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 <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
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: <vdn4mv$3t78e$2@dont-email.me>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net>
 <ceff4cd0-7f16-0f42-588b-374e89acf00c@example.net>
 <vcfq1i$8o8k$2@dont-email.me>
 <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>
 <vcvu4d$3hnv8$1@dont-email.me> <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdmtmu$3s32s$1@dont-email.me> <vdn1t8$3sog6$1@dont-email.me>
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: <vdn1t8$3sog6$1@dont-email.me>
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 <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
>>>> D  <nospam@example.net> 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