NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00020983-B238-1384-B23883414B7F0000

The ice core data also shows that CO2 and methane levels have been remarkably stable in Antarctica--varying between 300 PPM and 180 PPM--over that entire period and that shifts in levels of these gases took at least 800 years, compared to the roughly 100 years in which humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels to their present high.

Anyone have specific arguments against this new data?

Anyone have specific arguments against this new data?

The ice core is biased! :D

Seriously, though, I doubt that global warming opponents will pay this any heed. They don't seem to be very fond of listening to scientific evidence.

I have no arguements. I think rising CO2 levels, supported with the rise of sea levels, is dangerous for future generations. World not going to be so nice.

I have no arguements. I think rising CO2 levels, supported with the rise of sea levels, is dangerous for future generations. World not going to be so nice.Depends on where you live.
I'm sure antarctica will be nice when it has develloped a temperate climate.

In our barnbarns barn* time, Finland will be like Siberia! ¤gasp¤

Seriously, though, I doubt that global warming opponents will pay this any heed. They don't seem to be very fond of listening to scientific evidence.
If it aien't in the Bible, it aien't true, y'hear! ;)




*heh, my bad, grandchildren's children's time

Ah, we're only plus 80. Call China and tell everyone to stop breathing for a day. Problem solved.

No arguments here, it's further evidence of climate change that only the wilfully stupid can ignore.

the climate already seems to be changing. we're doomed... dooooooooooooooooooommmmed!! (i'm being serious believe it or not :()

I have no arguements. I think rising CO2 levels, supported with the rise of sea levels, is dangerous for future generations. World not going to be so nice.
CO2 stores nowhere near as much heat as methane. Cows produce over a kg a day PER COW! We should save the world by killing all cows and resisting the urge to have the largest (and last) burger roast in history.

What's your carbon footprint?
http://www.bp.com/carbonfootprint
Mine is 8 (recalculated)
2 less than average UK household of 10
11 less than average US houeshold of 29!

5 of which is my small car. Blame the cars. Scary statistics for an SUV

What's your carbon footprint?
http://www.bp.com/carbonfootprint
Mine is 6 (recalculated)
4 less than average UK household of 10
14 less than average US houeshold of 20!
My average is 1.

What's your carbon footprint?
http://www.bp.com/carbonfootprint
Mine is 6 (recalculated)
4 less than average UK household of 10
14 less than average US houeshold of 20!

Mine was 3. (They didn't have Sweden as an option so I went with UK.)

My average is 1.
Do you live in a tent? ;)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00020983-B238-1384-B23883414B7F0000



Anyone have specific arguments against this new data?
I don't have anything to add AGAINST it, but I find it funny that a poster mentioned a special about this a few weeks ago, and you made some smartass comment. If you'd have paid attention, you'd have known this weeks ago! ;)

Someone sounds frightened and alone...curled up on the couch with his Tickle Me Hannity doll.

Anyone have specific arguments against this new data?
Clearly the Liberal scientists are trying to destroy America's economy so that tyranny can spread throughout the world. Besides, melting the Antarctic ice will liberate all the water which even the Liberal scientists admit has been imprisoned for millions of years.

What's your carbon footprint?
http://www.bp.com/carbonfootprint
Mine is 8 (recalculated)
2 less than average UK household of 10
11 less than average US houeshold of 29!

5 of which is my small car. Blame the cars. Scary statistics for an SUV
14, but about 10 of that was due to the amount of driving my dad does in a large (deisel) car (and the fact we have to have a second car as a result...)

Do you live in a tent? ;)
No. I live in a perfectly ordinary flat. The difference between us is probably that I give a shit & live alone and thus don't need to compromise.

14, but about 10 of that was due to the amount of driving my dad does in a large (deisel) car (and the fact we have to have a second car as a result...)
Ouch. Mines 23. Sorry about that guys.

I don't get it. On the BP calculator, I got 7; on another, I got less than 3.

I scored 8.

I don't get it. On the BP calculator, I got 7; on another, I got less than 3.
Which other calculator? Do you have a URL I'd like to give it a try.
They'll have very different ways of working it out and different levels of CO2 for different things. Example: If I scrapped tha car and just used my bike I would drop to 3 by BP standards, the fact I recycle might not count for much on the BP calculator but muight count for more on the other one. I can't put any clever heating system or solar panels on my flat and need to buy some A class energy efficient appliances which might count for mroe of a reduction depending on how many you have (different calculators might assume more or less appliances)

What's your carbon footprint?
http://www.bp.com/carbonfootprint
Mine is 8 (recalculated)
I scored 7.65, but we also have loft insulation (it only had a combined option for cavity wall and loft insulation, and we don't have cavity wall insulation). They need more options for car millage - my parent's cars only do a combined 1,000 miles a year, but the minimum option they had was 5,000 for each. Doing some quick calculations, I think we would actually score somewhere between 5.00 and 5.50.

I'd like to say something about recycling. It's bullshit. Penn and Tellers "Bullshit" did an informative show about it. It actually cause more pollution to recycle things than it does to make them new, when you factor in all the resources used to recycle something.

I don't remember any of the stats. I'll see if I can find them.

Heres a LINKY (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r)for ya! ;)

I worked it out a while ago, there are several on the Internet (can't remember which one I use though). There's one at www.carbonfootprint.com

Edit: Actually, the one under 3 might be my personal footprint, and 7 is my household's footprint (for 3 people). It all makes sense now...

I'd like to say something about recycling. It's bullshit. Penn and Tellers "Bullshit" did an informative show about it. It actually cause more pollution to recycle things than it does to make them new, when you factor in all the resources used to recycle something.

I don't remember any of the stats. I'll see if I can find them.


Yeah I saw that too.
But the alternative is filling up landfill sites.
That show also stated that to solve all waste problems for the USA could be done with a landfill site 35 miles by 35 miles square.
That's a lot of land...

Heres a LINKY (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r)for ya! ;)
Er...
Sorry

We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.

*adds Showtime to list of evil companies*

Yeah I saw that too.
But the alternative is filling up landfill sites.
That show also stated that to solve all waste problems for the USA could be done with a landfill site 35 miles by 35 miles square.
That's a lot of land...
Not really a lot of land, considering when it's full, you cover it up, and turn it into a park. And it's not like you use the 35 by 35 miles all in one place. Seems kinda small to me. *shrugs*


I would like to add that there is one thing that actually helps to recycle. Aluminum. Why do you think they pay so much for it? ;)

Heres a LINKY (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r)for ya! ;)

The link doesn't work outside of the US.

(What kind of web site programs in such a restriction? Honestly?)

Er...

*adds Showtime to list of evil companies*
THATS a bummer! Wonder what the reason is?

The link doesn't work outside of the US.

(What kind of web site programs in such a restriction? Honestly?)

Yup. That sucks.
pandora.com won't allow outside US people to register either. It's kind of like a "it's my toy and you can't play"

And while we're on recycling... the alternative is, as has been mentioned, landfills. Plastics are not bio-degradable, and they contain a great deal of environmentally harmful products. Recycling of paper reduces the amount of destroyed trees. In the long run, I think recycling is the better alternative.

Heh heh, now I am remembering all the Ben Elton books I have read...
Build a bio dome, plant trees inside it. Fit a time lock.

No arguments here, it's further evidence of climate change that only the wilfully stupid can ignore.

I'd like to see them ignore 1816.

Still not higher than it was during the Cretaceous Period.

My carbon footprint seems to be zero for the BP site.

All my household energy use comes from hydroelectricity (entirely renewable), and I don't own a car.:)

My carbon footprint seems to be zero for the BP site.

All my household energy use comes from hydroelectricity (entirely renewable), and I don't own a car.:)

My household electricity comes from nuclear.

Still not higher than it was during the Cretaceous Period.
Hardly any of our current species existed back then. Most of the creatures currently living evolved for a climate much cooler than the Cretaceous, and 100 years isn't much time to adapt.

My household electricity comes from nuclear.

So, that means all your electricity comes from nonrenewable resources. At least it reduces carbon emissions.

I say kill off all of the south american farmers who are cutting down the rainforest and replanting that entire area.

I say kill off all of the south american farmers who are cutting down the rainforest and replanting that entire area.

Cool! And while we're at it, kill every person who owns and operates a motor vehicle that uses fossil fuels.

See, if everybody could add such useful suggestions to the debate, we would solve this problem in no time!:D

So, that means all your electricity comes from nonrenewable resources. At least it reduces carbon emissions.

If it was a breeder reactor, it would almost fall into the category of "renewable".

Too bad BP only lets you select between US and GB.

Anyway, these are my scores - wonder what they'd look like for Germany:

6.39 6t US
3.27 3t GB

The other calculator's no good since I have absolutely no idea how much electricity and gas I'm using annually - it's all a flatrate incorporated in the normal rent (which hasn't changed in the last 7 years...). So... bummer!

But - I don't have a car and recycle approximately 90% of my trash. ;)

I did Global Warming in Biology AS level last year

Co2 levels fluctuate all the time. We saw some graph that showed that CO2 levels have steadily lowered then randommly shot up many many times over the past hundreds/thousands of years. (they get this data from Ice cores with trapped Co2, wahoo!)
We're probably just at one of these natural peaks, as the graph ends at 2005 at a CO2 level of just below the normal peak levels; the pattern is looking exactly the same

But throwing CO2 into the air via cars and factories is never good
People just keep bainging on about it too much. What the hell is a protest going to do? Don't you know that respiration released CO2? Stop talking, save the environment (and my ears):p

I did Global Warming in Biology AS level last year

Co2 levels fluctuate all the time. We saw some graph that showed that CO2 levels have steadily lowered then randommly shot up many many times over the past hundreds/thousands of years. (they get this data from Ice cores with trapped Co2, wahoo!)
We're probably just at one of these natural peaks, as the graph ends at 2005 at a CO2 level of just below the normal peak levels; the pattern is looking exactly the same

But throwing CO2 into the air via cars and factories is never good
People just keep bainging on about it too much. What the hell is a protest going to do? Don't you know that respiration released CO2? Stop talking, save the environment (and my ears):p

Did you read the original article on this thread? It completely counters your assertion that were just on the upside of a natural peak, using the very ice cores you mentioned as being acceptible proof.

And they don't "randomly" shoot up. the swings are caused by attributable natural and man-made causes.

Did you read the original article on this thread? It completely counters your assertion that were just on the upside of a natural peak, using the very ice cores you mentioned as being acceptible proof.

And they don't "randomly" shoot up. the swings are caused by attributable natural and man-made causes.

Have you hugged a tree lately, whilst wearing your sandals?

Have you hugged a tree lately, whilst wearing your sandals?

No.

Have you poisoned babies and then ate them?

Mmm, that's good polluted baby. Makes 'em salty and tender.

[end equally relavent post]

No.

Have you poisoned babies and then ate them?

Mmm, that's good polluted baby. Makes 'em salty and tender.

[end equally relavent post]


I probably did when I spilled all of that freon and just let my 3 cars idle for 12 hours.

I probably did when I spilled all of that freon and just let my 3 cars idle for 12 hours.

In an enclosed space? With you in it?

[hey, this is fun]

In an enclosed space? With you in it?

[hey, this is fun]


No, just in your precious environment, you tool.

I just read you're from California, you're excused.

I blame the penguins.

You can talk to a turtle just by turning him around, tell him you're so sorry for killing the planet. :p

Wow, that ABD is such a piece of propaganda. At least they admit that the reasons for their arguments are that they wish to drive unrestricted and untaxed as possible in the UK.

1) 18 months is convient length of time as if your case study was in summer at the start then it would be in winter by the end when it is naturally colder. And the point is rather vague so I can't really answer it any more than that. (There's lies, damn lies and statistics - Mark Twain)

2) Completely misses the point. 1. A 7m rise in sea levels if either the Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted.

2. A 13m rise, if both the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted.

This scenario would lead to a rise of 6-7m in sea levels that would drown the centre of London, while in the surrounding area, much of the boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Bexley and Barking & Dagenham would be under water, the study shows.

Large areas of south Essex and north Kent earmarked for the Thames Gateway Development would also be submerged, as would many coastal towns and cities from Edinburgh to Bournemouth.

A 13m rise would see the sea encroaching far inland, especially in East Anglia, Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire, Cheshire and the Severn Estuary.Therefore we wouldn't have to worry about saving so people from the cold anymore because they wouldn't exist. It also explains the explains that ice may well take up more volume than water, but most ice is in the form of sheets connected to a landmass so most of the ice remains above the water.

3) Answered by someone else

4) Nature may well account for the majority of carbon emission in the world, but humans can't really claim the ability to take carbon out of the atomosphere. Plants, which appear to cover a huge portion of the earth, on the other hand have this strange ability which we have called photosynthesis.

5) Answered by someone else

6) Made my case against 4 and sun may be the source of heat, it does not cause a planet to retain heat. "The side towards the sun is a sizzling 350 °C (662 °F), while the night side is a cold -180 °C (-292 °F)." and Venus (which is further away from Mercury from the sun and thus receives less heat) is actually hotter than Mercury. Venus has a "surface temperature of 480 °C (896 °F) is the same on both sides of the planet".

7) Solar cycles, whilst the significant source of extra heat are not the sole source of temperature rises. Consider a boiling pan of water - it boils with much less input heat when the pan has its lid on.

8) irrelevant. This is just a point to try and stoke anger among drivers.

9) Answerd by someone else

10) Just how many of these scientists were receiving funds from corporate donors who had a interest in their findings? In 1998 a research team found that 96% of the reasearchers who supported the use of a drug had a financial relationship with the manufacturers of the drug, as opposed to 37% who critised their use and had financial relations with the manufacturer. (Henry Stelfox in the New England Journal of Medicine, vol 338, no2)

Wow, that ABD is such a piece of propaganda. At least they admit that the reasons for their arguments are that they wish to drive unrestricted and untaxed as possible in the UK.

Gymoor asked a while back if anyone could find anything that contradicted the assertion that man is behind global warming (or more recently corrected - "contributes" to global warming).

No one offered to step forward for a whole day, and so I volunteered.

ABD is the only thing I could find so far.

10) Just how many of these scientists were receiving funds from corporate donors who had a interest in their findings? In 1998 a research team found that 96% of the reasearchers who supported the use of a drug had a financial relationship with the manufacturers of the drug, as opposed to 37% who critised their use and had financial relations with the manufacturer. (Henry Stelfox in the New England Journal of Medicine, vol 338, no2)

Then we should be fair and exclude all organizations that have an anti-capitalist philosophy, and any science that was funded by them. And eliminate any scientists who receive corporate funds or who are members of organizations such as Greenpeace.

I bet that a lot of the universities that have done research that shows global warming is related to human activity get their funds from corporations. But, that's ok - we can eliminate just about everyone.

Fair enough if you're looking for counter arguments, however they're pretty poor.

Then we should be fair and exclude all organizations that have an anti-capitalist philosophy, and any science that was funded by them. And eliminate any scientists who receive corporate funds or who are members of organizations such as Greenpeace.

I bet that a lot of the universities that have done research that shows global warming is related to human activity get their funds from corporations. But, that's ok - we can eliminate just about everyone. It's a fair point, but also a bit stupid. The point I was trying to make is that people are biased, and no human can make an objective judgement. It would be rather odd to dismiss everyone's judgement including your own. So, instead, we examine not just what people say, but their other actions as well so we can deduce their personal standpoint and take it into account with regards to their judgements.

The problem I have with capitalism is that it's currently operating in a neo-classical viewpoint of economics where society is not important and value judgements about society. It is an economics the short terms is paramount as is the individual. This wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't try to place neo-classical economics on a pedastal and consider it to trumph all other ideas. [/deviation]

edit: I just realised this is in the wrong thread. I didn't the two threads were connected when I first clicked them. Must have gotten them muddled up. Whoops.

My household electricity comes from nuclear.

Yeah, but that isn't carbon neutral. It produces twice as much CO2 as wind farms, because uranium has to be transported thousands of miles in some cases, and building nuclear power stations is hard work. And uranium's a finite resource, which will probably run out within this century.

And uranium's a finite resource, which will probably run out within this century.


Doubtful.

Humanity hasn't been around long enough to be considered a viable species anyway. If we all died tomorrow, we wouldn't be much more than a geological footnote.

If gobal warming is going to kill us all, then we might as well enjoy the ride in our SUV's.

Yeah, but that isn't carbon neutral. It produces twice as much CO2 as wind farms, because uranium has to be transported thousands of miles in some cases, and building nuclear power stations is hard work. And uranium's a finite resource, which will probably run out within this century.

Odd. The reactor in the Seawolf submarine is one of the latest designs - and it doesn't have to be refueled or serviced for 25 years. One truck trip and you're done.

BTW, even if we produced all of our electricity with uranium, plutonium, and thorium, we wouldn't run out for a long time, especially if we used breeder reactors.

Yeah, but that isn't carbon neutral. It produces twice as much CO2 as wind farms, because uranium has to be transported thousands of miles in some cases, and building nuclear power stations is hard work. And uranium's a finite resource, which will probably run out within this century.Transport? Pfft, that's nothing when you compare it to the resources required to mine and refine the stuff. 1kg of uranium has roughly the volume of a medium-sized mobile/cell phone, and produces about a million times more energy than 1kg of coal - transport is not an issue.

The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory says that if Uranium was used for all 'our' needs it would last for 112 years. (I don't exactly who 'our' encompasses)
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/U4735/lectures/14.html

Meh, my radical idea as a kid was to set up a massive solar array in the worlds deserts, transfer the electricity to the coast via pylons and electrolyse the sea water there. Hydrogen is the main product your after as a chemical store of energy. The hydrogen can be used as a fuel to transport it to hydrogen powered power stations. Oxygen and salts can be sold as byproducts to increase the profitability of the system.

The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory says that if Uranium was used for all 'our' needs it would last for 112 years. (I don't exactly who 'our' encompasses)
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/U4735/lectures/14.html
That's okay then - we really should be able to get fussion power working by then. (Judging by the current state of experimental fussion reactors, it should be at most a couple of decades away.)

Ice Core reveals CO2 levels are 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 yearsThen I would like to know how early humans produced such high CO2 levels 650ka ago. Did homo erectus, who lived about 2million-500000a ago, drive SUVs?
Also how could the human species flourish and devellop to the dominating lifefeorm on the planet living with so dreadfully high CO2 concentrations, if CO2 is so bad?

Then I would like to know how early humans produced such high CO2 levels 650ka ago. Did homo erectus, who lived about 2million-500000a ago, drive SUVs?
Also how could the human species flourish and devellop to the dominating lifefeorm on the planet living with so dreadfully high CO2 concentrations, if CO2 is so bad?

Wow.

Just....wow.

Okay...you realize that the article points out that CO2 levels are HIGHER now THAN AT ANY TIME in the last 650,000 years.

Second, NO ONE IS SAYING the only source of CO2 is man. But just because something can be produced naturally doesn't mean it's good. What we do see is that CO2 levels are changing at a rate that is significantly FASTER that the planets usual stately rate of change (barring a worldwide disaster such as a meteor strike or supervolvano eruption.)

Finally, you're misunderstanding the argument. People worried about anthropogenic climate change aren't worried because CO2 is toxic (well, it is, but not at the concentrations we have or will ever see,) but because it traps heat.

Now, a hotter planet isn't so bad in and of itself. The problem is that the climate is changing at a rate far faster than nature usually moves (again, barring some cataclysm.) This changing climate includes rising ocean waters, and since man's population is concentrated on the coast, you can see the inconvenience and economic cost of rising ocean waters. Other things happen when the climate changes for the warmer (especially when it changes faster than the natural processes normally allow for.) Disease is spread more easily. Weather becomes more energetic. Perhaps some areas of high population concentration become arid. The oceanic conveyor might shut down, causing northern europe and england, almost paradoxically, to become more bitterly cold. The conveyor, as it is today, also contributes to the health and abundance of ocean life.

I have a feeling this won't help because either:

A) You were being facetious

B) These words will have no impact.

Doesn't it seem silly to anyone else that we should put so much emphasis on a single variable when we discuss climatology? The climate is going to change and depends on a lot more than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Besides, when a billion and a half of the world's population is unable to access modern fuels, the reduction of CO2 production by a few percent, in a few countries isn't going to amount to much change in the amount of CO2 produced world wide.

With that in mind, we need to concentrate on how to adapt to the changing climate, rather than how to prevent changes that will happen, anyway. Controlling small amounts of CO2 will not have much, if any predictable influence on climate change. Maintaining a strong economy is going to leave nations in a better position to adapt than those who succumb to the hysteria. Technological innovation is going to be the way to cope with climate change. Plunging an economy into the dark ages isn't going to accomplish a bit of good and when we realize that fact, we'll be too poor to do anything about it.

snip

And encouraging a more inteligent environmental policy isn't going to throw us into a worldwide depression either.

It's funny that the very same people who scoff at people concerned about the environment are chicken littles themselves when it comes tot he economy.

OMG, reducing CO2 output is going to bankrupt those energy companies who are making record profits! Oh noes!!!1!eleven!

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that encouraging environmental science might actually improve the economy? If the US became the leader in environmental technologies, wouldn't that give us a new, vigorous industry?

As Katrina showed us, ignoring the environment can be much more expensive than preparing for it. If only the local, state and federal governments had listened to the scientists who were concerned about the levees (but what do they know anyway?) then $200 billion could have been saved.

Again, prevention is cheaper than after-the-fact fixes.

Depends on where you live.
I'm sure antarctica will be nice when it has develloped a temperate climate.

As it has in the past.

Then I would like to know how early humans produced such high CO2 levels 650ka ago.

or you could take up actually reading for content. the research does not say that before 650kyr bp atmospheric carbon was was much higher than today. it says that we now have direct measurements from ice cores going back that far, which is significantly earlier than previous ice core data. we still have indirect measurements which show that this is likely the highest we've had in the past 20 million years.

As it has in the past.

though not what one would call 'recently'

As it has in the past.

Hey, we've had plagues in the past.

Let's not prepare in any way for bird flu.

Hey, we've had plagues in the past.

Let's not prepare in any way for bird flu.

I'm prepared. I own stock in Roche.

Seriously though, there probably is not all that much that can be done about it, given the conditions in the far-east, and the prevalence of international travel these days.

Heh heh, now I am remembering all the Ben Elton books I have read...
Build a bio dome, plant trees inside it. Fit a time lock.
Sounds good, any idea where I might be able to pick up some cheap geep?;)

If CO2 levels are the highest they've been in the past 650,000 years, is that bad? Infant mortality rates are the lowest they have been in the past 650,000 years too. Maybe if we started killing babies, the CO2 levels would go down.

Ok, so it doesn't sound like a good idea, but many of the ideas out there for what is causing increased CO2 levels aren't all that credible either.

many of the ideas out there for what is causing increased CO2 levels aren't all that credible either.

how so?

Still not higher than it was during the Cretaceous Period.


Damn energy wasting dinosaurs! :rolleyes:

Hey, we've had plagues in the past.

Let's not prepare in any way for bird flu.


Don't worry, we won't.

If CO2 levels are the highest they've been in the past 650,000 years, is that bad? Infant mortality rates are the lowest they have been in the past 650,000 years too. Maybe if we started killing babies, the CO2 levels would go down.

Ok, so it doesn't sound like a good idea, but many of the ideas out there for what is causing increased CO2 levels aren't all that credible either.


It's the decrease in the number of pirates. Everybody knows that.

As usual, Gymoor, you are off the mark. New technology is exactly what I proposed. Whether that is environmental, manufacturing, or energy production needs to be determined by actual needs, not by what seems like a good idea.

On the other hand, if we stifle manufacturing because of this one variable in the complex climatological system, we will also be reducing our capability to create that new technology.

On the other hand, if we stifle manufacturing because of this one variable in the complex climatological system, we will also be reducing our capability to create that new technology.
'Create' could be interpreted in two ways here, so my reply is either:

1) I don't think many people are proposing to totally destroying the manufacturing sector, leaving us unable to manufacture useful products,

Or:

2) Most advanced new technology (in Britain at least) is developed in univeristy research departments, not in industry. Researchers then go out and set up companies to market their discoveries.

1) I don't think many people are proposing to totally destroying the manufacturing sector, leaving us unable to manufacture useful products,

Or:

2) Most advanced new technology (in Britain at least) is developed in univeristy research departments, not in industry. Researchers then go out and set up companies to market their discoveries.
You can read the 'worst-case' scenarios that talk about how reducing CO2 production around the margins will cause grave damage to the manufacturing sector. Either directly, because of the processes that they use, or indirectly, because of the energy shortages that might be created. This might, or might not happen. Likewise with the 'best-case' scenarios, where everyone lives happily ever after when a small amount of CO2 is no longer produced. Both are unlikely. Why concentrate on this one gas, though? Then, why only try to eliminate some marginal amounts?

As to new technology, it is developed where ever the need arises. Look at what Rutan is doing to revolutionize space travel. All of it is commercial development. Hell, look at transistors. The greatest invention of all time came from Bell Labs. Universities do make a contribution, but not always in practical and implementable ways.

You can read the 'worst-case' scenarios that talk about how reducing CO2 production around the margins will cause grave damage to the manufacturing sector. Either directly, because of the processes that they use, or indirectly, because of the energy shortages that might be created. This might, or might not happen. Likewise with the 'best-case' scenarios, where everyone lives happily ever after when a small amount of CO2 is no longer produced. Both are unlikely. Why concentrate on this one gas, though? Then, why only try to eliminate some marginal amounts?

As to new technology, it is developed where ever the need arises. Look at what Rutan is doing to revolutionize space travel. All of it is commercial development. Hell, look at transistors. The greatest invention of all time came from Bell Labs. Universities do make a contribution, but not always in practical and implementable ways.


Basically, you're saying that you believe the economists worst case scenarios but not the environmentalists. The thing is that economic collapse has a much shorter duration than environmental collapse.

I'm sure industrialists were prediciting economic collapse would occur when child labor laws were enacted. Also when unions arose. There were even those that suggested the economy would collapse when women entered the workforce. They certainly do work hard to keep the minimum wage from rising...even though raises in the minimum wage have never caused the economy to collapse before.

The fact is that the economy rebounds a lot faster than the climate.

I've also NEVER seen information that would make me believe that the economy would collapse if a well-thought out policy of CO2 reduction over time was enacted.

I'd say that those who are REALLY using propaganda and scare tactics are the big business economists...but no, they'd never sell you a shoddy bill of goods, would they?

Oh, and you know what's hurting the manufacturing sector the most? It ain't environmental policy, I can tell you that.

(despicably cheap foreign labor)

But hey, you can always fudge the numbers on the manufacturing sector by including McDonald's in it...

About uranium resources:

In order to keep up with demand, mining will have to double in the next decade. If we switched all the world's fossil fuel stations to run on uranium, reserves would last only 3-4 years. There are 2-3 million tonnes of uranium on the planet, but predictions estimate that we'll have exhausted the supply in 30-40 years.