Understood. It's not for fixing a bad problem, but for taking more power by saying there's a bad problem. There probably is, but the behavior of world leaders is not a response that I would expect, if they really though Florida was going to disappear in 2 years. There is no cause and effect with the leaders behaviors, spending, et al. It is consistent with a power grab using happy climatologists (who get provided permanent employment and power. I am willing to do whatever is reasonable if we face a on-coming problem, but not when the leaders behaviors raise my suspicion.
Exactly. I wouldn't advise stop emitting greenhouse gasses and impoverishing the world right now to fix something that may not even be broken and even if it is won't cause big problems for a century or so. Right now I don't even think it's time to implement Nathan Myhrvold's astronomically cheaper solution to global warming. However in the future if there are not just climate model predictions of lots and lots of warming but we are already experiencing it, and this warming turns out to be a bad thing, then it might be time to try something like Myhrvold's solution because if it doesn't work as planned we can just shut off a valve. What I hate is the hypocrisy of environmentalists, they claim to occupy the moral high ground but they are willing, even gleeful, to let billions of people starve to death for their sinful (environmentally insensitive) lifestyle. And then they say we shouldn't try to stop the carnage with something like Myhrvold's idea because that would be too dangerous and it's blasphemous to even mention it. John K Clark -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 11:48 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:41 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > If only we all thought like you, the world would be fixed, eh? Concerning that I think I'll just quote Gore Vidal: "there is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise". > Or, if the climate change doesn't fit all the models, that have been proposed > by the IPCC, then all we have to do is wait? Exactly. I wouldn't advise stop emitting greenhouse gasses and impoverishing the world right now to fix something that may not even be broken and even if it is won't cause big problems for a century or so. Right now I don't even think it's time to implement Nathan Myhrvold's astronomically cheaper solution to global warming. However in the future if there are not just climate model predictions of lots and lots of warming but we are already experiencing it, and this warming turns out to be a bad thing, then it might be time to try something like Myhrvold's solution because if it doesn't work as planned we can just shut off a valve. What I hate is the hypocrisy of environmentalists, they claim to occupy the moral high ground but they are willing, even gleeful, to let billions of people starve to death for their sinful (environmentally insensitive) lifestyle. And then they say we shouldn't try to stop the carnage with something like Myhrvold's idea because that would be too dangerous and it's blasphemous to even mention it. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
