Occasionally, physicists are female. Usually, these physicists do not have 'staches.

(The affordable [factor]'s a big issue. The issue is, is clean coal more affordable than solar? Solar is pretty expensive too, and it's not clean either. You've got to build the cells -- that uses carbon dioxide. I think we need everything. We need a rainbow of different technologies: conservation, solar, wind, better transmission, clean coal, nuclear, better automobiles.)

I disagree with Dr Mueller's conslusion about solar. Once solar is large enough it can manufacture off its own energy.

(There's a future for car batteries, but that depends on the development of battery technology that is not in the marketplace yet.)

This guy must be living under a rock. Toyota Prius has proven itself with the battery technology.

(if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels,)

How about a little foresight here. Many phd's have come up with plans to run the country with solar and wind.

Interesting that he is a proponent of nuclear. Solar electricity is on same par of cost as nuclear. I find this guy out of touch with the main stream of renewable energy.

Muller is not much better than Hansen because he has the same problem with the truth that Hansen does.  

Why not simply tell the truth as it is instead of accepting people like Gore and Hansen lying so that they can advance some good intentions?  How many people will we let die of malaria before we admit that getting rid of DDT spaying inside African residences as a horrible idea?  How many people will we try to condemn to poverty because we are pushing the false idea that CO2 emissions are driving global temperatures?  When will we admit that we have not seen any warming in the past decade and that the imagined trend ended when the PDO flipped into its negative phase and solar activity diminished after hundreds of years of increases that brought it to a millennial high?  Shouldn't rational people start to look at things as they are instead of theories that imagine a world that diverges from observed reality?

Unless you live under a rock you have to know that solar energy is still way too expensive and is unlikely to make economic sense for at least another decade.  That is simply not the case with nuclear, which is very safe and very cheap.  What we need is for governments to get out of the way and to let people who want to make a few bucks invest their own capital into solutions.  If that happens we will get a combination of alternative sources that will help us solve the crisis that will come in a post peak oil world.  

Actually, Hansen seems to have a big problem with the truth and has to resort to cherry picking.  

A perfect example are the graph that show CO2 concentrations and temperature.  They actually show that temperature leads CO2 levels and as such CO2 can't be the cause of temperature trends.  

Another example is the whole forcing issue.  This is important because most scientists, including the alarmists, agree that the direct warming from CO2 would be between 0.3 and 1.0 degrees Celsius for a doubling in the CO2 levels.  (The extremists' case comes from the climate sensitivity.)

If the CO2 warming was the only factor we would expect that man induces warming would top out at less than 1C, which is what we have seen since the end of the Little Ice Age.  Hansen does not and cannot claim that such warming could justify the measures that he and his political master are calling for so he argues that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks.

The problem for Hansen and company is that direct observations do not support the claims of positive feedbacks.  We have about a century of measurements for CO2 and temperature that do not support any claim for high positive feedbacks.  In fact, the implication is no feedback that can be attributed to CO2 increases.

And Hansen still has trouble explaining why we have not had any warming in ten years even though CO2 levels have increased or why we should believe climate models that cannot make adequate use of such things as changes in cloud cover or can't predict changes ten years out.  

You can dance and posture all that you want but the science is certainly against man made warming due to CO2 emissions.  

solar energy is still way too expensive and is unlikely to make economic sense for at least another decade

Your comment suggests you are lumping the hundreds of kinds of solar together.  There is PV, at least 4 kinds of CSP, many sorts of CPV, CSP+TES, and so on.  Some are quite cost-effective, and certainly less expensive than nuclear.  Get out and look at the facts on Stirling Energy Systems, Ausra, BrightSource, SkyFuel, Sungri, CoolEarthSolar, etc. etc. etc.

How many people will we try to condemn to poverty because we are pushing the false idea that CO2 emissions are driving global temperatures?

Oh, now I see you're just a run-of-the-mill denier.  No wonder you have trouble with facts.

Sorry but when you get a lag of 800 years or so it is hard to argue that the effect is the cause.  The bottom line is that we already have a century of observations regarding CO2 and temperature and there is no evidence of any positive feedbacks due to CO2.  It is also clear that the factor that is mostly correlated to temperature over the last century is the phase of the AMO.  We did have a strong cooling trend from 1945 to 1975 when the PDO was in its cool phase and scientists were talking about the next ice age.  When it went positive they started to talk about warming.  

Sorry but the real science is against the AGW position and no amount of scrambling will overcome the lack of credibility of the, 'man is responsible for warming,' crowd.  As I pointed out above, that has now changed into 'man is responsible for climate change.'

I meant to write PDO, not the AMO in the posting above.

You're completely missing the point.

No.  The point is clear.  When the temperature trend change leads the change in CO2 concentrations you can't make the claim that CO2 is responsible for past changes in temperatures as Gore and Hansen have.  Please note that we have dropped the term global warming for climate change.  I guess that is what happens when the temperature trend has diverged from what the models have been predicting.