A victory for "Liberal" science.

[Quantum Windbag]

Man made climate change is the single greatest danger facing the planet today, and the single greatest threat to national security we face. We have to believe that, or we are labeled as deniers, and told that we should be blown up so that we do more damage to the environment.

The reason I do not worry that much about this is I know that human beings are able to accomplish anything if they try hard enough, and that the only thing that can hold them back is other human beings. The Left is going to do its best to accomplish that.

Some people think conservatives are anti science.

Last week, participants in the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) made their views clear at a meeting in Nagoya, Japan. They included in their agreement to protect biodiversity (see page 14) a moratorium on geo*engineering "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks". The moratorium, expected to be in force by 2012, isn't legally binding, and given the preliminary nature of studies in the area it is unlikely to affect researchers in the near future. But some scientists fear that the CBD's stance will sow confusion and delay at a time when governments and research groups are exploring how geo*engineering might feasibly be undertaken if global warming accelerates disastrously. The CBD agreement coincides with the release of a pair of reports on geoengineering, including a US congressional analysis, published on 29 October, that calls for research across the federal government. In his foreword to the report, Bart Gordon (Democrat, Tennessee), the outgoing chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, highlights the dangers of stifling research and calls for a "rigorous and exhaustive examination" of geo*engineering strategies.
"If climate change is one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity and human welfare," says Gordon, "then failing to understand all of our options is also a threat." His report singles out the US National Nano*technology Initiative — a programme that incorporates research at 13 federal agencies — as a possible model for coordinating research.

Geoengineering faces ban : Nature News

It is obviously more important to make sure we do not kill off the snail darter than it is to make sure that everything on Earth survives.

Congratulations on your complete meltdown if you think that AGW exists, and you insist that we do nothing to fix it.

 

[Old Rocks]

About as stupid of a post as I have seen. We simply don't have any idea of the unanticipated effects of the geo-engineering solutions proposed. Far wiser to prevent the need for such a project.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you plan on preventing the need for it when we already need it? Or do you think that you can wave a magic wand and erase hundreds of years of environmental damage?

People think I am crazy for believing in God.

 

[daveman]

About as stupid of a post as I have seen. We simply don't have any idea of the unanticipated effects of the geo-engineering solutions proposed. Far wiser to prevent the need for such a project.

You don't have any idea of the unanticipated effects of the solutions proposed to combat AGW, either...except for wrecking the economies of all Western nations.

But you damn sure want to sail full steam ahead into that whirlpool.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong. Anticipated effects of going to clean energy will be a reduction in pollution. It will create jobs, and spread the money out. Mining coal damages the land, pollutes the water and air. Our use of petroleum is funding the very people that would destroy us.

As of right now, wind is on the par with dirty coal. Solar will soon be there. Geothermal, according the MIT will be cheaper than any of these.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."

"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. Anticipated effects of going to clean energy will be a reduction in pollution. It will create jobs, and spread the money out. Mining coal damages the land, pollutes the water and air. Our use of petroleum is funding the very people that would destroy us.

As of right now, wind is on the par with dirty coal. Solar will soon be there. Geothermal, according the MIT will be cheaper than any of these.

MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."

"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.

How do you expect a country, like Haiti, to pay for "clean" energy when they cannot even afford to pay for the dirty energy we have now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the fact that nobody is going to presently inconveniance themselves to prevent what can be clearly seen down the road, countries like Haiti will simply suffer and die. Triage. Some you cannot save.

 

[Sallow]

Wrong. Anticipated effects of going to clean energy will be a reduction in pollution. It will create jobs, and spread the money out. Mining coal damages the land, pollutes the water and air. Our use of petroleum is funding the very people that would destroy us.

As of right now, wind is on the par with dirty coal. Solar will soon be there. Geothermal, according the MIT will be cheaper than any of these.

MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."

"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.

How do you expect a country, like Haiti, to pay for "clean" energy when they cannot even afford to pay for the dirty energy we have now?

Might want to start by letting them choose their own leaders..

And see how it works out from there.

No?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given the fact that nobody is going to presently inconveniance themselves to prevent what can be clearly seen down the road, countries like Haiti will simply suffer and die. Triage. Some you cannot save.

What can be clearly seen down the road? The absolute inevitable climate change that will occur no matter what we do? Just how do you expect us to prevent that? Or the upcoming magnetic shift that is overdue? The next eruption of a super volcano?

You are running around like Chicken Little warning us that the sky is falling, and that we need to buy umbrellas, and ignoring the fact that umbrellas will do nothing to keep us safe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. Anticipated effects of going to clean energy will be a reduction in pollution. It will create jobs, and spread the money out. Mining coal damages the land, pollutes the water and air. Our use of petroleum is funding the very people that would destroy us.

As of right now, wind is on the par with dirty coal. Solar will soon be there. Geothermal, according the MIT will be cheaper than any of these.

MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."

"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.

How do you expect a country, like Haiti, to pay for "clean" energy when they cannot even afford to pay for the dirty energy we have now?

Might want to start by letting them choose their own leaders..

And see how it works out from there.

No?

That would be a great idea. Or did you think I support totalitarianism?

 

[rightwinger]

Liberal Science??

Like Evolution?
Like the Earth is round?
Like Cigarettes cause cancer?

Damn Libruls!

 

[daveman]

Wrong. Anticipated effects of going to clean energy will be a reduction in pollution. It will create jobs, and spread the money out. Mining coal damages the land, pollutes the water and air. Our use of petroleum is funding the very people that would destroy us.

As of right now, wind is on the par with dirty coal. Solar will soon be there. Geothermal, according the MIT will be cheaper than any of these.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."

"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.

Good luck getting a geothermal car to work.

Most of the oil we use is for transportation. None of your solutions will replace it.

 

[konradv]

Given the fact that nobody is going to presently inconveniance themselves to prevent what can be clearly seen down the road, countries like Haiti will simply suffer and die. Triage. Some you cannot save.

What can be clearly seen down the road? The absolute inevitable climate change that will occur no matter what we do? Just how do you expect us to prevent that? Or the upcoming magnetic shift that is overdue? The next eruption of a super volcano?

You are running around like Chicken Little warning us that the sky is falling, and that we need to buy umbrellas, and ignoring the fact that umbrellas will do nothing to keep us safe.

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

 

[konradv]

Wrong. Anticipated effects of going to clean energy will be a reduction in pollution. It will create jobs, and spread the money out. Mining coal damages the land, pollutes the water and air. Our use of petroleum is funding the very people that would destroy us.

As of right now, wind is on the par with dirty coal. Solar will soon be there. Geothermal, according the MIT will be cheaper than any of these.

MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are "markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants."

"This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact," Tester said.

Good luck getting a geothermal car to work.

Most of the oil we use is for transportation. None of your solutions will replace it.

Actually, energy is convertible. Energy derived from one source can be used to generate cleaner fuels, like hydrogen, for example. All sources contribute, but only fusion will give us a long-term solution. For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy OR

Department of Energy - Fusion

 

[rightwinger]

Republican strategy on climate change..

1. Denial: Climate changes all the time. We need more statistical evidence to show that their is, in fact, climate change
Course of action- Do nothing

2. Acceptance: Well, yes, there is in fact climate change. But we need more evidence that man is affecting it
Course of action- Do nothing

3. Surrender: Yes, there is human induced climate change. But the damage is already done and it is too late to do anything about it
Course of action- Do nothing

 

[rdean]

Man made climate change is the single greatest danger facing the planet today, and the single greatest threat to national security we face. We have to believe that, or we are labeled as deniers, and told that we should be blown up so that we do more damage to the environment.

The reason I do not worry that much about this is I know that human beings are able to accomplish anything if they try hard enough, and that the only thing that can hold them back is other human beings. The Left is going to do its best to accomplish that.

Some people think conservatives are anti science.

Last week, participants in the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) made their views clear at a meeting in Nagoya, Japan. They included in their agreement to protect biodiversity (see page 14) a moratorium on geo*engineering "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks". The moratorium, expected to be in force by 2012, isn't legally binding, and given the preliminary nature of studies in the area it is unlikely to affect researchers in the near future. But some scientists fear that the CBD's stance will sow confusion and delay at a time when governments and research groups are exploring how geo*engineering might feasibly be undertaken if global warming accelerates disastrously. The CBD agreement coincides with the release of a pair of reports on geoengineering, including a US congressional analysis, published on 29 October, that calls for research across the federal government. In his foreword to the report, Bart Gordon (Democrat, Tennessee), the outgoing chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, highlights the dangers of stifling research and calls for a "rigorous and exhaustive examination" of geo*engineering strategies.
"If climate change is one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity and human welfare," says Gordon, "then failing to understand all of our options is also a threat." His report singles out the US National Nano*technology Initiative — a programme that incorporates research at 13 federal agencies — as a possible model for coordinating research.

Geoengineering faces ban : Nature News

It is obviously more important to make sure we do not kill off the snail darter than it is to make sure that everything on Earth survives.

Congratulations on your complete meltdown if you think that AGW exists, and you insist that we do nothing to fix it.

Not just anti science. But also anti education, anti intellectualism.

Of course, there is a whole range of anti:

Anti gay

Anti feminist

Anti Muslim

Anti Atheism

Anti Middle Class

Anti Poor

Anti Hispanic

In fact, considering what they did in the last 10 years, many simply assume they are "Anti American". You know, actions speak louder and all that......

Hey, is it true Republicans cut unemployment benefits for millions of Americans right before Thanksgiving, but fight to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires when business is posting the biggest profits in the history of earth.

Merry Christmas!

 

[antagon]

How do you expect a country, like Haiti, to pay for "clean" energy when they cannot even afford to pay for the dirty energy we have now?

haiti would be well-served to seek energy independence. the proceeds from such would help them with their poverty and marginal economic participation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given the fact that nobody is going to presently inconveniance themselves to prevent what can be clearly seen down the road, countries like Haiti will simply suffer and die. Triage. Some you cannot save.

What can be clearly seen down the road? The absolute inevitable climate change that will occur no matter what we do? Just how do you expect us to prevent that? Or the upcoming magnetic shift that is overdue? The next eruption of a super volcano?

You are running around like Chicken Little warning us that the sky is falling, and that we need to buy umbrellas, and ignoring the fact that umbrellas will do nothing to keep us safe.

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Man made climate change is the single greatest danger facing the planet today, and the single greatest threat to national security we face. We have to believe that, or we are labeled as deniers, and told that we should be blown up so that we do more damage to the environment.

The reason I do not worry that much about this is I know that human beings are able to accomplish anything if they try hard enough, and that the only thing that can hold them back is other human beings. The Left is going to do its best to accomplish that.

Some people think conservatives are anti science.

Last week, participants in the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) made their views clear at a meeting in Nagoya, Japan. They included in their agreement to protect biodiversity (see page 14) a moratorium on geo*engineering "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks". The moratorium, expected to be in force by 2012, isn't legally binding, and given the preliminary nature of studies in the area it is unlikely to affect researchers in the near future. But some scientists fear that the CBD's stance will sow confusion and delay at a time when governments and research groups are exploring how geo*engineering might feasibly be undertaken if global warming accelerates disastrously. The CBD agreement coincides with the release of a pair of reports on geoengineering, including a US congressional analysis, published on 29 October, that calls for research across the federal government. In his foreword to the report, Bart Gordon (Democrat, Tennessee), the outgoing chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, highlights the dangers of stifling research and calls for a "rigorous and exhaustive examination" of geo*engineering strategies.
"If climate change is one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity and human welfare," says Gordon, "then failing to understand all of our options is also a threat." His report singles out the US National Nano*technology Initiative — a programme that incorporates research at 13 federal agencies — as a possible model for coordinating research.

Geoengineering faces ban : Nature News

It is obviously more important to make sure we do not kill off the snail darter than it is to make sure that everything on Earth survives.

Congratulations on your complete meltdown if you think that AGW exists, and you insist that we do nothing to fix it.

Not just anti science. But also anti education, anti intellectualism.

Of course, there is a whole range of anti:

Anti gay

Anti feminist

Anti Muslim

Anti Atheism

Anti Middle Class

Anti Poor

Anti Hispanic

In fact, considering what they did in the last 10 years, many simply assume they are "Anti American". You know, actions speak louder and all that......

Hey, is it true Republicans cut unemployment benefits for millions of Americans right before Thanksgiving, but fight to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires when business is posting the biggest profits in the history of earth.

Merry Christmas!

Why is the snail darter more important than human life?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you expect a country, like Haiti, to pay for "clean" energy when they cannot even afford to pay for the dirty energy we have now?

haiti would be well-served to seek energy independence. the proceeds from such would help them with their poverty and marginal economic participation.

Energy independence? Perhaps they can achieve that by developing their vast natural resources and converting to natural gas. Or they could cover every square inch of land with solar cells and starve to death. Or they could drill geothermal plants along the fault lines.