On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:22:00 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Except if you are in the US where the administration has been rabidly
anti global warming and adamantly against changing the way we operate.
Here, until very recently being pro global warming was definitely not
the place to be if you wanted your research grants.


So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

Neither are all or nothing approaches nor would they require
dismantling society as we know it. In some areas wind and solar
(passive AND photovoltaic) are viable resources and in some areas
they are a lost cause. Coal fired plants can use carbon sequestering
along with stack gas washing to produce clean energy from coal and
contrary to claims there is a pilot plant in Florida that found the
recovery to be profitable rather than an extra expense.

My daughter heats a house three times the size of ours with passive
solar. Yes they have to supplement with natural gas but they use a
fraction of what we do in this small home. Plus they have far colder
temperatures and a lot more wind at 9000 feet in the Colorado Rocky
mountains.

If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel. With 120 million family homes
switching the incandescent lights to CFLs would eliminate the need for
roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric generation plants. That
would free up part of the electric grid so it could be used to power
electric cars which at current rates for most of the country
(excluding California) make the cost of operating one a fraction of a
gas powered car.

Just those two simple items would cover a major portion of the CO2
reductions that scientists say are needed. Add to that carbon
sequestering and we'd probably make it with plenty of room to spare.
We could increase our standard of living for less than we pay now.


And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.

IF sea levels did rise by 10 feet it'd displace about half the earth's
population. Rainfall patterns would change drastically and weather
would be subject to far wider swings in temperature and precipitation
than we see now. Now that would really be expensive... for the
survivors.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com