Obed December 12th, 2008

Wait… if the solar thing would cost $2 billion… didn't we put $700 billion aside for the financial crisis? What's $2 billion for the US Government? How can the "we don't have the money" be a valid excuse? Or did he mean $2 trillion? And even then, I'm having troubles believing that a $2 trillion cost on solving the energy thing wouldn't be worth it.

Oh, and for whatever it's worth, I'm a libertarian when it comes to politics. I DON'T like the government spending that kinda dough.

Tracy December 12th, 2008

Two Things

1. Why does he totally discount nuclear energy (by saying solar was the only viable alternative)?

2. "crowded planet" is baloney. If you run the numbers, you'll see that. You could give everyone in the world their own plot of ten square feet in Texas. That statement really damaged his credibility in my eyes. It made it sound like he is just regurgitating wacko environmentalist tripe.

Brett December 13th, 2008

Just a word to "Tracy": That bit about everyone in the world getting their own 10 sq.ft. plot in Texas is great until you consider that that plot needs to supply all of your food, potable water, and energy resources as well as a place to stand. "Crowded planet" doesn't mean we're elbow-to-elbow, just that the world's capacity to sustain life is limited.

Ken Smith December 14th, 2008

This interview was somewhat disappointing, as I expected a serious and vigorous defense of the view that man-made Co2-caused global warming presents a mortal threat to the planet. Furthermore I was hoping he would engage a few of the main scientific reasons why climate alarmists believe as they do, and why climate non-alarmists believe as they do. Instead what I heard was what sounded like a junior-high Sunday School lesson on premillennialism.

Dr. Gustafson did make a statement near the beginning that was revealing. He said that "honest" scientists acknowledge that there is a debate over the broader global warming issue. Steve's immediate response should have been to ask Gustafson to acknowledge forthrightly that the more visible activists on global warming (such as James Hansen, Al Gore, and Rajendra Pachauri) are simply not honest. All three staunchly and publicly deny that there is any legitimate scientific case against their alarmist understanding of global warming. Hansen has even suggested that scientists who disagree ought to be subject to Nuremberg-type trials for crimes against humanity.

I'm glad you had a program on this topic. It deserves more programs. I really hope you will have Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance on. I also highly recommend you read Lawrence Solomon's book _The Deniers_, and consider interviewing one of the scientists profiled in that book.

Thanks,
Ken Smith
Ellendale North Dakota

Tracy December 14th, 2008

If I went into a 40,000 sq. ft. grocery store where there were three (3) people, one (1) tomato, and otherwise bare shelves, I wouldn't describe the grocery store as crowded. It is from that perspective that I'm saying "crowded planet" is baloney. If everyone were in Texas, that leaves an awful lot of room on the rest of the planet for the crops, power plants (turbine farms, solar panel farms, nuclear reactors, etc), desalinization plants, factories, etc. I'm certainly not claiming that a ten (10) sq. ft. plot can provide total sustenance for a person.

I don't know where the tipping point comes, but I suspect the planet could sustain several billion more people. I firmly believe we'll never know (unless it's revealed to us in eternity) what the potential capacity of the earth is. Our sin nature will always be a limiting factor before the capacity of the earth is.

Jared December 15th, 2008

Michael Crichton was a pretty smart guy and spoke out against a lot of the overstated claims of each side. Here's a link of a speech he gave.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

joel December 15th, 2008

When you were talking about clouds going back into the atoms-
phere couldn't that possibbly create moisture thus keeping h2o
going back onto our plant not just refledting sunlight? help doc?
Steve I just love your show its the greatest. Keep on truckin
(Clouds gathering moisture)

Derek December 15th, 2008

This one was alright, but the defeatist turn it took at the end seemed like I had just wasted an hour listening. Why bring it up at all if there is absolutely nothhing we can do?

Tony Heringer December 16th, 2008

I agree with others here, this guy was quite fuzzy on his analysis.

Look, the earth is going to be renewed by God. That's the hope we are given by the book of Revelation. God will give us a new heaven and new earth where He will live with us (see Revelation 21). If you go to the start, God made the earth and called it "good." The Bible also teaches that the earth is groaning waiting for the return of Christ. That is why Jesus can say to the Jewish leaders that if He silenced His followers, the rocks would cry out.

Are we hurting the planet? Yes. Our sin has afflicted the planet from the time of Adam. Now a days, our moral habits are so descructive we may make a lot room on the planet before any environmental damage does us in. Christians should be good stewards of the planet because its biblical not because the data tells too. And with that, we should be caring for each others needs — food, shelter, justice, etc.

I was more encouraged by the Crichton link than by this guy. At least Michael turned his attention to the things that God cares about — the oppressed and poor. This guy didn't give us much to focus on, just sounded kind of scattered and shallow.