Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels,
a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected
rates?

Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit
fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world
is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons,
both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen
are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels,
with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed
nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy
demands.

It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of
catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is
the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking
alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil
reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be
not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also
safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil
reserves.

But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from
hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually
meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading --
making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.

On Mar 27, 9:43 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels,
a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected
rates?

Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit
fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world
is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons,
both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen
are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels,
with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed
nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy
demands.

It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of
catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is
the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking
alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil
reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be
not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also
safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil
reserves.

But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from
hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually
meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading --
making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.



you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.


And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.

And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.


Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:
Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.


respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.


We have long term data back several million years. But, alas, that data
shows we are in one of the coldest eras of the planet's history, so that
data MUST be ignored or someone is gonna cut off our government grand
checks. That would be the REAL catastrophy, not global warming, which is a
lie.

Global Warming is an INDUSTRY, not a fact.

Download "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from
alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries newsgroup. It was broadcast, I
think, on ITN in the UK.


Larry
--
Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV
then it dumps you until you click to
get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS!

"Two meter troll" wrote in
oups.com:

think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.


There won't BE a "bad winter"! Boston will be 84F, according to the global
warmers! This is not a downside....unless you're, like our President and
his friends, in the ENERGY business.



Larry
--
Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV
then it dumps you until you click to
get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS!

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
:

Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his
projected rates?


None. Download the movie from ITN in UK called "The Great Global Warming
Swindle" and see the overwhelming truth, from the scientists not the
people living off global warming terror.

The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.52% to 0.54% since the
industrial revolution.

The most interesting graphics on the movie is when one of the professors,
I forget which one, overlays the CO2 in the air with the temperature over
the last X thousand years. When the temperature rises, CO2 in the air
rises AFTERWARDS, not before. When the temperature falls, CO2 in the air
falls AFTERWARDS, not before. This is caused by the oceans. As the top
levels of the oceans warm with the air, the ocean animals rapidly
multiply, filling the ocean with CO2, which the oceans' massive surfaces
transfer into the air. When the oceans cool, as the planet cools, the
opposite happens. This has been going on for millions of years.....not
since man invented the 427 Chevy with dual exhausts and 6 carbs.

Global warming, as you'll see from the Earth's many records in the
movie...is caused by the SUN, that big thermonuclear bomb that's quite
close, by astronomical standards, to the Earth. CO2 FOLLOWS its warming
and cooling...not causes it!

Of course, without "global warming" there is no "global warming
government spending/grants" and all the trappings of $$$$ that goes with
it. Once The Beast is convinced of something, The Beast throws billions
at it, creating its own vacuum to consume everything The Beast throws at
it.

Oh, and HIV doesn't cause AIDS, either. HIV is an ancient virus humans
have been passing on to each other for thousands of years. ALL AIDS
patients don't have HIV, just some of them. ALL HIV carriers don't get
AIDS, either, only a small percentage of them. So, HIV can't cause AIDS.
But, just like Global Warming, we have this HIV/AIDS industry that
DEPENDS on The Beast pouring money into it, so it doesn't matter whether
HIV causes AIDS or not...as long as The Beast thinks it does...the money
will flow, ad nauseum, for decades.

Can we afford to find a cure for Cancer? Heart Diseases? Common Cold?
or any of the other massive moneymakers that buy fancy cars, yachts,
jets, beachfront mansions for doctors? What? Are you CRAZY?!! Anyone
who finds a cure is DEAD MEAT!


Larry
--
Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV
then it dumps you until you click to
get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS!