Climate Scientists Turning to Technology For Global Warming Solution

Of course there has to be a "technological remedy," i.e. we need to use reduced-emission technologies for producing and using energy. (E.g. nuclear power, and plug-in electric cars that use nuclear-generated electricity.) Until we get there (and/or to carbon sequestration), we have to limit emissions from current technologies, as in "Kyoto-style curbs" or whatever "fairer" treaty succeeds Kyoto.

But the grandiose schemes you quote from the Independent article mostly sound pretty ridiculous, and are the sort of thing that give "technological remedies" a bad name. More to the point, they themselves could easily have unintended environmental consequences that will make the current global warming crisis seem like a walk in the park. I think that serious research into *all* possibilities (and their feasibility, and their potential consequences) is justified, but I don't think "large-scale" solutions of this sort should be a major focus.

Throw 2 giant Bayer aspirins into the Pacific Ocean and call Al Gore in the morning.

Seems odd to me that as the ice melts, they keep finding old ships stuck in it. Better warm in Seattle than to cold, and we have had a record cold year in all of Wa state, go figure.

And what if they are wrong and we all freeze to death for being stupid in 10 years. Its cold as hell here right now and snowing. Too many idiots with pee brains.

More than 650 international scientists, including former U.N. scientists, have gone on record in a new U.S. Senate report disputing claims that were made last month at a U.N. conference in Poland that human activity is heating up the planet.

The report contains peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting U.N. claims that human activity is responsible for natural cyclical changes in global temperatures.

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists who authorized the media-hyped summary in 2007 made by the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Many of the 650 scientists are current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore.
Man-made global warming is a scare-mongering hoax designed to generate funds. If you are the type who would rather seek out the facts, rather than take Al Gore's word for it, I urge you Google "650 dispute global warming" then click on the Senate Committee on Environmental Works link. It contains quotes from many of the scientists that are in the new report.

One note of particular interest- When the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went from a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on earth out of the equation, like Siberia.

Why wouldn't temps rise? As the world and the US populations increase, we install more and more concrete and asphalt which creates a passive solar situation. Harry gReid's ethanol project back fired, creating a gulf dead zone along with raising food costs. His solar panel debacle outside LV has been proven to create more heat in the surrounding area..glass panels facing the sun killing all vegetation around it. He says no to clean coal and now NV Power wants 17% more from us. Nuclear is out...we have no where to store the debris. Dems say no to oil drilling. Wind is extremely expensive and wouldn't look good on top the Statue of Liberty as Bloomberg had requested. We should be afraid of what B. Hussein's 'green' onslaught will cause. It seems it will only create a Clinton 'dot com' type bubble for him and fill the pockets of the Algore type. The only thing man has caused here is more people.

I'm no tree-hugger but this I know...The Industrial age has brought humanity many, many great things and put TRILLIONS of tons of crap in the air and water. Anyone that thinks it just magically disappears and has NO effect on the environment should suck on an exhaust pipe from a school bus for 1 day. Remember those tobacco scientists telling everyone how safe cigs are. Where have they gone??? Now oil "Scientists" are telling everyone carbon is "OK" and doesn't effect the planet. Yeah right, some people will tell you anything for a buck. Are YOU buying???

larry4:54PMJan 2nd 2009

And what if they are wrong and we all freeze to death for being stupid in 10 years. Its cold as hell here right now and snowing. Too many idiots with pee brains.
--------------------------------------------
Oh where you are is the entire globe. It's called "global warming", pea brain. Where you is called weather. Let's see where the temeprature isw for 2008 and don't look for the world to get warmer every year. We are not on an apple sitting in an oven.

The earth gets cooler and warmer. IF you figure that WE are causing most of it, you have to take into account things most people don't.

0. The solar wind is at a 50 years low, which could cause global cooling.
1. The rain forests are critical. Burning and clearing rain forests are a bigger deal re: greenhouse gases than cars. Remember the Harrison Ford ad with the tape on his chest being ripped off?
2. You have to take into account that Methane Gas, (not burned) released in to the air is much worse than burning it. Methane gas is worse than CO2 re: "greenhouse" gases.
3. You have to take into account that methane released into the atmosphere often comes from several non-man sources: Wetlands, cows belching, termites, permafrost, etc.

Most of us are willing to agree with cleaner air, water and land, that said, I am not worried about the CO2. I am worried about the cow belching and termites. :)

Using the numbers created by the UN, coal power plants in the US cause such a small fraction of CO2 "global warming" that if we stopped using them all, you couldn't tell. Hello?

You want some real information, listen to the 1st 40 minutes.

A Rational Look At Climate Change Concerns

Utah Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee November 19, 2008

The Committee will hear a presentation and receive a handout regarding critical issues about climate change and the production of energy.

Kimball Rasmussen,

http://www.le.utah.gov/av/smil?int=122943

No Jay, the real debate is in fact whether GW is anthropogenic. What I find irresponsible is the fact the AGW proponents claim the "debate is over." In fact, the truth is quite the opposite (the debate goes on). More and more climatologists (rather than the non-specific scientists that reviewed the dubious data contained in the IPCC reports) are skeptical of the anthropogenic aspect of GW. The real tragedy is this "consensus" the AGW crowd has crammed down the throats of everyone in an effort to claim the scientific community is united in its belief the GW is indeed Anthropogenic.
The fact the AGW proponents summarily dismiss different opinions is evidence of their weak data and arguments. I really get a kick how Every weather pattern is now "explained" by GW. Its become farcical. Every Hot year is GW---every Cold year is also the result of GW. Every decrease in rainfall is GW. Every increase in rainfall is GW. AGW advocates simply hold onto their few charts and data points that support their thin arguments without examining the mounting evidence to the contrary.
Mann's "hockey stick" chart was WRONG.
Climate predictions from IPCC computer models have been very inaccurate.
Ice Core Evidence points to CO2 as a lagging GW indicator NOT a leading GW indicator.
CO2 is a Poor GW gas.
Hanson now has had his readings corrected twice.
The "consensus" (Global Cooling) in the 1970s was wrong, what makes us so damn sure we are correct this time?
1000 years ago the consensus was the EARTH was the center of the universe, that consensus didn't work out too well either.
Let the dabate continue.

any global warming denier is a lobbyist for the Oil & Coal Industry's

if you want your renewable energy America...don't be fooled

We can be the 21st Century Energy Leaders

Don't allow these leaches to ruin Our Nation any further

please

What the Public is Saying
Across the country people are showing their support for repowering America with clean electricity. They’ve written more than ten thousand letters to the editor, 2.9 million emails to their friends and shared their excitement with their neighbors.
http://www.repoweramerica.org/action/letters-to-editor/
http://www.repoweramerica.org/tools/voices-repower-america/

See more of what the public is saying.
http://www.repoweramerica.org/tools/voices-repower-america/

Michael. Everything you say is exactly right. The distressing thing is that there's still no data to support the hypothesis that increased CO2 concentration can significantly alter our climate. In fact, it's more the opposite. We've seen a 5% CO2 increase in the past 11 years, and decreasing temperature. Although this is a short period, if temperature can drop under these circumstances, then CO2, if it has any effect, is way overshadowed by other influences.

1. What was atmospheric [Co2] by ppm in 1865?

2. What is it now?

3. What do you want it to be when your children and grandchildren are on their own?

1969.. Me and my school buddy John, were walking home, and the entire conversation was about what we were going to do to fight the coming iceage they had taught us about at school. Fast forward to 1977, the blizzard of 77' left us polarized, in the true sense of the word, here in Buffalo,ny. I dressed up in carhart suit, snowmobile boots, the eskimo susvival gear, and waled around the neighborhood. It was eerie.Absolutely dead out. No people, cars, birds, dogs, nothing. As I walked, occasionally the snow would clear, revealing the car roof undernieth my feet. When I got to the normally jam packed corner of Kensington and Eggert, while walking across I tripped on some thing in the muddle of the intersection. Lokking back, imagine mt surprise to see the thick black wires to the signal, completely under snow. 14 foot to the bottom of the signal, 3 feet of the signal bok, and 1 foot clearance for the wire. 18 feet of snow in a busy intersection. The news programs, at that time very few had cable T.V., all said "global cooling was to blame". They brought in expert after expert that told us al the evidence is in, and the world was definitely getting colder. Imagine my surprise in 1986, when on one hot summer day the radio said "global warming was causing our heatwave" Huh? I was befuddled, never getting my announcement that the worries of a frozen hell were over, and now we only had to worry about frying to death. I guess Al Gore got a pass from the liberal main stream press, when it was later detected that the the lions share of his expert scientists on global warming were POLITICAL SCIENTISTS!!! No need tell anybody, he meant well, and the fact he got mega-rich of it was just his rightful compensation for puting on his cape and saving the world! Lucky us, huh?

What about acid rain? I though that was going to be our undoing? OOOPS!! nevermind. Oh snap, the global warming con ain't workin'. I know, changew it to "global CLIMATE change"! YEAH,YEAHH!! That'll fool em. Long enough to get billions in graft, er, um, GRANT money! Funny how NASA was against this til congress threatened to defund them, and now lead the charge! They can't go back to work in the private sector, they expect results!!

No VOR we who dont agree are not all oil & gas lobbyist We just disagree. This was the coldest summer on record for Alaska.  It was announced last month on some of the news channels.  I dont think all Media are involved with the oil & gas industry, because some of them also just happen to disagree.

I dont think all Media are involved with the oil & gas industry, because some of them also just happen to disagree.


xxx

disagree? do you all take a vote on which way is up, too?

It's amazing how people with no scientific literacy whatsoever think they actually know more than experts. I can see them wandering into an OR theater and pushing the surgeon aside - hey, I can do that! Land a jet plane? surrre, no problem, move over.

That is exactly what got us here, too.