On 12/27/2011 1:20 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/26/2011 9:42 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
"What law of physics do they [ Dyson spheres] violate?"
Professor Dyson certainly didn't think his spheres were unstable and
he was pretty smart, exactly where do you think he went wrong?
"We have the technology right now to build Thorium fission
reactors that could give us far more energy than oil ever could."
"But do we have the will?"
Not if environmentalists have their way, there solution is we all
freeze in the dark.
I'm an environmentalist and my solution is (a) efficiency (b) liquid
thorium reactors (c) renewable energy and (d) lower population. Do
you see any non-environmentalist doing anything except mining coal and
digging tar sand?
Why is your thinking splitting the world into those two camps? I ,
for one, agree with John and think that our government should be funding
full bore research into thorium reactors and other viable technologies,
but instead is funding provably failed wind and solar tech. A reasonable
society would not do such things. It should be interested in facts, all
facts, not just some small subset of them that only benefits a select
"But there's good reason to think that 3degC hotter would be a
very bad thing"
There would certainly be big changes, but overall would it be a bad
thing? I'm not so sure, far more people freeze to death than die of
heat stroke, and anyway it will be a very long time before we see a
massive 3 degree C increase.
Sure, 1degC would probably be a net improvement. The problem is that
we're on a course for 3degC or more and accelerating.
And what exactly is the evidence for this claim? There are far to
many counter-factuals to it. Plug the facts into a Bayes' equation and
see what you get.
"and I don't think a Venusian runaway can be ruled out".
I think it can be ruled out. During the late Ordovician period, 450
million years ago, there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere,
about 4400 ppm verses 380 today, and yet the world was in the grip of
a severe ice age. During the last 600 million years the atmosphere
has almost always had far more CO2 than now, abut 3000 ppm on
average. The only exception was a period that lasted from 315 million
years ago to 270 where there was about the same amount of CO2 as we
have now. The temperature was about the same then as it is now too.
During the late Ordovician that I mentioned it was much colder, but
other than a few very brief ice ages during the last few million
years the temperature has always been warmer than now and
occasionally MUCH warmer; at least that's the way things have been
during the last 600 million years.
Jim Hanson points out there is uncertainty on the order of 1000ppm
regarding the ancient atmosphere. This, combined with other positive
feedback factors like methane from bogs and hydrates doesn't allow
much confidence in ruling out a runaway.
Jim <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen> is making way to much
money and fame from his doom-mongering to be considered to be objective.
He is therefore not a reliable source. You should do your own analysis
of the data <http://members.wolfram.com/jeffb/Fossils/drift.shtml>.
Consider also who exactly is trying to profit from the cap-and -trade
It's not surprising that environmentalists make exaggerated claims,
it's the way they stay employed. and without scare tactics many
environmental groups would be out of business.
And it's not surprising that nobody who's comfortable wants to take
seriously a problem that might upset their world.
Do you have any children what would be impacted by such a
situation? I do, and so am motivated to know the facts.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at