Global Warming - the truth

[Bern80]

Like i said, climate change does exist and has existed for centuries. What we are trying to do now is figure out if the recent change in climate temperature is caused by man made green house gasses and emissions.
In other words, global warming is natural.....anthropogenic global warming is not.

Nobody said stop driving cars, stop buying gas, and shut down the power plants. What we are saying is put some money into the RESEARCH of climate change on a atmospheric and tropospheric level. That way we KNOW if global warming is a natural phenomena that will balance out, or if it was man made greenhouse gasses, or c02 (which by the way we have scientific proof that light can be trapped in a chamber of c02 due to The c02's long lifespan in an atmosphere) Which means, when the sun shoots off billions of photons of radiation light energy, 1 astronomical unit away (8 minutes at light speed) our earth naturally absorbs it depending on rotation, and our magnetic sheild. Thats alot of energy to be stored in the earth, So what the earth does is naturally release nearly all of that energy back into space when the light bounces off the earth floor and heads back up into the atmosphere. C02 would cause that radiological light energy to be trapped in the atmosphere, most likely causing melting of the polar ice caps in the arctic and antarctic.

Our technology is not powerfull enough to compare a chamber of co2, with the entire planet. So no there is no physicall proof of Global Warming but theoretically it is possible and could be happening right now because of us. We dont have enough evidence to make either of those a fact.

So when you say man made global warming does not exist because you just pushed ten inches of snow off your driveway, your an idiot because anthropogenic global warming could be one of the causes of that amount of snow in the first place. Its not just warming that happens, its extreme weather, sea rising, tsunamis, hurricanes and yes even snowing.

Trust me its better to find out about it now than forget about it, and have it destroy us 50 years from now with no way of reversing it.

I really think you would get into the book "Unstoppable Global Warming" if you haven't read it already. Your post is exactley what this is about. From what I've read so far, according to their research we are suppossed to be in the beginning of a natural warming trend. The problem may be that we won't find out soon if we are playing a part because the natural warming trend is suppossed to continue for another 400 years, according to their research any way.

 

[red states rule]

I really think you would get into the book "Unstoppable Global Warming" if you haven't read it already. Your post is exactley what this is about. From what I've read so far, according to their research we are suppossed to be in the beginning of a natural warming trend. The problem may be that we won't find out soon if we are playing a part because the natural warming trend is suppossed to continue for another 400 years, according to their research any way.

I thought the global warming would never stop last Friday as 9 inches of global warming fell on the area

 

[red states rule]

You're right. Man is usually irresponsible. Anyone who's worked near a child support enforcement agency knows that.

'Stranded Polar Bear' Photo Taken Out of Context Says Photographer
Posted by Jake Gontesky on March 20, 2007 - 17:34.
Crossposted from Notes in the Margin

The "stranded polar bear" photo continues to grab headlines, even after yet another thorough debunking. In what has become the furry, cuddly symbol of all that is wrong with the climate change debate, the now ubiquitous photo was splashed across news pages worldwide, with captions such as this from the Daily Mail (click for article and image):

They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.
See more articles with the same specious claims here, here, and the NYTimes version with photo caption correction appended here.

There was just one problem: the photograph was taken not of polar bears "stranded" on ice - far from it.


Rather, the bears were wandering around their natural environment as they do every day. Read the first-round debunking here and here.

But now there is more. Spiked.com has investigated further by going straight to the source to get the full story from the original photographer. As explained in Rob Lyons' The bear necessities of climate change politics on Friday (emphasis mine):

The student who took the photograph, however, gives a slightly different account: ‘They were on the ice when we found them and on the ice when we left. They were healthy, fat and seemed comfortable on their iceberg.’

Amanda Byrd, an Australian graduate student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), says she took the picture around three years ago - in the summer. The photograph was not ‘taken by environmentalists’ but as part of a field trip with the university.

Furthermore, the photographer wasn't even asked permission:

Byrd is clearly a little miffed that ‘the image you have seen around the world was distributed without my consent, and [with] the wrong byline’.

And logic and reason (aka science) is all but lost when cuddly polar bears are brought into this debate:

For all the polar bear stories, it is far from clear that these bears are an endangered species. Even if a warming world did make things more difficult for them, Arctic temperatures have been considerably warmer in the past – and polar bears survived those periods. It’s not even clear that polar bear numbers are in decline.

How many of the mainstream media outlets that used this photograph in stories on the new IPCC report or other climate change stories will publish a correction? How many will reveal that the photograph was not only incorrectly captioned, but also incorrectly attributed as portraying yet another direct impact of man-made global warming? I'm not holding my breath.

So why is this important? After all, it is just a photo, right? Not quite. It just so happens that it is a photo that has been viewed by thousands of people worldwide who now (incorrectly) associate it with global warming. It is part of a larger picture of alarmism that is continually supported by the mainstream media.

Even with this most recent thorough debunking, the myth carries on. The polar bear is now the mascot of yet another global warming alarmist website. Al Gore couldn't find any struggling polar bears, so he had to animate them. The US government is now researching their status as an endangered species. But they are not doing so based on the usual protocol set by the endangered species legislation, but instead in response to a lawsuit by environmentalists such as Greenpeace alleging as much. This story is far from over.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11545

 

[ErikViking]

Just a hypothesis, but if correct then the global warming movement promises disaster. Socialism killed more people than war last century. The suppression of DDT, on which the environmental movement was founded, has killed 10-30 million. Now these two movements have joined forces. Again I say Al Gore is the most dangerous man on the planet."

I can assure you suppresion of DDT didn't kill anyone. Something else did.

 

[red states rule]

It seems Pretty Boy Edwards is following in the carbon footprints of Al Bore.



Mr. Edwards, How Much Does Energy Cost For Your Mansion?
Posted by Dan Gainor on March 20, 2007 - 12:56.
It was Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards trying to revive his ‘70s disco moves and he danced around every tough question CNN’s Miles O’Brien threw at him. Most notably, how much does it cost to pay for energy in the new 28,000-square-foot mansion Edwards calls home?

Edwards tried several answers during the March 20 “American Morning”:

“It’s actually not bad.” And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was.
“I’m not telling you. It’s actually, it’s actually not bad. It’s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.”
Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said “the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.”
Edwards also claimed he and his family operate the house in a “carbon neutral way,” though he wants to put caps on how much carbon dioxide businesses operate. “We have committed to operate this house in a carbon neutral way which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,” said Edwards.

Such offsets have been big news lately and even the Oscars claimed they were “carbon neutral.” The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the whole nature of such offsets and said “some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.”

Former Vice President Al Gore has received criticism for his own carbon offsets, though the media have been supportive. “If more people do it over time, it’s a good thing,” said reporter Russ Mitchell during the “Early Show” on CBS February 22.

O’Brien asked about Edwards “getting Americans to conserve more.” Edwards responded with talk of conservation and then requirements. “One of the things that’s going to be required is for Americans to be willing to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and to be willing to conserve and we want to help them do that.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11537

 

[red states rule]

I will stick my nose out and tell you the truth.

Slight warning: This will be a moderate post.

First of all. Look at my Avatar. That is a Mandelbrot fractal with a Julia attractor. My daughters name is Julia. It is also representation of chaos - beautiful like the ocean, forrest or flowers. Chaos is woven deeply into us and our world and the temprature changes are no exception.

The concept of chaos rhymes perfectly with our brains but it connects badly with our abstract and linnear science. Almost anything related to chaos can be proven with linnear thinking if you change your field of view.

So what have scientists done?

OUR NARROW MINDS - I
They have for a brief moment taken a look at temperature changes. They all know that fluctuations can't hardly be predicted. They also know that historical data can't be statistically compared. Most scientists agree that the planet is going through climate changes. The extent and reasons is up for suggestions. Our small narrow science is not yet capable of any real conclusions. Has man contributed to this? And if so, - how much? It could be the case that the first human who set a piece of wood on fire started a chain reaction that was both disasterous and irreverible. Or maybe our doings contribute to nothing.

I AM GOD?
There is a lot of talk about what to do and what not to do in order to set things straight. This is pure nonsense. If you belive in a god you can pray for his intervensions, otherwise - hold your breath. Humans have done a very poor job in controlling nature. In fact we do it so poorly that almost any effort creates some unforseen effect on a totally unrelated matter. Those effects take some time to understand - retroperspectivley. Scientists are often very blind to those effects and pretend to be surprised. They aren't. Well, they couldn't know what to expect - but they knew that something would happen. Their arrogance and almost god like behaviour could be dangerous. If a cure for cancer was developed it would be "tested" and deployed. If the human race then ceased to exist in 150 years it wouldn't surprise me. I know chaos.

JUST STOP IT?
So what am I saying? Should progress stop, just to ensure we don't do things we will regret later on? No, of course not. This is the price we pay for being thinking beings. Chaos got no morale. Not curing cancer might also lead to disaster in yet another unforseen way. But we do need to be more careful. We need to be more humble about our position. This planet is redundant. We could probably do anything we like here, life would still get back on track. Possibly without any humans around - but to think we can wipe out all life is as arrogant as anything else.

OUR NARROW MINDS - II
Yet all this uncertainty leads people to belive that we know less than we do. The uncertainty discussed by scientists is not for use in political or economical debates. There is a strong possibilty that our current lifestyle is actually going to effect the climate. This possibility - or risc - is instantly drawn into a contemporary political and economical debate. Voices cry out against or for scientific work for reasons not even remotely linked to climate. This sub-debate make us unworthy of "owning" this planet. The only logical step now is NOT to do nothing until we know. Instead we should try to reduce our impact - just to play it safe - on this planet. People tend to think that "doing something" is to stop driving big cars. It isn't. Relative to earth and climate "doing something" is to drive big cars. By doing stuff we increase the risc of messing things up even worse.

BOTTOM LINE
Accept the possibility of ourselfs messing the system up.

Don't see money as wasted if spent on reducing the risc of this possibility. But do this wisely. Economy is also a resource - if we waste it we have no more room for actions. Let economical experts deal with how to integrate climate into economy.

Stop using climate as an economical or political tool. Can you imagine the verdict placed upon us if we fail now? Calling devoted and concerned people nuts is terrible. And making single persons look like climate-busters is equally bad. What we need to realize is that this issue can't be solved without adding environment to the charts of assets. Gold, silver, environment, industry or tourism.

For our everyday lives:
You do NOT have to support the rescue of the endangered Speckled Owl. The effort might as well fail or render the Striped Mouse extinct.

You DO have to support the thought of climate as valuable as gold. The rest will in time sort it self out. Encourage attempts in economical-climate connections. Like the Kyoto protocol. But don't forget you must make a good deal out of it, otherwise you misuse economical resources and thus reduce the possibility to act.

WashPost Wrongly Touts Tiny Protest As 'Largest Demonstration Ever' vs. Global Warming
Posted by Tim Graham on March 21, 2007 - 08:00.
Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold attempted to highlight a liberal rally against global warming that "drew several hundred people to the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol yesterday," but he seemed unclear on its historic significance:


The event, called a Climate Crisis Action Day, was billed in advance as Washington's largest demonstration ever on global warming. It was unclear whether that turned out to be accurate, but those attending said they sensed a powerful momentum building behind calls to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Earth to the Post: if you hold a rally against global warming and "several hundred people" show up, it's a little strange to pass that helpfully along as "Washington's largest demonstration ever" and as a sign of "a powerful momentum building" behind the liberal agenda.

It's also not impressive to tout "Organizers said 2,500 T-shirts were picked up by participants in the day's events." Were they handed out to 2,500 people, or just put in the back of some participant's truck? The two color photos splashed along the top of Page A-6 to illustrate the story made the event look very much like a typical, sparsely populated Capitol Hill press conference, even if it featured people dressed as polar bears.

In fact, Fahrenthold and his Post editors are letting the liberals down with an utter lack of research. In 1990, after a pile of liberal-media publicity, an Earth Day rally on the Western edge of the Capitol drew tens of thousands. It featured Hollywood stars, and musicians like Bruce Hornsby and the Indigo Girls. (I was there, as an observer.) Other Earth Day events since then have drawn larger crowds than "several hundred people." These events always tout the global warming theory. They just haven't mobilized the masses as much in this new Inconvenient Truth era.

Typically for the Post, Fahrenthold couldn't find a liberal anywhere at the event, even as he quoted socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders warning that "Either we see this planet go down the tubes, or we reverse it." The event organizers were listed as including "the Alaska Wilderness League, the Episcopal Church, and a committee formed by the indigenous Gwich'in people, who live in northern Alaska and the Yukon Territory."

Fahrenthold also passed along this un-skeptical publicity line from the alleged local grass roots:

"Let's face it, people. We all know polar bears can swim,. But they can't swim forever," said Mollie Passacantando, a Fairfax County third-grader who started a blog focusing on polar bears.

Passacantando is not a typical name, so it's not much of a guess to wonder if young Mollie is related to John Passacantando...the president of Greenpeace USA? On her blog, she writes vaguely about how "My dad's organization" was handing out baseball caps at a congressional hearing, and urging people to use a typical letter to Congress from the Greenpeace website.

Do I have to note that "several hundred people" showing up for Bernie Sanders drew a better page placement than tens of thousands of people at the March for Life? Unlike the March for Life, it also drew a story in advance, which somehow failed to boost that poor attendance. It was also written by Fahrenthold, who used no liberal labels and touted the momentum in advance.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11552

 

[ErikViking]

WashPost Wrongly Touts Tiny Protest As 'Largest Demonstration Ever' vs. Global Warming
Posted by Tim Graham on March 21, 2007 - 08:00.
Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold attempted to highlight a liberal rally against global warming that "drew several hundred people to the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol yesterday," but he seemed unclear on its historic significance:


The event, called a Climate Crisis Action Day, was billed in advance as Washington's largest demonstration ever on global warming. It was unclear whether that turned out to be accurate, but those attending said they sensed a powerful momentum building behind calls to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Earth to the Post: if you hold a rally against global warming and "several hundred people" show up, it's a little strange to pass that helpfully along as "Washington's largest demonstration ever" and as a sign of "a powerful momentum building" behind the liberal agenda.

It's also not impressive to tout "Organizers said 2,500 T-shirts were picked up by participants in the day's events." Were they handed out to 2,500 people, or just put in the back of some participant's truck? The two color photos splashed along the top of Page A-6 to illustrate the story made the event look very much like a typical, sparsely populated Capitol Hill press conference, even if it featured people dressed as polar bears.

In fact, Fahrenthold and his Post editors are letting the liberals down with an utter lack of research. In 1990, after a pile of liberal-media publicity, an Earth Day rally on the Western edge of the Capitol drew tens of thousands. It featured Hollywood stars, and musicians like Bruce Hornsby and the Indigo Girls. (I was there, as an observer.) Other Earth Day events since then have drawn larger crowds than "several hundred people." These events always tout the global warming theory. They just haven't mobilized the masses as much in this new Inconvenient Truth era.

Typically for the Post, Fahrenthold couldn't find a liberal anywhere at the event, even as he quoted socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders warning that "Either we see this planet go down the tubes, or we reverse it." The event organizers were listed as including "the Alaska Wilderness League, the Episcopal Church, and a committee formed by the indigenous Gwich'in people, who live in northern Alaska and the Yukon Territory."

Fahrenthold also passed along this un-skeptical publicity line from the alleged local grass roots:

"Let's face it, people. We all know polar bears can swim,. But they can't swim forever," said Mollie Passacantando, a Fairfax County third-grader who started a blog focusing on polar bears.

Passacantando is not a typical name, so it's not much of a guess to wonder if young Mollie is related to John Passacantando...the president of Greenpeace USA? On her blog, she writes vaguely about how "My dad's organization" was handing out baseball caps at a congressional hearing, and urging people to use a typical letter to Congress from the Greenpeace website.

Do I have to note that "several hundred people" showing up for Bernie Sanders drew a better page placement than tens of thousands of people at the March for Life? Unlike the March for Life, it also drew a story in advance, which somehow failed to boost that poor attendance. It was also written by Fahrenthold, who used no liberal labels and touted the momentum in advance.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11552

This has virtually nothing to do with my post - I don't know what to say about it really. I guess you want to me to draw some conclusion about liberals. All I can say is that the environtment shouldn't be a political tool.

 

[red states rule]

This has virtually nothing to do with my post - I don't know what to say about it really. I guess you want to me to draw some conclusion about liberals. All I can say is that the environtment shouldn't be a political tool.

It shows how the left is using the myth of global warming as a political issue

 

[ErikViking]

It shows how the left is using the myth of global warming as a political issue

Okay your point is made. Climate is used for political reasons. Bad.
Global Warming isn't a myth. It is a theory.
It might not be correct. Or it might be.

 

[red states rule]

Okay your point is made. Climate is used for political reasons. Bad.
Global Warming isn't a myth. It is a theory.
It might not be correct. Or it might be.

So why lower our standard of living over a theory?

 

[ErikViking]

So why lower our standard of living over a theory?

Oh, don't get me wrong:

First I said from the very beginning that lowering our standard is not in the my line of thinking here. Look up the SUV-post.

But even if global warming is nothing more than a theory - the system we occupy is sensitive to our behaviour. This system might kill us all anyway. But if we want to reduce the risc of that happening - we should take climate into account. We should integrate it in to our lifestyle (Out lifestyle as humans).

Here is a way of looking at it!

Imagine that the earth is made up from arbitrary placed domino bricks. There are constantly some bricks falling, drawing others down with them. Sometimes they fall alone. Now it is just a matter of chance and connections and all crucial bricks has fallen and humans are extinct. If we want to increase the time for this to happen, we should stop pushing bricks our selves.

 

[red states rule]

Oh, don't get me wrong:

First I said from the very beginning that lowering our standard is not in the my line of thinking here. Look up the SUV-post.

But even if global warming is nothing more than a theory - the system we occupy is sensitive to our behaviour. This system might kill us all anyway. But if we want to reduce the risc of that happening - we should take climate into account. We should integrate it in to our lifestyle (Out lifestyle as humans).

Here is a way of looking at it!

Imagine that the earth is made up from arbitrary placed domino bricks. There are constantly some bricks falling, drawing others down with them. Sometimes they fall alone. Now it is just a matter of chance and connections and all crucial bricks has fallen and humans are extinct. If we want to increase the time for this to happen, we should stop pushing bricks our selves.

So far all the doom and gloom perdictions that the gloabl waring nuts have sprewed have not happened

The classic is the Newsweek article form the 70's talking about global cooling and how the farm land in US in 30 years could be covered by ice

 

[ErikViking]

So far all the doom and gloom perdictions that the gloabl waring nuts have sprewed have not happened

The classic is the Newsweek article form the 70's talking about global cooling and how the farm land in US in 30 years could be covered by ice

No, and those perdictions we make now are hardly reliable. We can't even perdict the weather a week ahead. But still, that is not what I ask for.

I think it would be a good idea to take climate into consideration. Do to this we must make it a part of progression.

This means we can't substitute SUV's for climate. We want SUV's - that is how we are. That doesn't necessarily mean we need fossile fueld SUV's. But that in turn does not mean to stop all fossile fuels - that would hamper economy. If we do that we suddenly lack the power of taking climate in to account.

Did the domino thing work?

 

[red states rule]

No, and those perdictions we make now are hardly reliable. We can't even perdict the weather a week ahead. But still, that is not what I ask for.

I think it would be a good idea to take climate into consideration. Do to this we must make it a part of progression.

This means we can't substitute SUV's for climate. We want SUV's - that is how we are. That doesn't necessarily mean we need fossile fueld SUV's. But that in turn does not mean to stop all fossile fuels - that would hamper economy. If we do that we suddenly lack the power of taking climate in to account.

Did the domino thing work?

From aht I have seen global warming is nothing more then the liberals war on capitalism

 

[Vintij]

It shows how the left is using the myth of global warming as a political issue

its not just the left, arnold swartzaneggar is a huge bush supporter, yet signed the evironmental bill last year, to cut emmisions. Bush supported this as well.

 

[Vintij]

We dont have to give up SUV's right away. The first step is to start growing crops of sugar to extract ethanol and mix that with all gasoline and make it mandetory. That would reduce the use of gas while still filling up tanks. Its not the answer but its a start. Eventually we are going to have to give up our gas guzzlers, sorry to say that. Maybe not our generation but future generations will for sure, most likely our kids and grandkids. Putting global warming aside, Consumption at the rate we are going, will NOT make our cars last longer or make gas prices go down or spark funding for alternative fuel. If buying gas makes certain peope rich, including dick cheney, why would anyone argue with profit right now? Give it 20 years and i guarantee we will be running on some kind of mixture of gas and ethanol.

Eventually we will be running on hydrogen fuel cell engines, which are powerd by a continous flow of hydrogen and oxygen (very abundant) Once we have the technology this debate will be over and our obsession with fossile fuels will die.

 

[boedicca]

It's odd to contemplate that the U.S. will be the first country in history to burn up its food supply on purpose.

 

[jasendorf]

I think we need an aggressive strategy to meet the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years.

 

[ErikViking]

I think we need an aggressive strategy to meet the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years.

That could be fun to watch. I mean, I don't disagree with you that we need to reduce our impact. But when we do something agressivley, how ever good faithed (IS that a word), we usually mess up something else.

The long term climate issues, I believe, should be handeled very delicate. If we could just stop everything now - fine. But what erupts from that agressive action is beyond our field of vision. Wars? Wars and nukes? Economical mayhem rendering us unable to really cope with anything than immidiate survival?

Of course it could just work out fine too. For once.

 

[wiggles]

I think we need an aggressive strategy to meet the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years.

Science turns sun, surf into green energy

Deborah Smith Science Editor
March 21, 2007

A REVOLUTIONARY technology that uses sunlight and sea water to produce an unlimited supply of clean, hydrogen fuel could be developed within a decade, Sydney researchers say.

Leigh Sheppard, of the University of NSW, estimated that 1.6 million of the solar devices, installed on rooftops, would be able to produce enough hydrogen gas to supply Australia's entire energy needs. While other energy options under discussion, such as nuclear power, produce harmful wastes, the only by-products of this solar hydrogen technology would be oxygen and fresh water, Dr Sheppard said.

"It is the cleanest, greenest energy option for a sustainable economy."

Dr Sheppard said much more research was needed, but the university team was confident it would be able to make the process efficient enough within 10 years for it then to be developed commercially. Its technique relies on using a light sensitive material, titanium dioxide, to harness the power of the sun to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. "The process has the additional advantage that it works best in sea water," Dr Sheppard said.

Australia was rich in titanium, and had abundant sunshine. "And we are surrounded by ocean."

It might also be possible to use artesian water, or pump sea water inland, to a large array of solar panels which could produce hydrogen for local use and even for export.

An area covering 40 square kilometres would meet the country's energy needs.

A way of using sunlight to split water was first developed by Japanese scientists in the 1970s, but worldwide interest in developing this approach has only recently been rekindled by concerns about burning fossil fuels and global warming.

The small UNSW team, led by Professor Janusz Nowotny, is a world leader in using titanium dioxide as a catalyst to split water. The researchers have developed instruments which can measure the electrical properties of the material so they can improve its performance by altering its oxygen content or adding impurities.

A visiting German solar expert, Helmut Tributsch, of the Free University in Berlin, said research was urgently needed into ways to covert the sun's power into usable energy, such ashydrogen fuel and photovoltaic electricity. Professor Tributsch said water splitting was a process nature used to harness the sun's energy. "We should really follow the example of nature. It is the only safe way to handle our environment in the long term."

Hydrogen was a clean and efficient fuel for powering everything from vehicles to furnaces and air conditioning. "When you burn it, it gives water, so there is no pollution of the environment," he said.

Dr Sheppard said hydrogen fuelling stations for cars were operating in several countries including Germany and the US, but a lot more infrastructure would be needed before hydrogen could be widely used as an energy source. He said nuclear power had the advantage that it was a proven technology. "But this is a smarter technology. It does not produce toxic waste."

It could take five more years to commercialise the water-splitting technology once it was fully developed, he said.

Professor Tributsch will give a public lecture on solar energy at the university on Monday night.

Nifty, right? Seawater and sunshine cost nothing.