View Single Post
Old 04-07-2013, 04:02 PM   #669 (permalink)
The PRC.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post

It cannot be explained any other way. Next question?
Energy - yep, every time we move to a newer and more intense one we get an economic benefit. Isn't there a clue there maybe about how the world works ?

Scientists - no, quite a few are not PhDs and even not scientists - Attenborough for one has a BSc - so do I. And none are "climate scientists" so by James' definition they are not worthy to pronouce on this. IMHO they are worthy to comment on their own areas and this and I agree with a few of them.

Oil and Gas - well if we get fracking elsewhere outside the US (how are your gas bills doing ?) then we can possibly heat and power ourselves for maybe another 3-500 years on current estimates. We don't just use oil for fuel though.

Like to take my bet ?

In the meantime maybe we can get renewables to work. But to make them work you need other stuff like steel / aluminium works which cannot be powered by them at the moment - I posted this several pages ago...

So maybe we should look at other sources - nuclear, thorium, who knows in the meantime. But governments don't, they just waste tax money on windmills.

And even then shouldn't renewables be allowed to develop "naturally" instead of "artificially" as they are just now ? If they are so efficient then they wouldn't need 10-20% of my energy bill to pay for them, they also wouldn't have pushed the common user's energy bill to the point where the choice is "heat or eat".

At the same time in terms of climate we have :
- Little or no sea level rise
- No atmospheric temp rise (since 1997)
- No overall sea temp rise
- No increase in rainfall (since 1700)
- No increase in drought (since 1700)
- The "greening of the planet"
- Enough food for all, if only everyone could access it

And we have
- People without clean water
- People without enough to eat, including kids
- A first world which doesn't seem to care because we focus on this CO2 stuff.

And at the end you ignored my key question so I'll restate it - your kids vs. their's - which ones are more deserving of resources, make a choice.
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]