On 12/27/2011 2:58 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/26/2011 11:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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 <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    "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?

John's the one who split off environmentalist and slandered them.

    It is not slander if it is true.

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.

What's "failed" about them. Read Donald McKay's withouthotair.org. It's free online.

    OK. I start with a quote from that website:
"I recently read two books, one by a physicist, and one by an economist.
In /Out of Gas/, Caltech physicist David Goodstein describes an impending
energy crisis brought on by The End of the Age of Oil. This crisis is coming
soon, he predicts: the crisis will bite, not when the last drop of oil is
extracted, but when oil extraction can't meet demand -- perhaps as soon
as 2015 or 2025. Moreover, even if we magically switched all our energy-
guzzling to nuclear power right away, Goodstein says, the oil crisis would
simply be replaced by a /nuclear/ crisis in just twenty years or so, as uranium
reserves also became depleted."

This is false on its face. Consider the current known energy reserve numbers:

This is considering only the known energy reserves given current technology. Is the possibility of future discoveries considered at all?

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 few <http://www.solarcompanies.com/>.

    "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.

Why don't you show me how?

    I need to reason for you? Really?

    "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.

A cheap argument from someone who thinks they should do their own analysis.

    Nice ad hominem! DO you have a better rebuttal?

You should do your own analysis of the data <http://members.wolfram.com/jeffb/Fossils/drift.shtml>.

Is that your idea of data??  Try

Vol 440|20 April 2006|doi:10.1038/nature04679
Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature
reconstructions over the past seven centuries
Gabriele C. Hegerl1, Thomas J. Crowley1, William T. Hyde1 & David J. Frame

"reconstructions" nice, based on explicitly biased models. You should consider that any attempt to publish papers in Nature that show evidence against the climate change dogma are problematic at best. evidence: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467133a.html Nice peer review... LOL!


Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
Science 308, 675 (2005);
J. Oerlemans, et al.

I don't do my own projections because I don't have a good climate+economics model on this computer. Maybe you could show us your analysis.

It is obvious that you are not interested in thinking for yourself.

Consider also who exactly is trying to profit from the cap-and -trade <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap-and-trade> policies.

Consider who is profiting from coal mining, the development of tar sands, and mideast oil. Why is it technophiles are so quick to make political arguments based on innuendo? You'd think they would just argue about models and data and atmospheric physics.

"Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion." http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html

"Managing emissions is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London> with a market estimated to be worth about EUR30 billion in 2007. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Capital> predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Really! These are not my words...

But as you seem to like, throw out the profit motive, what is left?

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.

I have children and grandchildren and I've twice debated the subject in public.


/golfclap I have yet to see an attempt at original thought expressed in your writings. I am wasting my time responding to you as I am not learning anything from it other than how not to feed trolls and tools.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to