On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> in the past, when the earth was much warmer, sea level was several meters
> higher.

The sea was hundreds of meters higher in the past and will be so again
someday, but at a rate of one inch a decade we'll have plenty of time to

> As you must know, melting ice

Which occurs at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

> is a first-order phase transition.  Heat is absorbed the phase change
> with no increase in temperature.

Yes, and that means more energy would be required to melt all that ice than
would otherwise be the case.

> Myrhvold himself says it will be a serious problem within 40yrs even if
> we cut CO2 emissions by 6% a year - and there's no reason to suppose we
> will cut them at all.  He considers the problem "a serious pickle", which
> is why he proposes injecting particles into the stratosphere, like an
> artificial volcano, as a transitional remedy.  No doubt some
> environmentalist have criticized this as a risky geoengineering solution
> with hard to forsee side effects.

And no doubt you are correct, environmentalist claim we face a existential
threat from global warming, but whenever anybody proposes a solution their
response is always exactly the same, no no no.

>  >> Environmentalists claim to occupy the moral high ground but because
> of a superstitious fear of all genetic engineering they oppose Golden Rice
> even to the point of criminal sabotage which could prevent 670,000 children
> a year from dying of vitamin A deficiency and 350,000 go permanently blind.
> Environmentalists blab on and on about the evils of chemical pesticides but
> when science develops plants that need much less of them they do everything
> they can to stop it. Instead environmentalists insist that 7 billion people
> can be kept alive and in comfort with moonbeams and hummingbirds and
> windmills powering blast furnaces.
>  > A straw man mockery of environmentalists.

Straw man my ass, environmentalists never met a energy source they didn't
hate. Wind farms are ugly, disrupt wind patterns are noisy and kill
birdies. Geothermal smells bad and causes earthquakes. Hydroelectric floods
the land and new dams may also cause earthquakes. Bio-fuel diverts needed
food production to fuel. Solar energy is so dilute that vast tracks of land
are needed and that will endanger a desert lizard you never heard of. And
of course there is the "N" word, the energy source so hated that tree
huggers dare not speak its name. I however sometimes take the heretical
view that the environmentalist's preferred solution to this problem,
freezing to death in the dark, may not be ideal.

> > I have a friend who has been president of the local Sierra Club for many
> years and he's all for nuclear power plants,

>From the Sierra Club official website:

"The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy."

For more crap see:


> especially LFTRs, to replace fossil fuel.

Good, I'm a big fan of LFTRs, too bad all members of the Sierra Club aren't
as enlightened.

> > He has no problem with genetic engineering

 From the Sierra Club official website:

" Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE)
foods have the potential to cause a variety of health problems."

For more crap see:


  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/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to