Some Quick Thoughts on Global Warming

I thought I would briefly share some of my thoughts on this issue since it seems to be a hot topic. First of all it's no secret I'm very skeptical of global warming claims, and I think it's important to be skeptical of such claims when there is this much money involved. But putting all that aside, lets for a moment assume global warming is a serious issue which demands immediate attention. I ask you, how is it going to be solved by a bunch of politicians getting together? They are not scientists and the only ideas they are going to have are more taxes, which isn't going to solve anything at the end of the day. What many people don't seem to realize is that economic growth is the god of the modern world, especially for 1st world nations who do everything at their disposal to increase their GDP.

We find ourselves in a bit of a pickle when our two most important goals contradict with each other. In order to curtail global warming we must do things which often impact economic growth negatively. So you end up with two groups of people: those who place the economy above the environment and those who place the environment above the economy. The Australian government just announced they are going to devote several million dollars to research on clean energy. Although, we could just research existing solutions such as different types of nuclear reactors. We don't even have a single operational nuclear reactor in Australia yet we have some of the largest uranium reserves in the world. Then last night I heard on the news we are taking nuclear waste from other countries and storing it in Australia!

So it's perfectly fine if we take nuclear waste from others, but we cannot generate it ourselves even though nuclear energy is one of the most efficient and clean energy sources in existence, assuming you have a good place to dump the waste, which Australia seems to have since we are taking others waste. I guess it just pisses me off when they go on acting like there's no good solution and we must do more research, when there are plenty of good solutions which exist right now. Have they ever heard of liquid fluoride thorium reactors or will the western world just continue to act like that technology doesn't exist? These people clearly don't care about the environment, all they care about is increasing the power of the government whilst making it look like they are trying to save the world.

Look into Thorium reactors, little to no waste, better output compared to uranium reactors... Only it's by product can not be used for weapons. I was shocked that no one even thought to suggest this one when I put the Sunday skunk on trying to find solutions I think it was last week. Sure it would collapse the markets on most current energy sources but the rewards on the other end would be better.

CoBaZ

If no one listened to politicians, they wouldn't have any power over us. But people DO listen, because it's our human nature to trust authority figures even though they may be completely in the wrong.

I'm not suggesting we start finding ways to get around our human nature, for that might lead us down some sketchy moral pathways. No, what needs to be done us to limit the influence of money and power upon our politicians. This way, those seeking only power and greed will be weeded-out while the good ones stay. I'm not saying it'll be completely foolproof, but if such an extensive system existed it would solve many of the world's problems.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Essentially scientists can only identify the problem, propose solutions and try to use engineering to solve it. So far scientists have only been able to come up with partial solutions that they don't recommend because their consequences could cause greater harm than warming... geoengineering.

Reducing CO2 emissions and levels are something that scientists have also been trying to tackle but so far come up short or far more expensive than building turbines and solar panels.

Effective measures for reducing CO2 emissions now aren't up to scientists to enact, they are up to Public Policy makers. Individual humans can help too by reducing their carbon footprint as much as possible. By the way, taxes aren't the only way to for Public Policy makers to effectively achieve this goal. There's revenue neutral taxing for example.

a reply to: Kali74

Reducing CO2 emissions and levels are something that scientists have also been trying to tackle but so far come up short or far more expensive than building turbines and solar panels.

I disagree, scientists have produced multiple viable solutions, policy makers are the ones who ignore such technology because they don't want to cripple existing energy industries. It's all about the dollar at the end of the day, the environment comes second to the true god of the modern world.

Yes to that.

But, as an analogy, if you know that the plane you are going to ride has a possible chance of a critical failure of 10%, would you board?

Because I know how it works on this site: "noo, it can't happen! etc.etc." because there is not a 100% propability of global warming. But what if there is only a 10% propability?...

Even that chance would be desastrous enough to get moving!

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Kali74

Reducing CO2 emissions and levels are something that scientists have also been trying to tackle but so far come up short or far more expensive than building turbines and solar panels.

I disagree, scientists have produced multiple viable solutions, policy makers are the ones who ignore such technology because they don't want to cripple existing energy industries. It's all about the dollar at the end of the day, the environment comes second to the true god of the modern world.

Sadly all the solutions in the world will not get a look in until we change our way of thinking which I m afraid is so ingrained it will likely never happen at least until we make this planet uninhabitable for ourselves.....the ship is sinking and all we can do us watch in horror

If our choice of making a decision was reduced to 1 good thing to choose it would be a no brainier .We have many good suggestions and so many choices we can make . Finding the best one becomes the issue . Man has always been at the mercy of weather events .We can make good decisions to batten down the hatches or move people and animals away from the area to safer ground but we cant stop the weather .

The mere fact that CO2 has been rising and may even rise further in the future tells us little about what the weather might be or could be . The biggest response to CO2 we have been told is that the temps would rise ,and because of the rise the weather would become more severe . But Huston we have a problem because the best computer models ,falsifies that assumption as we see a divergence of the relation of CO2 to temperatures .

We have had nasty weather in the past and we still do . It varies and that is the nature of weather .Like the many different snowflakes ,weather is never the same . The BBC recently had a show called "What is the point of the Met Office " soundcloud.com... This show cause such a crazy response that it has started going viral .

One comment I thought was a good one said this " Charge:

“… audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme”.

1. Throughout the programme, Mr. Letts inserted such careful, AGW-appeasement remarks as: “not uncontroversial position on climate change” and that natural events “may be caused in part by mankind” (or words to that effect).

2. His main expert testimony came from a lukewarmer who actually ended up HELPING the AGWers by stating conclusively that he was certain that laboratory properties of CO2 meant that human CO2 necessarily has warmed the earth (just a little…. oh, brother, Thank you, Neville (the AGWers will take ANY amount of warming from humans, no matter how small and run with it).

3. His only true skeptic witness was a man known for his over-confidence (not that his ideas are not plausible, just that he asserts them with far too much certainty) in sunspots (and the like)-as-causation of climate; i.e., Piers C.’s testimony did more to damage the skeptics than to help.

4. The woman who with idiotic internal inconsistency blathered on at the end about “… the atmosphere is chaotic… we forecast weeks, months, years, in advance” (or essentially those words) — GAVE A VERY ACCURATE AND COMPLETE synopsis of the Met position on the criticisms mentioned by Mr. Letts.

Conclusion (just a guess…):

Met Office, feeling a threat of funding cuts coming, is using Mr. Letts to create the VICTIM (Met) — PERSECUTOR (Mr. Letts) — RESCUER (Taxpayers/public: “Support our Met! Support our Met! Great is the Met of the Ephesians, er, Englishians!!” (it’s in the book of Acts) triangle. (and, lurking behind it all are Big Wind, Big “Sustainability,” Big Solar, and Big Disaster Insurance — whose puppet the Met has become, v. a v. human caused climate change …).

*************************************************

Applause for the wrongfully accused Mr. Letts who is bright, articulate, intelligent and talented. He will do well no matter what the biased BBC does to him. " wattsupwiththat.com...-2089218

I will not take the AGW arguments seriously until the worst polluter of them all CHINA is made to
take serious steps to comply with the rules and controls the rest of us are having foisted upon us.

the issuance of the red alert for Beijing air quality is a prime example while the rest of the planet
has had some sort of clean air act's to improve air quality and control pollution for decades they
couldn't give a toss and continue to build old school coal power stations etc and blame it on cars.

and even if the science IS 100% correct and mankind as a whole did everything possible to cut
human pollutants from the atmosphere one large volcanic eruption could negate that effort in one hit but that's
never mentioned in the media because acts of god are not taxable

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

World economic growth is a necessity if you want the remaining 70% of the planet that barely own their own lavatory, to start owning fridges as well, without the Western world losing wealth. In other words, wealth sits in one pile in this world. No way in hell there will be redistribution of wealth, but the poor want some higher standard of living. Only way out: growth.
That, and the fact that humans are still multiplying faster than the influenza virus in the subway.
So....we need more power. And it seems likely that using coal is a really, really bad idea regardless whether you believe in global warming or not. We are in deep trouble.