A Cold War Over Warming

What happens if global efforts to set and abide by strong carbon emissions cuts fail?

... Complete entry

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/15  at  03:43 PM

Your article poses some real problems with the politics involved in climate change negotiations, and also highlights the absolute certainty that certain parties will play the game of advantages, if not directly opposing carbon regulation, then to acquire alternate means of energies presently prohibited for them. I mention no names, yet you get my meaning concerning clever manipulators whom wish to serve themselves in their political objectives and goals.

The world's political interactions concerning the agreements for just about anything has always proven difficult, hence sanctions and conflicts and wars. Can we afford to wait it out? I think not, even talk is better than no talk at all, even a little is better than nothing done at all.

Your article mentions geo-engineering playing a more major role? Perhaps a major step towards geo-engineering planet Earth is to reduce world population growth, and therefore reducing the carbon consumption that is required to farm, feed and clothe us all, whilst at the same time promoting the lead towards the total carbon free energies that will be forthcoming.

However don't ask me how to change the world's views and opinions regarding this! Perhaps we need more than just politics? Perhaps we need a change in ethics and a change in world opinion, guided by governmental intervention and more education? Likely most of us may be in total confusion regarding the misinformation spread concerning the climate catastrophe. How can anyone make an informed opinion regarding the actions we need to take if we are continually fed conflicting information and confusion regarding climate change?

I have absolute faith that folks would voluntarily turn off lights, travel less, reduce cell phone usage, and ipod battery consumption's and re-charging etc, if we were guided towards the need and the importance to reduce energy consumption. Yet all this points to not only a reduction in the need for consumption, but also a downturn for consumerism and it's revenues – there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/05  at  01:01 PM

How about using the "climate money" to make the human habitat generally less vulnerable to ALL kinds of (predictable or unpredictable) extreme weather and biospheric changes instead of throwing it away on the narrow anti-life (anti-CO2) "solution" that's being shouted these days from the rooftops by every unthinking environmentalist?

Has no-one read or learned anything from Eliezer Yudkowsky's "Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgement of Global Risks"? Title 3, anyone? Hello??

"Because of hindsight bias, we learn OVERLY SPECIFIC lessons.", he said. OVERLY SPECIFIC, like "we must cut our CO2 emissions by exactly this much". What happens when elements beyond our control suddenly make this world too cold for comfort? Do we change our mantra overnight to "we must emit as much CO2 as possible"?

Use your heads a little, for crying out loud...

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: