The Climate Change Racket

[DodgyAgent]

And you certainly do

That may be so but at least I proffer an alternative

[darmstadt]

I can't be arsed with them. Had a nice pizza yesterday; my favourite with ham and mushrooms!

Jolly nice, my current favorite is one with Sucuk, a Turkish garlic salami

[Mich the Tester]

Jolly nice, my current favorite is one with Sucuk, a Turkish garlic salami

Haven't seen that in NL; I shall ask around.

[pjclarke]

I understand in your case such is the nature of CUK that it is more important not to give way on an argument (which is why they always end up with a slanging match), but you yourself quite blatantly refuse to consider a geo technical solution to what is a problem that has been caused by geo technical activities. which begs the question why?

Mainly because of the scale and nature of the challenge. Modern economies are driven by 'cheap' FF energy (it's only cheap if you treat the costs of mitigating the harmful effects as an externality, which we do). The industry has had several decades, driven by huge profits to establish itself and now emits 31,350,455,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, around 400ppm, so any geo-engineering solution that involves scrubbing it out of the air has to move a lot of air over whatever mechanism is used, so far all such solutions produce more pollution than they remove.

Any other engineering fix, such as generating clouds from sea spray, or manmade aerosols would have to be so large scale to have an impact that there would almost certainly be unforeseen consequences. For example ocean fertilisation (which has been tested) would tend to deplete the oceans downstream of the fertilisation effort.

Compared to the simple act of reducing emissions, or removing the carbon at source, geo-engineering solutions are untried, unlikely and/or very expensive. Prevention is better than cure.

[d000hg]

Jolly nice, my current favorite is one with Sucuk, a Turkish garlic salami

What a great name for a sausage.

[DodgyAgent]

Mainly because of the scale and nature of the challenge. Modern economies are driven by 'cheap' FF energy (it's only cheap if you treat the costs of mitigating the harmful effects as an externality, which we do). The industry has had several decades, driven by huge profits to establish itself and now emits 31,350,455,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, around 400ppm, so any geo-engineering solution that involves scrubbing it out of the air has to move a lot of air over whatever mechanism is used, so far all such solutions produce more pollution than they remove.

Any other engineering fix, such as generating clouds from sea spray, or manmade aerosols would have to be so large scale to have an impact that there would almost certainly be unforeseen consequences. For example ocean fertilisation (which has been tested) would tend to deplete the oceans downstream of the fertilisation effort.

Compared to the simple act of reducing emissions, or removing the carbon at source, geo-engineering solutions are untried, unlikely and/or very expensive. Prevention is better than cure.

You keep those nasty geo technical solutions at bay why don't you. After all why spend money on technology when instead it can be poured into the pockets of Al Gore, helcom, BONUS, Horizon, the global IPCC conference circuit.

Reducing emissions is a simple act! really? If what you mean is by making people usually the poorer members of society pay through the nose for wind turbine power and doing without energy when there is no wind then fine. Do you think data centres can manage on wind turbines?
"prevention is better than cure" is a cliche. The costs of removing fossil fuels as a source of energy would be enormous

The key to your rhetoric is the "huge profits". This is what you people of the left really dont like. What is even more galling is that none of them find their way into your pockets. With the climate change "problem" not only can you stop people making "huge profits" but you can justify getting your hands on the money yourselves and redistributing them to the Guardian, helcom, Bonus and Horizon.

What you really do not want is people running expensive gas guzzling cars, private jets without being able to make them feel guilty about their activities.

You have written off every technology you can (having ignored the lassenite - which I presume you are desperatly searching google for negative propoganda) despite the fact you know virtually nothing about the science other than what you can find on Google - how much experimentation for example has there been with ocean fertilisation? Why exactly has it failed?

The whole way you write and "lean" is - just like George monbiot- is to bury any notion of there being a technical solution.
As I said before we have used geo technologies to create the problem so there is no reason why we cannot do the reverse.

[Old Greg]

Mainly because of the scale and nature of the challenge. Modern economies are driven by 'cheap' FF energy (it's only cheap if you treat the costs of mitigating the harmful effects as an externality, which we do). The industry has had several decades, driven by huge profits to establish itself and now emits 31,350,455,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, around 400ppm, so any geo-engineering solution that involves scrubbing it out of the air has to move a lot of air over whatever mechanism is used, so far all such solutions produce more pollution than they remove.

Any other engineering fix, such as generating clouds from sea spray, or manmade aerosols would have to be so large scale to have an impact that there would almost certainly be unforeseen consequences. For example ocean fertilisation (which has been tested) would tend to deplete the oceans downstream of the fertilisation effort.

Compared to the simple act of reducing emissions, or removing the carbon at source, geo-engineering solutions are untried, unlikely and/or very expensive. Prevention is better than cure.

We have discussed this before but...

You have to weigh up the likelihood of one or mote geo-engineering solution succeeding against the likelihood of humans not using every bit of fossil fuel they can. It is futile to say that the latter would be the easiest solution technically, when it is just not going to happen. And if you accept this, then you have the near certainty of disaster or the possibility of success via geo-engineering.

[DodgyAgent]

We have discussed this before but...

You have to weigh up the likelihood of one or mote geo-engineering solution succeeding against the likelihood of humans not using every bit of fossil fuel they can. It is futile to say that the latter would be the easiest solution technically, when it is just not going to happen. And if you accept this, then you have the near certainty of disaster or the possibility of success via geo-engineering.

The Japanese have got the message:


At last, a Plan B to stop global warming | Watts Up With That?

Yet, Japan has simply given up on the approach to climate policy that has failed for the past twenty years, promising carbon cuts that don’t materialise – or only do so at trivial levels with very high costs for taxpayers, industries and consumers. Instead, al…most everyone seems to have ignored that Japan has promised to spend $110 billion over five years – from private and public sources – on innovation in environmental and energy technologies. Japan could – incredible as it may sound – actually end up showing the world how to tackle global warming effectively.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Anti-greens, Anti-scientists and inactivists hate him because his work is always comprehensively referenced, detailed, he corrects his mistakes when he gets it wrong and he's usually right.

He's clueless more often than not. Randon BS from first article I got googling him:

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy.

What anyone with a clue would have said is :

In the name of fascism - where the interests of the state merge with the interest of corporations - the banks were permitted to extort the general public who are forced - with threats of violence - to participate in their global Ponzi scheme.

The guy is an intellectually stunted socialist scumbag moron.

When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts . . . Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend.

-- George Carlin. R.I.P

[Bunk]

I can't be arsed with them. Had a nice pizza yesterday; my favourite with ham and mushrooms!

I had a haggis and leek pizza last week. It was nom