Here is the pdf of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
This summary, approved in detail at the 9th Session of Working Group III of the IPCC, Bangkok – Thailand, May 2007, represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning climate change mitigation.

I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.

Yeah, im not trying to fight either. I respect what researchers are trying to do with hydrogen. It was the same where i went to college. There are a lot of departments here excited about working with different parts of the problem. I worked with a professor that was just studying different materials for gas adsorption. But the big picture is missed. I do belive hydrogen is being pushed ahead of more workable options because of politics. Same with corn based ethanol, its probably the worst and most expensive way to produce ethanol but it has a lobby. Its disappointing.

So you believe the IPCC and drive around with hybrid cars and buy carbon offsets like other dumb suckers? You did this based on your own research project concerning climate change? Or just suck down what the IPCC said?

duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.

You might be correct. I said in an earlier post that the whole climate change debate had been hijacked by politicians. You have no idea how many presentations we did to various politicians in the 90s, and even into this century, trying to convince them that climate change research is important. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to spend 1-2 hours explaining how global warming is going to be a problem (forget about who, or what caused it, for now), only to have a room full of blank faces looking back at you? Then, to add insult to injury, they then hijacked the whole thing on us in the last year or two, and then became "converted" to climate change. :mad:

Yes, hydrogen may have usefulness as a battery. For example, some use hydrogen stored at low pressure to collect solar energy. Whether efficiencies can be improved upon is unknown. Promising but completely unknown. But hydrogen was obvious never an energy source. Obviously if only because George Jr said otherwise.

Hydrogen even in a car (as a battery) may have potential. Fuel cells were never an energy source. The concept has potential as a battery. But the naive promoted fuel cells as some kind of fuel. Some are experimenting with hydrogen storage materials. However restrictions such as excessively high temperatures and weight have made those technologies currently completely impractical. The point remains - hydrogen never was a viable fuel. However many who heard a president say otherwise in his State of the Union address therefore should have immediately known it must be a lie - and believed that lying president anyway.

Any potential solutions based in hydrogen are at least a decade away. Today we should be implementing what can work - that has potential proven in prototypes. GM - the classic example of failure - could not make a hybrid even when paid to in 1996? Again, directly traceable to the many who still believe in 'magic bullets' rather than identifying or addressing a problem.

The problem is not about 'magic bullets'. The problem is about *efficiency*. Some who promote or deny either global warming or energy problems simply forget where this entire discussion and solution lies: doing more with less. No communication major, lawyer, or business school expert can even guess how that solution might be implemented. Solutions must be defined by those who come from where the work gets done.

Who is the enemy of innovators? They are lead by George Jr and his band of anti-Americans. No exaggeration. No song. No political agenda. Just solid science fact. Just blunt and politically incorrect reality. This problem was identified repeatedly with numerous examples in Perverting science for politics.

Why did so many forget what we need - efficiency? Notice who was perverting that reality with his 'message' - also called propaganda, spin, lies, or preachings of Rush Limbaugh. Promoted hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' caused others to ignore the real question: "how do we increase efficiencies?"

There is no way to avoid a major reason why this hydrogen myth was promoted – George Jr. At best, hydrogen may help solve another serious problem - short term energy storage - a battery. There is no viable alternative to petroleum fuels.

tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK. I am also not sure of how many there are - I know it is only a small number. At least it is a start. I'm not saying it is the final solution.

I don't blame you Bruce. Some of this stuff can be heavy going. The effect on GDP is a problem. This is why so many politicians back away from taking positive action. This is why China and India take their stands. They are just starting to reap the benefits of industrial growth, and do not want to risk damaging economic growth. The Australian Government is the same. At least they have given us some funding for research (they are playing both sides, of course).

Is that a yes or a weak attempt at an insult? I'll take it as both.

When I was ranting about the evils of sugar cane, I forgot to mention that before they harvest it, the crop is set on fire, thus throwing huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just another reason to hate sugar cane, and be angry that the Australian Government continues to subsidise its production. I'm not against sugar, just sugar cane.

See tw, I'm learning. :cool:

You are confusing 'working OK' with 'working efficiently'. How many times did I use that word 'efficient'? Also a question that demands numbers.

Bus can work inefficiently to be working OK? Did you grasp references to 'thermodynamic efficiency' in multiple posts? What is hydrogen's pressure in its tanks? Did you read the part where less than 2 out of 10 units of energy are available for productive work? How many miles on a 'tank' of hydrogen? Even GM's EV-1 electric car worked OK. So what happened? Why was EV-1 a complete disaster if it worked OK?

Why do I post this concept repeatedly - and must now repost it again?

Where are those cleaner cars operating on natural gas? They also worked OK. Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car. What happened to another technology that was working OK? Or was everything OK except the technology?

The Challenger also worked OK everytime previously. Therefore Challenger was safe to launch? Nothing wrong with that reasoning either? We are killing Al Qaeda in "Mission Accomplished". Therefore that war is working OK?

Defined was a larger problem about George Jr supporters who fail to think logically AND who avoid the fundamental problem - 'efficiency'. How many times was the word 'efficiency' referenced?

Do we use ten gallons of gasoline to get less than 2 gallons into a car? And then only 0.3 gallons does productive work? Do you call that increased efficiency? Welcome to your bus example. Did the english major who reported on those buses forget to think like a patriotic American - provide important facts - especially numbers? Why did she forget to provide basic numbers? Maybe she was reporting for Murdoch meaning that shorting of facts to promote an agenda is acceptable? Or maybe we can blame it all on her? But when she does not provide underlying facts and numbers - just like George Jr - then who is to blame for believing her?

Nothing is politically correct anywhere in this post. Instead it is blunt honest. Asked are some damning questions. If those buses are working OK, then where are these numbers? Why are they doing what no one else has been able to accomplish? GM's EV-1 electric car also worked OK. Where is it today? In piles. GM eventually bought them all back. But EV-1 also worked OK.

They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

I could be wrong, but I believe there's less than 5% of cane crops being burned in Australia these days.

Aside from that point, you're right about everything else you've said about sugar cane dave. ;) (and I bow to your superior knowledge)

Here's a good link-for-dummies about the sydney project.

tw's call for efficiency rings hollow when you look at the efficiency of posts. Now Aussie busses are Bush's fault.

Did someone say there are no magic bullets? Then why would an experiment to run city busses on hydrogen, thereby reducing greenhouse gasses in the city, have to be justified as sufficiently efficient? There's no reason to believe that down the road it can't be made sufficiently efficient.
It's a pilot project to see what hiccups will develop in a practical application. A PR experiment that will help get people thinking there are alternative solutions, not to convince them hydrogen is the answer for them.

"Most every" is actually less than 2/3 have gas service. The ones that do, have this ever scarcer fuel coming in at less than 3 psi. How far do you think your car would go, with the biggest tank you could carry, at 3 psi?

It would have to be compressed... high pressure and low temperature, by the same people that start fires just filling their cars with gasoline. No, best leave that to a filling station attendant that's been trained and tested handling high pressure connections.
Even so, the gas won't last forever so we have to keep plugging at different solutions, use gas for stationary uses, industrial and residential.

Gasoline is wonderful stuff, beyond compare...so far.

Hey, guess what... I know how to eliminate 6 Billion tons of CO2 being added to the air, every year. That's 6,000,000,000 tons... every year.

Over 20 years ago, Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. Everyone had a good laugh and life went on.

When Michel Barsoum, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, heard Davidovits claim he laughed too. But when he was told nobody ever checked it out, he decided to disprove it with a few hours of electron microscopy.

Egyptian born Barsoum's daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s, so he's no amateur.

Wow, if we could eliminate Portland cement for everything not poured underwater, what a tremendous energy savings and CO2 reduction.