From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:19 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if
continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives
You're assuming that the safe and conservative thing to do is to immediately
and radically cut the amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere, but
it's entirely possible and I would even say probable that would be the
dangerous and radical thing to do. Coal is much vilified and I don't like
the pollution it causes anymore than you do, but the world is not simple and
the fact remains that without coal half a billion people in China would not
have been lifted out of grinding poverty since 2000; one of the most
encouraging developments in this century. Cut out that energy source and
they and many many more would slip back into poverty and we would have to
face all the social turmoil (like war) that would entail. The fact remains
that there is simply no way to keep 7 billion large mammals of the same
species alive, much less happy, on this planet without using lots of energy;
and the environmentalists ludicrous solution of windmills and moonbeams just
doesn't cut the mustard.
A prescription of full speed ahead, burn it all up, as fast as we possibly
can is a 100% guarantee of complete disastrous sudden onset collapse - as
the entire world hits the resource depletion wall all at once at peak
consumption rates -- in which many billions of people will certainly die
horrible deaths. What you are advocating will result in the mass death of
billions of humans and the certain extinction of a huge number of species -
for an extra ten or fifteen years of continuing to burn fossil energy as
rapidly as the world can extract it.
It seems fairly obvious to me, that you are ill equipped to mentally deal
with the impending collapse in recoverable supplies - across all forms of
carbon energy being drilled for or mined - and so you live in a pretend
world of make believe eternally available reserves of fossil energy. It must
be comforting to live in this make believe world of cornucopian availability
of fossil energy; but it is a fictional world model that exists in your
brain for sure - and in the brains of all the cornucopian fools who like you
participate in this delusional wishful thinking idea that the world is not
in fact running out of marginally recoverable fossil energy reserves.
Fortunately wiser people than yourself are advocating that we begin to
transition away from these fossil supplies while we still have a marginally
recoverable supply of fossil energy to use as cushions during the transition
period so that we can have in place other energy production systems -- based
on harvesting the solar flux directly or indirectly - available and already
in place for when these fossil energy reserves enter into inexorable decline
- as in fact they are or will soon be.
Those, who continue to delude themselves, with this absurd notion that
fossil energy will always be available (or at least will be available for a
very long period of time - more than a hundred years say) are deluded fools
and the useful tools of the fossil energy billionaires, who are driven by
narrow economic self-interest to defend the future value of their carbon
reserves (consequences be damned)
Yes, I am calling the "brilliant" John Clark. a (pompous) fool. a
self-deluded idiot, living in a mind infected by magical thinking. In the
real world fossil energy reserves have either already peaked or will soon be
peaking - and this includes recoverable coal as well as recoverable oil &
gas.
Yours truly,
Chris de Morsella
> and those of our children and their children on that assumption.
Let our grandchildren fight their own wars! In the USA during the Vietnam
war the constant mantra was we must fight now so our grandchildren don't
have to. Well the USA lost that war, but would it have been any better off
today if it had won? I don't see how.
I feel that my children's children's happiness is no more important than my
own; and I know that my children's children will have very powerful new
tools to deal with problems that I do not have.
> If we try to keep CO2 levels down to somewhere around where they have been
between, say, 1960 and 1999
Any reduction in CO2 emission levels made today would take decades to show
up as less CO2 in the atmosphere, and longer than that to show up as cooler
temperatures if it ever did.
> then we at least know roughly what to expect
If you believe the climate models, and I don't see why you would, and if we
obeyed the multitrillion dollar Kyoto Protocol, which seems to be what
you're suggesting, then what you'd expect is a 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius
reduction in temperature in the year 2100 over what it would have been
without the protocol. So I say let our grandchildren find a better solution
when they have access to a much much better toolkit and when they may
actually know what is important and what is not.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
