempt for future progress that he's intentionally crippling his country in an attempt to prevent it. We should all try to understand "why?" before it's too late.

Hey I have a white roof, and a white lawn and a white back yard, the street in front of my house is white. Do I get carbon credits for the wise use of snow?

"We believe we have to decrease our use of energy to allow headroom for the developing nations to grow their economies,"

Talk about BS!

And the prosperity of developing nations is our responsibility how?

This is very similar to the stance that the developing world will not cut CO2 emissions to save their own ar$es from AGW; unless, WE send them money.

I care not for those that choose not to take care and protect themselves; whether the perceived threat is real or not.

Paint your roof white? I've got a head start on that on personal level. I shaved my head 4 years ago and keep it clean shaven. I can't afford solar panels or wind turbines so I reflect back my share of the suns rays. (sarcasm off now).

mike

With all due respect to Chu, he should keep up with the research.

There IS a physical law that links prosperity to carbon emissions. Its called thermodynamics.

Ok, I'm fudging, the link is with energy consumption which is much the same

A university of Utah professor published a paper (not without its detractors) that modeled the development of global civilizaiton as a heat engine. From his model he draws the following conclusions (quoted from the University of Utah press release http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=112009-1):

* Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
* Throughout history, a simple physical "constant" - an unchanging mathematical value - links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions.
* "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy."

So what does this tell us conservative types:

1. We should support energy conservation and efficiency, not because it will reduce energy consumption but because it frees up a limited and (comparatively) costly resource either reducing our costs or allowing us to do more.
2. There are no practical plans to solve the problem. The only honest ones are the whack jobs who want to send us back to the stone age. Everything else is a smoke job.

If carbon emissions aren't related to prosperity, then why are we reducing our energy/carbon emissions for them to use? Why don't they just make prosperity out of thin air (pun intended) like he believes?

Most followers of the marxist religion usually talk a good game regarding their smoke and mirrors policies until faced with the challenges of making it work in the real world. Once they achieve power their interests change to increasing pistol ammunition production and surveying discrete sites for priority mass executions and burials.

Marko @ 10:14 - the reason that they won't admit that the pie can change size is that the diameter of the pie is proportional to the freedom and security of the people operating the system. Security can mean a great many things, I couldn't find a better word for "laws of the country will enforce voluntarily entered contracts and keep brigands at bay". "State Security" apparati may add security but stifle the person freedoms so much that there's a huge net loss to the pie. Agree/disagree?

Those that worship at the Church of Climatology are totally oblivious to the fact that there`s a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.

The finite pie argument is the same one that the peak oil theorists put forward - that energy is becoming more and more costly in terms of effort to produce. This is one of the reasons that they cite for the fall of the roman empire (I made the mistake of reading Thomas Friedman lately). Sadly, it's a self-fulfilling theory because it takes more and more effort to get a permit to produce more energy.

Sarg, blunt talk, but true. It is like marko says @ 10:14, the end game of the socialist/Marxist is evil hiding under the new green religion and being aided and abetted by some old line churches that have forgotten the reason they came into being.

That is truly a scary comment by Chu. Our American friends should be worried. What is the matter with Obama? Why does he hate his own country so much?

Chu's claim is also false.

See Hans Rosling's talk here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IkHtTgn3Nk

In other talks of his he has shown a very clear correlation between prosperity and energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

And Hans Rosling is hardly what one would call a climate denier.

I suppose he flew there in a private government jet. With rock star staff.

So when he means less energy, he doesn't mean the elite, he means...you know....the proles. Little people. US.

Maybe Little Kim in North Korea can give him some tips. Send over a mass education team. Stuff like that.

Who is this administration working for? "We believe we have to decrease our use of energy to allow headroom for the developing nations to grow their economies," are weasel words for saying that he wants to hobble the US (his own country's) economy. It is not often in history that a government leader hand-picks staff who admit they want to intentionally lower their citizens standard of living. Even dictators pretend to work for the people.

Yep, Beck and Tea Party people who are suspicious of the governing class are crazy, paranoid and unpatriotic cranks.

fox catches up to Kate.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/

Rasmussen has Obama at -20.

Could hit an all-time low after Thursday's performance in the health care debate.

Adam is absolutely correct. Regardless of some physics dudes theory, it's just common sense. Less energy usage = lower cost = higher consumption = more wealth available = more population growth. Ultimately the warming cult always comes down to eliminating population. So the only real question is - us (the west) or them (the developing world). Who wants to die to save the earth? The cultists want most of us to die, with the higher cultists ruling as despots over the remainder.

Barry's A Team is riddled with goof-balls, nutters, whackos & other forms of wannbe be marxists who think they can bamboozle the American people.

Watch Barry get stitched up good . . . with some FACTS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded#

Fred that was a delight to watch. Thanks for posting the link.

wow that chart would lie within the 95% correlation

"We believe we have to decrease our use of energy to allow headroom for the developing nations to grow their economies," Chu said in a speech in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

I found that statement funny.
Nice way to ham-string Western nations. Now yell at Third World dictatorships like China, North Korea and Cuba for exploiting, starving, jailing and murdering their own people. That might have something to do with poor economic performance.

Some guy that likes to wear a black hat should have to pay me to wear a white hat.

While on a low and slow flight from San Francisco to Boise, I looked down and noticed that the urban areas were already quite a bit lighter than surrounding green spaces. I also noticed just how sparsely populated the land was and how I couldn't make out any roof colors.

Painting every roof in the world white would be indistinguishable from the current color scheme. This brilliant physicist apparently never did any mathematical calculations to supoort his bone headed theory.

He might be right that a more efficient energy source would power GDP better, but he's not considering cost-effectiveness of such technologies. He's also ignoring the laws of physics, elegantly explained in this piece:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

The CO2 emissions flattened in 1990 as GWP continued to rise.

1990 was the last time US Fuel economy standards were updated(until very recently).

Good link Fred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded#

That Paul Ryan ripped OBOZO a new one without a teleprompter..........

The look one the "won"'s face....pure hate...Ryan can expect to get hit by a bus-----or to get caught with a stash in his car....

OBOZO looked like the villain in a made in Hong Kong kick epic.

"Who is this "Chu" guy and why are they using pictures of David Suzuki in the article posted? LOL
Posted by: Mr.g at February 26, 2010 9:33 AM "

Real classy Mr.g. You're a real comedian.

If you have problems with his policy, fine. Denigrating the Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate because of his Asian ancestry is weak, you f*cking bigot.

So Nate,

Chu is demonstrably either a liar or a moron, and you excuse him due to his ancestry?

Also, demonstrating even morons can be correct on some issues, there is a benefit in painting roofs white within urban heat islands. Given the same energy input, the white reflects enough energy to lower the heat transfer, and actually lower the island effect. Jerry Pournelle has done a bunch of research on this.

If you Google earth Los Vegas, you will find a lot of roofs painted white on low, 1-3 story buildings. You can see a bunch from the monorail.