The flaming response to this article by reader Shawn Stafford is typical of a Repubican in denial. Let's face it the Republicans would like global warming to go away....i.e. it's just a "liberal agenda". I saw Gore's presentation and it did indeed have data. I guess Mr. Stafford was watching a version edited by Rush Limbaugh.

If your job is to stimulate, I can accept that. But you should be careful what you say. Most engineers that I know will simply scoff at that editorial and throw you in the class of a typical technically-ignorant journalist.

You could read a small but very significant book written by a pair of ex-Battelle physicists: "The Bottomless Well" by Peter Huber and Mark Mills. It will illustrate why we need, insatiably, more and more energy.

I am afraid that coal is going to be with us for a very long time, simply because our "silicon revolution" and our free country needs more energy all the time, and even more as we continue to overwhelm Europe. Did you know that the great Danish windmill "success" is now being seriously questioned over there? The reason is simple, their electricity costs are over 33 cents/kwhr. Here in West Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana we have enjoyed and prospered with 5 cents/kwhr--average consumer, industry is lower--for over 15 years! Nuclear is even lower cost, but technical ignorance will restrain that source for many years. Hydro is all used.

Alternative energy? Dr. David Pimentel at Cornell has done an exhaustive study in 2001 that states, unequivocally, one would have to pave over several mid-west states in order to have enough space for windmills and photocell farms to even reach 20% of TODAY's electricity demand. The cost would be totally unmanageable. AEP's 2900 megawatt coal plant, with the latest SCR and particle removal equipment, generated--all by itself--40% more electricity than ALL the windmills in this country. Alternative energy is not an option. See EIA data for 2005 and 2006, table 8a.

Conservation is the only energy alternative available, except for coal, nuclear and fusion. There is very little that electronic engineers can do about large scale electricity, simply because silicon must have electricity!

Our future is totally dependent on our industry getting, and wasting electricity so that we can continue to grow. If we don't because of ignorant and self-serving politics, China and India will.

The fact that I believe Al Gore was an aside: my point was that even if CO2 (and fossil fuels) have nothing to do with global warming, creating more efficient power design and power sources (nuclear) that are also less polluting (solar/wind/etc.) creates great opportunity for engineers.

Inefficient power design is probably the biggest bottleneck in electronics today: battery technologies, for example, have in no way kept up with the pace of development in silicon. Inefficient use of power costs all of us money and generally adds to pollution (whether particulate, or otherwise, considering coal is the main electricity generator).

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and eventually we will move to an alternative. The fear about global warming is providing the impetus to switchover from last century's fuel sources--new technology is there, we just need the impetus to cost justify the investment and the change over.

Fossil fuels may be the cheapest fuel source for now but carry high price tags in other ways (consider the geo-political price we are currently paying).

First of all, what qualifies you to offer such an opinion? And why do you think that this "---issue brings tremendous opportunity to the electronics industry---".

The "Silicon Revolution", started by Bell Labs (and our country) is sweeping the world. Our economy, driven by low-cost energy, low taxes, and free men and women is the envy of the world. But silicon needs electricity.

If Al Gore and other political buffoons, along with a technically ignorant media (who have no technical qualifications, only political bias) succeed in hobbling our energy companies--in particular--the electric utilities, you will be witness to the greatest recession of our time.

The atmospheric air that we breathe consists of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, CO2, neon, etc. But one should note that CO2 is only .0033% of our air while Argon @ .995% is 30 times higher than CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant gas, and is really not a gas that we should be so alarmed about.

I am not a climatologist(you can see my c.v. on payneng.com--About our Company) but it is easy to read the following to see what all the fuss is about:

1) 17,000 American scientists petition to the U.S. Government to reject "global warming controls on energy supplies. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 1998.

2) Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, MIT, testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, on May 2, 2001.

3) The 3rd IPCC Summary report of 2001.

4) Dr. Philip Stott's book, "Political Ecology: Science, Myth, and Power," 2000

5) Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" appendix I and II, 2004

6) Dr. Fred Singer's book, "Hot Talk, Cold Science------" 1997

7) Patrick Michaels' book, "Meltdown" 2004

8) The ITV-TV movie on March 8, 2007: "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This authoritative 1 hour/40 min. movie interviewed respected climatologists around the world who all stated clearly that we did not have enough information to prove that man was the major cause for rising CO2 numbers. (They even interviewed Al Gore who mostly stared at his shoes, because he could not answer their questions).

Finally, if you look in Wikipedia, the most thoroughly peer-reviewed ref. source, under "surface temperatures of the earth" by the Hadley Observatory in England you will find that the earth's surface temperature has risen only .2 deg.C in the last 9-10 years. Satellite data is more reliable and shows an even lower temperature rise.

I am disappointed to see that you have openly endorsed Al Gore and his trendy media-driven crusade against anything carbon. You wrote that you believe Al Gore's theories of the climate crisis. The troubling thing about this is that no data supports his claims. His book (which I have read) has no data in it. Nor does his movie.

I would like to respectfully remind you that, strictly speaking, the observations reported in his book are not data. Melting ice, animal migrations and the number of hurricanes are not data, and making conclusions based on these events is not science.

True data derives from the scientific method where initially a hypothesis is proposed based on observation. Experiments must be done, with controls, to produce and reproduce results that are predictable and support each hypothesis. These results are in the form of data. A true scientist must see data, from these experiments, in peer reviewed journals on a broad scale before making conclusions. In our industry, engineers are scientists as an engineered product is the essence of the scientific method set forth on a realized need.

There are no experiments (and hence, no data) that I'm aware of that prove human activity is causing greenhouse gases to increase. There are no data showing that if humans did increase them, this contributes to the warming of the planet. Furthermore, Al Gore shows no real data from experiments that predict the earth's temperature in 50 years due to human activity. Nor does he cite any. Extrapolating curves in temperature vs. time does not count.

He and the IPCC and non-scientists alike claim the "science is in." It seems to me that the only thing that is "in" is a broadly disputed theory and possibly a well contrived global scam involving, among other things, carbon credits and "green" taxes. My advice, from one scientist to another, is to believe in data and the scientific process, not polarizing political figures, before helping to establish a trend in an entire industry.

That the average temperature of the earth is rising is incontrovertable. That Al Gore is correct that CO2 emmisions by man is a major factor is total bunk! That you believe Al Gore makes me wonder how you got to where you are as I believe that editors of technical magazines are able to think logically and have available to them the facts. 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. Water vapor is 2-3% of our atmosphere, CO2 is .04%. Methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases make up the remaining 1.4%. 96.76% of CO2 is generated by plants and the oceans, 3.2% is contributed by human activity. 3.2% times 3.6% is mankinds contribution to CO2, about 1/10 of 1%. Anyone that believes that man is the major driver of global warming is dead wrong!

Excellent issue. You are right on!

I suppose you feel we need to build a Noah's arc to combat the ultimate effect of global warming? What wail you say in 10 years when we have global cooling? Build an igloo! I am surprised that electronic design would publish your tripe!

I certainly respect that you are entitled to your opinion.

However, there are some things to look at:

1) The accuracy of the monitoring devices: +/-1°C

2) The "measured" change in temperature: 1°C

3) There are some climatologists that think we are on the verge of an ice age (MIT types).

4) There has been warming in the Antarctic due to fissures in the earths crust that is warming the water.

5) Al claims he invented the internet!