"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:47:02 on Thu, 13
Oct 2011, d remarked:
The cost vs benefit is unfavourable, compared to many more useful
things one could be doing.

There's nothing like a good bit of short termist thinking. Let me
guess, education, hospitals, all the other standard issue emotive
vote winners? Fat lot of use any of them will be if the climate
shifts drastically and we're not ready for it.

Spend your time/money preparing for the climate shift, rather than
doing a Canute and hoping a reduction of your already tiny carbon
footprint will save the world.

Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may become an
essential tactic. We could be actively researching the various
proposals, so we're in a position to benefit when they become the only
viable solution. Personally, I think this is much more likely to succeed
than persuading the large CO2 producers to cut their emissions.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:15:19 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may become an
essential tactic. We could be actively researching the various

Sticking large amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere or building
huge sunshields or other pie in the sky ideas like those arn't going to happen.

proposals, so we're in a position to benefit when they become the only
viable solution. Personally, I think this is much more likely to succeed
than persuading the large CO2 producers to cut their emissions.

China has already been persuaded in part. Of the big polluters its only the
bloody minded US that refuses to have anything to do with it unless its some
fatuous plan like bioethanol from corn which produces more CO2 than it saves
but keeps US farmers and agribusiness gainfully employed.

B2003

wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:15:19 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may
become an essential tactic. We could be actively researching the
various

Sticking large amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere or
building huge sunshields or other pie in the sky ideas like those
arn't going to happen.

There are a number of other proposals, some more whacky than others.
None are no-brainers, but some may become esential.

On Oct 13, 1:53*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:15:19 +0100

"Recliner" wrote:
Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may become an
essential tactic. We could be actively researching the various

Sticking large amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere or building
huge sunshields or other pie in the sky ideas like those arn't going to happen.

proposals, so we're in a position to benefit when they become the only
viable solution. Personally, I think this is much more likely to succeed
than persuading the large CO2 producers to cut their emissions.

China has already been persuaded in part. Of the big polluters its only the
bloody minded US that refuses to have anything to do with it unless its some
fatuous plan like bioethanol from corn which produces more CO2 than it saves
but keeps US farmers and agribusiness gainfully employed.

Many refineries in the US are closing, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=newsarchive&sid=amg1Ou18W4wY . There is a coming shortage
of refining cappacity. Drilling in the gulf is banned http://
www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
.. Drilling in ANWR has not been allowed http://politicmo.com/
2011/03/30/hartzler-calls-for-drilling-in-anwr-offshore/ . There is
no effort to reach the vast shale deposits under the rockies http://
www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/panel-defeats-attempt-end-oil-shale-moratorium/
.. The EPA has declared CO2 a greenhouse gas and started enforcing its
regulations in that regard http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/
us-usa-congress-epa-idUSTRE6595NO20100610 . Under BHO's
administration the EPA has a field day. Meanwhile the US economy is
in free fall.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
.. The EPA has declared CO2 a greenhouse gas and started enforcing its
regulations in that regard http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/
us-usa-congress-epa-idUSTRE6595NO20100610 . Under BHO's
administration the EPA has a field day. Meanwhile the US economy is
in free fall.

So now the US enviromental protection agency is responsible for the world
recession? Thats a new one.

B2003

On Oct 13, 3:36*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
.. *The EPA has declared CO2 a greenhouse gas and started enforcing its
regulations in that regard http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/
us-usa-congress-epa-idUSTRE6595NO20100610 . *Under BHO's
administration the EPA has a field day. *Meanwhile the US economy is
in free fall.

So now the US enviromental protection agency is responsible for the world
recession? Thats a new one.

Not entirely what I was trying to say. The EPA is responsible for
holding back the energy industry within the US. This is not helping
the US economy. A robust energy sector with low prices would help the
US economy.

It is certainly not true, as you say, that the global warming fallacy
is not impacting decision making in the US. It is having a severe
impact there with gas prices @ 3.85/US Gallon. Since goods travel
vast distances, increasing gas prices impacts all Main Street prices.

There are of course other factors affecting the worldwide recession.
Bad banking practices, the dumb idea of a super national currency in
Europe, crazy work practices in Greece, et al.

As an aside the Sovereign State of Texas is hardly in recession.
Texas is drilling new deep level wells and employment is increasing.
Likewise, the Province of Alberta, CA is experiencing a boom as it
exports refined shale oil to the US.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
It is certainly not true, as you say, that the global warming fallacy

Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

As an aside the Sovereign State of Texas is hardly in recession.
Texas is drilling new deep level wells and employment is increasing.
Likewise, the Province of Alberta, CA is experiencing a boom as it
exports refined shale oil to the US.

Yes, and texas is such a model example of enviromental controls.

You know the thing that would help the most is if people kept their bloody
trousers on and stopped having so many damn kids. If there were only a
billion people on the planet it wouldn't matter a jot if we all drove around
in 5 litre V8s and left the lights on 24/7.

B2003

On Oct 14, 10:01*am, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
It is certainly not true, as you say, that the global warming fallacy

Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

There are clear long term climate cycles. We are now transitioning
into a cooling trend. Hence the warmers now talk about "climate
change". It is about more funds for the liberal elite.

As an aside the Sovereign State of Texas is hardly in recession.
Texas is drilling new deep level wells and employment is increasing.
Likewise, the Province of Alberta, CA is experiencing a boom as it
exports refined shale oil to the US.

Yes, and texas is such a model example of enviromental controls.

You know the thing that would help the most is if people kept their bloody
trousers on and stopped having so many damn kids. If there were only a
billion people on the planet it wouldn't matter a jot if we all drove around
in 5 litre V8s and left the lights on 24/7.

Hardly an issue in European countries.