Why do we have to assume Business as Usual and a stead increase in energy consumption?.

We can all learn to live as well (and better) while wasting 20% to 30% less energy and certainly not use more and more energy every year.

We do not have to live in 3000 to 6000 sq.ft. houses that we cannot afford. Well insulted common sense smaller houses use 50% less energy.

We certainly dont need 3-tonnes gas guzzlers to go to work and drive around. One tonne HEVs would use 3 times less energy. E-trains use 240 times less energy per passenger miles than our current average gas guzzlers.

We certainly dont have to stuff ourselves with 4000+ calories a day until we weight 400+ lbs. Learning to eat better and a lot less could reduce the energy used for food production + transportation + preparation etc by up to 30%. Huge health care + associated energy savings and cost would also be possible.

An effective (all azimuth) program could reduce overall per capita energy consumption by 1% to 3% a year for to next 20 to 30 years. The NET energy food-print could become negative instead of positive.

More people means more energy needed. Also you can argue all you want about smaller homes but the fact is cities depend on the taxes generated by those massive homes and properties and if you dont have large homes you dont have wealthy people.

"Why do we have to assume Business as Usual and a stead[sic] increase in energy consumption?."

So we know what to expect if we don't make any big changes.

Unlike the average participant/reader of GCC.com, most Americans are less enthusiastic about drastic measures to achieve lower energy usage in their life. If they can do it without any work, impact to their life, and for very low cost as part of normal "maintenance" - then they will embrace it.

Sorry sulleny but all the stolen emails have now been read by an independent third party[the Associated Press]; their conclusion? No fraud.

in their scenario BEV and PHEV are almost nothing, even worse than the next post on the topic. Of course they totally ignore Peak Oil. I don't know what credibility this report has ?

So thousands of scientists around the world have faked the data and thousands of journalists have collectively been in bed with them? Paranoid much? I find it easier to believe you're just wrong.

Why should climate scientists be different from any other scientists? Maybe the biologists have also faked their data and going to the doctor when you're sick is a useless effort. Maybe the physicists are also lying and the computer you're using right now is just a trick.

Why is it that the only scientists you believe are frauds are the ones who are challenging your dogma?

Most scientists are pretty good people, but being 'good' is hardly a prerequisite for the field. Thanks to the corrupting influences of money, power, and prestige, scientists have occasionally made crap up at least since the days of Piltdown Man.

Why is it so hard to believe that a few more have done it again? It certainly doesn't mean that *every* climate scientist is willfully lying, but given how modern science builds on the work of others, it does suggest that the work of many, many scientists is suspect, for reasons beyond their control in most cases.

Will S,

Since you specifically call me out by name, please tell me what conclusion I made with regards to Climate Change, Climatologists e-mails, etc.

Mr. Henig's essay positions itself as a defense attorney would to convince readers that malfeasance is really just good old scientist rough housing.

Tell that to the Associate General Council of the DOE who has issued a "Litigation Hold Notice" to some 8,000 employees of the Department of Energy relevant to data, correspondence and materials related to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.” To be extended to other Federal Departments and Agencies.

Or to the Norwich Police Department now burdened with an official investigation of the leak/hack inclusive of each email content and content of any un-leaked correspondence, notes, data sets and code as accessory evidence to a crime scene.

Or to Senator Jeffrey Piccola, Chair of the Penn Senate Education Committee has recommended funding withheld until an official investigation of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center and Dr. Mann is complete.

Or Sir Muir Russell who heads the investigation of University East Anglia's CRU as to:

• Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
• Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
• Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
• Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.

Or U.S. Senator Inhofe who has begun a Congressional investigation of Climategate evidence via the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Or to dyed-in-wool AGW champion, George Monbiot who writes in his Guardian column:

"Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial... The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial.

Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again."

We might listen to our own, good advice.

Climategate: the gift that keeps on giving.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Every time oil prices go up and natural gas prices follow and coal is subject as well to speculative price increases by cash rich oil speculators including the oil producers themselves, the French electricity consumers are amused with a small price increase so that the power company can make more profit by selling to Germany, and other neighbors. Since oil can be made from coal or even from nuclear energy, there is no peak oil. There is a relatively infinite supply of fissionable atoms in the form of uranium and thorium on the earth and in the ocean. Each pound of these atoms has about threemillionpounds of coal equivalent energy in them or 10,000,000 kilowatt hours of heat energy. Many reactor systems have been tried or proposed that can use every atom leaving only mostly shortlived isotopes of fission products. The human body as well as all other live organisms have always had long lived radioisotopes in it, and they represent no substantial danger if kept dilute. Over heating from to much sunlight and hypothermia from to little sunlight are far greater dangers. ..HG..