"We believe that we're going towards a nearly sea ice-free Arctic in the next 10-20 years," says Overland. "The question now is: Do you wait for more perfect information, or do we act on incomplete information?"
NOAA scientist James Overland
An Interview with Dick Lindzen
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
"We believe that we're going towards a nearly sea ice-free Arctic in the next 10-20 years," says Overland. "The question now is: Do you wait for more perfect information, or do we act on incomplete information?"
NOAA scientist James Overland
ok, let's act on it. Who wants to be the first to sacrifice? There is a factory in my state that makes automobiles. How many fewer automobiles do you think they should manufacture? I guess it makes sense, because an unemployed factory worker should have a lower carbon footprint than the guy who didn't get laid off.
It's not a question of manufacturing or not manufacturing automobiles but of the source of power to manufacture the automobile.
same thing, you tell my factory that they can make as many autos as they can sell as long as they use wind or solar to power their factory, then their cars will be so expensive that they sell fewer and have to lay off workers. And you'll end up with a bunch of unemployed factory workers enjoying the new climate. But at least it will start raining in Arizona again. Lay off a few more and we can protect Long Island from another hurricane.
You're assuming that solar would be more expensive, yet costs are coming down continually. And if the fossil fuel industries were taken off the government dole and we paid as much for, for example, gasoline as the rest of the world, politicians would be singing a different tune with regard to alternatives.
The antis operate under the assumption that there will be nothing after they die, that the future is irrelevant because to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. There will never be any other means of conveyance that doesn't depend on the internal combustion engine. There will never be any means of generating electricity that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels. If we manage to get through this stage, none of this will prove to be the case.
whatever, if they were marching for better energy I would take them a little more seriously. Like the man said, the guy that can come up with a way to create cheaper renewable energy will be the richest man in the world.
Me personally? I have never seen any evidence that the weather was that much better in 1614 than it is today in 2014. Go ahead, outlaw crude and coal and see how that works out for you. Even futurecurrents admits 400,000 people are dying because they don't have air conditioning. My idea is get people all the energy they need first, then go march because you fear the world is coming to an end.
Getting them all the energy they need first won't help them much if they choke on it.
As for the weather in 1614, probably much the same. The climate, on the other hand . . .