Monday, March 10, 2008
Going for the Logical Conclusion
Some scientists* published during this, and last, month studies which indicated that in order "to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures ...the world [will be required] to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades."
Cease carbon dioxide emissions altogether.
OK, drawing from J. M. Barrie, all of you who believe in anthropogenic global warming, stop exhaling all together.
It's for the good of the planet. (Really).
*One of them is Andreas Schmittner, who was the primary author/pusher of the theory melt water from Greenland glaciers could stop the thermohaline current (the Gulf Stream) which warms northern Europe. So global warming will cause a new ice age.
What, precisely, is the weather event or series of events which will cause true Warmies to begin to doubt their near religious belief in global warming caused primarily by man made greenhouse gasses? Is there any?
Cease carbon dioxide emissions altogether.
OK, drawing from J. M. Barrie, all of you who believe in anthropogenic global warming, stop exhaling all together.
It's for the good of the planet. (Really).
*One of them is Andreas Schmittner, who was the primary author/pusher of the theory melt water from Greenland glaciers could stop the thermohaline current (the Gulf Stream) which warms northern Europe. So global warming will cause a new ice age.
What, precisely, is the weather event or series of events which will cause true Warmies to begin to doubt their near religious belief in global warming caused primarily by man made greenhouse gasses? Is there any?
Labels: Global Warming Fixes
Saturday, May 05, 2007
NYT Says Fix to Global Warming Cheap and Easy
In this surprisingly optimistic, unsigned editorial today, the editors of the NYT come across as amazingly Pollyannaish. Here are my quibbles.
Yesterday’s report on global warming from the world’s most authoritative voice on climate change asserts that significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing global warming emissions can be achieved at a relatively low cost using known technologies.
I hear Unicorns can be located and captured at minimal cost as well.
Now to the pesky details:
[The new IPCC Report] warns that over the course of this century, major investments in new and essentially carbon-free energy sources will be required. But it stresses that we can and must begin to address the problem now, using off-the-shelf technologies to make our cars, buildings and appliances far more efficient, while investing in alternative fuels, like cellulosic ethanol, that show near-term promise.
Since when, even in the near newspeak of the NYT, does "major investment" equal "relatively low cost"? No sane person is against making things more efficient. But we've already been doing that for decades now and new appliances are indeed much more energy efficient than 1960s versions, for example. Am I the only person who recognizes that burning all but one alternative fuel (hydrogen) produces CO2? How is it a help to the reduction of CO2 gas emissions to switch from one CO2 producing fuel to another?
Final thoughts: Bills to increase fuel efficiency in cars and trucks have been introduced in both houses; Jeff Bingaman, the Democrats’ Senate spokesman on energy matters, is drafting a measure that would require utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from wind and other renewable sources; Barbara Boxer, head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has offered an ambitious bill to greatly increase investments in alternative fuels.
As stated above, greater fuel efficiency is good, but let's hope it's not at the price of less safety in the vehicles. Windmills would be nice, especially just off the Kennedy compound. But leave it to Barbara Boxer, a shoe-in for the title of dumbest Senator ever, to attack the problem with a non-solution. And notice the failure to mention one surefire solution to increased CO2 emissions, massive investment in nuclear power plants. The editors can't mention a relatively low cost off-the -shelf technological solution. Wonder why that is?
Yesterday’s report on global warming from the world’s most authoritative voice on climate change asserts that significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing global warming emissions can be achieved at a relatively low cost using known technologies.
I hear Unicorns can be located and captured at minimal cost as well.
Now to the pesky details:
[The new IPCC Report] warns that over the course of this century, major investments in new and essentially carbon-free energy sources will be required. But it stresses that we can and must begin to address the problem now, using off-the-shelf technologies to make our cars, buildings and appliances far more efficient, while investing in alternative fuels, like cellulosic ethanol, that show near-term promise.
Since when, even in the near newspeak of the NYT, does "major investment" equal "relatively low cost"? No sane person is against making things more efficient. But we've already been doing that for decades now and new appliances are indeed much more energy efficient than 1960s versions, for example. Am I the only person who recognizes that burning all but one alternative fuel (hydrogen) produces CO2? How is it a help to the reduction of CO2 gas emissions to switch from one CO2 producing fuel to another?
Final thoughts: Bills to increase fuel efficiency in cars and trucks have been introduced in both houses; Jeff Bingaman, the Democrats’ Senate spokesman on energy matters, is drafting a measure that would require utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from wind and other renewable sources; Barbara Boxer, head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has offered an ambitious bill to greatly increase investments in alternative fuels.
As stated above, greater fuel efficiency is good, but let's hope it's not at the price of less safety in the vehicles. Windmills would be nice, especially just off the Kennedy compound. But leave it to Barbara Boxer, a shoe-in for the title of dumbest Senator ever, to attack the problem with a non-solution. And notice the failure to mention one surefire solution to increased CO2 emissions, massive investment in nuclear power plants. The editors can't mention a relatively low cost off-the -shelf technological solution. Wonder why that is?
Labels: Global Warming Fixes
