Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money?

The "tax" generates "income" to be spent on research and development. If this R & D is not carried out, we shall be in much worse trouble than merely being "short of money".


They must be mining it on the Moon, then. When did they get there?

The obsolescence planned into mass-produced goods reflects a vision of a better future. It isn't possible to design any "perfect" thing, because change is demanded by both fashion and innovation. This applies to most things.

Everything either goes out of fashion, and/or is superseded by superior product. All manufacturers attempt to balance the longevity of their product to its natural sales lifetime. It's more profitable that way.

"Only stainless steel cutlery lasts forever." - Jazzy. Except when in the hands of Uri Geller, of course...


The tax generates income,yes,above all if we don´t become poorer and that tax is spent on resarch and development rather than on the same wealthy people´s pockets,which is the other face of the coin.That´s mi opinion.Fashion and innovation can be included in items without producing more ones,as that is a waste of materials,energy and time without saying there are a looot of people that they would not change devices,computers,cars...etc,if they would not be obliged because of obsolescence planned.

Mi friend told me,that energy is called "fission" and it is in regard to helium.I don´t know any more,but International companies have invested on a French business that work that.
 
The tax generates income, yes, above all if we don´t become poorer, and that tax is spent on resarch and development rather than on the same wealthy people's pockets, which is the other face of the coin. That´s mi opinion.
That's a very poor argument. It wouldn't have been very productive if you used it in Britain in 1939. Our warming atmosphere is a deadlier threat than Nazi Germany ever was. People remain the same, mostly. You aren't going to change Human Nature overnight.

Fashion and innovation can be included in items without producing more ones, as that is a waste of materials, energy and time, without saying there are a lot of people that they would not change devices, computers,cars...etc, if they would not be obliged because of obsolescence planned.
Obsolescence isn't "planned", for reasons I have already stated. Things wear out.

Mi friend told me, that energy is called "fission" and it is in regard to helium. I don´t know any more, but International companies have invested on a French business that works that.
Helium 3 is found in Moon dust. Fusion is required to liberate the stored energy, I believe. (Groping somewhat!)
 
Helium 3 is found in Moon dust. Fusion is required to liberate the stored energy, I believe. (Groping somewhat!)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Power_generation
A second-generation approach to controlled fusion power involves combining helium-3 (3​2​He) and deuterium (2​1​H). This reaction produces a helium-4ion (4​2​He) (like an alpha particle, but of different origin) and a high-energy proton (positively charged hydrogen ion) (1​1​p). The most important potential advantage of this fusion reaction for power production as well as other applications lies in its compatibility with the use of electrostatic fields to control fuel ions and the fusion protons. Protons, as positively charged particles, can be converted directly into electricity, through use of solid-stateconversion materials as well as other techniques. Potential conversion efficiencies of 70% may be possible, as there is no need to convert proton energy to heat in order to drive a turbine-powered electrical generator[citation needed]​.

There have been many claims about the capabilities of helium-3 power plants. According to proponents, fusion power plants operating on deuteriumand helium-3 would offer lower capital and operating costs than their competitors due to less technical complexity, higher conversion efficiency, smaller size, the absence of radioactive fuel, no air or water pollution, and only low-level radioactive waste disposal requirements. Recent estimates suggest that about $6 billion in investment capital will be required to develop and construct the first helium-3 fusion power plant. Financial breakeven at today's wholesale electricity prices (5 US cents per kilowatt-hour) would occur after five 1-gigawatt plants were on line, replacing old conventional plants or meeting new demand.[53]

The reality is not so clear-cut. The most advanced fusion programs in the world are inertial confinement fusion (such as National Ignition Facility) andmagnetic confinement fusion (such as ITER and other tokamaks). In the case of the former, there is no solid roadmap to power generation. In the case of the latter, commercial power generation is not expected until around 2050.[54] In both cases, the type of fusion discussed is the simplest: D-T fusion. The reason for this is the very low Coulomb barrier for this reaction; for D+3​He, the barrier is much higher, and it is even higher for 3​He–3​He. The immense cost of reactors like ITER and National Ignition Facility are largely due to their immense size, yet to scale up to higher plasma temperatures would require reactors far larger still. The 14.7 MeV proton and 3.6 MeV alpha particle from D–3​He fusion, plus the higher conversion efficiency, means that more electricity is obtained per kilogram than with D-T fusion (17.6 MeV), but not that much more. As a further downside, the rates of reaction for helium-3 fusion reactions are not particularly high, requiring a reactor that is larger still or more reactors to produce the same amount of electricity.

To attempt to work around this problem of massively large power plants that may not even be economical with D-T fusion, let alone the far more challenging D–3​He fusion, a number of other reactors have been proposed – the Fusor, Polywell, Focus fusion, and many more, though many of these concepts have fundamental problems with achieving a net energy gain, and generally attempt to achieve fusion in thermal disequilibrium, something that could potentially prove impossible,[55] and consequently, these long-shot programs tend to have trouble garnering funding despite their low budgets. Unlike the "big", "hot" fusion systems, however, if such systems were to work, they could scale to the higher barrier "aneutronic" fuels, and therefore their proponents tend to promote p-B fusion, which requires no exotic fuels like helium-3.
Content from External Source
 
Wow, that was quick. Thanks, Mick.

treasurecoastskywatch said:
Just like Hitler was a nice guy and never threatened or exterminated anyone.

If you cannot see the factual and scientific threat we all face right now, and deny the evidence, you are free to do so. But you force the rest of us to consider you a threat to our existence.

The fossil carbon we are rapidly returning to the atmosphere took hundreds of millions of years to be fixed in the ground.

Before it was fixed it had accumulated in the atmosphere in the time of Snowball Earth.

It accumulated to the point where the atmospheric heat melted the ice which had formerly covered the planet from pole to equator. The atmospheric temperature then rose by several tens of degrees until all non-coastal land became desert, and the sea level rose by a hundred and fifty feet.

If we ignore that, we will experience it.

Not "we", of course, but our miserably-damned descendants.
 
Mick,¡buuuf!,It´s Chinese to me.My friend told me that is "fission",not "fusion"; it is based on helium and there are a lot of multinationals interested in it,at least in France.Is that true?
 
Wow, that was quick. Thanks, Mick.


Just like Hitler was a nice guy and never threatened or exterminated anyone.

If you cannot see the factual and scientific threat we all face right now, and deny the evidence, you are free to do so. But you force the rest of us to consider you a threat to our existence.

The fossil carbon we are rapidly returning to the atmosphere took hundreds of millions of years to be fixed in the ground.

Before it was fixed it had accumulated in the atmosphere in the time of Snowball Earth.

It accumulated to the point where the atmospheric heat melted the ice which had formerly covered the planet from pole to equator. The atmospheric temperature then rose by several tens of degrees until all non-coastal land became desert, and the sea level rose by a hundred and fifty feet.

If we ignore that, we will experience it.

Not "we", of course, but our miserably-damned descendants.
Like the trillions of debt ? Doesnt seem like anyone cares about that ? Hoax or a CONSPIRACY and hype all for money carbon taxes . What about the Nuclear threat ? Seems that would heat things up pretty fast yet we do nothing about that because we cant TAX it . I worry more they will try to fix something and only make it worse . If they spent all the time and money figuring out how to make carbon free power they would have solved it already . Yes they will stop China and India from emitting carbon ? What the hell does HITLER have to do with anything ??? So us carbon polluters are like Hitler ? Just because you live on a Island and can ride a bike anywhere doesnt make you a Saint !
 
I think the compressed air car idea never really took off, too many technical problems with storing that much energy in that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

Remember this is really just a way of storing energy. Kind of like a battery, or a clockwork car.
mabe if they used CO2 instead . Then the can get credit for carbon sequestration until they use it ? In order to increase energy density, some systems may use gases that can be liquified or solidified. "CO2 offers far greater compressibility than air when it transitions from gaseous to supercritical form .
 
Something has to power the air compressor.
Yes they said it cost way less then to purchase gas . Could also use a compressor to slow the car down and regenerating the air pressure ? they also have Hybrids .
 
Just because you live on a Island and can ride a bike anywhere doesnt make you a Saint !
It seems you missed my point. It's a simple one.

If we continue putting back the carbon dioxide which at one time roasted the earth back into the atmosphere to do the job again, we shall roast ourselves. The proof of that is written in earth's rock.

It makes no difference whether "China won't stop" or "I am holier than thou" - it is still going to happen.

However, if we all believe in science and our ability to control ourselves, and stop burning fossil carbon, and take steps to mitigate the powerful processes already under way, it then will NOT happen.

That's our choice. There aren't any other options. So choose.
 
I am more pro fossil fuels than some, BUT we do need to be reducing the use of the worst offenders, especially coal. We need to help China and India reduce their dependence on them. The US and much of the developed world is sort of stuck for the next 15 -20 years at the best. We need to make sure that others develop without our dependence.

I wish we had continued the work on alternative energy sources after the oil embargo of the 70s.

I do my part, my power is green, I limit my driving, my hubby uses transit, we use CFL lights, own a small house.
 
yes. mother nature can fix herself if we dont make it worse. man is on an ego trip if he thinks he can control the weather..
the scariest quote i ever heard..
'what mother nature has done for millions of years automaticly may now require mankinds help to keep the schedual'..
man screwed up the planet stop trying to fix it! no we can use up the planet, hop a missle and go screw up a new planet. thats not going to happen. what WILL happen, IMO, the earth is about to shed its skin, for lack of a better term. when the planet needs a forest seeded, it sends a lightning strike to burn the old trees , then it will rain when the proper amount of forest has burned. now brand new trees can be born. the planet knows how to fix itself if we dont screw it up too bad. but im positive, the earth is about to start it over.earth is going to shake like a wet dog, then burn off the forests and people, flood it out and start over brand new.. im telling ya, the earth is about to shed her skin ( humans) shake off us termits and start over brand new.. then life will begin again. probably wont be just like humans though, if you think about it the dinasours were not the best attempt at life. too big, ate all the food, so that plan got squashed, dinasours wiped out, start over..humans.. now look what we gone and done.we proved ourselfs to be selfish little pigs that leave nothing but mess, cant even get along with each other and are breeding way too fast. food sources will be gone soon, but the planet isnt stupid. it has fixed itself all this time, it will keep on long after humans are gone. im no 'end of the world' person, but its coming, within 50-100 years.my guess. i just hope it happens quick... call me crazy, thats whats going to happen!
 
yes. mother nature can fix herself if we dont make it worse. man is on an ego trip if he thinks he can control the weather..
the scariest quote i ever heard..
'what mother nature has done for millions of years automaticly may now require mankinds help to keep the schedual'..
man screwed up the planet stop trying to fix it! no we can use up the planet, hop a missle and go screw up a new planet. thats not going to happen. what WILL happen, IMO, the earth is about to shed its skin, for lack of a better term. when the planet needs a forest seeded, it sends a lightning strike to burn the old trees , then it will rain when the proper amount of forest has burned. now brand new trees can be born. the planet knows how to fix itself if we dont screw it up too bad. but im positive, the earth is about to start it over.earth is going to shake like a wet dog, then burn off the forests and people, flood it out and start over brand new.. im telling ya, the earth is about to shed her skin ( humans) shake off us termits and start over brand new.. then life will begin again. probably wont be just like humans though, if you think about it the dinasours were not the best attempt at life. too big, ate all the food, so that plan got squashed, dinasours wiped out, start over..humans.. now look what we gone and done.we proved ourselfs to be selfish little pigs that leave nothing but mess, cant even get along with each other and are breeding way too fast. food sources will be gone soon, but the planet isnt stupid. it has fixed itself all this time, it will keep on long after humans are gone. im no 'end of the world' person, but its coming, within 50-100 years.my guess. i just hope it happens quick... call me crazy, thats whats going to happen!
Nature will always fix itself. But our lifetime is but a moment to Nature.

It takes 10,000 years for an emerging volcanic island to develop a mature forest cover. We can do the same in the lifetime of a single tree.

If we don't set about acknowledging our wrecking of the earth's ecology and apply ourselves to immediate fixes, then our descendants (if there are any) are surely going to damn our eyes.
 
What is the TRUE cost of climate change? Is stopping it early really the cheapest plan in the long run? 50 to 1 explores the costs of stopping climate change vs adapting to it as and if it's required,
Content from External Source
 
[Admin: This new thread was split off from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/79...nd-debunkers-agree-upon-regarding-chemtrails]

Would you agree that it is a waste of money to try to alter the climate?

How can we agree on this complex information when Monckton makes a very good case (financial case) for doing nothing...

[video=youtube_share;RfkcpW93Z5Y]

Edit: (financial)


Monckton makes no case at all. If you'd like to discus any specific claiims he's making feel free to point them out but in the end he' really doesn't have clue what he's talking about
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don`t have a problem (if) Monckton is partially correct/correct or entirely wrong. But the same scientists who are funded with $Billions to inform us that the Earth is warming are the same scientists who were informing us of the impending "Ice Age" 30 odd years ago. They are as accurate as Monckton is (in my opinion).

Most of the articles on this site are not written by Monckton, but no doubt he supports them. These articles would have to be debunked before we can conclude that Monckton is debunked...?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/


Sorry friend but wrong on all counts. Monckton is pretty much wrong across the board and those scientists you seem to think are raking in billions are actually drinking really bad stale beer and eating cold pizza. I know a whole bunch of pretty big names in the field and even the best aren't exactly living high on the hog. Also that bit about our timing in the interglacial cycle, go look at the graphs and get back to us about where you think we should be vs where we are due to GHG emissions.
 
Post was to be about ineffective carbon taxation schemes - and the carbon credit scam...

Whether AGW is really affecting the climate (more than sunspot activity) is wide open for debate...

Yet the taxation is massively, and increasingly, in effect...


actually there is absolutely no debate concerning the solar output and the alterations man has made in the atmospheric chemistry.

Solar output has nothing to do with the planets insulating layer being influenced by GHG emissions



Your confusing Milankovitch cycles with pollution
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The subject is just too complex, and the opposing views have to mean that the science is NOT settled:

No they don't, if you look at the top 100 most published climate scientist you'll find one dissenting opinion, its either Christy or Spencer can't remember which. If you look at the top 500 you end up with two dissenting opinions. Both are being paid by the oil and gas industry. Its not exactly rocket science to figure out there really isn't a debate.
 
Better not to waste $billions/($trillions) now based on what "might" happen sometime in the future?

So what 'WILL' happen in the future and 'WHEN' in the future will this happen?

And how much taxation is acceptable to try to avert this inevitable (event/s)?

Where would you draw the line, at what spending point, - and admit that a wait and see policy should be adopted - then attempt to tackle whatever 'might' happen 'if' and 'when' (whatever) does happen, if it ever does?

What "WILL" happen is that our planet "WILL" heat up proportionately to the level of CO2 within the atmosphere. As a result of that the ecosystem will change. The rate of change is the problem. But we can look at past climate events and estimate just what happens to the ecosystem when alterations in the climate system exceed x.

Go look up mass extinctions and get back to us on that one.

Oh, don't forget to calculate out the depth of the extinction and its rate of onset vs the rate of climate shift. Its kinda a wake up call. Think 4~6°C by the end of the century. Pretty much means the end of life as we know it and very very likely another snowball earth event. I posted some calculations as to just how accurate these statements are in another thread, don't remember the tittle of it at the moment but its around here somewhere if you care to look it up. Try KT boundary extinction as a key word, or maybe Permian Triassic boundary extinction, or Cambrian extinction. Oh hell just look up extinction in the search feature.
 
How silly, Joe. The money moves, Joe. It doesn't disappear. It isn't destroyed. It is redirected. Stationary money is worthless. Moving money is useful.

All this argument about carbon taxes is a proxy argument of the energy companies. THEY don't want to vanish, but they surely will.

Either the present energy companies vanish, or the oceans arrive.

How expensive is an ocean rise of two hundred and fifty feet?

You should read up on the tragedy of the commons.
 
How silly, Joe. The money moves, Joe. It doesn't disappear. It isn't destroyed. It is redirected. Stationary money is worthless. Moving money is useful.

All this argument about carbon taxes is a proxy argument of the energy companies. THEY don't want to vanish, but they surely will.

Either the present energy companies vanish, or the oceans arrive.

How expensive is an ocean rise of two hundred and fifty feet?

You should read up on the tragedy of the commons.
Of course it moves . Into someones pocket . doesnt solve a problem it only enriches people . Its a SCAM . The Ocean that is filling on a daily basis with radiation from Japan ? The 3rd World War about to start over our stupid leaders ? Im supposed to worry about 3 degrees in a hundred years ? That is silly Jazzy ! 250 Feet ? LOL :)
 
Of course it moves . Into someones pocket . doesnt solve a problem it only enriches people . Its a SCAM . The Ocean that is filling on a daily basis with radiation from Japan ? The 3rd World War about to start over our stupid leaders ? Im supposed to worry about 3 degrees in a hundred years ? That is silly Jazzy ! 250 Feet ? LOL :)
Watch your petroleum shares, then, if you must. It will be OK for you if you don't have children, don't live close to the sea, enjoy the taste of soylent green, don't mind fighting for your food.
Tragedy of the commons, Joe, tragedy of the commons. You're in the game. We all are.
 
Watch your petroleum shares, then, if you must. It will be OK for you if you don't have children, don't live close to the sea, enjoy the taste of soylent green, don't mind fighting for your food.
Tragedy of the commons, Joe, tragedy of the commons. You're in the game. We all are.
Florida ? I dont think there is one spot over 250 feet in the whole state
 
Florida ? I dont think there is one spot over 250 feet in the whole state
That's right.
The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known pamphlet in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). We may well call it "the tragedy of the commons," using the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." He then goes on to say, "This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama."

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only -(A/(A+1)), where A is the original number of animals.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
Content from External Source
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Read the rest of it. It's a good read.
 
Back
Top