Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lynn McGuire Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:09:35 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 87 Message-ID: References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:09:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fe27726c6e329c846811483d5d200367"; logging-data="4103438"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+PPrZOXc0TyyqemuI2OXqYg/nbgpANQc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:4FKmOhzntwAQmdITUGOUQ5PnUDw= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4968 On 10/3/2024 4:21 PM, William Hyde wrote: > Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote: >>> Mike Van Pelt wrote: >>>> In article , >>>> D  wrote: >>>>> Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely >>>>> contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never >>>>> taken into account or ever discussed. >>>> >>>> My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases >>>> cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled >>>> experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing >>>> unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing. >>>> >>>> But ... >>>> >>>> We are in a Catch 22.  Trying to run techological civilization >>>> on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy >>>> is impossible.  To the extent the attempt is compelled by force, >>>> the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever >>>> it is successfully compelled. >>>> >>>> I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly >>>> as possible.  Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts >>>> of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel >>>> taken off line.  Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only >>>> then* does the fossil go offline." >>>> >>>> (Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric >>>> generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars, >>>> we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.) >>>> >>>> The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who >>>> are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably >>>> convinces me that they do not belive it themselves. >>> >>> >>> Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate >>> scientists I know. >>> >>> Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the >>> warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not >>> involve catastrophic economic decline.  But even if we accept that >>> this was possible then, it isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least >>> for a few decades. >>> >>> I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be >>> carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and >>> CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked >>> natural gas.  Better than coal, but not good enough). >>> >>> Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time.  There >>> is no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't >>> currently have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't >>> believe it's beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job. >>> >>> >>> William Hyde >> >> All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck. > > Indeed they do. > > But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power > sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on. > > It's an unsolved problem and a hard one.  But we really need it, and > should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding. > > Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion of > one highway in Toronto. > > If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content, > while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some of > the damage we've already done. > > So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge. > > > William Hyde I am still wondering who is going to get the Chinese to cut their CO2 emissions now that they are 1/3rd of the world's CO2 emissions ? Lynn