> On Jan 22, 10:11 pm, "Sean"
blah.com.au> wrote:>> "tg"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a2b0b66e-d4f9-45b1-b99a-4017c05f20eb@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 22, 9:43 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> The problem for the deniers is that all the data collection and
>>>>>> calculations have been aimed at *falsifying* the
>>>>>> hypothesis---people
>>>>>> thought up all the possible mechanisms for feedback and
>>>>>> saturation,
>>>>>> and set out to test for them. No luck.
>>
>>>>> Everyone is a AGW denier. ?It's just a matter of how much.
>>
>>>>> Now, if someone (1) claims to know something about economics and
>>>>> (2)
>>>>> denies the deficits that followed the Reagan and W. Bush tax cuts
>>>>> and
>>>>> (3) denies the budget surpluses that followed Clinton I tax hikes,
>>>>> then he'll deny the sun coming up in the morning if he thinks
>>>>> that's
>>>>> standard GOP boilerplate.
>>
>>>>>> So there isn't a magical
>>>>>> mechanism out there to fix things---I know Bret, we *could* set
>>>>>> off
>>>>>> artificial volcanoes and bloom the algae and so on, but
>>>>>> terraforming
>>>>>> Terra is just a bit risky for my tastes.
>>
>>>>> Part of being an AGW denier is denying that we are out of
>>>>> environmentally correct solutions.
>>
>>>>> Let us admit the truth: ?Our options are limited to cockamamie
>>>>> schemes
>>>>> that have a really good chance of not working out as planned.
>>
>>>>>> Let's experiment on Mars
>>>>>> first.
>>
>>>>> We don't have to jump in with both feet. ?First spend a couple
>>>>> years
>>>>> trying something at 10 - 20%% of what it would take to stabilize the
>>>>> climate. ?Determine the effect and side effects -- this
>>>>> "interference"
>>>>> will also give us more information as to AGW -- and then maybe try
>>>>> something else before fully controlling ave. global temperatures.
>>
>>>>> Most of the heat reflected by artic ice is in the spring - summer
>>>>> when
>>>>> it's facing the sun. ?If we wait until the ice is gone at that time
>>>>> of
>>>>> year then we get what they call in controls theory a "positive
>>>>> feedback."
>>
>>>>> Instead of something that might work we'll have something we are
>>>>> 100%%
>>>>> certain will _not_ work.
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>>> It could be that some of the things we
>>>> have done to reduce short term pollutants have actually contributed
>>>> to
>>>> AGW by taking out negative feedbacks.
>>
>>> And vice versa. We need a full cost benefit risk analysis, not just
>>> a big energy balance.
>>
>> I'm still trying to think through the hydrogen car. Isn't the emission
>> water vapor, the big mama of greenhouse gases?
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> It uses water to make the hydrogen tg .... net zero sum mate ... except
>> for
>> the "power/resources" to do the electrolosis and build the plants and
>> transport the H
>>
>> And water vapour may be an ingredient in GHG radiative effects, but it
>> doesn't act like CO2, or methane, or things like CFC's. The H2O in the
>> entire system is pretty constant. The others are what was going through
>> the
>> roof and causing the imablances. OK? ;-)
>>
>> cheers sean
>
> Happy to be corrected by a sane person who knows what he's talking
> about. ;-)
>
> I didn't make the proper distinction between burning hydrogen in an
> ICE and fuel cells---see subsequent post. If you burn hydrogen, you
> are in effect causing evaporation of water which is not part of the
> natural cycle---you are making the hydrogen from groundwater which
> otherwise woud stay liquid.
>
> I think Bret is correct though that the fuel cell mode (where water is
> recycled) is not competitive with batteries, and I think the supercap
> idea has real potential to tip the scales. But in the final analysis,
> there has to be, as you say, the will. And that isn't going to come
> from market forces.
>
Absolutely correct!
Why? because there is no such animal that operates as a free agent in this
world, and there NEVER has been.
The so called "free market" is in fact a "controlled market", and it;s
controlled by those who havbe the power to control it and regulate it.
Through time those have worn different cloaks. At one time say it was the
Catholic Church and the Bishops because they had all the money, the assets,
and the power.
Today, it's in different garb, but the dynamics are still the very same.
People can imagine and believe they live in a free democratic society and
within a free market system, but that doesn't mean they actually do.
Show me one person with a mortgage who can negotiate their own Interest
rates and not have the Fed influence what the Banks and others will charge
them .... know anyone? Is that a free market or a highly regulated and
controlled one?
The latter of course. IOW it's just spin, but people swallow it because the
mantra is repeated ad nauseum.
Can I buy 10 tankers of fuel oil in Singapore, and sail to the nearest USA
Port and sell it in a free market at any price I want to as a non-US citizen
and a free-agent? No way Hose! ;-)
> The ideal model electric platform was actually presented as a concept
> car (by Chrysler I believe) a few years back. But as per my
> discussion, there is simply no market reason to go beyond that bit of
> image-buffing. Look at Toyota, which produced the Prius but is
> marketing the big gas-guzzling truck with all its might. There's just
> too much invested in ICE and the web that supports it.
>
> -tg
>
Yes, but when the pain gets too great, eg $150 a barrel of Oil, when the
science of Global Warming, GHG's and Climate becomes undisputable even for
the uneducated and the current hoarde of skeptics [ who will turn sooner or
later], then the Will to Action will rise.
On the other hand, any shortcomings in the current science will over time
show up ... it always does as in cases of cover up by Drug Companies etc.
Everything follows a pattern. This iisue is no different.
Climate change issues will continue to rise in importance and action will be
taken, and sensible chnages will be adopted over time, just like what
happened with Acid rain.
As the saying goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time ...
etc. ;-))
The energy of the Sun for example will be harnessed. Why pay the Arabs $100
a barrell for Oil, plus Billions a month in security costs, plus shipping
costs, plus refinery costs, plus distribution costs, when the technology to
power an 100%% electric car from the solar panels on your own roof is
available now .... not only available but actually in use right now.
On top of that, people with this setup are selling excess power into the
grid and that's in the USA NOW.
In Europe, anyone installing solar [ and they only have 20-30%% of equivalent
sunshine quality/time what we have in australia ] is paid 4 times the going
rate that the power companies charge users. Why? because the Government made
it a Law so as to encourage the switching to alternative energy and get the
economies of scale up.
Oh that's too much like "socialism"? How much $$$ does the Governemt in the
USA pay airlines to not go broke, subsidies to car manufatcurers, energy
policies that that keep propping up old oil companies etc etc etc. and the
cost of the War in Iraq and the sabbre rattling at Iran and Venezuala?
Mmmmm, talk about Government intervention on the grandest scale.
Whatever happend to the free market? To market forces and consumer demand
deciding what was best for the individual?
No wonder the propaganda is to refute and deny any real problem with global
warming through GHG's etc because some people just can't handle change, or
freedom.
Think, what would happen to many a stock price if people actually had access
to a fair priced alternative energy system for their car and home, one that
was basically FREE from the sun after the intital one-off investment of less
than the price of a new car?
By the time China gets to producing billions of Solar panels, there won;t be
an issue and the Oil companies & car manufacturers will go the way of the
Stage Coach and the railways if they don't change. And hard nosed
politicians who choose the worng side will simply lose office.
Easy really, it will happen .... and as quickly as it took the USA to put a
man on the moon after JFK put it out there as the goal.
>
>
>
