The bottome line (climate change) (page 3)

JWoods

Poppers, we used to crap out of the window and fear bathing. We got over it. Fortunately, there have been great thinkers and tireless advocates through history who have helped us move forward. I must believe they will again prevail over greed and ignorance.

Having electricity, running water, yes - HEATED running water, etc...these are really the root cause of the increased CO2 levels as expressed by this conference.

Nobody has explained in engineering detail how CO2 can possibly be reduced without taking civilazation backwards in standard of living unless new and workable technology can be built and inexpensively exploited.

But the conference still insists on an immediate and expensive cap and tax on CO2 for developed nations to just give to less developed nations. This sounds to me like an agenda beyond simple CO2 levels.

beksbks

Why?

JWoods

Because if the root cause is to lower CO2, then sending money to third world nations who make very little CO2 while China and India and Russia and elsewhere continue to increase CO2 will have no global effect.

However, there are many in that conference who want western money to go to third world nations for their own reasons.

SacrificialLoon

Nathan Myhrvold (former Microsoft CTO) was interviewed on GPS this weekend concerning his views on global warming, and geo-engineering. He makes a strong arguement for using geoengineering to solve the problem of global warming since human nature being what it is makes CO2 reduction very difficult (See: "Tragedy of the Commons").

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn

He talks about penguin poo for the first minute or two but gets into the geoengineering bit after that.

BurnTheShips

Its strange how nobody objects to paying tax on the gas they use (which goes straight into the pockets of petro-dictatorships on the other side of the world), but mention a tax to clean up the shit left behind in their own backyard and all hell breaks loose.

Untrue, assuming the desirability of eliminating of carbon based energy (assuming), I think an outright Pigouvian tax would be far superior to any cap and trade bill. In fact, if coupled with the elimination of the payroll tax, so that it would be revenue neutral, I might even support it.

BTS

besty

Plausible idea BTS - what would the price of gas and electricity be in your model?

metatron

I'd like to know if these graphs are valid.

http://www.rense.com/general88/warming.htm

If so, I don't think we have much to worry about. I see this climate change controversy as a grab for more power by the elite. I don't see how anyone can rate climate change as a danger greater than the precarious state of the world economy. Let's add peak oil to that concern. And scanning near space for rogue asteroids.

Here's my concern in a nutshell: The rich and powerful are scared of losing their grip because of new technology. They would desperately love to kill off the electric car but may be too late (see the documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?"). They see the internet destroying newspapers, magazines, and countless other industries and need to keep the masses in control and an exaggerated climate threat looks like a good way to do that.

If someone ever did discover a 'free energy' device and try to make it public, I can guarantee you that they would do everything they could to stop it. The battle against cold fusion has been going on for many years with no end in sight, despite widespread replication.

Don't ever be so naive that you think that programs like Cap and Trade are there to hurt corporations. The devil is in the details and the tobacco industry has shown everyone the way. Once your state government gets hooked on tobacco settlement money flowing in, suddenly there is a financial incentive to discreetly protect cigarette companies.

metatron

besty

I see this climate change controversy as a grab for more power by the elite.

What role in this do you see for the climate scientists?

JWoods

"Climate Scientists" have most certainly benefitted from this Global Warming obsession. They have received huge grants relative to their position in the past as this idea has become popularized. They know exactly what direction their "research" should be pointed.

This is made completely clear by the nature of the exposed climategate memos.

besty

JWoods - are you claiming that climate scientists are perpetrating a scam for their own monetary gain?

Or are you saying that research grants should not be given to earth science in general?

Or both?

The bottome line (climate change)

Share this