Well David, Brad, Desi, RACHEL, Earnest, et al.,

I guess it is the LBH all over again.

Rachel was having an orgasm when she presented Dr. Muller. I am now wondering about the morning after. With whom did she wake up????

Hey, I applaud you for posting this at least, because somewhere in the back of your mind, you must have thought of old Davey.

https://bradblog.com/?p=9440#comment-474683
https://bradblog.com/?p=9440#comment-474686
https://bradblog.com/?p=9442#comment-474805

Now, in just a few days, Dr. Muller has gone from "darling" to "devil"

Where I sit, this red hot moment, was once completely underwater. I know because I can can show you oodles of salt-water fossils on my property. Must have frozen somewhere since then because currently I am high and dry. The earth cycles between cold-hot-colt-hot...etc. Five ice ages so far (I think).

Moreover...

David...once I alerted you, I think you were smart enough to sniff this out.
https://bradblog.com/?p=9442#comment-474860

...but only after I told you to watch the longer video.

OK, you guys may hate on me because I do not buy the AGW argument but you should give me credit for alerting you to the fact that you were dancing in the endzone prematurely.

I am not stupid!

More...moreover...

This all started with:

CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Koch-Backed Scientist a Skeptic No More

Is he? Or is he not? Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

Dr. Muller came across as arrogant, self-centered, and primarily interested in promoting his book. I was disappointed, because I thought he might have a fresh perspective. Each time he mentioned that he disagreed with someone, I got my hopes up that we would have some substantive explanation of the why's and wherefore's. But instead he just fired off attacks left and right and showed no interest in helping the listener to understand anything at all. He repeatedly stated that everything was explained in his book, but frankly, I got tired of hearing him plug the book and by the end of this performance, I had zero confidence that he would show any sincere interest in helping anyone understand anything even in the book. I'm glad he's caught up to where climate science was 20 years ago, but if he has anything substantive to add to the conversation --- other than ten tons of ego --- that certainly wasn't clear from this interview.

Karen,

Anakin Skywalker
You're asking me to be rational. That is something I know I cannot do. Believe me, I wish I could just wish away my feelings, but I can't.

RICHARD MULLER: Well, I don’t expect people to say, oh Muller has changed his mind, therefore I do. What we have done, I think, is an exceptional level of transparency. We have five detailed, scientific papers which we have placed online — these have all been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — we have put all of the data online, we’ve put all of our computer programs online, along with a lot of supplemental information that your watchers and listeners might like. If you go to Berkeleyearth.org and you can look up your temperature record in your home town or your home state. But by putting this online, we have a transparency where people who think we did something wrong can find, well, this is your assumption right on this line here, this is what we don’t like. Our responses is, OK change it and see if it makes a difference, or we can change it for you and see if it makes a difference. So, this is, I think, the wonderful thing about science is that it’s that narrow realm of knowledge on which we expect to achieve universal agreement.

Davey Crocket @ 1:

Now, in just a few days, Dr. Muller has gone from "darling" to "devil"

It must be very sad for you in the black and white fortress in which you live. If it isn't, someday you'll discover that it is.

Perhaps I missed the "darling" part. And even the "devil" part, for that matter. A man who works for and with the Kochs, who has been a denier (who calls himself a "skeptic", so I generally use that, out of respect) for years, actually bothered to look at the data that others have collected, and warned about for years, and found, lo and behold, their claims about that data were correct.

Is he still funded by the Kochs? Yes. Is he still wrong about many things? Clearly. But, as he finally came around years later to realize that he had been wrong on his central belief (as Michael Mann notes above), we'll hope it won't take as many years to realize that he's wrong on so many of the others that he still holds. "Clean fracking"? Seriously, dude?

In any event, as I said, I guess I missed the "darling" part. The only thing that was "darling" about it was that the Kochs' money went towards disproving their own bullshit, and one more obstacle in the way of braindead, propagandized suckers (yes, like yourself) has fallen, so that the rest of us can get on with fixing the shit you people fucked up so thoroughly, cruelly, arrogantly and (probably) irreparably.

Whether he is deluded into believing there is such a thing as "clean fracking" any more than there is such a thing as "clean coal" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. His study corroborates what so many of us have been shouting about for so long, while yutzes like you have been (and still are) in self-destructive denial.

Where I sit, this red hot moment, was once completely underwater. I know because I can can show you oodles of salt-water fossils on my property. Must have frozen somewhere since then because currently I am high and dry. The earth cycles between cold-hot-colt-hot...etc. Five ice ages so far (I think).

Well, sorry, but Richard Muller, and virtually every other scientist in the world disagrees with you. You should really try reading some science some day. Like Muller did. Like D.R. Tucker did (yes, he used to agree with you, until he bothered to, ya know, inform himself.)

As Muller, and so many before him found, what is happening now can be explained no other way other than man is causing it. Yes, the earth does go through cycles of change. But there are reasons when it does and it usually takes a few thousand or a few million years, rather than a few decades. When you are able to offer a reason for the change that is occurring now, I'm sure you'll let us know. Perhaps you're smarter than Muller, or have access to secret information that he doesn't.

But I'm glad you are so proud of your utter ignorance. Seems to be a trend for folks from Texas these days. I'd be embarrassed. But that's just me.

No Davey,

Hate you? I don't know you. But yeah, I do at times hate what you write when you come across as a mocking, smarmy, arrogant, ignorant ass. Like in the comments above.

Nice of you to take credit for my critique. I'd suggest you stick it up your ass on that one but I wouldn't want it to get overly crowded up there with your head already taking up so much space.

Where did you ever come up with the deranged, arrogant, self-serving fantasy that I had no problems with Muller? Did Rush phone that one in to ya? Or did you dial it up yourself?

D.R.Tucker,
Nice post! I was hoping somebody'd get to the problems with this guy. Love the the Sinclair ClimateCrocks video, too. Thanks for all of it.

David #7,
Hurling a Rush bomb at me again?

Brad #6
The Green News banner for 7/31 says: "Thank you Koch Brothers! (Really!)" How should I interpret that?

Moving on...

Here is a quote from Muller on NPR...yesterday:
"It's much easier to clean fracking than it is, for example, to make cheap solar.

So I'm hoping that the environmentalists who have started to oppose fracking, I think prematurely, can be won over and recognize that this has to be part of a worldwide energy policy. Natural gas also helps the Chinese because their citizens are being choked by the soot and other emissions of their coal plants."

http://www.npr.org/2012/...about-a-changing-climate

Anyway, I watched the RM video again just to make sure that I did not miss something. I did not.

It seems that Muller is trying to bring everyone to the middle with sensible solutions. You know, I think I could sign on to AGW from a political sense if it resulted in sensible things like moving from coal to natural gas. Even though I don't buy the AGW argument I would be willing to compromise, if you will.

The denier's science book:

"Once upon a time there was a big volcano, and some earthquakes, therefore there is no such thing as global warming caused by human civilization's feverish pollution."

Well it is good that Muller has caught up to what climatologist have KNOWN at least 20+ years ago.

But his Reich wing is clearly showing about Climategate and the other nonsense he spews that has all been thoroughly debunked years ago.

There is really no need to correct such brain trust as Mr. Crocket here, as you can see all Reich wingers are simply incapable of understanding.

"Clean" fracking is as much a myth as "clean" coal.

That aside, fracking, (very) deep water drilling, shale sands oil, etc., all lower the EROEI - energy return on energy invested. That is, a greater fraction of the energy source recovered "for market" is expended in its discovery, extraction and transport to the consumer.

When the EROEI ratio goes to 1.0, the game is over. There MAY a lot more fossil fuel remaining in the earth but there would be NO logical, physical or scientific justification for trying to recover it.

The existence of fracking, therefore, is NOT our "salvation" but, rather, clear warning that the fossil fuels that still can be recovered, without net energy loss, must be devoted to developing and deploying a solar based system. (Or, even nuclear, if Fukushima is of no importance to you.)

We are well beyond Muller's trite cliche about the high $ cost of solar. We are now into REAL economics, energy. That we have ignored the (complete) energy costs of our activities, in our worship of human "economic" theory, is THE reason we are in such severe trouble now.

We can only hope the use of fossil fuel top convert to solar based system, doesn't ultimately poach our successors.

Davey Crocket @9,

Yes, absolutely, I'm throwing another Rush bomb at you.

I think you are not hearing me. I'm looking for continuity and follow through. Reality and truth. Integrity of argument. There is every indication that Rush is not interested in any of that. In my opinion, as long as you are informed by him and others like him, you are not either.

I tried to address this issue with you in a recent comment thread on the previous Muller post here. I asked you to read and respond to the book "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." I provided a link . Here it is again.
http://www.amazon.com/Th...trageously/dp/156584260X

Your non-sensical response was that you read everything. Really? You're not really saying you've read "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error", are you? Cuz if you have read it, you're not responding in any way, shape, or form to its contents. Do you think that would be a reasonable response to my request? Should I be happy and satisfied with that type of non-response?

Or, more probably, you haven't read it which means you were not speaking truthfully/accurately on the reading everything claim. Continuity and follow through. Reality and truth. The sincere pursuit of these. Remember?

Your opinions are informed by at least one bullshit artist. That book documents Limbaugh's bullshit. The book also makes clear that documenting all of his bullshit was beyond the scope of their modest undertaking. For me, if you want to be taken seriously, you have some explaining to do. You are proudly choosing a bullshit artist as a primary information source. Why should anyone bother trying to dialogue with you?

David,

No, I was being figurative...I do not read everything. I think that would be impossible...even for Davey. It is unlikely that I will buy the book any time soon because I am really busy these days. But, honestly, I bet it would be an interesting read...not to different from reading the bradblog I bet.

Anyhow, this is going nowhere fast. Lets move on.

Have a great day!

This is truly a terribly misinformed post, starting from the claim that if a journalist says Katrina was about global warming than it's shocking if a physicist says otherwise. Then proceeding to the rationalization that the journalist didn't say Katrina was about global warming but was a portent of things to come.

It only gets worse from there.

Terrible blog post and you really should feel bad about yourself.

Davey @14,

No, I'm not moving on. I'm tired of you disrupting conversations with misinformation, and misinformation delivered with extreme attitude at that. Your latest comment @14 is just the latest in a seemingly never ending series of pure baloney from you. Equating a book that details the misinformation and untruths of Rush Limbaugh, which are legion, with what Brad, Ernie, and others does here is complete horseshit.

That's my point. I'm tired of listening to people whose primary conversational currency is horseshit. Tired of argument that is all smoke and mirrors with no continuity. Your a hit and run conversationalist. You drop a shitbomb and then when taken to task you vaporize. Your contentions can't stand the light of day.

I'm tired of your laziness. Your a drag on intelligent conversation cuz you don't do your homework like most of us here.

Do some goddamn work if you wanna play.

Anon @15,

No thanks. You can keep all that bile and ignorance for yourself.

Sorry, but we've already filled to overflowing our quota of random horseshit on this comment thread.

Peter Sinclair also dealt with Richard Muller's misunderstanding in his video "Unwinding Hide the Decline".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

To be fair regarding Muller not supporting his statements in this conversation, Ross Gelbspan’s article D.R. Tucker linked to made many statements of fact without supporting *any* of them. Also, D.R. Tucker referred to Katrina as a “super storm.” But http://www.katrina.noaa.gov confirms what Muller said: it was a Cat 3 hurricane when it hit New Orleans, while Hurricane Andrew was Cat 4-5 when it hit Florida, and the Galveston hurricane of 1900 was Cat 4 when it hit. It seems Katrina was nothing special except that it hit an unprepared area that people had been saying was in danger for years (the Houston Chronicle among others published this in 2001).

The National Interagency Fire Center, an agency of the US federal government, blames the current wildfire situation on El Niño and drought (http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf). So maybe drought is a direct result of global warming. I found NOAA has historical drought data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/), and they find that this year is the worst drought conditions since 1956, which was worse. If you look at the graph they publish (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/drought/wetdry/bar-mod-110-00/190001-201206.gif) which goes from 1900 to June 2012, the spike we’re currently in is very high, though not as high as the mid '50s, late '30s, and nowhere near the early '30s. So again it seems Muller’s contentions are correct.

Muller states that the IPCC said that sea level rise will be 1' or 2'. Peter Sinclair (not a scientist, which hurts but doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong) actually confirms this, saying the IPCC said it will be a maximum of 0.59m, or just under 2'. Will 2' flood NYC? That part I don’t know. Muller says no, and he may or may not be right. He certainly provided more specific data than D.R. Tucker did in this interview and blog post. Did Al Gore said NYC would flood? I saw the movie and thought it was well-done artistically, but I simply don’t remember if he said this. But how Sinclair debunks Muller when they both say 2', I'm not clear.

On Climategate, Tucker says Muller doesn’t back up his statements, which he didn’t. Having listened to this part of the interview twice, neither Tucker nor Rosenberg asked him to, and maybe he would have been able to, or not. I would like to know where he gets this too, but Tucker and Rosenberg didn’t pursue this, maybe because of time.

You are "stunned" by Muller's comments on climategate. Well perhaps you should listen to him. I am stunned that so few scientists have come out and spoken out against the obvious unacceptable behaviour of so-called climate scientists. It's interesting that some people remain in denial about hiding data. The clue is in the phrase "hide the decline".

Ahem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

Forrest Tanaka @19--

You wondered--But how Sinclair debunks Muller when they both say 2', I'm not clear.--

It's right there at the end of the Sinclair link from the article. The IPCC came up with the .59m number by being conservative(as I believe they are want to do) in their calculations and leaving out the hard to estimate variable of the possible consequences of ice shelf and polar cap melting. When you begin factoring those in, things start going way off chart.

Check it out for yourself but I think that's how Sinclair explains it.

Besides all that, I'm under the impression that even the 2 feet part would bring about radical
change. Isn't two feet in the context a shitload?

Anybody know what a 2 feet increase would mean in demonstrable terms?

Charlie @ 20,

No, I think the clue is in subsequent investigation after subsequent investigation finding they weren't hiding anything.

Mark S @ 18,

Thanks! Great link! Muller is nicely taken to task in it. Sloppy scientist.

note to Charlie--the fact-based narrative about the "hide the decline" red herring is right in that link. Check it out.

David @ 22

I cut the video off too soon, but I've completed it now. Still I think "debunking" is rather strong. Muller uses the IPCC report because that's the concensus. Anything beyond it is speculative, as the USGS article Sinclair uses just says “may” be higher than the IPCC.

Is Muller a sloppy scientist? I showed examples where he seems to be using data more properly than Tucker and Rosenburg. He has been saying for years that global warming is a reality (iTunes U has his Physics for Future Presidents classes going back years where he's been saying this). His main qualm was that the temperature data was exaggerated because of construction around temperature stations. So he and BEST tested that hypothesis and found it to be wrong, and he came right out and said it. To me, that's the height of proper science.

The only crime in Climategate was the Reich wingers that hacked the emails.

The rest of it is utter BS, made up crap by Climate change deniers.

http://planetsave.com/20...cusations-of-misconduct/

http://planetsave.com/20...s-vindicated-by-inquiry/

http://planetsave.com/20...-political-intimidation/

http://planetsave.com/20...eal-crime-video-of-mann/

http://www.greendump.net...e-was-science-denier-b-s

So basically all one needs to know is does the info come from the Reich wing, if the answer is yes, then the info is ALWAYS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

All they have is lies, lies, lies.
Sadly 1/2 of this country are stupid enough to fall for it.

Forrest @ 25-

My sloppy scientist remark was in response to watching the other Peter Sinclair link about Unwinding Hide the Decline(it's now up in the comments twice). Muller is shown repeating decidedly unscientific and misleading remarks egregiously misrepresenting the "hide the decline" false issue. Judge for yourself. Looks pretty sloppy and agenda driven to me. He not only misquotes but appears to completely misunderstand the whole issue. I would expect a good, careful scientist to know better.

Been feelin really bad for David...being wound so tight as he is...so I am going to throw him and Nunya a bone. I am heading for Tahoe to COOOOOOL of next week. Just toooooooo dang hot here in TEXAS. So, I guess you guys win on this whole global warming thang...as thay say, the proof of the pudding is in the eatin. I'll be entin in Tahoe next week in much cooooooooler weather.

Nighty night!

To D.R. Tucker, since it looks like you read these comments, I have some criticism that I hope you’ll see as constructive. In this blog post you say in the tag line, “…offers unsupported assertions about debunked 'Climategate,” which is true of Muller as I said before, and as far as I know. Yet you post a link to Ross Gelbspan’s article where he makes no fewer than eight statements of fact about global warming that include no citations. At about 15:43, Betsy talks about “record drought; record heat; record fires…” I don’t expect citations in the audio since you have time constraints, but you have this associated blog post where you could include citations, not to people like Gelbspan and Sinclair who write opinion pieces, but to places like NOAA and other government agencies so that we could see these records. On the drought one, it seems we’re not (yet) seeing a record drought according to the NOAA link I included above.

At 18:00 you talk about being irritated with people who make claims about cooling without evidence, yet I don’t see (at least in this blog post) that you’re living up to your own standard here.

I do know what you mean; I feel no end of irritation about people who run around making claims about science without evidence, whether it’s anti-vaxxers, creationists, or global warming deniers. But you do have to stick to your own standards you enforce on others.

From here it seems that you and Betsy got caught because you clearly demonstrated too little actual knowledge of Dr Muller's work and projected to project your positions/perspectives/biases onto him. Whether this was done as a test of his 'conversion' or your looking for validation of your position(s)--who knows or cares. Surely you know that any person with strong intellect and strong personality will not go along with words being put into his or her mouth. You were doing this and he was correcting you--very reasonably and politely. We all step into cow patties. Clean your shoes and move on. Your talking points were fine, you just did not reflect enough beforehand on who you were talking to and how to approach those points--it did make things interesting though.

D.R. & David Lasagna --- I think what we are seeing in the rush of comments from climate change deniers is a hybrid between Stage 2 and Stage 3 of what the Univ. of Montana called "The 5 stages of climate grief", a take-off Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' 5 Stages of Grief.

Obviously several people are still mired in Stage 1 = Denial. Stage 2 = Anger is expressed in increasingly vitriolic language and frustration that the data and observed trends refuse to cooperate. Stage 3 is bargaining:

1. It's not happening, so we can keep burning fossil fuels.
2. It's happening but it's not human-caused, so we can keep burning fossil fuels.
3. It's happening and it's human caused, but it won't be that bad, so we can keep burning fossil fuels.
4. It's happening, it's human-caused, it'll be bad, but we can engineer our way out of it with techno-fixes, so we can keep burning fossil fuels. (See Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, who accepts the scientific consensus on global warming.)
5. It's happening but it's too late to stop it, so society must spend trillions on emergency geo-engineering measures and other big-government measures deployed by the military-industrial complex. [The exact opposite outcome desired by so-called 'small government' deniers, and a great recipe for fascism.]

(Note the absence of a stage requiring a moral obligation to act)

Now we will likely see a progression to the next stage of climate change denial.

Dr. Muller did not break any new ground in his study and in fact only corroborated the broad scientific consensus --- if he keeps this up, someday soon he may catch up to the current state of climate science. Davey Crockett helpfully illustrates a reaction familiar in cognitive science --- that resistance to established scientific data falls along 'tribal identity' lines. That resistance can be overcome somewhat when the accurate scientific information is delivered by a perceived trusted source from within the 'tribe', in this Dr. Muller.

Desi,

I planned not to post again on this thread, but you called me out. Oh well.

Regarding vitriol. You should carefully review all of my posts. Not only here but throughout my posting on Bradblog (note David...I am not "hit and run" as you say...I have been posting here for quite a while) you will find much disagreement, but little vitriol. On the contrary...as you review the responses to me (not by you) you will find a great deal of vitriol. There have been some very foul things said to and about me.

Anyway, I am thick skinned so I am good with it. Keep it coming (like I really need to ask LOL)

Regarding my tribal identiy, I will leave you with this.

"Yesterday we are taught...that the world is a round ball...which spins on an invisible stick through its middle.

Everyone knows the world rides on the back of a turtle...if many people believe another thing? Then which is true?"

TTFN!

Davey Crockett said,

Where I sit, this red hot moment, was once completely underwater. I know because I can can show you oodles of salt-water fossils on my property. Must have frozen somewhere since then because currently I am high and dry. The earth cycles between cold-hot-colt-hot...etc. Five ice ages so far (I think).

The reason there are saltwater fossils on your property is because of tectonic plate movement causing an upheaval on the surface of the earth in your vicinity where an ocean once was, not because the water level was up to your current home's elevation (assuming your elevation is not near current sea level, which wouldn't make sense with your comments.) Come on Crockett, you're not that science-deficient, are you?

In a nutshell, "Davey Crockett" (in defending the climate-change-denial Alamo) puts forth an unique view of science. He asserts that if someone does actual science (works with actual data in a way that the results are replicable and the methodology is peer reviewed) and comes to a solid conclusion, that every other opinion that comes out of that person's mouth has equal scientific validity. Um, no. Muller has no scientific basis for "clean fracking" (for instance) --- he clearly pulled the whole idea out of his ass, or a Koch brothers talking point, which amounts to the same thing.

Media bias, ignorance, and incompetence on AGW give me serious doubts about the future of science in America.

Sadly, Muller has degenerated into a self-promoting science huckster. He easily plays the media and the public for empty-headed fools. The New York Times’s Andrew Revkin called Muller’s “P.T. Barnum showmanship.”

Richard Muller was NEVER a skeptic about AGW. Here are two telling examples of Muller's past statements on AGW.

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." --- 17 Dec 03 MIT Tech Review --- http://www.technologyrev...dieval-global-warming/2/

Wired: "And the third physics issue for presidents?" Muller: "Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse." --- 2Nov08 WIRED SCIENCE - Muller Interview - http://www.wired.com/wir...2008/11/physics-the-nex/

05F71

Davey @ #32, I never said you were vitriolic.

Gerald @ #35, thanks so much for the additional clarification on Dr. Muller's past positions. Since Muller is a physicist, it would be highly unusual for him to dispute the established physics of the interaction of solar radiation with carbon dioxide. His criticism has instead targeted the efforts of climate scientists, like Dr. Michael Mann, to measure and quantify the current and future sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas warming. There are now almost no scientists in the 'skeptic' camp who outright deny the empirical data that globe has warmed, or that humans are at least partly to blame --- most of them have shifted the goalposts to Stage 3. As far back as that 2008 Wired article to which you linked, Dr. Muller was already in Stage 4 --- "we can engineer our way of it with technology" --- back then he was promoting "clean coal" instead of "clean fracking".

Solar energy is clean, and the Sun will not be extinguished for a long time. Solar energy would let us quit burning fuel to power our economies and lives. Solar energy WOULD BANKRUPT EVERYONE! It is not and never will be anywhere near the low cost of fossil fuels. Solar is far more expensive than nuclear, the only real alternative to fossil fuels. The energy density is just too low, not going to change. Now, if we settled the planet Mercury...

In the interview on the Maddow show of July 30, 2012, Dr. Mueller moved on to another way of promoting the use of fossil fuels. Replace coal with methane gas. Methane gas in the short (20 years) run is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. http://www.epa.gov/methane/ and the recently developed method of hydrofracking for methane releases large quantities into the atmosphere. http://www.scientificame...cking-would-emit-methane. Retrieving and moving methane gas cleanly will not be done as it cuts into corporate profits. It would seem Mueller's real objective is to continue the confusion on solutions to climate change and to protect profits to the gas/oil corporations.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Michael @#37, but your opinion is simply not based in reality. You might want to check out how the German economy is doing quite well with solar, thank you very much. No sign of Germany's economic doom yet!

Numerous academic studies have shown that renewable energy sources like solar can indeed supply all the world's energy needs. In fact, the most recent comes from our very own National Renewable Energy Lab shows that the US could generate 80% of its energy needs with renewable sources by 2050, using only currently available commercial technology. NO new technology required, although the pace of innovation continues at a blistering pace now that the Obama Admin has unleashed research funding.

Besides, the cost of oil, uranium and other fossil fuel resources will inevitably rise forever, like all finite commodities. The sun is free. When does the price of oil stop rising in your scenario? Oil jumped to $3 a gallon after Hurricane Katrina; oil supplies are at record highs now, yet we're still paying over $3 a gallon. The Sun? Unlimited free energy falling from the nuclear fusion reactor in the sky located at a safe distance 93 million miles away.

It's very telling that many fossil fuel & nuclear-only fans believe Americans can't lead the world in innovation any more. I see no reason why we should cede the clean energy race to China and Germany; it's interesting that you do.

Moon, Mercury? Yep you must reside on a different planet than the rest of us, because if Solar was subsidized even for 1/2 of what oil is then it would be FAR cheaper in every respect for everybody.

Need to live on this planet for awhile.

>if Solar was subsidized even for 1/2 of what oil is then it would be FAR cheaper in every respect for everybody

Oh, yeah! There's that, too. Thanks, Nunyabiz, for saying it so succinctly.

Clean Technica: Oil & Gas - Over 13x more in historical subsidies than clean energy

While the links Des provided debunk Michael Moon's unsupported (absurd) claim that fossil fuel is less expensive than solar, Moon's assertion that nuclear provides a cost effective is nothing less than astounding.

Per the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Also, when assessing the cost of energy, Michael, one has to take into account the environmental and health damages wrought by global climate change and by events like Fukushima. Those costs do not arise with respect to clean, renewable energy.

One additional point. Jobs!