Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Locked
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
 
|
FYI
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart -tj ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
|
Administrator
|
Fascinating. Unfortunately, we don't have a similar, sound, list of preventative methods.
I'm told, for example, nuclear electricity generation is on the + side, vastly less contaminating, weather wise, than most current sources. The spent fuel problem is being solved by interesting reuse in the construction of the reactor chamber.
Yet we reject it to the degree that we are falling behind in nuclear engineering.
Similar, very local distributed electric generation is also being rejected. Solar in Santa Fe is not allowed in "historic" areas. Neighborhood energy generation techniques are not being pursued.
I live in a city that can't even handle a problem as trivial as reasonable broadband per household. Do I think we have a chance of reducing pollution when we can't even solve broadband?
No. So a list of preventatives could be a help. Especially with the same ratio of acceptance as this report!
-- Owen On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: FYI ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
|
|
Although there are many, many proven technologies for reducing a perhaps absorbing GHG, very few have been put in place. A quick glance at wikipedia, IPCC and 350.org lists thousands. But in reality it is too late to stop a global temperature change of 2-4C and its very scary impacts; we are way past the worst case scenarios predicted by the IPCC. Rational governments should immediately work on adaptation strategies, e/g/ NYC.
Not a pretty future for humanity.
cheers? Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Cc: Mike Collins <[hidden email]> Sent: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 9:40 am Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Fascinating. Unfortunately, we don't have a similar, sound, list of preventative methods.
I'm told, for example, nuclear electricity generation is on the + side, vastly less contaminating, weather wise, than most current sources. The spent fuel problem is being solved by interesting reuse in the construction of the reactor chamber.
Yet we reject it to the degree that we are falling behind in nuclear engineering.
Similar, very local distributed electric generation is also being rejected. Solar in Santa Fe is not allowed in "historic" areas. Neighborhood energy generation techniques are not being pursued.
I live in a city that can't even handle a problem as trivial as reasonable broadband per household. Do I think we have a chance of reducing pollution when we can't even solve broadband?
No.
So a list of preventatives could be a help. Especially with the same ratio of acceptance as this report!
-- Owen
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
FYI ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
|
|
What's the state of passive energy generation and making it go without wires(as example of better distrobuting energy)-
Has the city considered adopting self driving cars (if the technology is here) Just as an aside- a small piece of the puzzle for santa fe reducing carbon imitions with a mas transit system that wasn't a mess (try getting to the comunity colledge from where I live for example) Even at the comunity colledge some portion of the students are in denial about global weather changes. On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Paul Paryski <[hidden email]> wrote: Although there are many, many proven technologies for reducing a perhaps absorbing GHG, very few have been put in place. A quick glance at wikipedia, IPCC and 350.org lists thousands. But in reality it is too late to stop a global temperature change of 2-4C and its very scary impacts; we are way past the worst case scenarios predicted by the IPCC. Rational governments should immediately work on adaptation strategies, e/g/ NYC. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |