Replace the possibility of AGW with the possibility of a planet killing asteroid strike.

Do we take draconian measures (like planet evacuation) on the possibility of a strike ,or do we wait until it is a sure thing ?

Quote:

---

there are two things the majority of scientists will agree upon regardless of whether they think GW is real or phony(1) climate change is real ( warming, cooling or otherwise). (2) Humans impact on the environment hence impact on the climate.

---

I agree on premise one but not two . I can offer a number of very plausible theories for climate change ranging from solar activity (there was a solar minimum during the 1910-1914 hurricane cycle and we just came off one of the longest solar minimums in recent history) ,to a continued natural retreat from the last ice age (maybe a warmer climate is the natural condition on the planet and disruptions like comet strikes or increased volcano activity causes cooling) . These are not hyothesis I've made up .These have been forwared from credible scientist who have been smeared as chalatans by the consenus group think of the cult of AGW. There is little evidence that human activity has had any impact on the overall carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

there is little evidence that human activity has had any impact on the overall carbon levels in the atmosphere.

---

Hello again, tom:

Yet, as you've noted, you're NOT a fan of pollution... I'm curious. What kind of BAD things do you think pollution DOES, if any? I suppose you COULD actually say pollution is GOOD, if you're a mind to. It certainly makes the sunsets prettier...

excon

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT . There is a huge difference emitting sulpher dioxide (a pollutant )and carbon dioxide. When sulpher dioxide emissions were identified as harmful the country reacted ,and the air is cleaner as a result.
If carbon dioxide is a pollutant then stop breathing... you are polluting the planet .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Replace the possibility of AGW with the possibility of a planet killing asteroid strike.

Do we take draconian measures (like planet evacuation) on the possibility of a strike ,or do we wait until it is a sure thing ?



I agree on premise one but not two . I can offer a number of very plausable theories for climate change ranging from solar activity (there was a solar minimum during the 1910-1914 hurricane cycle and we just came off of one of the longest solar minimums in recent history) ,to a contined natural retreat from the last ice age (maybe a warmer climate is the natural condition on the planet and disruptions like comet strikes or increased volcano activity causes cooling) . These are not hyothesis I've made up .These have been forwared from credible scientist who have been smeared as chalatans by the consenus group think of the cult of AGW. There is little evidence that human activity has had any impact on the overall carbon levels in the atmosphere.

---

Hi Tom,

I don't think there is any comparison between GW and an Asteroid strike. I think the comparison cannot be seen as significant.

I think this particular scientist was suggesting that human induced climate change can come about without having anything to do with carbon levels. For example, large cities have vast amount of concrete and tar which radiate heat quickly into the atmosphere. Given the right conditions the frequency of thunderstorms will increase over these areas.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

When sulpher dioxide emissions were identified as harmful the country reacted ,and the air is cleaner as a result. CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT .

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm still confused... Do I understand correctly, then, that you believe our air pollution problem has been SOLVED?

excon

No Ex I did not say that... but you knew that already... These AGW people are not talking about anything else but carbon emissions . So that is all I will address here .

Tut the density or composition of cities also is really unrelated . Presumably if you spead the population out further then there would be even greater carbon emissions due to transportation. Indeed ,I keep hearing the answer is a greater concentration of people where things like mass transit would be a solution.

Come on... give me a REAL solutions . I don't see any in existing alternatives that could significantly replace carbon based fuels (except perhaps nuclear which I favor... but the greenies don't ) Ex talks of energy yet discovered that we can invest huge sums on and the only other thing proposed is a tax on carbon use which I'm sure would be great for the national coffers ,and the schemers like the Goracle... but really don't solve anything .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I'm still confused... Do I understand correctly, then, that you believe our air pollution problem has been SOLVED?

---

I think what tom is saying is put your money where your mouth is:

Quote:

---

If carbon dioxide is a pollutant then stop breathing... you are polluting the planet .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ex talks of energy yet discovered that we can invest huge sums on

---

Hello again, tom and Steve:

Here's my view on that. Weather it's undiscovered energy or under utilized energy, it's going to have to STEP UP, or we're DONE. It's kind of like that matrix NG posted, except we KNOW what scenario is going to pan out. We don't have to GUESS. We KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we ARE going to run out of fossil fuel.

So, we either INVEST in alternatives NOW, or there won't be anything left to invest later. Should we hold back?? Uhhhhh, NO!

excon

Quote:

---

So, we either INVEST in alternatives NOW

---

Which alternatives ? Known ones are not sufficient and investing in the unknown is folly .

All I see from these AGW people is penalties to enrich themselves. Tell you what... I pledge to reduce my carbon foot print to at least half the Goracles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Which alternatives ? Known ones are not sufficent and investing in the unknown is folly ..

---

Hello again, tom:

Surprisingly, as a rightwinger, you are particularly unskilled in the entrepreneurial arts.

Didn't somebody offer a million $$$'s to anyone who could fly a rocket ship into space?? I think so. You undoubtedly would have called THAT objective, folly. But it wasn't folly, was it? Nope. Somebody won it, and got himself a nice business to boot. That's how you turn what's unknown, into what's KNOWN, and make a zillion dollars in the process.

Like I said, we KNOW the outcome of NOT making this investment... In my view, NOT doing it is folly.

excon

What alternative energy source is going to replace carbon based fuels and still provide for a world with growing energy needs ? You can't answer that . Everyone knew that if you built a powerful enough rocket you could make it to space. That was a doable objective .That is why Kennedy could challenge the nation to do it in less than a decade .

All these people are saying is that they want to bring carbon based fuels costs up to a point where less efficient and less abundant energy sources are competitive (and yes renewable sources like solar and wind are neither abundant or competitive... it takes rare minerals to exploit them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What alternative energy source is going to replace carbon based fuels and still provide for a world with growing energy needs ? You can't answer that .

---

Hello again, tom:

Sure I can. Fusion, for one. Yes, I know it doesn't work - NOW, and it may be a bad example. But, who's to say that if we dumped tons of money into it, we couldn't make it work?

SAFE fission is another. The reason we DON'T build 'em is because people are scared... But, SAFE fission IS possible today, like the rocket ship... Don't you think a few BILLION invested there could turn peoples heads around?? I do..

Look. It's true. I can't tell you what remains UNKNOWN. Other than fusion, I can't come up with anything. But THAT'S not the point. What I CAN tell you, is that if we DON'T discover what's UNKNOWN, we're toast. So, we'd better get cracking..

excon

Fission I am in full agreement ;and it's already safe if the luddites would grow some. The French breeder reactors bring down the "waste " to the size of a rubber ball and a very reasonable 1/2 life.

I hope you aren't referring to the cold fusion hoax. It sort of reminds me of these people who argue that electrolysis autos are the answer.

There is already plenty of research on fusion energy . I think it's more pipedream than realistic .

Here's what I know. Fusion energy is abundant on the sun (even though the sun will eventually use up it's hydrogen). Here ;well you do need to mine deuterium and tritium to get the ball rolling (not unlimitted minerals) . As far as I can tell Prometheus is not available to bring us the technology.
All I know for sure is that it's not a lack of resources that has stalled fusion research... it's a lack of results. But when public money is involved ;who needs results ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

...it's a lack of results. But when public money is involved ;who needs results ?

---

Hello again, tom:

So, you expect results BEFORE you make the investment... I don't think it works that way.

excon

I don't invest a penny without a reasonable expectation of results . Do you ?(and I'm not talking lottery either )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't invest a penny without a reasonable expectation of results . Do you ?(and I'm not talking lottery either )

---

Hello tom:

I don't know how you do your math when making investments... But, here's how I figure THIS one... Yes, it's a little different, cause the downside is a little bigger. We have MORE at risk here than money.

If I MAKE THIS investment, I'd say I have a 1 in 10 chance of it working out. If I DON'T make THIS investment, I am absolutely certain that I have 10 chances out of 10, that it AIN'T going to work out. We ARE going to run out of oil, after all. Given those numbers, investing looks prudent to me.

You? Not so much.

excon

Quote:

---

We ARE going to run out of oil, after all.

---

I've allowed that assumption [although I'm not convinced of that either] because the bigger problem is a growing need for energy that means it's best to have all hands on deck.

It is not that there are not sufficient resources going into fusion power research ,or that it has not been given time to achieve tangilble results(50 years of research). It's just that it hasn't happened. To date I believe the best results have been 65% output compared to energy input and nothing for a sustained period.

New Scientist magazine estimates that a commercially viable fusion plant could be more than a century away. They say it is worth the investment anyway.

Me ? Call me a skeptic . I'm more than willing to pay taxes for research at it's existing levels . I see no evidence that accelerated funding would accelerate results. So the only reason for doing so is scare tactics about what may happen if we don't .

The best immediate investment in alternatives would be fision breeder reactors to produce electric energy.

Quote:

---

I don't know how you do your math when making investments...

---

Well let's put it this way... the following projects achieved results by many decades less than the best estimates of the fusion power crowd... the race to the moon ,the human genome project , medical and drug breakthroughs of many kinds ,computers and digital technology . Given that fact ,it would be justified to question any public funding .

Looks like solar will be the next big thing, Obama is (finally) following in the footsteps of Carter and GW Bush and installing solar panels on the White House.

Quote:

---

Bill McKibben, the founder of the 350.org group, said Tuesday the administration did the right thing.

"If it has anything like the effect of the White House garden, it could be a trigger for a wave of solar installations across the country and around the world," McKibben said in a statement

---

All I can say is just as with having held a green job for the past 17 years, I was also green before Obama made it cool by having gardens long before they did. It's about time they kept up with Bush, too.

Ironically ,solar cells made from silicon are not particularly efficient . Solar cells made from rare earths like indium are more efficient ,but the rm is not abundant.There is less than a 10 year reserve if the manufacture of solar cells boom.
So if you want to really invest in a valuable metal ,go with indium of platinum (used in fuel cells ) .