$45 trillion needed to combat warming

[Jeff7]

We should instead focus on ways to move away from coal- and oil-based energy generation methods. Do that, and the CO2 emission issue, whether it's human-caused or not, will start to go away on its own. Other related issues that affect the carbon balance, such as deforestation, would still need to be addressed.*

Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric (damns and tidal), solar, and nuclear (fission first, fusion eventually) are all viable means. I'm also hopeful that this new silicon-nanofiber lithium ion battery technology I've read about will take off. It's supposed to have an energy density 20x that of conventional Li-ion cells. That should do wonders for electric cars.

And of course, perhaps within the next 100 years, finding a superconducting that can work at room temperature, and be cheaply produced, would provide exceptional increases in power transmission efficiency. I think somewhere around 10% of all electricity generated is lost to resistance heating in power lines.




* - That is something people tend to forget about when talking about human-caused global warming. We're not only digging up loads of ancient carbon, but we're also removing vast regions of woodlands, reducing nature's ability to reabsorb it.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
You're right about the risk-management. My issue is that climatology is far more complex than assessing nuclear scenarios with the soviet union. Its so complex that we don't even know what the risks would be.

It's much less fuzzy than putting a percentage # on the chance that the information Chalabi was providing to the DoD was accurate without any independent verification.

Climate models are based on well understood science, along with statistically solid estimates for the uncertainties of the starting parameters, quite often from scientific research totally unrelated to primary GW research. When you do a simulation run, are the resulting statistical error bars huge? Sure they are. Are the single line graphs produced for public consumption without proper error bars misleading? Yes. Does the mean and standard variation of multiple simulation runs using the full range of probable parameters yield statistically meaningful risk estimates (given the models' imperfections)? Yes. Are the remaining imperfections in climate models reason enough to remain paralyzed? Not in my estimation (or in the estimation any of this year's presidential Candidates, or many venture capitalists).

In 2000, GWB postured that we needed more research on GW. Since then, there has been a ton of excellent research, and legitimate critiques of climate models have been, and continue to be, yielding refinements/improvements in said climate models. Choosing not to act on best available information / risk assessment is an implicit policy decision, and at this point, a bad one.

The models aren't perfect, and they never will be. Military intelligence isn't perfect (turns out we vastly overestimated U.S.S.R.'s nuclear capacity), and it never will be (at least when it comes to knowing the future intentions in an enemy leader's mind). You make risk management decisions on the best information you have available at the time, not "perfect" information.

Edit: P.S. - I acknowledge the bit about venture capitalists and presidential candidates is an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It's quite possible our politicians have not made an attempt at risk analysis and their positions on GW could be "pandering" to the green voting block (esp. likely with McCain and his choice of Oregon to make a speech on GW). It's also possible that venture capitalists are hedging their bets on expectations of said political pandering and want to cash in on the new pieces of government spending pie that would result. Otoh, GW discusison threads are mostly appeals to authority with a healthy dose of straw men and flagellation of horse skeletons - best to review the scientific papers directly if you want your personal "facts" to be accurate. Anything in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal should have the appropriate caveats and qualifications to not overstate/understate their findings.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Seems pretty simple to me:

1. Factories / cars / power plants pump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. Global temperature rises.
______________________________________________
A: Human engineering is the cause of global warming.

Where do all you people think the pollutants and smoke that you see coming out of your tailpipe and the smoke stacks on factories go? They just go up in the air never to be seen again and don't have any harmful effect on anything?

no, it is far far more complex. I wouldn't write that paper if it was that simple.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Seems pretty simple to me:

1. Factories / cars / power plants pump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. Global temperature rises.
______________________________________________
A: Human engineering is the cause of global warming.

Where do all you people think the pollutants and smoke that you see coming out of your tailpipe and the smoke stacks on factories go? They just go up in the air never to be seen again and don't have any harmful effect on anything?

no, it is far far more complex. I wouldn't write that paper if it was that simple.

I don't care how natural the processes may be-- pumping a shit load of pollutants into the air can't be HELPING it.

 

[BansheeX]

Unfortunately, it ISN'T that simple. CO2 is not a toxic substance in and of itself. It's plant food. And there are serious intellectual contentions about the amount of CO2 that is actually man made.

But first, let's look at the history of such movements, since Americans today are a bunch of drugged up lemmings with no long-term memory, forget that Democrats got us into Korea and Vietnam and neo-cons are the only interventionsts, etc. There was a mass hysteria in the 70s regarding global cooling. That was the environmental mantra of the time, and many awards were dished out to people writing "scientific" articles stating that the cooling spell was going to be an irreversible trend, we would all be covered in ice by century's end, blah blah blah. Before that, prior to WWII, continued hot spells got people really worried about global warming.

I suppose it doesn't bother environmentalists much to realize that if the situation they paint today is true, then it is mostly their fault. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in something like thirty years. That fearmongering about the shitty state-run reactor in the USSR that blew up really put a stop to plants over here. Instead we got a ton of oil and coal, much of which is imported because we block our own oil companies from drilling (70% of our oil consumption is imported). But nuclear technology produces massive amounts of power with no emissions, just a voluminously tiny waste product that needs to be recycled, stored and secured. You could put all waste produced by current facilities over these years on a single football field. Ironically, France is 79% nuclear without a single accident and is the largest exporter of energy in all of Europe. We, on the other hand, have waited until our face is smashed in before dodging the punch. To this very day, politicians posture to make it look like they're doing something. In their mind, oil prices (for us, remember that wealth is relative and the world is always competing and bidding for this finite resource) aren't the result of years of electing politicians who ignore supreme law and inflate the shit out of our own currency to pay for psychotic wars and socialist largesse. It's those greedy oil companies! Yes, they're to blame! (despite the fact the government makes more than they do from their production of it).

Finally, regarding this $45 trillion solution, I see this as a massive attempt to gain justification for subsidizing Western corporations with even more taxpayer money (yeah, yours). Some of it is deceptive, some of it is well-meaning stupidity. So instead of doing what we have historically done, with old technology like coal invariably contributing to its cleaner successor, in a free market where people are keeping more of their own money, by definition making them able to afford and invest in companies competing for that capital, we are instead contemplating the route that we took with ethanol: coerced payment (tax) by government and redistribution of it to corporate interests who have bribed idealistically elected socialist government officials (under any meaningless party name) who have convinced their people that they know better how to spend their money than they do. And the fear that they are putting in people is making them more and more susceptible to accepting these inevitable costs without resistance. For the costs may not simply end up being taxes or inflation, they could be corporate taxes affordable by only the largest corporations, going to government, then going back to the corporations, with a net result of small businesses effectively subsidizing larger ones.

Tricky, huh?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
Unfortunately, it ISN'T that simple. CO2 is not a toxic substance in and of itself. It's plant food. And there are serious intellectual contentions about the amount of CO2 that is actually man made.

But first, let's look at the history of such movements, since Americans today are a bunch of drugged up lemmings with no long-term memory, forget that Democrats got us into Korea and Vietnam and neo-cons are the only interventionsts, etc. There was a mass hysteria in the 70s regarding global cooling. That was the environmental mantra of the time, and many awards were dished out to people writing "scientific" articles stating that the cooling spell was going to be an irreversible trend, we would all be covered in ice by century's end, blah blah blah. Before that, prior to WWII, continued hot spells got people really worried about global warming.

I suppose it doesn't bother environmentalists much to realize that if the situation they paint today is true, then it is mostly their fault. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in something like thirty years. That fearmongering about the shitty state-run reactor in the USSR that blew up really put a stop to plants over here. Instead we got a ton of oil and coal, much of which is imported because we block our own oil companies from drilling (70% of our oil consumption is imported). But nuclear technology produces massive amounts of power with no emissions, just a voluminously tiny waste product that needs to be recycled, stored and secured. You could put all waste produced by current facilities over these years on a single football field. Ironically, France is 79% nuclear without a single accident and is the largest exporter of energy in all of Europe. We, on the other hand, have waited until our face is smashed in before dodging the punch. To this very day, politicians posture to make it look like they're doing something. In their mind, oil prices (for us, remember that wealth is relative and the world is always competing and bidding for this finite resource) aren't the result of years of electing politicians who ignore supreme law and inflate the shit out of our own currency to pay for psychotic wars and socialist largesse. It's those greedy oil companies! Yes, they're to blame! (despite the fact the government makes more than they do from their production of it).

Finally, regarding this $45 trillion solution, I see this as a massive attempt to gain justification for subsidizing Western corporations with even more taxpayer money (yeah, yours). Some of it is deceptive, some of it is well-meaning stupidity. So instead of doing what we have historically done, with old technology like coal invariably contributing to its cleaner successor, in a free market where people are keeping more of their own money, by definition making them able to afford and invest in companies competing for that capital, we are instead contemplating the route that we took with ethanol: coerced payment (tax) by government and redistribution of it to corporate interests who have bribed idealistically elected socialist government officials (under any meaningless party name) who have convinced their people that they know better how to spend their money than they do. And the fear that they are putting in people is making them more and more susceptible to accepting these inevitable costs without resistance. For the costs may not simply end up being taxes or inflation, they could be corporate taxes affordable by only the largest corporations, going to government, then going back to the corporations, with a net result of small businesses effectively subsidizing larger ones.

Tricky, huh?

There was no "Mass hysteria" about Global Cooling. It was brought up by a small group of scientists and even given some attention, but after a short while faded away as subbsequent Study showed it to be false.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There was no "Mass hysteria" about Global Cooling. It was brought up by a small group of scientists and even given some attention, but after a short while faded away as subbsequent Study showed it to be false.

Not relative to today's, no. But then again, you didn't have wildly influential political figureheads like Al Gore latching on to the idea and pushing it with all their clout. God knows if Gore is one of the well-meaning stupid people, or a deceiver with a hidden agenda, but I tend to think the latter for two reasons. One, he consumes massive amounts of energy himself far beyond personal necessity, making him a monstrous hypocrit. Two, I'm always reminded of his slick peddling of a 900 page "free trade" agreement in debates with Ross Perot all those years ago, and we all know how well that worked out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: sandorski
There was no "Mass hysteria" about Global Cooling. It was brought up by a small group of scientists and even given some attention, but after a short while faded away as subbsequent Study showed it to be false.

Not relative to today's, no. But then again, you didn't have wildly influential political figureheads like Al Gore latching on to the idea and pushing it with all their clout. God knows if Gore is one of the well-meaning stupid people, or a deceiver with a hidden agenda, but I tend to think the latter for two reasons. One, he consumes massive amounts of energy himself far beyond personal necessity, making him a monstrous hypocrit. Two, I'm always reminded of his slick peddling of a 900 page "free trade" agreement in debates with Ross Perot all those years ago, and we all know how well that worked out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg

There's no hidden agenda. Just a very real issue that needs addressed.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: sandorski
There was no "Mass hysteria" about Global Cooling. It was brought up by a small group of scientists and even given some attention, but after a short while faded away as subbsequent Study showed it to be false.

Not relative to today's, no. But then again, you didn't have wildly influential political figureheads like Al Gore latching on to the idea and pushing it with all their clout. God knows if Gore is one of the well-meaning stupid people, or a deceiver with a hidden agenda, but I tend to think the latter for two reasons. One, he consumes massive amounts of energy himself far beyond personal necessity, making him a monstrous hypocrit. Two, I'm always reminded of his slick peddling of a 900 page "free trade" agreement in debates with Ross Perot all those years ago, and we all know how well that worked out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg

There's no hidden agenda. Just a very real issue that needs addressed.

Haha, oh really? That's reassuring. Thanks for the absolute statement. Nice thorough, rational rebuttal. Why do I even try?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: sandorski
There was no "Mass hysteria" about Global Cooling. It was brought up by a small group of scientists and even given some attention, but after a short while faded away as subbsequent Study showed it to be false.

Not relative to today's, no. But then again, you didn't have wildly influential political figureheads like Al Gore latching on to the idea and pushing it with all their clout. God knows if Gore is one of the well-meaning stupid people, or a deceiver with a hidden agenda, but I tend to think the latter for two reasons. One, he consumes massive amounts of energy himself far beyond personal necessity, making him a monstrous hypocrit. Two, I'm always reminded of his slick peddling of a 900 page "free trade" agreement in debates with Ross Perot all those years ago, and we all know how well that worked out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg

There's no hidden agenda. Just a very real issue that needs addressed.

Haha, oh really? That's reassuring. Thanks for the absolute statement. Nice thorough, rational rebuttal. Why do I even try?

Yes, really.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

It's much less fuzzy than putting a percentage # on the chance that the information Chalabi was providing to the DoD was accurate without any independent verification.

you're comparing apples and oranges. The WMD thing was just Bush looking for anything he could call "evidence" it doesn't need to be reliable.

Climate models are based on well understood science, along with statistically solid estimates for the uncertainties of the starting parameters, quite often from scientific research totally unrelated to primary GW research. When you do a simulation run, are the resulting statistical error bars huge? Sure they are. Are the single line graphs produced for public consumption without proper error bars misleading? Yes. Does the mean and standard variation of multiple simulation runs using the full range of probable parameters yield statistically meaningful risk estimates (given the models' imperfections)? Yes. Are the remaining imperfections in climate models reason enough to remain paralyzed? Not in my estimation (or in the estimation any of this year's presidential Candidates, or many venture capitalists).

The the results of the 80's simulation was an immense error. The opposite of what the model said happened. In hindsight the reason was that climate models were poorly understood and there were many variables that were unaccounted for. We may have better models today but they are far from well understood. Think of he earth as a superorganism that we live on and try to be doctors for, but we don't knonw what we're doing or what is even wrong.

In 2000, GWB postured that we needed more research on GW. Since then, there has been a ton of excellent research, and legitimate critiques of climate models have been, and continue to be, yielding refinements/improvements in said climate models. Choosing not to act on best available information / risk assessment is an implicit policy decision, and at this point, a bad one.

The models aren't perfect, and they never will be. Military intelligence isn't perfect (turns out we vastly overestimated U.S.S.R.'s nuclear capacity), and it never will be (at least when it comes to knowing the future intentions in an enemy leader's mind). You make risk management decisions on the best information you have available at the time, not "perfect" information.

"Aren't perfect" is not an accurate description of a situation when the opposite of what is predicted happens. That is a flawed model. If you're going to act against global warming you need to know how to act and know what the risks are before you manage them. Its more complex than nukes or no nukes.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
We should instead focus on ways to move away from coal- and oil-based energy generation methods. Do that, and the CO2 emission issue, whether it's human-caused or not, will start to go away on its own. Other related issues that affect the carbon balance, such as deforestation, would still need to be addressed.*

Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric (damns and tidal), solar, and nuclear (fission first, fusion eventually) are all viable means. I'm also hopeful that this new silicon-nanofiber lithium ion battery technology I've read about will take off. It's supposed to have an energy density 20x that of conventional Li-ion cells. That should do wonders for electric cars.

And of course, perhaps within the next 100 years, finding a superconducting that can work at room temperature, and be cheaply produced, would provide exceptional increases in power transmission efficiency. I think somewhere around 10% of all electricity generated is lost to resistance heating in power lines.




* - That is something people tend to forget about when talking about human-caused global warming. We're not only digging up loads of ancient carbon, but we're also removing vast regions of woodlands, reducing nature's ability to reabsorb it.

Most of the earth oxygen comes from photosynthetic algae on the oceans surface. Only about 20% comes from plants. Melting of the icecaps would increase the oceans surface area and therefore increase the area on which the algae can grow which would then be able to absorb atmospheric CO2 and counteract global warming. Of course this is all speculation, but it goes to show how complex environmental science is.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

I suppose it doesn't bother environmentalists much to realize that if the situation they paint today is true, then it is mostly their fault. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in something like thirty years. That fearmongering about the shitty state-run reactor in the USSR that blew up really put a stop to plants over here. Instead we got a ton of oil and coal, much of which is imported because we block our own oil companies from drilling (70% of our oil consumption is imported). But nuclear technology produces massive amounts of power with no emissions, just a voluminously tiny waste product that needs to be recycled, stored and secured. You could put all waste produced by current facilities over these years on a single football field. Ironically, France is 79% nuclear without a single accident and is the largest exporter of energy in all of Europe. We, on the other hand, have waited until our face is smashed in before dodging the punch.

Can you expect anything less from a country who's science education falls behind most of the developed world. Our media talks about dirty bombs and how terrorists can make them out of a ton of smoke detectors. Something like 40% of Americans still don't accept evolution even though almost two centuries worth of evidence has reinforced the model.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: naddicott


Edit: P.S. - I acknowledge the bit about venture capitalists and presidential candidates is an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It's quite possible our politicians have not made an attempt at risk analysis and their positions on GW could be "pandering" to the green voting block

The green voting block in the US is better described as a ridiculous anti-capitalist voting block that has a very poor understanding of science. The founder of Greenpeace abandoned the organization for this very reason. Ask someone in the "green voting block" what they think of GMO food and nuclear energy and see if they can answer without using the word "corporation."

If you fear Frankenstein corn, nuclear reactors, and don't acknowledge that the cause behind every environmental issue is population grown and not corporations, then you're not an environmentalist.

 

[DealMonkey]

$45 Trillion seems like a lot until you start calculating the fiscal damage global warming could have on the global economy. Even if we were able to know with certainty that global warming was a completely natural cycle and had nothing to do with man-made factors, we'd still have to spend a buttload of cash preparing for the inevitable and significant impacts of a warmer planet.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Jeff7
We should instead focus on ways to move away from coal- and oil-based energy generation methods. Do that, and the CO2 emission issue, whether it's human-caused or not, will start to go away on its own. Other related issues that affect the carbon balance, such as deforestation, would still need to be addressed.*

Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric (damns and tidal), solar, and nuclear (fission first, fusion eventually) are all viable means. I'm also hopeful that this new silicon-nanofiber lithium ion battery technology I've read about will take off. It's supposed to have an energy density 20x that of conventional Li-ion cells. That should do wonders for electric cars.

And of course, perhaps within the next 100 years, finding a superconducting that can work at room temperature, and be cheaply produced, would provide exceptional increases in power transmission efficiency. I think somewhere around 10% of all electricity generated is lost to resistance heating in power lines.




* - That is something people tend to forget about when talking about human-caused global warming. We're not only digging up loads of ancient carbon, but we're also removing vast regions of woodlands, reducing nature's ability to reabsorb it.

Most of the earth oxygen comes from photosynthetic algae on the oceans surface. Only about 20% comes from plants. Melting of the icecaps would increase the oceans surface area and therefore increase the area on which the algae can grow which would then be able to absorb atmospheric CO2 and counteract global warming. Of course this is all speculation, but it goes to show how complex environmental science is.

Algae need a lot more than just Surface Area. They need proper conditions that include Temperatures.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: naddicott


Edit: P.S. - I acknowledge the bit about venture capitalists and presidential candidates is an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It's quite possible our politicians have not made an attempt at risk analysis and their positions on GW could be "pandering" to the green voting block

The green voting block in the US is better described as a ridiculous anti-capitalist voting block that has a very poor understanding of science. The founder of Greenpeace abandoned the organization for this very reason. Ask someone in the "green voting block" what they think of GMO food and nuclear energy and see if they can answer without using the word "corporation."

If you fear Frankenstein corn, nuclear reactors, and don't acknowledge that the cause behind every environmental issue is population grown and not corporations, then you're not an environmentalist.

BS

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Jeff7
We should instead focus on ways to move away from coal- and oil-based energy generation methods. Do that, and the CO2 emission issue, whether it's human-caused or not, will start to go away on its own. Other related issues that affect the carbon balance, such as deforestation, would still need to be addressed.*

Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric (damns and tidal), solar, and nuclear (fission first, fusion eventually) are all viable means. I'm also hopeful that this new silicon-nanofiber lithium ion battery technology I've read about will take off. It's supposed to have an energy density 20x that of conventional Li-ion cells. That should do wonders for electric cars.

And of course, perhaps within the next 100 years, finding a superconducting that can work at room temperature, and be cheaply produced, would provide exceptional increases in power transmission efficiency. I think somewhere around 10% of all electricity generated is lost to resistance heating in power lines.




* - That is something people tend to forget about when talking about human-caused global warming. We're not only digging up loads of ancient carbon, but we're also removing vast regions of woodlands, reducing nature's ability to reabsorb it.

Most of the earth oxygen comes from photosynthetic algae on the oceans surface. Only about 20% comes from plants. Melting of the icecaps would increase the oceans surface area and therefore increase the area on which the algae can grow which would then be able to absorb atmospheric CO2 and counteract global warming. Of course this is all speculation, but it goes to show how complex environmental science is.

Algae need a lot more than just Surface Area. They need proper conditions that include Temperatures.

I know they do I'm just speculating to show that it is more complex than we are led to believe

 

[NeoV]

I look at the entire GW discussion like this -

it's a good thing that less-polluting options are being discussed
it's a good thing that in the not-so-distant future, many of us will be driving new cars that don't rely on gas

I contend that if Bob Dole had made "An Inconvenient Truth", this wouldn't be the partisan discussion it has sadly become

Of course the earth has gone through it's own climate cycles before - but never before in the history of this planet have it's inhabitants had any influence on those cycles. How many hundreds of thousands of pollution-emitting factories are there? How many tens of millions of cars are there? How many power plants?

Look at a chart of the carbon/temperature relationship here http://www.whrc.org/resources/...Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2.gif

Then look at the same calculation for recent years http://www.whrc.org/resources/...ages/Fig2-CO2-Temp.gif

Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Global warming is a fucking scam. I cannot believe how many people buy into this shit. If you look at history you will see global temperatures rising and falling is cyclical. We are holding true to that pattern, based on past historical data. Why are we shocked that we are back in this cycle? If we were such a big contributor to global warming with CO2 emissions than we would be much further along in that cycle and have much higher temperatures, we are not, thus we do not seem to be altering the cycle in any way. That is the simplest explanation I can think of. There is a lot more data AGAINST global warming, but really all you need is logic.

..it's a hell of a scam. you can't fix what isn't broken but you can keep em fooled with alarmism and green slime gibberish to rationalize yet even more punitive tax and CO2 fraud.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I look at the entire GW discussion like this -

Of course the earth has gone through it's own climate cycles before - but never before in the history of this planet have it's inhabitants had any influence on those cycles.

Actually, they always have. It was photosynthetic bacteria that put oxygen into the atmosphere ~3 billion years ago. In biology there is something called ecological succession - when organisms alter their environment in a way that makes it less habitable for themselves and more habitable for a community of other organisms that may eventually succeed them.

How many hundreds of thousands of pollution-emitting factories are there? How many tens of millions of cars are there? How many power plants?

Look at a chart of the carbon/temperature relationship here http://www.whrc.org/resources/...Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2.gif

Then look at the same calculation for recent years http://www.whrc.org/resources/...ages/Fig2-CO2-Temp.gif

Seems pretty obvious to me.

It's not as obvious as it seems:



http://i66.photobucket.com/alb...8/GW/GlobalWarming.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/alb...u718/GW/Untitled-1.jpg

 

[Vic]

Just think of how much more developing oil and coal cost than hay, we should never have left animal power.

The OP didn't even read his own article. GW was just his spin. A global economy based entirely off fossil fuels is not sustainable. Even assuming oil were an unlimited resource, we are already approaching the point where we can't pump it out of the ground fast enough. In order to meet the energy demands of the future, we will need to move to alternative sources.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Only $45 trillion to fix it...lol....do we get a money-back guarantee?

 

[daniel49]

The first week of june here just broke a record set back in 1894 for being the coldest.

I'd be more prone to believe the hype if they went back to thier original prediction of an iceage back in the 70's.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

It's like the cure for AIDS... Magic Johnson (and South Park) proved that huge amounts of pure, hyper-concentrated cash can solve almost any problem and cure almost any disease. If only we could harness that miracle and put it in a bottle... Oh wait.

Maybe with the power of money we can concentrate the unpleasant side effects of global warming on the poor countries who can't pony up their fair share of the cash to solve the problem... that'll teach 'em.