[ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming

[hkhenson]

At 12:34 PM 5/4/2008, samantha wrote:
>Stefano Vaj wrote:
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  The only way to
> >>  solve the problem seems to be if there is an opportunity to vote to
> >>  *force everyone* to adhere to a plan which, although profit-sapping,
> >>  will at least be disaster-averting.
> >>
> >
> > "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs".
> > I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan,
> > say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere.
> >
>If as the IPCC models say if you read them closely the median expected
>temperature delta is around 1.6 degree C in 100 years then most of the
>plans to date are hysterical overkill.   Also the Kyoto accords if fully
>implemented would make less than a few hundreds of a degree difference
>in the same 100 years.   So why exactly are we falling into CO2
>hysterics?   I am strongly reminded of the anti-nuclear power hysteria
>of the 70s.   An interesting question is why this hysteria is being
>whipped up.

Again, dead on target, Samantha, and a heck of a good question.

100 years from now is way beyond the singularity.  The problem then 
could well be *too little* CO2 from plant-like nanomachines mining 
the atmosphere and turning the carbon into diamond for engineering projects.

There are arguments being stated in places such as New Scientists 
that there isn't enough accessible fossil fuel left to cause much of 
climate shift.

What we really need to do is come up with a way that provides 
renewable energy at a lower cost than coal and oil.  I think there is 
such a way.  Anyone interested in seeing work on it should send me 
email.  No point in sending it to the uninterested on the list.

Keith