@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Quote:This is very misleading in that the "record" comprises only a tiny slice of the earth's geological history. On a geological scale the earth's climate has never been stable and has experienced extended periods far warmer than anything on "the record".
Jesus. You're still there? Nine or ten years ago, W said, "Yeah, we're experiencing climate change driven in part by human activity".
But the worst thing about your formulation above is that there is no change phenomena which you cannot ascribe to "small slice of time". In other words, no evidence will be of any importance at all.
I don't regard W as the last word on the subject any more than likely do you. That said I don't have a problem with the statement you quoted. The issue here is the change we have been seeing and measuring over the past four decades has consistently been far less (and for a while in exactly the opposite direction) than the predictions of the zealots who are demanding control of the world's energy production (that's a lot of political power).
The brave new sustainable world they seek, free of nuclear power and fossil fuels, won't be able to sustain the population of the earth, without new technical innovations that are not yet even on the horizon for researchers.
The actual behaviors (as opposed to the statements they make and the unenforcable agreements they sign) of other nations clearly demonstrate that they don't buy this stuff either. Angela Merkel (a physicist) shut down about 1/3rd of Germany's older nuclear plants in a cynical, but effective move to destroy Germany's Green party - and replaced the power they produced largely with coal fired plants in Poland. China ia prodigously building and opening new coal fired plants. Norway is prospering as it pumps and sells petroleum from the North Sea at the best prices it can get. etc.
We can and should reduce our carbon emissions as quickly as we can practically do so. However we should not threaten our economy and the safety of our population by mindlessly following the prescriptions of zealots who seek power over us and whose precsription for us is both ineffective in achieving their stated goals and itself replete with contradictions.
All the wind and solar power generated with enormous subsidies over the past few decades won't replace even 15% of the existing nuclear power generating capacity they propose to shut down. Far greater GHG reductions have already been achieved (almost without public notice) through the replacement of coal generating plants with combined cycle gas turbines using fracked natural gas. This is happening not through regulatory enforcement but through the normal economic process of seeking cheaper, more efficient production. (Meanwhile the EPA seeks to shut down both the remaining coal plants and the gas sources needed to replace them).
Heavily subsidized corn based ethanol does nothing to reduce GHG emissions- indeed it increase them and raises the price of food in the process.
Photo voltaic solar power remains expensive and inefficient. Research into the use of solar energy to produce free hydrogen through photosynthesis is ongoing and in a decade or so may offer some revolutionary improvements. Continuing subsidies for photo voltaic solar power have the perverse side effect of discouraging needed new research and improving the efficiency of the very systems they seek to promote.
These and other like facts should suggest to you that there is progress to be made here, but little of it is coming from the self appointed directors of our collective futures.
