Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

On Jun 26, 8:14*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP
wrote:

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late.

If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.

Yes, but proof convincing to the majority of the electorate *will*
come too late. That has nothing to do with _my_ understanding of the
science.

And I can't blame people for insisting on ironclad proof before
they'll accept going back to the Stone Age, with minor relief from
windmills and solar power. On the other hand, jobs and energy
independence from a massive expansion of nuclear power would go down
so well, that there would be no particular impulse to question global
warming as a part of the rationale for that... except for the small
anti-nuclear fringe.

John Savard

On Jun 26, 11:30*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P
wrote:
(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)

That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that
corporations are more important than people.

Given the kind of action that needs to be taken, if one doesn't see
nuclear power as an option, you just have to belong to the working
class to see major downsides in taking action that will severely
impact the economy.

Notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary from Pierre Elliot
Trudeau, jobs and money *do* matter very much to a lot of real human
beings.

John Savard

On Jun 27, 10:09*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

There has been no economic empire (yet) which has not destroyed itself
through blind overexploitation, overindulgence and becoming completely
riddled with corruption from top to bottom.

I think that the United States of America is still one of the good
guys and it is wicked and invidious to compare them to exploitative
ancient empires like the Roman Empire, or ancient Babylon, or the
Toltecs, the Egyptians, or the Maya.

Some believe there may yet be... oh, sorry... the Cylons aren't
coming, nor are Atlantis and Lemuria additional examples to cite.

But it is indeed true that civilization have had a bad record. The
cause, though, is not hard to see. There is only so much arable land
on the planet. Agriculture doesn't improve in efficiency at Moore's
Law speeds even with the help of a Norman Borlaug now and then.

If people didn't have quite so many children, things would be
different, but the natural fate of a population - of any living
creature - is to expand until it reaches the limits of available
resources. A new species which reproduced less copiously would die out
before becoming established.

So every society reaches the point at which it has to start stealing
from its neighbors to feed all its kids. Margaret Sanger found half
the solution - the other half is a world order that doesn't let people
get away with it. But I think we would be in strong disagreement about
what such a world order would look like, and how to achieve it.

John Savard

On Jun 26, 11:08*pm, bjacoby wrote:

I trust everyone here is smart enough to recognize that the above is a
POLITICAL statement and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

No it's a true statement of fact, and it is the attempt to evade it
that's being driven by politics.

John Savard

On Jun 27, 2:34*pm, Mark Storkamp wrote:
If your definition of
climate scientist excludes all those with differing views,

Well, it may do so for contingent reasons.

Presumably, if one believes that the field of climate science is still
healthy, and those whose papers don't get published are victims of
their own incompetence, not some vast conspiracy... either one is
believing something reasonable, or, if one is in error... the error is
understandable.

John Savard

On 7/15/2012 3:54 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:39 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?

Because we actually believe that if the Soviets had launched their
missiles at us with hydrogen warheads, we would get killed. After all,
it was proven at Bikini Atoll that hydrogen bombs do work.

When it comes to global warming, though, the uncomfortable reality is
easy to deny. When it seems like the only other choice would be to
reduce our energy use to an extent that would have catastrophic
economic consequences, one has to be sure in order to accept so
painful a remedy - and to most people, that kind of certainty won't
come until it's too late.

My answer is nuclear power: the remedy that is not painful but which
instead gives us more energy to enjoy instead.

John Savard




You came to the right conclusion.

Shame all those people warning of us global warming are NOT interested
in nuclear power

WHY ?

On Jun 28, 1:11*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and
prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the
public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our
generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence.

And the deniers' solution is for the few who are aware of the problem,
like Al Gore, to stop being "hypocrites", and live in a cave growing
their own food, so that the rest of us will no longer hear what they
have to say.

But the public reaction, although it is influenced a _little_ by the
shills hired by the oil companies, hasn't really been molded by them.
Instead, the green movement is its own worst enemy, because their
solution is a world of bicycles and windmills. It's obvious even to
the average Joe that if we give up our current level of energy
consumption to that kind of extent, about half of us will have to stop
eating.

Which is worse than anything that global warming will throw at us for
a while yet.

Nuclear power is the only thing that could save us that has any hope
of happening in the real world. As long as the bulk of those speaking
out about global warming are greens to whom nuclear power is evil and
toxic, though, the only real alternative will not be presented to the
public in the mass media.

John Savard

On Jun 28, 5:56*am, "Bob C." wrote:
It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the
dozens of electric car models now available...

Not necessarily, as long as the electricity is made from burning coal
or natural gas.

Either we all move to places that get their electricity from
hydroelectric dams... or we start building nuclear power plants.

John Savard

On Jul 2, 8:25*pm, wrote:

If all of the dry land were to be equally divided among everyone, each
person would have only a few acres! * Boasting about running one's car
with only solar energy is almost as arrogant as claiming that one has
a "small carbon footprint" if they use only firewood to heat their
home.

Yes, indeed.

John Savard

On Jun 30, 12:43*pm, bjacoby wrote:

Bottom line is that solar panels are great for running a radio or
thermometer or garden light out in the middle of nowhere. As a real
solution to replacing fossil fuels, it's all just made up stories.

Yes, indeed. Unless, of course, the idea is to largely do without
fossil fuels... to such an extent that the occasional radio is the
only thing we'll need electricity for. We'll use *horses* to ship food
to the more human-sized urban areas in which people will live in the
reformed, green society.

It worked in the 19th century, so why can't it work now? At least
after we've had a one-child policy for a few generations...

John Savard