Now he comes back the "roots" of real science:

"(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”"

http://www.torontosu...22/green-drivel

Plus, one has to wonder at the motivations of AGW proponents. Could it be:

"There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.)"

http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#

One would hope others would learn:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” - Thomas Jefferson

A more relevant quote. He's not one of the crazies who denies man made global warming! I think the way you framed this thread implies support of that position. Nope!

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

"There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.)"

http://afr.com/p/lif...XEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#

Or like the Australian Greens:

The Australian Greens believe that:

• global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.
  
  
• effective means of global environmental governance are needed to halt and reverse the current trends towards environmental decline across the globe, especially with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change.
  
  
• the system of global governance must be reinvigorated. http://greens.org.au...obal-governance
  

(4) Finally, about claims on global warming:One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don't know it.

Indeed, science (knowledge) can never be finalised. This is why it can never prove the existence of God (or the reverse).

if glaciers are receding dramatically worldwide, and they're not being replenished, then that's proof enough for me that the world is warming. There are other proofs, but here's a link for some satellite footage for a glacier in NW Greenland calving dramatically.

if glaciers are receding dramatically worldwide, and they're not being replenished, then that's proof enough for me that the world is warming. There are other proofs, but here's a link for some satellite footage for a glacier in NW Greenland calving dramatically.

Ice ages advance and recede, and have done so for hundreds of millions of years. Whether the present recession of the global ice-caps is being enhanced by manmade global warming is another question. I happen to think it is, but would be hard pushed to find proof.

if glaciers are receding dramatically worldwide, and they're not being replenished, then that's proof enough for me that the world is warming. There are other proofs, but here's a link for some satellite footage for a glacier in NW Greenland calving dramatically.

Ice ages advance and recede, and have done so for hundreds of millions of years. Whether the present recession of the global ice-caps is being enhanced by manmade global warming is another question. I happen to think it is, but would be hard pushed to find proof.

I see peoples' activities as a significant contributor to GW.

No one who has looked at the evidence can deny that the human population has a significant affect on the environment in general, and as the weather is a part of the environment, the weather in specific.

It is unfortunately that those of us who are trying to do something about GW, have to use one arm to fight GW and the other to fight off the loonies on the right who since they believe the world is flat, also believe that when all the CO2 get's to the edge it will fall of in to space, and all will be well.

GW is a global event, and as such it requires a coordinated global effort to revers it.

Though reducing, eventual eliminating CO2 emissions, and then reversing the damage already done, is the goal. There are other Geo-engineering technologies that can be dangerous, but could also buy as some time.

and unless we create some global framework for the implantation of such technologies, we can see countries taking unilateral action,that can have global repercussions.

CO2 will always be present in significant quantities in the Earth's atmosphere.

The additional amounts of CO2 and methane (and other gases produed by the energy suppliers) are considerable, but in global atmosphere terms are of minor importance. The stripping of rare minerals from the earth, present in limited quantities, to manufacture solar panels and wind generators are, on the other hand, a very poor use of the available resources. The most efficient ways of generating energy remain the fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear options.

There are two subjects being confused on this thread.

The recession of the ice-caps is recurrent, and the present recession may or may not be increased by human activities.

The use of non-renewable resources, such as oil, rare metals, and coal, is a disaster in the making. Even renewable resources, such as timber, are being used up faster than Nature can replace them. These are the areas in which human actions can make a difference. Fossil fuel, HB, is NOT a long-term option.

CO2 will always be present in significant quantities in the Earth's atmosphere.

The additional amounts of CO2 and methane (and other gases produed by the energy suppliers) are considerable, but in global atmosphere terms are of minor importance. The stripping of rare minerals from the earth, present in limited quantities, to manufacture solar panels and wind generators are, on the other hand, a very poor use of the available resources. The most efficient ways of generating energy remain the fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear options.

I can only assume that this is a Troll reply made by an armed bear.

There are two subjects being confused on this thread.

The recession of the ice-caps is recurrent, and the present recession may or may not be increased by human activities.

The use of non-renewable resources, such as oil, rare metals, and coal, is a disaster in the making. Even renewable resources, such as timber, are being used up faster than Nature can replace them. These are the areas in which human actions can make a difference. Fossil fuel, HB, is NOT a long-term option.

I disagree with your second statesmen, and agree with your Third,

but could you please expand on your first?

Ok...... so what are these two subjects?

There are two subjects being confused on this thread.

The recession of the ice-caps is recurrent, and the present recession may or may not be increased by human activities.

The use of non-renewable resources, such as oil, rare metals, and coal, is a disaster in the making. Even renewable resources, such as timber, are being used up faster than Nature can replace them. These are the areas in which human actions can make a difference. Fossil fuel, HB, is NOT a long-term option.

Agreed fossil fuels are finite, but the amounts available are not being depleted at the rates forecast ten or twenty years ago. fossil fuels will last out this century, nuclear, hydro, tidal, wave generation can last much longer. Solar energy can be useful in certain climates, but please, let's get rid of the idiocy of wind power.

This video is Titled 'The Most important Video you'l ever see" and it is appropriately titled

It is a lecture out of the University of Colorado by Al Barlett Title "Arithmetic, Population and Energy Sustainability"

To any one who is interested in future projections, it is a must watch.

You have to watch the whole thing, you can not understand the Number 12 unless you first understand number 1 and number 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

There are two subjects being confused on this thread.

The recession of the ice-caps is recurrent, and the present recession may or may not be increased by human activities.

The use of non-renewable resources, such as oil, rare metals, and coal, is a disaster in the making. Even renewable resources, such as timber, are being used up faster than Nature can replace them. These are the areas in which human actions can make a difference. Fossil fuel, HB, is NOT a long-term option.

Agreed fossil fuels are finite, but the amounts available are not being depleted at the rates forecast ten or twenty years ago. fossil fuels will last out this century, nuclear, hydro, tidal, wave generation can last much longer. Solar energy can be useful in certain climates, but please, let's get rid of the idiocy of wind power.

Yes, forty years ago we were being told that oil would only last another twenty years. New technologies have extended that considerably, but it's still only an instant in geological time. For nuclear fuel, there is still that nagging problem of waste disposal. As a naturalist, I've learnt to distrust hydro; for example, the dams on the Mekong will decimate the fish stocks because they will interrupt their migration routes. Tidal and wave generation and, I suppose, geothermal, are much more eco-friendly.... but how many countries have used them? Wind power might be useful in the Southern oceans!

There are two subjects being confused on this thread.

The recession of the ice-caps is recurrent, and the present recession may or may not be increased by human activities.

The use of non-renewable resources, such as oil, rare metals, and coal, is a disaster in the making. Even renewable resources, such as timber, are being used up faster than Nature can replace them. These are the areas in which human actions can make a difference. Fossil fuel, HB, is NOT a long-term option.

Agreed fossil fuels are finite, but the amounts available are not being depleted at the rates forecast ten or twenty years ago. fossil fuels will last out this century, nuclear, hydro, tidal, wave generation can last much longer. Solar energy can be useful in certain climates, but please, let's get rid of the idiocy of wind power.

Yes, forty years ago we were being told that oil would only last another twenty years. New technologies have extended that considerably, but it's still only an instant in geological time. For nuclear fuel, there is still that nagging problem of waste disposal. As a naturalist, I've learnt to distrust hydro; for example, the dams on the Mekong will decimate the fish stocks because they will interrupt their migration routes. Tidal and wave generation and, I suppose, geothermal, are much more eco-friendly.... but how many countries have used them? Wind power might be useful in the Southern oceans!

There is no problem with nuclear fuel disposal. The only problem is a political one.

back in the 50s when the decision was being made of what king of Nuclear reactor we should build, and there are many different ones, we went with the plutonium rector technology because the waste of such reactor can be used to make weapons. You must remember that at that time we were involved in the cold war and an arms race.

There was an other nuclear reactor Technology based on Thorium but it was abandoned because it did not produce a weapons useful waste.

So today we are stuck with dangerous Plutonium reactors.

If you want to know more about the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology that produces no dangerous wastes. here is a video It is a remix of many lectured to quickly explain the subject. If you want to know more Google Thorium reactor

I've been preaching Thorium / hot salt reactors for years. If you look at earlier posts of mine in this forum you will find detailed accounts.

Safe to use, easily controllable, no dangerous by-products. Not good for militaristic politicians however.

Isanbirder - hydro does not need dams. I worked on a power station on the India/Pakistan border for a short time - it was built on a year-round-flowing river, as is the Mekong. It was underground, taking advantage of a slight fall in the land to have straight-through flow via tunnels. Could be done on many rivers. I had been offered the position earlier, but the company decided I was needed in Hong Kong, so I reluctantly agreed.

I've been preaching Thorium / hot salt reactors for years. If you look at earlier posts of mine in this forum you will find detailed accounts.

Safe to use, easily controllable, no dangerous by-products. Not good for militaristic politicians however.

Isanbirder - hydro does not need dams. I worked on a power station on the India/Pakistan border for a short time - it was built on a year-round-flowing river, as is the Mekong. It was underground, taking advantage of a slight fall in the land to have straight-through flow via tunnels. Could be done on many rivers. I had been offered the position earlier, but the company decided I was needed in Hong Kong, so I reluctantly agreed.

we are on the same page then

People only know what they are told, and on other fields this also includes me .

But the truth of the matter is that at least in energy, all of our problems are political.

We live in a planet awash in energy, there is so much energy that it threatens our very existence .

I would compare our situation to a castaway , floating in a rowboat dying of thirst in a ocean of salt water.

Plenty of water but no ability to convert it to a usable form.

I will not get in to the politics of profit and distribution management. But the energy is there . it is abundant,and it is not fossil fuels.

The sooner we get off fossil fuels the better.

Once we get off fossil fuels and become energy independent, from geographical locations, then there would be no need for spheres of influence, large militarys to project influence and manage distribution.

Make no mistake every conflict in the past 100 years had to do with energy resources and access to them .

But there are those who make huge profits from the current energy situation, and will fight to protect their profits, they are the gate keepers.And they will not give up until they extract the last drop of profit from the last drop of oil.

Ps: did you have a chance to see the "Arithmetic, Population and Energy Sustainability" video, It is a little long, but it is a must see, No one can have an educated opinion on energy with out understanding the math involved.

There are two subjects being confused on this thread.

The recession of the ice-caps is recurrent, and the present recession may or may not be increased by human activities.

The use of non-renewable resources, such as oil, rare metals, and coal, is a disaster in the making. Even renewable resources, such as timber, are being used up faster than Nature can replace them. These are the areas in which human actions can make a difference. Fossil fuel, HB, is NOT a long-term option.

Agreed fossil fuels are finite, but the amounts available are not being depleted at the rates forecast ten or twenty years ago. fossil fuels will last out this century, nuclear, hydro, tidal, wave generation can last much longer. Solar energy can be useful in certain climates, but please, let's get rid of the idiocy of wind power.

Yes, forty years ago we were being told that oil would only last another twenty years. New technologies have extended that considerably, but it's still only an instant in geological time. For nuclear fuel, there is still that nagging problem of waste disposal. As a naturalist, I've learnt to distrust hydro; for example, the dams on the Mekong will decimate the fish stocks because they will interrupt their migration routes. Tidal and wave generation and, I suppose, geothermal, are much more eco-friendly.... but how many countries have used them? Wind power might be useful in the Southern oceans!

One thing necessary to understand is that , the best and most efficient technology does not always win.

For instance , Beta max videotape, and VHS. Betamax was vastly superior, in both picture quality and size (much smaller), but VHS won out do to business considerations.

Same in Energy, Thorium more efficient and safe, lost our Plutonium do to political considerations. same with hydroelectric,

Dams are a good centralized way to produce electricity in a way that maximizes profits for those involved and controls distribution. But as mentioned by HB there are other more eco-frienly solutions that might not be as profitable.

here is a project that is up and running in the east river in Manhattan,and takes advantage of the swift tidal flows there that does not involve dams.

http://energy.gov/ar...-9500-residents

PS: new technologies have not considerable extended out fossil fuel reserves. To understand that you need to understand the math. Watch the video when you have a chance.

in order that we stay out of economic recession we need a growth of at least 3%, at that minimal rate of growth (unless we get off fossill fuels) we will double our current petroleum consumption in 23 years .

Too difficult to explain the formula, the number to remember is 70 . divide 70 by the rate of growth and you get the doubling time.

This is the Wiki article on the Uri PP project.

The initial capital cost is high, compared to gas-fired CCPP units, about 75% more. But the running costs are far lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Dam

The man who writes the 'green' column for the Sunday Times wrote an article about thorium today. He was asking why it hasn't been developed into something useful which, considering he's George Monbiot's best mate, is pretty amazing.

(I made the bit about Monbiot up).

The man who writes the 'green' column for the Sunday Times wrote an article about thorium today. He was asking why it hasn't been developed into something useful which, considering he's George Monbiot's best mate, is pretty amazing.

(I made the bit about Monbiot up).

The reason it was not developed is because back on the time when they were deciding between thorium and Plutonium, we were involved in the Cold war, and an arms race, and the waste from Plutonium reactors was useful for the production of atomic bombs.

It is a simple as that.

The man who writes the 'green' column for the Sunday Times wrote an article about thorium today. He was asking why it hasn't been developed into something useful which, considering he's George Monbiot's best mate, is pretty amazing.

(I made the bit about Monbiot up).

The reason it was not developed is because back on the time when they were deciding between thorium and Plutonium, we were involved in the Cold war, and an arms race, and the waste from Plutonium reactors was useful for the production of atomic bombs.

It is a simple as that.

Gosh! I'd never have guessed...