Risk of blackouts at highest for six years

[pjclarke]

cheap micronutrient product exists that if poured into the oceans and waters of the planet will through stimulating photosynthesis remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to more than neutralise the effects of man made Co2.

If that were the case the owner of the patents would be a billionaire and the inventor probably a Nobel laureate.

But it is not the case, is it?

[pjclarke]

Ah, the old 'environmentalists want to take us back to the Stone Age' myth.

News for you: people have worked out the sustainable per-person carbon footprint, assuming some feasible technological changes, and it is perfectly possible to take a long-haul flight a year within that budget. Google 'Contraction and Convergence'. Let me google that for you

What is lacking is the political appetite to make the changes the science tells us are required. I wonder why?

[amcdonald]

What is lacking is the political appetite to make the changes the science tells us are required. I wonder why?

Because it all revolves around politicians thinking can I introduce a new tax, anything else is irrelevent

[EternalOptimist]

Ah, the old 'environmentalists want to take us back to the Stone Age' myth.

News for you: people have worked out the sustainable per-person carbon footprint, assuming some feasible technological changes, and it is perfectly possible to take a long-haul flight a year within that budget. Google 'Contraction and Convergence'. Let me google that for you

What is lacking is the political appetite to make the changes the science tells us are required. I wonder why?

science does NOT tell us what is required. Science attempts to explain how the natural world works, whilst admitting , humbly, that it often gets it wrong.

Politicians tell us what is required, whilst never admitting, arrogantly, that they often get it wrong

[DodgyAgent]

If that were the case the owner of the patents would be a billionaire and the inventor probably a Nobel laureate.

But it is not the case, is it?

No it is not. And do you why?

It is because there is a huge industry that exists on the back of climate change. Many people are employed including scientists who earn their living by virtue of the existence of climate change whether they be working in the institutions that are supposed to protect our waterways and oceans or whether they are developing alternative energy supplies. Every government has these people working for them most of who have a vested interest in the problem existing.

These people exist first by going to conferences and telling the rest of the world how serious the problem is. They are then given more money to show that not only is the problem bad it is even worse than was originally thought. The are courted by governments everywhere. The only solution they ever have is to offer is to "educate people" on the seriousness of climate change for which they get paid more and more money, or build more wind "fu**ing turbines in which they have shares of the companies building them.. They even have stooges like you fanatically supporting their agendas on silly little forums like this.

Strip away the problem and you strip away the livelihoods of many of the most influential scientists in the world.

Because there is no commercial gain to removing the "so called" problems of climate change the whole concept is politically manipulated to serve vested interests. Take you for example upon the mention of such a solution existing your first reaction is to first ignore it and then sneer at it as opposed to ask questions and investigate it.

If the problems of excess CO2 in the atmosphere went away so too would you and your ilk be forced to disappear - and that is why technologies are so slow in being adopted.

[bless 'em all]

assuming

I'm assuming "Climate Change" is a natural cycle of the warming and cooling of the planet and it has been identified and subsequently high-jacked by "eco-warriors" who want us all to look up at them as the saviours of our planet.

Personally, I reckon I will be ok. So will my children and probably Grandchildren. After that they'll just have to take their chances.

There is no status-quo of climate to maintain. The sooner science recognises that the better.

Measuring change over 40 years and extrapolating from that is utter nonsense.

[scooterscot]

Of course he is wrong.
He's going skiing this weekend. What tiny part of that trip would be possible in the world he is wishing on the rest of us ?

There you go again, off on a tangent assuming our needs will remain without change. Materials will be sought off-planet by the time iron runs out even that 'as strong as steel' shall likely be replaced by graphine.

Trips like skiing is made available to anyone who wants to live here.

[pjclarke]

your first reaction is to first ignore it and then sneer at it as opposed to ask questions and investigate it.

Q1. What is this amazing micro-nutirent?

Q2. What trials have been performed?

Q3. Is it scalable to a global solution?

Q4. What are the unintended consequences.

Ocean fertilisation has been trialled. Seeding the oceans with iron to create artificial algae blooms that sequester carbon by sinking it to the ocean bottom as the organisms die. See for example Boyd et al 2004 http://aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_50/issue_6/1872.pdf (and if you think such research is starved of funds, check out the number of co-authors). Basically, it doesn't work, the increased algae get consumed by other organisms attracted by the new food source, so the carbon sequestered is less than the carbon released in mining and transporting the iron. Also waters downstream of the bloom get depleted of nutrients and deoxygenated, which is likely to p*ss off the people trying to fish in those waters and as things stand breaks various international treaties.

At least that is my understanding, but you seem to know better ....

[EternalOptimist]

Ah, the old 'environmentalists want to take us back to the Stone Age' myth.

News for you: people have worked out the sustainable per-person carbon footprint, assuming some feasible technological changes, and it is perfectly possible to take a long-haul flight a year within that budget. Google 'Contraction and Convergence'. Let me google that for you

What is lacking is the political appetite to make the changes the science tells us are required. I wonder why?

so your answer is that although the temperatures have not risen for 20 years, sea levels rises have not accelerated, although the ice has rebounded dramatically and every single prediction of catastrophe has failed to materialise, although the IPCC have confirmed that there is no link between CO2 and extreme weather, you still want us to adopt your fanatical green agenda ?

well my answer is No

[pjclarke]

No, EO, that is, of course, a parody of my position, full of untruths and half-truths.

Here, for example, is the Hadley Centre's view of the last 20 years of global temperatures ...

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs