Unfortunately, a lot of people in the U.S. don't get it, despite the fact that the science is robust. This is because fossil fuel interests have run a massive tobbaco science campaign aimed at polluting the public discussion with distortions and omissions, at the same time that they've poured millions into mostly Republican political campaigns, but some Democrats as well. The American Petroleum Institute funneled over $100 million to a fossil fuel PR campaign recently, and that's been used to fill the airwaves and newspapers with dishonest claims by fossil fuel PR experts and their "third-party supporters".

Spending $300 million to oppose fossil fuel PR seems like it's justifiable, but the fault lies with ExxonMobile and ChevronTexaco for promoting so many tobacco science climate institutes in the first place.

The only problem is that bogus notions like hundreds of new nuclear reactors, carbon trading and carbon storage are being promoted, not the real long term solutions, which are all based, ultimately, on sunlight, wind and wave energy: solar PV, solar thermal, wind turbines, wave generators, algal biofuels -as well as on conservation and low-energy technology.

Doing that will cost a lot more than $300 mil - $300 billion for California alone might start to make a serious dent. California consumes some 16 billion gallons of gasoline per year, at a cost of some $60 billion a year, along with 225 million megawatt-hours of electricity at a cost of some $30 billion - so we obviously have the money to make the transition to an all-renewable economy. So, how about a cheap, mass-produced version of the Tesla, for starters?

Speaking of bogus notions and nuclear power, I just got polled - mostly about PG&E. The poll had a number of misleading statements about the great job that PG&E is doing delivering power to us, and seemed aimed at keeping public opinion in favor of private power instead of public power.

The most egregious one, though was some sort of statistic about how 80% of the power PG&E delivers is CO2 emission-free and doesn't contribute to global warming. What the pollster neglected to mention is that the bulk of this is from nuclear power - one of the worst ways to generate electricity.

Polls always catch me at odd hours, and I'm usually not prepared to take notes and ask the right kinds of questions. Although the very nice young lady who I was speaking to did not know who'd paid for the poll, she did know it was being conducted for EMC Research.

I know I and many other folks get tired of the Bay Guardian's drone about public power, but stuff like this poll does jolt me back into realizing just how much better off we'd be with a public power system.

It amazes me to read true believer dunderheads. The "science is solid", ah you mean the science that says that raises on CO 800 years after the temperature increase proves CO caused the temperature increase? The science that says that increased temperature will raise ocean levels but ignores the reduction of levels in the Maldives? or the fact that water evaporates at a faster rate when the temperature raises? Or that a lot of planetary precipitation falls on the southern ice shelf (average temperature -40 degrees). Really, how much koolaid did you people had to drink to believe that shite? Or is it the science that completely ignores precipitation?

He is pushing this issue, and pushing it harder than ever, because many scientists are becoming more vocal in their skepticism of the entire "man-made" climate change model. Gore knows that there is in fact a tipping point -- one that threatens to reverse any gains he's made in convincing the world of his apocalyptic vision of a dead planet. Gore and his fellow travelers know their window of opportunity will close if they can't get their agenda acted upon, and soon.

Unfortunately for them their ideas would require society to give up too many conveniences and creature comforts, actually requiring us to return to an agrarian society circa the 1800s. Or maybe we could all just adopt the Mennonite lifestyle and forego cars, planes, cell phones, office jobs, factories, etc. and etc.

"a lot of people in the U.S. don't get it, despite the fact that the science is robust" Uh, actually no, the science is anything but robust. Just because people like you keep repeating that phrase (or something very similar)over and over doesn't make it so. One of the funny things about science is the way scientists DON'T agree on anything unless it can be repeated and proven in a scientific manner, eliminating any questions of doubt. Man-made climate change proponents aren't even close to an actual "proof" of causality of climate change. When their models leave out factors such as solar activity you know there's a problem with the science.

Another factor to consider is the way proponents of man-made climate change are doing their best to shout down and discredit any scientist who disagrees with them. That's not exactly how most scientific debates occur - you either agree with me or I'll ruin your career?

"...bulk of this is from nuclear power - one of the worst ways to generate electricity." Really? Have you checked in with the French, who generate so much via the nukes (safely, I might add) that they are selling their excess to other EU countries? Would you rather we burn coal for our electrical needs?