It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.
But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.
More excuse making and naval gazing. Too late I'd say for this generation (and maybe the one before) to not be labeled "criminal" for inventing new programs without figuring out ways to pay for them. At each opportunity we leave behind concerns about a non-existent "lock box" (remember that one?) and move on to some other experimental scheme that "might" pay for itself, or, well, maybe not.
Reduce dependence on foreign oil? Really? Welcome to the Republican party Mr. Gore! When do we start drilling?
Something tells me that while "the public" debates these issues, "smart money" people (and companies) are quietly moving resources to nuclear solutions, which from everything I've read are the only REAL short term alternatives to fossil fuels. Who cares what the rational is to overcome Americans natural NIMBY tendencies. If CO2 concerns fail, switch to security concerns. But could someone tell me whatever happened to concerns about garden variety pollution? I've actually been told by lefties that we would rather base policy decisions on "tentative" (as stated in Al Gore's research links) recent measurements than on much more established understandings about pollution (you know, the kinds that cause cancers and heart disease, kill off species, things like that).