On 10 November 2013 14:12, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote: > Brent, let us look at human nature as it exists and not posit perfection > to scientists and bureaucrats. Climate scientist who peddle AGW have skin > in the game. What's their reward? They get guaranteed jobs and do the > planning and make policies if true, thus, their careers are set > Bureaucrat's ,like politicians, want power over others and also have > guaranteed careers. If AGW is more nuanced, shall we say, then the > salaries, the power is diminished. If the climate pause takes longer, then > the people proposing climate change, have to come up with an excuse. > Notice, please that until recently, AGW is now called Climate Change. My > best bet on this is that the term was change to cover all variations in > climate, in case it doesn't get warmer, as exemplified by the UK's weather > over the last 10 years. No Miami temps in London so far. This goes against > earlier forecasts, doesn't it? > > Now to your Libertarian denial theme, let us say I am agnostic but deeply > suspicious myself, but allow me to counter question. > 1. What non-carbon fuel source do you have at the ready to replace climate > damaging fossil fuels? > 2. Do your solutions include switching off dirty power in the US, without > a working substitute? > 3. What do you recommend if the US refuses to comply? > 4. Ditto, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, etc? > > I guess I am at step 5 and 6 on your scheme of things. But if you have > knowledge of workable solutions, maybe you could write about it? Even > denialists want to hear what we all can do? > > Although there are lots of grassroots movements on this, the real power to do some good of course lies with governments and big business. This is an infrastructure thing, like state highways, but on a global scale - there is no bigger commons than the environment, nor a bigger tragedy of the commons than ecological collapse. Can we get our fingers out of our arses and do something? I doubt it, but here are a few suggestions.
We need lots more nuclear (yes, I know, and I live in New Zealand where around 70% of the power is hydro and wind). Subcritical reactors are best, they run on thorium, can't melt down, and can be used to reprocess uranium and plutonium into something less dangerous. However they can't be used as part of a weapons programme, which is why they've been ignored (except, I think, by India). We need lots more solar - the Sun produces far more energy that we can use, even the tiny bit that falls on Earth far exceeds our requirements. How much is going begging in (say) the Sahara alone? A useful by-product would be bringing Africa's economy up to speed, if it started exporting cheap power. We probably need some geoengineering like aerosols in the upper atmosphere for a short term fix, given that every week new climate records are broken, Australia and America keep catching fire, we have the biggest storm on record in the Phillipines, hottest year on record, hottest decade on record etc etc etc. We need a ton of research into renewables and carbon sequestration. Treating this as a war might help - it could be called "the war on shooting ourselves in the foot" perhaps. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
