The Coming Climate Change

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by martinw Dear Donna, Leaving aside the current religious debate, and returning to the original one about "global warming" or "whatever", I'm entirely with you. France has had a comprehensive nuclear programme for many years and , I believe, stuffs a whole load of nuclear-generated electricity through submarine cables to the UK. France has had no problems, and neither has the UK. It seems to work as a renewable energy source without any great impact as the depletion of fossil fuels which might be better deployed otherwise for the manufacture of plastics, lubricants, etc etc. This is a vital natural resource. Personally, I'm not a big fan of pissing away fossil fuels, and it has nothing to do with "global warming" or "climate change". My modest take on this, is that it would be a huge tragedy to see my tiny country covered in wind-farms that will have an absolutely minimal prospect of large-scale electricity generation, recommended by "experts" with snouts in the trough, and crowed about by politicians who attempt to convince the electorate that they are some kind of "planet saving" saints . Most of our leaders trained as lawyers. No need for further comment. End of rant.... Best wishes, Martin

Yes, lawyers seem to be running our country. You are from the US aren't you? I do, like you, think that a lot of junk science and impractical solutions will be bandied about. I only hope that reason prevails and practicable steps will be taken. The past has been bad but the bankrupt ideas of the radical right have demonstrated themselves quite well of late. This presidents approval rating is hovering around 30%, that gives me hope. I do believe in GW but admit that it's not a proven thing, only about a 95% certainty. Yes, oil would be better used for making commodities. Less pollution and more value. Nuclear is a good interim answer, fusion is the ultimate goal.
Take care,
Donna

[martinw]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna I do believe in GW but admit that it's not a proven thing, only about a 95% certainty. Yes, oil would be better used for making commodities. Less pollution and more value. Nuclear is a good interim answer, fusion is the ultimate goal. Donna

Dear Donna,

IMVVHO...GW or CC should not be a matter of "belief". Where did scientific debate go???? It is a horrible sight to see politicians with an agenda meet the people they fund come to a mutual conclusion.

Yep, nuclear is a good move, IMHO.

Best wishes,

Martin

[Geof]

Originally Posted by martinw .....GW or CC should not be a matter of "belief"....

Global Warming is not a matter of belief it is a fact. If Global Warming had not occurred over the past few thousand years Donna would be prevented from travelling North much further than the Wisconsin border by a big pile of ice; that was about the maximum Southerly extent of the Ice Age that ended about 12,000 years ago. So I suppose Climate Change is also a fact.

What is not necessarily a fact is that human activity has had any role in Global Warming. What I think is pure delusional thinking is the belief that we can do anything about it whether or not human activity has had an role in causing it. Actually if you read the pontifications coming out of the IPCC they acknowledge that any changes that are put into place now will not have an effect for about 100 years; while also saying (and I paraphrase a bit) unless we do something we will go past a "Tipping Point" in twenty years or so. Which to me seems a bit contradictory; if what we do now only has an effect 100 years from now how can we prevent something that will happen in 20 years?

IMNVHO the only person in this whole shemozzle who is talking or writing sense is Bjorn Lomborg.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna We ourselves are funding Islamic terrorism with our petro dollars.

You mean like this one:

You Tube

You Tube

Warning: This video contains scenes that some people may find amusing.

Same thing at: http://www.break.com/index/achmed-the-terrorist.html

[martinw]

Originally Posted by Geof Global Warming is not a matter of belief it is a fact. IMNVHO the only person in this whole shemozzle who is talking or writing sense is Bjorn Lomborg.

Dear Geof,

An entirely fair comment on my lazy post.

BTW, Bjorn Lomberg published with the Cambridge University Press in the UK.

Shortly after the "Skeptical Environmentalist" was published, a financially significant number of climate change experts refused to deal with CUP.

That comes from a quite reliable source within that publishing house.

Best wishes,

Martin

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by martinw Dear Geof, An entirely fair comment on my lazy post. BTW, Bjorn Lomberg published with the Cambridge University Press in the UK. Shortly after the "Skeptical Environmentalist" was published, a financially significant number of climate change experts refused to deal with CUP. That comes from a quite reliable source within that publishing house. Best wishes, Martin

Hi Martin,
Is it possible to read the article "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomberg online? I'd love to look it over.
Take care,
Donna

[martinw]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Martin, Is it possible to read the article "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomberg online? I'd love to look it over. Take care, Donna

Dear Donna,

I very much doubt it. That book is seriously hard pornography.

Best wishes,

Martin

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Martin, Is it possible to read the article "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomberg online? I'd love to look it over. Take care, Donna

Run the gauntlet of the Global Warming Afficionados and buy your own copy .

[Mariss Freimanis]

Geof,

Thanks for the tip on Bjorn Lomborg's book. I just ordered it from Amazon.

Mariss

[307startup]

Wouldn't the fact that there were prior periods of global heating and cooling, set precedent to establish that "GW" and "CC" are real...and also at the same time, wouldn't that fact be enough to establish that humans, regardless of their industrial proclivities and "greenhouse gas" contributions, are not responsible for the current climate change? Or is that the same kind of circular logic the neo-greenies employ?

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Mariss Freimanis Geof, Thanks for the tip on Bjorn Lomborg's book. I just ordered it from Amazon. Mariss

He also has a more recent one in which he points out that it would be much more sensible to spend money on solving a lot of other problems rather than wasting it on trying to combat global warming...which is more or less impossible anyway. Or something along those lines, I am paraphrasing to some extent. I have not read his books but have seen excerpts.

[alexccmeister]

What Lomborg writes about is agreeable to some and not to an equal number of readers. Hardly conclusive. We agree with someone because they write exactly on what we believe in. That's human nature.

And its funny reading the comments from the Amazon website about his book. The fan calls the critic wackos just for not liking his book. Which is the religion here I ask.