Will Al Gore Melt?

Wall Street Journal Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg January 18, 2007

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore’s suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore’s path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore’s world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization’s finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and ’30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore’s is a convenient story, but isn’t it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn’t tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don’t mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn’t we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore — and anywhere.

Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.


24 thoughts on “Will Al Gore Melt?”

  1. Although well-intended, I believe Al Gore has a compelling need to leave a legacy – having “invented the internet” and attaching his name to other advances as welll, he is obsessed with pursueing global warming as his panacea. Such a pursuit is a threat to the IQ of the nation, thinking he can and will sell the flawed concept to a broad cross-section of our nation’s thinkers.

    Those that accept his premise, will accept anything which criticizes any physical change in the world around us. If the world is billions of years old (and there is more and more scientific evidence that it is not), how do we explain that with billions of opportunities for harm to our planet, just a few years and not centuries can cointribute to this state of major decay?? The world has had weather fluctuations and subsequent temperature variations throughout its past and has survived just fine.

    My recommendation is that the Gores of the world find a more worthwhile cause like the elimination of AIDS in Africa, genicide and ethnic cleansing, or Heaven forbid, global Islamic Terrorism.

    They should find a real life and not at our expense!!

  2. In the interest of full disclosure, Bjorn Lomborg is not an environmental scientist of any kind. He has a Ph.D.in political science, but is a regular contributor to the right-wing echo chamber on environmental topics. Flemming Rose was the editor who commissioned the controversial cartoons about Muslims. It reported that he is a fan of the rabidly pro-Israel, anti-Islamic, anti-Palestinian Daniel Pipes.

    Don writes: “If the world is billions of years old (and there is more and more scientific evidence that it is not) . . . ”

    Ok, I’ll bite. How old is it?

  3. There was a recent study reported on by NPR that indicated that anthropocentric global warming was having a measurable effect in Washington and Oregon which would have significant negative economic consequences in the years to come. The same study went on to look at the counter effect of reducing emmissions. It was determined that even if emmissions were reduced by 50% there would be no signiicant postive change for over 100 years.

    A recent Swedish study published the The Proceedings of the Royal Society A concludes that cosmic rays have far more effect on global warming than 200 years of man made CO2 emmissions. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html

    We need to make changes because we need to take better care the creation of which are stewards. From a Christian perspective stewardship of the creation is our fundamental responsibility before God. To take the “Chicken Little” approach and rush into disruptive and destructive “solutions” is actually to deny our stewardship.

  4. As usual, the WSJ editorial page is detached from reality. Last week even Exxon-Mobile acknowleged the reality of gobal warming.

    Exxon Cutting Ties to Global Warming Skeptics

    Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations, a move experts said could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions.

    Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Washington, D.C. nonprofit Resources for the Future. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

    Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

    .. To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations. Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions. Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

    Exxon has changed its position, recognising the inevitability of some sort of controls on CO2 emissions, and lobbying for a broad approach that will be relatively favourable to businesses like Exxon, rather than one tightly focused on the energy industry. At this point, an association with shills for denialism like the Competitive Enterprise Institute is not only counterproductive for Exxon, but embarrassing.

  5. Big Business had accepted the reality of Global Warming and the need to curb carbon-dioxide emissions. How is it that the WSJ editorial page didn’t get the memo?

    U.S. companies eye global warming policy, Business Week

    Some major U.S. companies, including Alcoa Inc. and General Electric Co., will join environmentalists Monday in calling on the federal government to step up efforts to fight global warming.

    Executives from nine companies and leaders of four environmental groups will present policy recommendations intended to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and speed the adoption of cleaner energy and climate-friendly technology. The burning of fossil fuels spews carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which along with other gases can trap the earth’s heat much like a greenhouse.

    Companies press Bush, Congress on climate, Washington Post, January 19, 2007

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Ten major U.S. corporations are joining environmental groups to press President George W. Bush and Congress to address climate change more rapidly.

    The coalition, including Alcoa Inc., General Electric Co., DuPont Co. and Duke Energy Corp., plans to publicize its recommendations on Monday, a day ahead of the president’s annual State of the Union address, the Natural Resources Defense Council said.

    The group, known as the United States Climate Action Partnership, also includes Caterpillar Inc., PG&E, the FPL Group, PNM Resources Inc., BP America Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

  6. Dean, it politics, nothing more. When 30 major corporations become global warming champions in the same month that a new party takes over Congress, it’s not because they’ve seen the global warming light. They are positioning themselves against Democratic overreaching, nothing more.

  7. Though it sounds petty, I believe Jacobse is correct. If they appear concerned it will be harder to move against them.

  8. No doubt politics played a part. However, major corporations also saw themselves losing credibility and the good will of their customers through their denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus and irrefutable evidence regarding Global Warming. Today’s headlines bring further confirmation:

    Report has ‘smoking gun’ on climate

    WASHINGTON – Human-caused global warming is here — visible in the air, water and melting ice — and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

    “The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,” said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. “The evidence … is compelling.”

    Global warming is “happening now, it’s very obvious,” said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. “When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it’s pretty much a no-brainer.”

    .. Look for an “iconic statement” — a simple but strong and unequivocal summary — on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.

    The February report will have “much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that’s taken place,” Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.

    An early version of the ever-changing draft report said “observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming.”

    And the early draft adds: “An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation.” The world’s global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.

    The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.

  9. Note 9. Dean writes:

    No doubt politics played a part. However, major corporations also saw themselves losing credibility and the good will of their customers through their denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus and irrefutable evidence regarding Global Warming.

    Overlooking the tendentiousness of the second half of the sentence, it is a striking coincidence that thirty corporations came to such prescient awareness about their markets the same month Pelosi was sworn in. I guess they’ve seen the light in more ways than one.

  10. It’s sad that Al Gore and other environmentalists feel the need to exaggerate the facts and use projections based on flawed assumptions to scare people into hearing their message. They undermine their own credibility with these blatant distortions of truth.

    Any message Al Gore was trying to get across in this film was lost in his sensationalism and trumped up worst case scenarios. There is no doubt that the current population of this planet could do a better job protecting the environment, but this movie was little more than a global “boogey man” story. A story that is being told in effort to keep the little people scared of the possibility of a future without the environmentalists here to protect us. Spare me the drama. It’s basically commercial that creates a need for the product they are selling.

    The real benefactor to this film is Al Gore who is jet-setting around the world (contributing to the Greenhouse gasses) to tell this tale to the uninformed masses who pay him big bucks to hear his snake oil pitch. His traveling road show provides him with a globe trotting lifestyle that most of us could only dream about. That’s the real genius of Al Gore. I guess I’m just jealous I didn’t think of this scam myself.

    Anthony Robbins sells personal power, Robert Kiosaki sells the dream of financial freedom, Zig Ziglar sells the idea of improved sales, Ron Popeil sells the pocket fisherman, George Foreman sells a grill that cooks both sides of a hamburger at the same time, and Al Gore sells fear. It’s embarrassing that people are so willing to self-loathe, that they will accept (and blindly defend) such ridiculous misrepresentations of the truth as can be found in portions this film.

    The environment is an important issue, but don’t insult us by charging us to sit and hear your junk science with its false premises and fear mongering.

  11. Odin – What part of Gore’s presentation is junk and what makes you more quallified to evaluate it then America’s top scientists and climatologists?

    Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy, AP Science Writer, Tuesday, June 27, 2006

    The nation’s top climate scientists are giving “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

    ..The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

    But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    “Excellent,” said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. “He got all the important material and got it right.”

    Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

    “I sat there and I’m amazed at how thorough and accurate,” Corell said. “After the presentation I said, `Al, I’m absolutely blown away. There’s a lot of details you could get wrong.’ … I could find no error.”

  12. Dean RE:#12. And of course since these folks are “the top scientists” in their field we should immediately do a metania at their feet without questionning their political ideology and bias. It is certainly obvious from other areas in the news that the faculty at Duke is so unconcerned with pandering to political correctness that they will actually look at facts before jumping to conclusions. (The Lacross “Rape” Scandal).

    Personally, I don’t trust anything from the “top” scientists without first checking their bias, where they receive their funding, etc. Dean, you are quick to jump on the funding source for the anti-global warming scientists as an indication that their research and conclusions are suspect. Be fair and do the same for the self-annoited “top” scientists (that is they argree with your thesis). The sorry fact is that a great many scientists (top or otherwise) will chase the grant money and tailor their methodology and findings to get it.

  13. Jury is still out Dean. From: US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


    Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

    Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

    “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

    “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

    Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

    “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

    Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

    “…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

    “…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

    Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

    “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

  14. Well Dean, I’d defend my position, but Jacobse did a fine job of explaining my use of the word “Junk Science.” Bravo!

    And for the record, I never said I was more qualified to evaluate anything. I was basing my statement on information that has been published by the leading (credible) scientists and climatologists. And by “credible” I mean scientists who use a consistent methodology and who don’t manipulate the data in order to achieve a result that obviously supports their own political agenda. I’m not trying to pass myself off as an expert. I’m just a regular guy who saw the film and decided to do some additional reading. I’ve read hundreds of articles from both sides of the debate and I’ve based my opinion on what I’ve read. The fact is the doom and gloom statistics on this topic don’t hold up under even mild scrutiny.

    Many (or most) of the projections in the film were arrived at by using the high end of the estimates (or beyond), and then extrapolated out using flawed assumptions and fuzzy logic. The end result is exaggerations that are laughable if not unethical. If A is true, and B is true, then A+B must = C, right? Not necessarily!! The end result, C, may have absolutely no connection with either A or B. It’s a manipulation technique of taking two widely accepted truths and connecting them in a thought and then making a leap or assumption to get to an unrelated place. Michael Jordan is tall. Janet Reno is tall. Therefore I must be tall also. President Bush often uses a similar technique in his speeches on the war in Iraq. It is also widely used in many, many left orientated environmental studies and articles. Unfortunately, just because it’s widely used, it doesn’t make the faulty assumptions any less false.

    Sure the images in the film are graphic, and the message is scary, unfortunately it’s not based in reality. You don’t have to be a “leading scientist” to look up the lie behind Nairobi’s supposed malaria epidemic. The World Health Organization (staffed by leading scientists) website will confirm the misrepresentation of that “fact.” Speaking of being detached from reality, it’s a good thing Al Gore invented the internet so even us simpletons can do our own research and fact checking. There are other examples of misrepresented “truths” in the movie that I could cite, but what’s the point? It only takes one lie to make a liar. The fictional movie “Armageddon” has as much scientific basis to it as this piece of crap. But I won’t go into the specific details of that film either.

    To be fair, there are some good points and arguments made in Mr. Gore’s film, but they are COMPLETELY lost in a sea of political propaganda. Let’s not kid each other and pretend this movie is about the environment, it’s about politics. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to create an unfounded fear so that left-leaning politicians will have a better product to sell at the next election. It’s nothing more than a 2 hour campaign commercial. And before you write me off as a right wing nut-job, I think it’s only fair to let you know I didn’t vote for President Bush in the latest election because I don’t agree with his ultra conservative positions on several key issues.

  15. Note 15. Not to worry. Al Gore has been outed repeatedly as a front man for the Democratic Party. (Joke – really!)

  16. Does Al Gore have ANY credibility left?

    I can’t believe the Democratic party still associates themselves with that guy… Oh wait, yes I can. Sticking to the truth doesn’t seem to be thier strong point.

  17. Which mistake in responding to global warming carries the most downside risk? If the null hypothesis is that man-made greenhouses gasses are warming the earth’s temperature to dangerous levels, then there are four possible responses,

    1) We accept the null hypothesis and it is true
    2) We accept the null hypothesis and it is false (False Positive)
    3) We reject the null hypothesis and it is false
    4) We reject the null hypothesis and it is true (False Negative)

    Let us suppose we assume global warming is real (and act accordingly) and it actually is not (False Positive). What are the costs? The cost of a false positive will be lower profits for industries dependent on fossil-fuels due to the cost of retrofitting, higher prices and higher taxes. This will have a dampening macro-economic effect on the economy. However it will be partially offset by the positive economic effect of increased investment, jobs and spending on alternative energy technologies. It will also be offset by the positive geo-political and trade benefits resulting from a decreased dependency of foreign oil.

    Now let us suppose we assume global warming is not real, (and we do not act) and it actually is real (False Negative). What are the costs then? They would include:

    a. Flooding of coastal areas and the displacement of hundreds of millions of people who become refugees and must be cared for and relocated. inland,
    b. Territorial conflict between displaced coastal and inland peoples.
    c. Drought , crop failure and famine,
    d. More frequent and intense hurricanes resulting in greater property damage,
    e. Longer and more intense heat waves resulting in greater numbers of weather-related death
    f. Loss of millions of species and native animals and vegetation.

    Clearly the downside risk from a false negative is much greater than the risk from a false positive. Therefore a proactive approach based on the assumption that global warming is real is not based on left-wing dogma, as some have asserted, but is based on a rational analysis and assessment of probable costs and benefits,

  18. Al Gore, who won the majority of the popular vote in the 2000 election is one of the most intelligent and decent men who have ever served in public office. As Senator, he broke ranks with fellow Democrats to support the first President Bush during the Gulf War, and voted for the federal funding that led to the development of the internet. As Vice President his “Reinventing Government” program saved the federal government billions and helped reduce the size of the federal workforce. He has a loving marriage to his first wife, and a lovely family and has never been tainted by any hint of scandal.

    I was proud to vote for him and would welcome the opportunity to do so again.

    Reading some of the above comments I am reminded of this quote by Jonathan Swift:

    When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him.

    from “Thoughts on Various Subjects: Moral and Diverting”

  19. Note 20. Dean writes:

    He has a loving marriage to his first wife, and a lovely family and has never been tainted by any hint of scandal.

    This is true. You have to give the man credit for it. It says something about his character.

  20. Note 19,

    1) There is no alternative to oil, with the possible exception of nuclear. To move (forcibly by the point of the sword) away from oil would be devastating.

    2) Of a-f, only a is likely. c is false, as food production goes up under a warming trend, and d is silly scare mongering…

  21. To the Gore or no Gore core:
    Why all the questions and discussions; is global warming just a Christian or just a moral issue? It would seem that any adverse effects would affect the world as a whole-all religions and all people, i.e. humanity. If, of course, you are a millenaianist, an end timer, this warming question is a real goodie as one more bibical marker. The morality of this issue resides in the seperate minds of all the people envolved. The interpretation of one’s moral intentions and questions may or may not effect the geologic activity around them; and this is a geologic event.
    Methaine-a greenhouse gas-is excaping in increasing amounts from the open seas and not just along the tectonic plates but from such places as the Mediterranean. Who do we blame for that? Is this a moral issue; it is, if you try to capture the gas and use it as a fuel. That, of course, would require the intrusion of science and engineering.
    I know that the UN is a godless institution: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meets in-god forsaken Paris-January the 29th to present its various,world gathered scientific findings. They will be released in a gathered form in late February. These will not be Gore or Exxon centered papers but world centered.
    Is this the last shoe; no, it will make very little difference; one still has his own moral priorities.
    Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner

  22. Note 22: Christopher, there are reasonable alternatives for oil, the most promising is fuel cells. Fuel cell stacks are already being placed on land fills to reclaim the methane there and used to generate electricity. There are fuel cell powered buses running in LA and Chicago. It has been estimated that it would take less than 1 billion dollars to switch all of the gas stations in the US into hydrogen fueling stations. There are internet farms which run entirely off the grid on fuel cell stacks because of the consistency and the quality of the power they generate. You can buy a fuel cell for your home for around $10,000. Still, in most cases, too long a payback period to make it economically feasible. One of the problems that the techs are trying to overcome is the life span of the fuel cells, the hyrogen and oxygen used tend to destroy the stacks too quickly. The only emission from fuel cells is water.

    Most of the research into fuel cells right now is being funded by the automakers with Ballard Power in Canada being a leading company in the fuel cells to replace IC engines powered by gasoline or diesel.

    More and more of the reseach that I’ve been seeing on global warming is pointing not at anthropogenic causes anyway, but at naturally occuring events such as JR Dittenbrenner mentions and the cosmic ray study done by Swedish scientists.

Comments are closed.