Your solution is perfectly sensible but only if it has no appreciable
cost. In fact is has an extremely high cost in terms of alternative
energy since present carbon energy forms must be almost totally
abandoned. In the US gasoline is now approaching USD 4/gallon again and
folks are getting mighty upset. They have not a clue of what energy
costs would be in a world without coal, oil and gas... about 3X for wind
and 10X for present solar technology (if you could even manufacture it).
And I don't think we have a viable nuclear technology for large
expansion at the moment.
If the problem is real as predicted then we have to do what we have to
do. But I don't believe that the role or carbon dioxide is anything
like what the climate models predict. All of the models have seriously
over-predicted temperatures and they can't even make a decent hindcast
let alone a forecast. Somebody's computer model is the only thing that
says there is a problem. Climate is a chaotic system and, IMHO, not
predictable 100 years away anymore than the stock market is. Trying to
force the world into extraordinary actions takes extraordinary proof.
Sorry, they're nowhere near that... and carbon dioxide is plant food,
not a pollutant.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/20/2013 6:01 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Step sideways everyone. The arguments are all rather irrelevant.
> Do a Pascal on the problem.
>
> If it's caused by us and we do nothing, it gets worse.
> If it's not caused by us and we do nothing life gets worse.
> If it's caused by us and we do something, it may get better.
> If it's not caused by us and we do something, there's a faint chance it may
> get better.
>
> Doing nothing benefits those who are complacent about change, in the short
> term.
> Reducing pollution is 'something better' even if it has no effect on climate
> change.
> Pollution sees no geopolitical boundaries.
>
>
> So what the hell are we arguing about? Let the credulous blame storms on some
> poorly understood 'global warming' concept. They needs someone/thing to
> blame. It's simple answers for simple minds. We're a community of reasonably
> intelligent people (I suspect that's the glue that holds the list together).
> I can remember when arguing in favour of climate change (which I was) was
> like yelling in a thunderstorm - it felt good but no-one was listening. Now
> it's taken on the mantle of Holy Writ. Doesn't make it any less real, just
> because it's become COWDUNG (the Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group).
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.soultheft.com
> Author/Publisher: The SLR Compendium - http://www.blurb.com/books/3732813
>
>
>
> On 21/02/2013, at 8:29 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> I have never said or even implied that climate change is not occurring.
>> That's because I believe it is occurring. This was not an attempt to
>> dispute that the earth is warming, it clearly is. It is rather to
>> dispute claims which are made in the popular press about increasing
>> frequency and severity of storms (due to climate change) that have no
>> basis in scientific evidence. In fact, the actual data show the opposite.
>>
>> The only thing that could be considered a straw-man in my message is the
>> treatment of Sandy (a single storm). All of the other data I supplied
>> covered either all tropical cyclones around the world or all hurricanes
>> in the US.
>>
>> If I've given you world-wide data since 1978 or all US hurricanes since
>> 1900 how is that a straw-man?
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|