Changes

:::: I am not, I will admit, familiar with ALL of the models - but I am aware work of a group that has consistently gone against the grain as it were - with the lead individual being on US national committees and all that - suffice it to say, he is often in the minority and sometimes shouted down - yet he is a man of integrity whose science and scientific method I do trust and understand ... (I will try and find some references/links and post them when I can) ... I agree that we ought to examine BOTH what if's - ... mostly, it is the global warming group that is yelling the loudest - What if they are wrong?  What if we spend several hundred billion to trillions of dollars on "solutions" for nothing?  What if all this is due to natural variations?  Yes, rise in sea levels can destroy cities - significant climate change can wreak havoc - Some of the solutions being bandied about will prevent the development of many countries that are poor and wreak additional havoc on them - What are the rich countries prepared to do for them - IF they force them to accept restrictions on growth or other solutions that they do not consider palatable?  And yes, what if we are indeed destroying the ecosystem and thereby affecting current and future generations ability to live/thrive?  The global warming group has decided that ALL of the data is in, that there are NO uncertainties as to temperature measurements and predictions - and thus they claim WE MUST ACT NOW ... My position is - No, not yet - the data is not clear and acting to restrict CO2/methane emissions/whatever may not be necessary.  I guess I find it troubling that reasonable groups tend to ignore the forest for the trees and decide to look at the forest when it suits them ... Just a few scant years ago, the word "nuclear" was anathema to most groups in the US - when many people were talking about it as a real solution to the energy crunch - Now, the word "nuclear" is used in the context of reducing the need to use coal/other hydrocarbons for generating energy ... Along the way, the scientific process gets muzzled to generate some specific conclusion to support some specific group - ... And yes, so much noise coming from Al Gore does give me reason to pause - since he did claim at one time that he invented the internet - or some such.  "Everyone believes it" means nothing to me. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:25 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007

:::: I am not, I will admit, familiar with ALL of the models - but I am aware work of a group that has consistently gone against the grain as it were - with the lead individual being on US national committees and all that - suffice it to say, he is often in the minority and sometimes shouted down - yet he is a man of integrity whose science and scientific method I do trust and understand ... (I will try and find some references/links and post them when I can) ... I agree that we ought to examine BOTH what if's - ... mostly, it is the global warming group that is yelling the loudest - What if they are wrong?  What if we spend several hundred billion to trillions of dollars on "solutions" for nothing?  What if all this is due to natural variations?  Yes, rise in sea levels can destroy cities - significant climate change can wreak havoc - Some of the solutions being bandied about will prevent the development of many countries that are poor and wreak additional havoc on them - What are the rich countries prepared to do for them - IF they force them to accept restrictions on growth or other solutions that they do not consider palatable?  And yes, what if we are indeed destroying the ecosystem and thereby affecting current and future generations ability to live/thrive?  The global warming group has decided that ALL of the data is in, that there are NO uncertainties as to temperature measurements and predictions - and thus they claim WE MUST ACT NOW ... My position is - No, not yet - the data is not clear and acting to restrict CO2/methane emissions/whatever may not be necessary.  I guess I find it troubling that reasonable groups tend to ignore the forest for the trees and decide to look at the forest when it suits them ... Just a few scant years ago, the word "nuclear" was anathema to most groups in the US - when many people were talking about it as a real solution to the energy crunch - Now, the word "nuclear" is used in the context of reducing the need to use coal/other hydrocarbons for generating energy ... Along the way, the scientific process gets muzzled to generate some specific conclusion to support some specific group - ... And yes, so much noise coming from Al Gore does give me reason to pause - since he did claim at one time that he invented the internet - or some such.  "Everyone believes it" means nothing to me. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:25 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007

::::: There are two approaches to global warming, reducing the energy we use (switching to fluorescent lighting for example) and moving away from a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, gasoline) energy economy.  Even if nothing else is done beyond these things, it would be a good thing.  Consider that most of the oil is held in countries that are either hostile or at best unfriendly to the united states.  An estimate is that by 2020, 83% of all of the remaining oil reserves in the world will be in the middle east [http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html].  By 2025, there will be no oil left in Africa.  Another good read is about the Hubbert peak [http://hubbertpeak.com/] which suggests that by 2050, the world will run out of cheap oil.  Thus, by mid century it isn't a matter of "how can we reduce carbon emissions" but rather "what do we do now that there is no oil?"  Both gloabl warming and the Hubbert predictions [http://hubbertpeak.com/campbell/cen21.htm] [http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Products/Oil_Reserves/] [http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/] have a reduction of carbon emissions - the question is is how we react to it now?  With respect to nuclear, it is a partial solution - if we were to build one reactor a week we would have the infrastructure to survive the oil crash (however, this does not take into account that using that much uranium, we would hit uranium shortages well before oil shortages).  So I ask you, would the effort of spending trillions of dollars to remove our dependence on oil and carbon emissions be a good thing? Off topic - on the matter of claim of Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp snopes] is a good read. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: There are two approaches to global warming, reducing the energy we use (switching to fluorescent lighting for example) and moving away from a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, gasoline) energy economy.  Even if nothing else is done beyond these things, it would be a good thing.  Consider that most of the oil is held in countries that are either hostile or at best unfriendly to the united states.  An estimate is that by 2020, 83% of all of the remaining oil reserves in the world will be in the middle east [http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html].  By 2025, there will be no oil left in Africa.  Another good read is about the Hubbert peak [http://hubbertpeak.com/] which suggests that by 2050, the world will run out of cheap oil.  Thus, by mid century it isn't a matter of "how can we reduce carbon emissions" but rather "what do we do now that there is no oil?"  Both gloabl warming and the Hubbert predictions [http://hubbertpeak.com/campbell/cen21.htm] [http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Products/Oil_Reserves/] [http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/] have a reduction of carbon emissions - the question is is how we react to it now?  With respect to nuclear, it is a partial solution - if we were to build one reactor a week we would have the infrastructure to survive the oil crash (however, this does not take into account that using that much uranium, we would hit uranium shortages well before oil shortages).  So I ask you, would the effort of spending trillions of dollars to remove our dependence on oil and carbon emissions be a good thing? Off topic - on the matter of claim of Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp snopes] is a good read. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The top comment reminds me of an oft told joke.  A religious man is on the roof of a burning house.  The fire company holds the trampolene and tells him to jump.  He says: "No, God will save me."  A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb.  He says: "God will save me."  Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven.  He asks God why he didn't save him.  God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter.  What more did you want?"

The top comment reminds me of an oft told joke.  A religious man is on the roof of a burning house.  The fire company holds the trampolene and tells him to jump.  He says: "No, God will save me."  A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb.  He says: "God will save me."  Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven.  He asks God why he didn't save him.  God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter.  What more did you want?"