Climate change - science

Feel free to move this post. I feel it belongs in this area because no one seems to bother with the reality of the 'lesser' forums.

Quote - "In his independent review of the economics of climate change the former chief economist at the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, concluded that the scientific evidence is now overwhelming - climate change is a serious global threat that demands an urgent, collective global response, and the role of new technologies will be crucial. One of the most exciting developments, and something the Stern Report singled out as particularly significant at the global level, is carbon capture and storage (CCS). I believe, as do Sir Nicholas and many other experts that development of CCS technology is vital if we are to reduce emissions and at the same time ensure we have secure energy supplies."

Wicks, M, Feb 2008, 'Clean up our act.' The Engineer, London, pp. 28.

The Garneaut report - Impacts of climate change in Australia

www.garnautreview.org.au...$File/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review %20-%20FULL%20Draft%20Report,%204%20July%202008..pdf

Very, very serious material - including causes of climate change in this country.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by seenitall]

[edit on 5-8-2008 by seenitall]

reply to post by seenitall
I think it belongs right here, personally. This is a very telling article.

Firstly, this is not a scientist, much less one concerned with climatology or meteorology. This is an economic expert and avowed capitalist, the chief economist ot the World Bank. Obviously, this is related more to money (his area of expertise) than any actual concerns for the planet.

Secondly, the urgency of his statement shows the extreme amount of money that is at stake.

Thirdly, his proposed method of solving the issue is carbon capture. Yet, Greenpeace seems to disagree with him:


There is a complete thread on that little nugget of truth from Greenpeace right here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems to me that the Religion of Gaia is becoming a bit transparent...

TheRedneck

I'm all for carbon sinks etc. The fact is we need a way to counter our impacts. My second link is not so positive. Hopefully humans can integrate their power needs into a cycle - and soon.

reply to post by seenitall
It is possible to do what the earth does: turn the elements of carbon and hydrogen into hydrocarbon chains, i.e. oil and fuel. My concern for the appropriateness of this process is not the possibility that it is feasible, but the probability that it is acceptable to those who scream about 'freezing in the fiery flood'. Topics like the one I referenced above cause me to think that perhaps it is not considered appropriate in today's political climate.

I suppose you can see my bias against the pseudo-science of Global Warming. On the other hand, if we are increasing the CO2 level above that which the planet can adapt to (which we are not doing presently, but could in the future), would one solution not be to use the excess CO2 as a source for hydrocarbon fuels? That way any CO2 produced would simply replace that which has already been taken out of the atmosphere, making it in essence a carbon sink for our energy needs rather than a carbon dump. The range of atmospheric CO2 that has existed throughout history is quite large, and it could therefore tolerate such a use.

TheRedneck