On Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:33:55 PM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:19 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: Climate models > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, LizR <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > > Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if > continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives > > > > You're assuming that the safe and conservative thing to do is to > immediately and radically cut the amount of carbon injected into the > atmosphere, but it's entirely possible and I would even say probable that > would be the dangerous and radical thing to do. Coal is much vilified and I > don't like the pollution it causes anymore than you do, but the world is > not simple and the fact remains that without coal half a billion people in > China would not have been lifted out of grinding poverty since 2000; one of > the most encouraging developments in this century. Cut out that energy > source and they and many many more would slip back into poverty and we > would have to face all the social turmoil (like war) that would entail. The > fact remains that there is simply no way to keep 7 billion large mammals of > the same species alive, much less happy, on this planet without using lots > of energy; and the environmentalists ludicrous solution of windmills and > moonbeams just doesn't cut the mustard. > > A prescription of full speed ahead, burn it all up, as fast as we possibly > can is a 100% guarantee of complete disastrous sudden onset collapse – as > the entire world hits the resource depletion wall all at once at peak > consumption rates -- in which many billions of people will certainly die > horrible deaths. What you are advocating will result in the mass death of > billions of humans and the certain extinction of a huge number of species > – for an extra ten or fifteen years of continuing to burn fossil energy as > rapidly as the world can extract it. > > It seems fairly obvious to me, that you are ill equipped to mentally deal > with the impending collapse in recoverable supplies – across all forms of > carbon energy being drilled for or mined – and so you live in a pretend > world of make believe eternally available reserves of fossil energy. It > must be comforting to live in this make believe world of cornucopian > availability of fossil energy; but it is a fictional world model that > exists in your brain for sure – and in the brains of all the cornucopian > fools who like you participate in this delusional wishful thinking idea > that the world is not in fact running out of marginally recoverable fossil > energy reserves. > > Fortunately wiser people than yourself are advocating that we begin to > transition away from these fossil supplies while we still have a marginally > recoverable supply of fossil energy to use as cushions during the > transition period so that we can have in place other energy production > systems -- based on harvesting the solar flux directly or indirectly – > available and already in place for when these fossil energy reserves enter > into inexorable decline – as in fact they are or will soon be. > > Those, who continue to delude themselves, with this absurd notion that > fossil energy will always be available (or at least will be available for a > very long period of time – more than a hundred years say) are deluded fools > and the useful tools of the fossil energy billionaires, who are driven by > narrow economic self-interest to defend the future value of their carbon > reserves (consequences be damned) > > Yes, I am calling the “brilliant” John Clark… a (pompous) fool… a > self-deluded idiot, living in a mind infected by magical thinking. In the > real world fossil energy reserves have either already peaked or will soon > be peaking – and this includes recoverable coal as well as recoverable oil > & gas. > > Yours truly, > > Chris de Morsella > > > > > and those of our children and their children on that assumption. > > > > Let our grandchildren fight their own wars! In the USA during the Vietnam > war the constant mantra was we must fight now so our grandchildren don't > have to. Well the USA lost that war, but would it have been any better off > today if it had won? I don't see how. > > > > I feel that my children's children's happiness is no more important than > my own; and I know that my children's children will have very powerful new > tools to deal with problems that I do not have. > > > If we try to keep CO2 levels down to somewhere around where they have > been between, say, 1960 and 1999 > > > > Any reduction in CO2 emission levels made today would take decades to show > up as less CO2 in the atmosphere, and longer than that to show up as cooler > temperatures if it ever did. > > > > then we at least know roughly what to expect > > > > If you believe the climate models, and I don't see why you would, and if > we obeyed the multitrillion dollar Kyoto Protocol, which seems to be what > you're suggesting, then what you'd expect is a 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius > reduction in temperature in the year 2100 over what it would have been > without the protocol. So I say let our grandchildren find a better solution > when they have access to a much much better toolkit and when they may > actually know what is important and what is not. > > John K Claras.ae > after dispossession John, cooperating in new ways o shit tdown their little throats won't hardly be felt at all. They'll be comfortably numb mate...so do it all you like....they'll already be used to it.
-- 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.
