contrails

Tom Gardner wrote:


Sounds pretty drastic to me!
But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

True. So what.


My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. Do we know
that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of
the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? For all we know, our supposed
man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies
or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows?

On Jan 9, 11:24*pm, Scott wrote:
My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself

What on earth does that mean, exactly. Sounds like you
are some for of a new-age Gaia devotee.

as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. *

Perhaps you would like earth to "clense itself" of all this
nasty oxygen, and go back to the earth's original pristine
reducing atmosphere.

Do we know
that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of
the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? *For all we know, our supposed
man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies
or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows?

Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Tom Gardner wrote:


Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Not meant to be. Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? Didn't think so. You don't know, I don't know.
All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? Do you want
electricity? How will it get generated?

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just know human nature...once we
have something (luxuries, etc. like easy travel, electricity) nobody
wants to give it up.

So, give me a list of what you will do to reduce your carbon
contributions...maybe it will give me some ideas.

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable
and regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate
because it is a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t.
energy futures.

On Jan 10, 12:32*am, Scott wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Not meant to be. *Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? *

Your argument is silly and unhelpful.

Can you prove the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning?
Can you prove that 1+1=2?

No, you can't.

In this life on this planet (as opposed to any other life on any
other planet) we have to make best guesses to the future,
and bet our health and lives on those guesses.

All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
* Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? *

Carbon credits are, IMNSHO, a scam in multiple dimensions:
- they are a fig leaf to allow us to continue unchanged
- simple criminal fraud, as is beginning to become apparent

Do you want
electricity? *How will it get generated?

Ah, now that one I can answer, by reference...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

"For anyone with influence on energy policy, whether in
government, business or a campaign group, this book
should be compulsory reading." Tony Juniper
Former Executive Director, Friends of the Earth

"At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true
facts about sustainable energy in a form that is both
highly readable and entertaining." Robert Sansom
EDF Energy

"The Freakonomics of conservation, climate and energy."
Cory Doctorow,

"...a tour de force..." The Economist
"... a cold blast of reality ... a must-read analysis..." Science
magazine
"...this year's must-read book..." The Guardian

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

..../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out that www.withoutair.com is hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

.../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out thatwww.withoutair.comis hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
- he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
- he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.

On Jan 10, 12:25*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:





On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

.../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/orits backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out thatwww.withoutair.comishosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

On Jan 10, 5:25*am, Tom Gardner wrote:

Do you want
electricity? *How will it get generated?

Ah, now that one I can answer, by reference...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) ishttp://www.withouthotair.com/or its backup sitehttp://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

Thanks for that.

-Evan

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:24:39 +0000, Scott wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:


Sounds pretty drastic to me!
But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

True. So what.


My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help.

Quite possibly, but have you considered that temperature swings, sea
level changes and ocean acidification may wipe out civilisation as we
know it (along with an unknown number of additional species) before a
new steady state is reached?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |