more gw stuff

formatting link

John

Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

There are some good points in that. Personally I don't think we can do anything significant against climate change (man-made or not), but I think it's good that the "climate panic" is fuelling efforts to move away from wasteful technologies and habits. Even if there were no ill side effects to burning coal, oil or uranium--if we keep depleting natural resources at the (increasing) rate as we're doing today, we'll painfully hit a brick wall sooner or later anyway. Climate-neutral technologies are resource-neutral as well, so nations and societies that invest in such technologies today will be the winners tomorrow.

robert

Reply to
Robert Latest

Senator Inhofe strikes again. The list of signatures includes that of Richard Lindzen and S. Fred Singer, notorious Exxon-Mobil shills.

See

formatting link

for comments on Singer and a number of the other signatories, many of whom do seem to be tarred with the same brush. At least one of the alleged signatories has asked to have his name removed from the letter.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

formatting link

Nothing to worry about, move along please

martin

Reply to
Martin Griffith

I guess if you are being paid by the other side the money is somehow less influential? Name one scientist for either side of the argument that isn't being paid by somebody. Does that make all of them suspect? I don't get the logic.

Reply to
James Beck

formatting link

Not a brick wall. Resources will taper off in avaibility and increase in price, but not suddenly. All the things the UN wants to force will pretty much happen on their own, at their natural pace, without the UN getting their corrupt hands on trillions in energy taxes.

formatting link

By inventing new energy technologies today, one ensures that the patents will have run out before they are needed or economically feasible. That's good.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

S. Fred Singer was earlier "a prominent scientist" telling people that cigarette smoke wasn't all that bad for them. At that time he was being funded by the tobacco companies.

This does tend to suggest that his interest in global warming has also been bought and paid for.

Anybody with a shred of self-respect who found their name on a letter he'd signed would want their name removed from the letter.

The scientists who are doing the research which does seem to show that our fossil-fuel-burning is causing global warming are being paid to do research, and keep on getting paid to do research independent of the way the results of their research come out.

The "prominent scientists" who signed the sceptical letter don't seem to be doing research on global warming, and Exxon-Mobil doesn't seem to be funding what research they do - some of them get money for writing anti-global warming stuff for "think tanks" funded by Exxon- Mobil - in S Fred Singer's case, the same "think tank" that used to give him money for writing that tobacco smoke didn't cause lung cancer back when his "think tank" was primarily fuded by one of the tobacco companies - and one imagines that if they suddenly discovered that anthropogenic global warming was real, that source of funding would dry up rapidly.

The people on both sides are being paid, but the funding for the "sceptics" does seem to be conditional on them remaining sceptical, since they are being paid to expres opinions, rather than to do research in the area of their scepticism.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

Oh Plaleeeeze. What planet did you come from? You don't really believe that do you?

Reply to
James Beck

On Dec 14, 11:08=EF=BF=BDam, James Beck wrote= :

You know, the real bitch will be monitoring the feedback mechanisms between global warming and cotton crop production. (Here in the US anyway, our money is made with cotton fibers.)

LOL.

Reply to
mpm

The planet where these kind of people work. Their chances of getting grants, the chances of getting a better job elsewhere, their chances of getting good graduate students all depend on the quality of work they publish, and the way their peers around the world react to it.

I do, and so would you if you knew anything about the way good science and good scientists work.

Performing seals like Lindzen and Singer have opted out of that world, and are selling off the shredded tatters of their former reputations for what they can get.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Reply to
Bill Sloman

I'm with you on the conservation thing. I'm pretty thrifty.

Hey, who wants to take the milliGore challenge?

formatting link

Based on last month's usage I dissipate 0.0038 "Al Gore" units worth of electrical power.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

Loonies:

formatting link

John

Reply to
John Larkin

formatting link

Ah, come on John. Don't you know it's "manly" to be a wimp? ...wha? It's not the '60s anymore?

--
Keith
Reply to
krw

formatting link

It wasn't his crying that was so pitiful, it was his shirt.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

He's a lunatic because he takes climate change seriously?

You've got to be seriously ignorant to think that - but then again John, you think that "pressure line broadening" is insane (August 17,

9:17pm) - an opinion not shared by NASA/NBS

formatting link

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

Yes. ...and you.

Why don't you get your sig separator right, dumbass.

--
Keith
Reply to
krw

Wouldn't you prefer far right, snot-nose?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijhmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

The trouble is that the first brick wall we will hit is not due to a shortage of fossil fuel - it will be floods from rising sea levels and other unpleasant consequences of climate change like droughts (paradoxically). There is about 5-10x the current atmospheric equivalent CO2 level worth of fossil fuel carbon recoverable at a price (and that will increase somewhat as the price increases and presently uneconomic, difficult and dirtier resources get exploited).

Note that I am not advocating zero growth stop everything and live in a cave. But I am advocating the proposition that grossly inefficient cars doing 20mpg or less have had their day and need to be phased out. The simplest way to do this is to gradually increase fuel and energy taxes to encourage less waste. A lot more effort was made to "Save It" in the west during the OPEC induced 1970's oil crisis than has occurred to date for AGW.

And the stakes are much higher now, nature is not amenable to negotiation - you reap what you sow...

If we can get better energy efficiency now then it will buy us a bit more time. I live a good height above sea level so I should not really be bothered, but it is the next generation who will suffer for our mismanagement. I can see the day when expensive Florida coastal real estate is all surrendered to the rising sea. I doubt if the Neocons will ever admit that AGW is real, but perhaps by then most of the US population will start to realise that nature takes no prisoners. And that scientists are not lying just to get more grants.

Regards, Martin Brown

Reply to
Martin Brown

You won't live to see that day.

formatting link

Interesting graphs, no?

And I doubt that the warming enthusiasts will ever admit that it's not. They have far too much invested.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

I like this one:

formatting link

Reply to
Richard Henry

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.