[ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate again]

[Robert Bradbury]

Without meaning to be a nay-sayer -- because I believe global warming is
real (lost glaciers and the loss of ice at the poles being the most obvious
demonstrations) -- I hope you all do realize that the problem once molecular
nanotechnology becomes available to the average citizen (i.e. 10 kg of
nanorobots per person) the problem flips completely in the opposite
direction).  The problem is not excess CO2 in the atmosphere but a complete
shortage of CO2 and the extinction of most plant life and microorganisms (at
least those that depend on photosynthesis) on the planet.  Or have you all
forgotten (or overlooked) why I called it "Sapphire Mansions" rather than
"Diamond Mansions"? (Note that the shift required from atmospheric carbon
overabundance to atmospheric carbon shortages is much more significant than
the current global warming debate because the costs for solving the first in
terms of shifting from the archived carbon resources to sustainable
resources are non-trivial (but essentialy standard of living questions).  In
contrast the shift from rampant harvesting of carbon from the atmosphere to
abiding by ones "reasonable" resource limit when the the resources are
effectively free -- i.e. one only has moral and/or legal persuasion -- and
those may not be enough (one has to change human nature in a significant way
in a very short period of time).

So exerting effort in this area (debating whether global warming is real or
fiction) is a complete waste of time (given that we can envision
technological solutions for turning the problem completely upside down).
 Instead you should be designing molecular nanoparts or working towards the
funding of their realization (while at the same time being as green as one
can -- if only for the simple reason that one has to shift the economy and
the framework in which humanity operates in the direction of millenia
sustainability -- because "unsustainability" leads to bubbles and crashes
and we would like to avoid more of these over the next century and longer).
 If I were to take a general survey, even of serious scientists, I don't
think they would push "real" nanotechnology out beyond ~50 years, the most
severe pressure to develop it around the time that current photolithographic
methods start becoming very very hard to improve.  And that implies, that
unless Eric, Ralph and Robert are wrong -- global cooling rather than global
warming is the real problem we face.

The barrier is extremely low at this point -- Nanoengineer-1 from Nanorex is
free to download.  A good organic chemistry textbook might cost $50-$100 (or
presumably many can be downloaded).  So in scanning this thread I was left
with the thought -- "Haven't you all got better things to do?"

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/8f9be9af/attachment.html>