The Climate Change Racket

[DodgyAgent]

Lee Smolin has an interesting take on climate change. Whether it's man-made or not, whether it's happening or not, there are many things that can trigger climate change, which would have a drastic affect on us and the planet. And sooner or later it is going to happen.

We should be using the current political atmosphere to research into how we can control climate - so that should the sun get a bit warmer, or a super-volcano go bang etc. etc., we'll have the technology to deal with it.

What the likes of George Monbiot do not want to know and certainly do not want to write about are precisely the technologies that you mention. He never writes about Lassenite Lassenite - AquaFirst Technologies Inc. nor does he write about Ocean Fertilisation.
Why? Because he would be consigned to writing about some other dogma that would make him seem virtuous .. and there is precious little of that left.

[DodgyAgent]

Tee-Hee. Monbiot predicted that our rivers wouldrun dry and now we have record floods. What an ass. Snigger.

Except of course he didn't. He was writing about the global water supply, and as usual accurately.



Even the headline was probably not his, Monbiot generally publishes articles simultaneously at the Guardian and on his own website, with references. The version on monbiot.com had a different headline:

The Water Boom Is Over | George Monbiot

So Guido was sneering at a headline probably written by a Guardian sub editor. Pathetic, but if that's all you've got ....

He uses the word "appears" and has few certainties to back his claims up. He is another one who makes political and financial profit from jumping on the Climate Change bandwagon. Just as religious zealots do he can twist any negative phenomenon down to human cause. I presume when he went to Canada for his "self" righteous reasons.. did he do any shopping?

[pjclarke]

What the likes of George Monbiot do not want to know and certainly do not want to write about are precisely the technologies that you mention.

Fail.

No Quick Fix | George Monbiot

http://www.monbiot.com/2007/01/30/an...ies-of-denial/

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/09/02/balloon-debate/

[v8gaz]

If you pursuaded a single Aussie to reduce his CO2 output by 180Kg / year and said Aussie lived another 20 years then yes.

See how this works?

Lol! Did you teach my Mrs maths?

If you kill the Aussie today you reduce his carbon output by 100%. Apart from the bit where you burn him.

[DodgyAgent]

Fail.

No Quick Fix | George Monbiot

Another Species of Denial | George Monbiot

Balloon Debate | George Monbiot

And just to prove my point up he pops from 8 years ago (did you know that technology has a habit of "moving on") to rubbish anything that might deter him from his fixation with Oil.
I have made a point that Monbiot has no desire to entertain any thought that technologies might be developed that will counter the effects of the burning of fossil fuels. you have added strength to this argument by showing that he has actually gone to print to show how anti technology he is.

[BlasterBates]

What I love about this debate is that everytime someone pops up to argue about global warming, the global temps have dropped a little bit more, and the snow is generally a bit deeper than it used to be.

[sasguru]

What I love about this debate is that everytime someone pops up to argue about global warming, the global temps have dropped a little bit more, and the snow is generally a bit deeper than it used to be.

And its a dark horse at the final furlong!

[pjclarke]

I have made a point that Monbiot has no desire to entertain any thought that technologies might be developed that will counter the effects of the burning of fossil fuels

No, you incorrectly said that he would never write about such technologies. I pointed out three essays on precisely that topic, his conclusion:

There are five issues affecting all the proposed geo-engineering technologies. Are they effective? Are they cheap? Are they safe? Do they solve the other problem associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions: ocean acidification? Do they introduce moral hazard? (This means the risk that you’ll behave more recklessly if you’re insulated from the effects of your actions).

Broadly speaking, the cheap and effective options are dangerous; the safe options are expensive or useless. This isn’t always the case. Seeding the oceans with iron filings, for example, is probably both useless and dangerous. The intention is to stimulate a bloom of algae which absorbs carbon dioxide then sinks to the ocean bed. Not only is little of the gas removed from surface waters by this method*; but, because the iron mops up oxygen, it stimulates the production of methane, a potent greenhouse gas**. The technique is likely both to damage life in the oceans and cause more global warming than it cures.

So you were wrong about his self-censorship and wrong about his conclusions. You are also wrong about the science, but that one may take a little longer ...

Have a nice evening.

[DodgyAgent]

No, you incorrectly said that he would never write about such technologies. I pointed out three essays on precisely that topic, his conclusion:



So you were wrong about his self-censorship and wrong about his conclusions. You are also wrong about the science, but that one may take a little longer ...

Have a nice evening.

His conclusions may be correct about iron filings but he is neatly using this as conclusive evidence for his incorrect assertions. basically he is making a pre emptive strike against the technology threat that would undermine his position. The two technologies that I have referred to are entirely different.

What is particularly revealing is that he does not accept the positive aspects of iron in the Ocean and then go on to say "if we can harness these and find a way of oxidising the oceans at the same time, and do it cheaply then we may well solve the problem". He of course does no such thing. he is simply taking the negative aspects of the technology and using them to support his position.

He is a self serving envious arrogant little man with no vision of "what should be done". Like all the rest he thrives only on negativity.. we can all do that.

[darmstadt]

He is a self serving envious arrogant little man with no vision of "what should be done". Like all the rest he thrives only on negativity.. we can all do that.

That's what happens when you grow up in a family of middle class Tories :-)

He grew up in Henley-on-Thames in South Oxfordshire, England, in a house next to Peppard Common. Politics was at the heart of family life—his father, Raymond Geoffrey Monbiot, is a businessman who headed the Conservative Party's trade and industry forum, while his mother, Rosalie—the elder daughter of Conservative MP Roger Gresham Cooke was a Conservative councillor who led South Oxford district council for a decade.