But, I think he caught Maddow flat footed when he brought up fracking and the cheap cost of natural gas. She may have had a hard break.

I wouldn't exactly say "flat footed", but it sure caught me off-guard when fracking was pushed as the only solution. Clearly this is not the only technical course of action, making me suspect this narrow-minded professor has had his monies re-allocated such that they now promote the fracking industry.

Pushing a lesser recognized solution is the manufacture of ammonia fuel by combining water, air, and renewable electric resources such as surplus wind and solar. A gallon of ammonia has roughly the same energy as a gallon of ethanol or a half gallon of gasoline, and runs just as well in a car designed for it. At present, ammonia production in the USA consumes more electricity than any other industrial product, defining ammonia as an established industry. Ammonia can be combusted without pollution, since combustion results in exhaustion of essentially water and air, making it a sustainable technology that does not mess with the carbon footprint, or any other footprint of the planet. We make the fuel that we use, rather than drilling for it and unearthing the carbon which nature has locked away so that we can live as we now do. The air that we breathe and the water that we drink becomes shared with the clean fuel that powers our vehicles. Ammonia fuel can economically be stored for months and years at very low cost, much as oil is now stored, allowing wind and solar resources to provide their seasonally cyclical inputs to efficiently manufacture all the surplus ammonia fuel our economy requires. Energy production is an important topic, but it is severely underserved because established markets shut alternatives down through predictable marketing campaigns. I'm kinda narrow-minded in life, but I guess energy is not one of my weak subjects.

As a follow-up, I just watched Prof. Richard Mueller on the 02Aug2012 Democracy Now! and more strongly believe he is lobbying for the natural gas industry, as he preaches "clean fracking" must be pushed by the USA for application in China to convert their dirty coal mining industry to clean natural gas. The Professor falsely comforts us with repeated claims that "he was wrong" in the past and that while fracking is currently dirty and harmful, it can be made clean and safe. It really looks like a predictable marketing mirage to me, a distraction tactic. His message is pure sales pitch. Pushing to promote "clean fracking" over coal is nothing more than natural gas conspiring to take market share from coal through popular fear. Neither are clean energy sources, neither sustainable.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard

I've only listened to this Professor twice now, but I don't believe his message is sincere

hey newsvine. whats with the inability to edit a post???

What was missing on her segment about abortion is that the laws she is so angry about outlaw abortion after 20 weeks. She glossed over that without addressing the significance of it. The "dirty republicans" aren't trying to outlaw abortions. They're trying to outlaw MURDER. At 20 weeks, with modern medicine, these are unborn children. These are people. They could be delivered (albeit prematurely), or they could be "aborted". At 20 weeks, abortion=murder. You don't have to believe in life at conception, you don't have to hold a Catholic view on the issue or even a religious view of any kind. But at 20 weeks... a woman has kind of lost her argument that "it was a rape" or "the father is my brother" or whatever. At 20 weeks, the fetus is a BABY.

Ah - yes - but some of us don't agree with that. About 50% of the population, givertake. We'll be at this forever. Cheers!

If you like - please chime in on forcing rape victims to produce the child. Are you in favor of that?

@ Randy I am afraid your insights will not be well recieved here. No matter how convincing these people refuse to face facts and scientific proof of the nature of the issue over abortion. It's always some wild "head on a platter with tubes and wires coming out of it to survive" or the woman was gang raped by her siblings and father and uncles at a family picnic" crap excuses you'll hear here. Maddow and TRMS will not ever allow the "other side' to be adressed. Ever seen a segment where a formidable and acute pro life advocate has been on the show? Nope, me either. Why not invite Fr Frank Pavone or Professor Peter Kreeft? Because she's a coward.

Like your expressed concerns, why are we even discussing abortion at 20 weeks? Oh yes, that's right. "Because it's not a life until it can sustain itself outside the womb of the mother/woman." Which is actually some where around what 12 years old maybe IF it can get a job! With today's generational equivilancy ratings given proper consideration that "viability age" may be more like 24?? it's a "life " after 12yrs- 24yrs -6yrs- 2 months when? First breath outside the womb? They'll strain to finish off the protestations with a rally around the its' a "PRIVATE" choice. Tell ya what, raise MY taxes and I'll pay for the choice to have the baby. Yes, from craddle to adult life. Republicans and Conservatives for Life. "Raise our taxes to pay for LIFE".

We are well on the road to China where the Gov't (who pro abortion advocates want OUT of their wombs) will come in an destroy a pregnancy by force. Probably somewhere in the Affordable Healthcare Act. One of those, Pelosi, "We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it" deals.

Bottom line, you are right. Maddow will not elect to show the "other side" of the issue. Because the other side destroys her logic. She cannot stand the test. Coward. Hers is a "culture of death". Plain and simple. Ours, is a drive towards a Culture of Life. Evangelium Vitae!

Keep the faith Randy

Exactly JC exactly. Others are disqualified from the conversation. Well said!

JC and IrishPat, you guys aren't actually qualified either.But that can be fixed!

First, if you're male, then we'll install a uterus, vagina and all the necessary physiological plumbing in your body. Then you'll have to be inseminating with your father's sperm, whether you like it or not. After that, you'll experience pregnancy with your father's child for several months and then give birth.

Congratulations! Now you're officially qualified! Hooray!

See JC like Maddow's being off on some wild tangeon over "rape & incest" which is not at all the debate or law's intent. So Fourcarnations silly & wild off the subject "installation of female parts" & father's incestual insemination" to stray wildly from the center of the controversy and article of debate.

The debate is 20 week fetal protected beings who have life, human babies, being viciously torn apart and ripped from their mother's wombs. Piece by piece until you get to the head and have to crush that to get it to pass easily thru the vaginal passage. That's the law's intent and proposed changes/restrictions.

That's what pro abortion advocates cannot do, focus on the central fact. The taking, killing of human life. Keep the extra female parts, that's not the issue.

Focus, focus focus.

Yes! Focus focus... I'm talking about whether you're qualified to discuss the issue at all. Sorry pal. Since you're not getting pregnant, you definitely aren't. Poor little boy. Go back to mommy and ask her why you weren't born female.

As Phil Rizzuto would say, Holy Cow that was great! Great comebacks ho-lee-cow.

She lives in NorthHampton Mass. Cold out there in the winters and a long drive from NYC. Lots of OIL, lots n' lots of OIL. I say she should walk to work on those cold winter days.

BTW NorthHampton, Ma is 90% anglo saxon white population and very affluent. Can you say, "phoney"?

Yeah, just ignore the scientist who worked for the Kochs backing up the climate science despite doubting it. Inconvenient to you, thus it's ignored. When a legitimate scientist honestly comes up with real proof that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, and can replicate it in real life, then your complaint might have a point... like your head.