Bob, you seem to agree there is warming... That CO2 is increasing, by humans...
I presume you agree that increased CO2 heats things up with the greenhouse effect. I presume you understand that oil pays a lot of people a lot of money to make global warming look like some kind of conspiracy... I can agree that CO2 and greenhouse gasses may not be the only cause of global warming/climate change/disruption... So do you think humans continue to make the situation worse? How sure are you we shouldn't worry? What if you are wrong, what is the cost? Pretty high right? What if I and those concerned about global warming are wrong, what's the cost? Wouldn't being greener bring other benefits anyway? John On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment on > such topics. I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag - > just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's > pet objective. It is not that I don't believe the earth is warming - I > do. The reality is that the earth goes through cold and hot cycles. Ice > cores show a period of 100k-200k years between glaciations (peak cold). > What happens in the middle between peak cold glaciations? The answer is a > peak hot earth. We are only about 25k years from the last peak cold > glaciation, and probably 25k-75k years from peak hot earth. The earth is > presently in a gradual heating portion of the cycle as we move toward the > peak hot earth. The false flag is the promotion that warming as being > caused by man - the science is not good enough to say this with any > reliability. Yes, there is rise in CO2 and there is warming, but the earth > would be warming even if there were no CO2 additions. The question is only > whether there is a small change in rate of warming caused by the CO2 > addition. Cutting CO2 emissions drastically will likely have no > significant effect on warming but may incur significant cost. Wouldn't > that money be better spent in elimination of world poverty? > > Having said that, I believe there is good reason to design out the use of > fossil fuel burning: it is poisoning the air we breath. It is particularly > acute in the cities and worse in the industrial coal burning cities in > China. The average person does not realize that with every 20 gallons of > gas they burn in their car, they are adding over 300 pounds of CO2 to the > air. Another side benefit is elimination of the fighting that has its > roots in oil supply favoritism. > > The justification for LENR is clean air, and clearing the landscape from > power distribution ugliness through distributed power generation without > the scale, danger, and nuclear waste of the fission industry. The third > world will benefit from this readily because they don't have a grid to > start with. Availability of small, non-polluting power generation systems > (particularly CHP) will help their rise from poverty via access to energy > without the expense of a grid and without need for world controls on > nuclear proliferation. And what about solving the world's fresh water > crisis? This is a real opportunity: LENR powered desalinization. > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Calling all cold fusion flacks! >> >> I added a comment to this article at 10:15 (that's how you can find it). >> I would appreciate up-votes to make it more visible: >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/opinion/hope-from-paris.html >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> >
