I have little, issue, with Lazer's Green point of view. But, like you have stated, John, one must address certain political and tech issues to work for a fix. The proggies don't wish to address this for reasons that appear, to me, malicious.
We'd need to be able to replace dirty energy with clean and make sure access to clean water, air, and transportation, is guaranteed. and get China, India, and Indonesia to cease there polluting. And, if their imminent ocean rise is now occurring, we'd naturally think of damming coast lines. If one wants to protect flora and fauna, the best way seems to be a rise in the standard of living. This is not what is being sought, apparently. -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 10:52 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the world for >>>> many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people >>> What "policies" are you talking about that would have these supposed >>> effects? >> Shut down all nuclear reactors immediately. Stop using coal. Stop all dam construction and dismantle the ones already built. Stop all oil and gas fracking. Stop using geothermal energy. Drastically reduce oil production and place a huge tax on what little that is produced. Don't Build wind farms in places where they look ugly, reduce wind currents, kill birds or cause noise. Don't use insecticides. Don't use Genetically Modified Organisms. Don't use herbicides. Do exactly what the European Greens say. > So, like a creationist You need a new insult, you've used that one before. > you're unwilling to accurately depict the beliefs of those you disagree with, > and instead you attack a boogeyman that has sprung mostly out of your own fevered imagination. There may be some radical environmentalists who believe these things, but [...] >From there official websites: "The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclearreactors utilizing the fission process" "The Sierra Club opposes all coalbed methane extraction" "The Sierra Club advocates the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and the draining of Lake Powell. The Club also supports removal, breaching or decommissioning of many other dams, including four large but high-cost dams on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington." "The Sierra Club opposes a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland Oregon's drinking water." "The Sierra Club has been very active in its opposition to the proposed LNG export facility in Warrenton, Oregon" "Greenpeace wholeheartedly opposes the coal industry" "Greenpeace opposes the release of genetically engineered crops and animals into the environment" And of the 11 imbecilic proposals I list above which ones would the European Green Party oppose? >> There is consensus in the scientific community that things are slightly >> warmer now than they were a century ago, but there is most certainly NOT a >> consensus about how much hotter it will be a century from now, much less >> what to do about it or even if it's a bad thing. > The study I linked to wasn't just about the fact that warming has occurred, > it was specifically on the question of whether the recent warming is > PRIMARILY CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES, Given that there are 7 billion large mammals of the same species on the planet who not only want to continue to live but to live well it would be surprising indeed if human activities did not have a strong effect on the environment. And this is not a novel development, Great Britain was once heavily forested and the romantic heaths and moors we see today were primarily caused by human activities back when Stonehenge was new. > The sun was a few percent weaker then, but that didn't stop the Earth from > being 18 degrees hotter during the Carboniferous than now, > With much higher CO2 levels, of course. Do you have an alternate explanation > other than the greenhouse effect for *why* it was 18 degrees hotter back > then, if the Sun was weaker? There are many things I can't explain, like why the Ordovician with lots of CO2 was so cold and the Carboniferous with less CO2 was so hot. I would be surprised if the greenhouse effect did not play a part but exactly how and which greenhouse gas was most important I don't know. However I do know that no explanation is better than a bad explanation. >>> What difference would 4-5% less incoming solar energy make? >> I could be wrong but I would guess about 4 or 5 percent. > Why would the effects be linear? I guess you have no sense of humor. >>> Global climate models, calibrated to today's conditions predict that [blah >>> blah] >> Well that sounds nice and glib but exactly how in the world do you >> "calibrate" something as astoundingly complex as the global weather machine? > I'm pretty sure when they say the models can be "calibrated" to conditions of > today vs. the Ordivician, Being sure is easy, being correct is not. > they mean that the dynamical rules of the simulation can be kept the same > while changing boundary conditions I know what "calibrate" means and we're decades if not centuries away from knowing enough to make such a thing between the Ordovician and today. Making the weather translation from the atmospheric chemistry, continent position and solar energy input during the Ordovician to that of today is about as far from trivial as anything I can think of. However the one thing it can teach us right away is humility, climate is complicated. > that are thought to differ between eras in ways that are roughly known, like > solar input Why would the effects be linear or simple? > and the different prehistoric arrangement of continents. Why would the effects be linear or simple? >> Are really you so confident they did it correctly that you are quite >> literally willing to stake your life on it? You'd better be because that's >> what you're asking us to do. > Are you really so confident that evolutionists do the science correctly that > you are willing to stake your eternal soul on it?" Yes. I answered your question so now answer mine. > And as I said, I don't take anything scientists say as gospel truth, I just > take it as a *default* that they most likely know what they're talking about > when discussing issues in their field, Scientists agree that things have gotten warmer, they don't agree on how hot things will get in the future or if the changes in the climate will overall be a good thing or a bad thing. And if it's a bad thing the only cures to the problem that are not worse, far worse, than the disease is instantly shouted down by virtually every environmentalist organization, and yet they still claim to be on the side of the angels. > If you're familiar with Bayesian reasoning, I could say that ... You could say that because in the last 250 million years the climate has almost always been warmer than now it will probably be warmer sometime in the future too. Live with it or find a solution that doesn't cause disaster because 7 billion people can't be kept alive, much less happy, with moonbeams and 19th century technology. 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.
