The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[hydrive]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I haven't seen it. While I think the science should be, and needs to be, falsifiable; the danger is in the economic/Hegelian 'solutions'.

Nuclear is high-tech and scales with difficulty, if only politically. The solution is multi-variate, but the low-tech scalable solution is biochar. In this I agree with NeilBlanchard.

I recommend everyone watch it. It will shed new light on the problem and its solutions. COOL IT is easily found on torrent sites or with popcorn time.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by hydrive

I recommend everyone watch it. It will shed new light on the problem and its solutions. COOL IT is easily found on torrent sites or with popcorn time.

I recommend it too. The 2nd post in this thread mentioned Bjorn, and I figured people would look up what he has to say if they were interested.

So far there has been little criticism of his views, and mostly just reiterating the looming disaster to come.

Then there is me periodically saying the right course of action is likely somewhere between doing nothing, and doing everything.

[hydrive]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I recommend it too. The 2nd post in this thread mentioned Bjorn, and I figured people would look up what he has to say if they were interested.

So far there has been little criticism of his views, and mostly just reiterating the looming disaster to come.

Then there is me periodically saying the right course of action is likely somewhere between doing nothing, and doing everything.

The reason why he resonates with me is that he does not deny the science. Global warming is real, and the amount of gases we are dumping into the air is not healthy for the environment.

But, he really puts the eco-nazis in their place with real solutions and puts a stop to the vitriol. I have never understood why this issue garners so much hate and vitriol, from both sides. Eco nazis that begin by calling you stupid is no better than the denial community which rejects the science.

They are both serious problems. COOL IT is the first bridge between these two radical extremes to explore science based solutions.

[freebeard]

Nuclear is the only tech that will generate a lot of power 24 hours a day, rain or shine, wind, no wind, even with snow covering everything while making little CO2 over the fuel life cycle.

Moon Power™.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cool+it

48 minutes from the Manhattan institute, or an hour and half for $1.99 (if you do commerce on Internet).

[Xist]

Hydrogen embrittlement is one specific problem to fit under the umbrella of "Hydrogen is horrible."

Some people enjoy feeling angry. Some people like angering others. Some people like watching people fight. How many people would watch reality television\news if people discussed things rationally?

[oil pan 4]

Switching to hydrogen currently creates more problems than it solves on top of costing more than just about any thing else.

[freebeard]

SpaceX prefer Methane to Hydrogen.

[sendler]

Not really. They use kerosene. But they have some crazy idea that they can send people to Mars (for what?). And then actually manufacture enough methane and LOX to get them home again someday before they die.So they intend to switch to methane.

[sendler]

I watched "Cool It".
.
https://youtu.be/ChKevI7nwIM
.
I might be interested to skim through Bjorn Lomorg's book.
.
https://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Env...vironmentalist
.
Because the movie somewhat contradicted itself. The first half devloped his concept (that I agree with in part even though his understanding as presented is very much incomplete) that we have much bigger problems to worry about than Global Warming. The first half of the movie makes the point that trying to reduce carbon emissions will cost a fortune and change very little in the end when it is finally seen what is really possible. He also correctly identifies that spending money on socio-economic changes, health care, housing, education, all pay forward toward a better world more than upending existing infrastructure.
.
But then in the second half of the movie, shows solar and wind and other typical sci-fi solutions like wave power and Hydrogen electrolysis in a hopeful light. When he just spent the first half stating that they are too expensive for what you get.

[NeilBlanchard]

Bjorn Lomborg is a fossil fuel shill, and he's a political scientist.