Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Okay, are you sure you put the right link?

Yes.
TB — (archived)

Just because you constantly repeat the mantra that I only get information from hacks who agree with me, doesn't make it true. Some of the best information on this subject comes from sources who have different views on the conclusions than I do. Data is data.

You think I never use realclimate.org as a resource?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is so much that even advocates admit to not understanding that it would be a mistake to jump into drastic mitigation solutions without more information.

A good example of this is the idea somebody came up with to dump tons of iron into the ocean to encourage algae growth. I get chills just thinking about the possible known side effects, never mind the ones that nobody has thought of. I'm sure bringing rabbits into Australia was considered a brilliant idea at one time.

Some of the political/economic/industrial solutions proposed fall into this same category.

The most glaringly obvious first step in all this is to develop a safe nuclear power infrastructure and expand it radically. I don't think anybody here disagrees on that basic concept, although there's differences on the details. Fusion would be great, but it's still blue-sky. We know fission works.

It's a no-brainer. Even if there were no human-caused warming issue at all, it would kill less people than coal does, and help wean us from foreign oil, especially as our transportation system moves into hybrid-electric.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of resistance to this out there, and not all on technical or safety grounds. There's still a lot of people who like the idea of rationing better than abundance.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (59 posts)