Hurricane, your reply suggests that since we have already caused drastic change that would take a long time to correct, we just give up and drive the situation further out of control?
In regard to Retribution on the potential of hybrid technology, you are correct that it is not going to be a sufficient replacement for heavy loads without significant improvement in technologies. The optimal replacement is hydrogen fuel cells, which have a drastically higher energy output than fossil fuels that will result in better torque and speed outputs than what is current. In the meantime, we need to improve our ability to break down plant matter for bio-fuels like ethanol. Corn and sugar ethanol are actually not very efficient when considering the amount of fossil fuels required to produce one unit of ethanol. There are actually better sources in the rather useless switchgrass that grows across most of our plains states. It also grows quickly, so growing the plant for fuel purposes could result in at least one, and hopefully two or more, cultivations per year.
Darwishi, or at least his friend, suggests that all researchers bias their results based on who is funding them (your words were "each time..."). There is a reason that researchers go through a lot of ethics training over the course of their degrees and careers. Most researchers that are contracted are not told who is funding their research, for precisely the reason you suggest that they all manipulate data. If they are informed of their financiers, they are expected to disclose that plainly. Some, you are correct, are employed solely by large companies to churn out results that support their business. Many researchers care far too much about their reputations and their work to fudge data. If they are found out, they lose their license with their trade organizations and most of the prospects that go along with it. I'm sorry that you and your friend think so little of ALL scientific research because some, occasionally, sell out.
I think the misunderstanding by most of the flat out deniers is that we (those of us seeking change) expect everything to change in one sweeping motion. That on a given day we want all existing coal and petroleum plants to flip the switch and shut off. Not a single person that I know, in favor of changes to our current system, thinks that way. We just want to see efforts put forth at a greater rate to move away from these systems. Right now, there is barely any progress at all, simply because of a fear of change. Just because fossil fuels have achieved our needs since the industrial revolution does NOT mean they are good for the future.
What I want to see:
Renewable energy sources, the sooner the better:
Wind and water-based turbine systems, there is plenty of room on the Earth, especially at sea
Large solar plants: it's reported that a 1.5 x 1.5 mile square in the Nevada desert could collect enough power to replace the entire current system of power plants
Advance batteries/power storage: We need carbon-based batteries, nanotubes show promise but something like graphene is probably more feasible at this point.
Hydrogen fuel cells (the most abundant element in the Universe): Optimal vehicle fuel source, byproduct is water
More efficient electrolysis process: Break that water back into hydrogen and oxygen to be recycled for more fuel cells.
As one of my previous posts suggested, the whole world does NOT need to switch all at once, only the main economic centers. The U.S., China, and the E.U. would do wonders and provide time for the rest to slowly move off.