And, by the way, don’t you know there’s a difference between space dust, and upper atmosphere dust?

Had any world leaders in your living room talking about the space-dust launcher?

More like, “We’ve wanted a composting toilet for like forever, but kept getting outvoted. Now that the toilet’s broken, we’re going to fight any other way of repairing it, until everybody agrees to a composting toilet because they’re sick of being neck deep in shit.”

Essentially, you want a particular solution: Renewable energy, AND a drastic reduction in human energy consumption. Most people would prefer a solution that doesn’t so obviously impact standards of living. So you’re going to block every solution but your own until cities are drowning from rising ocean levels, in the hope that in desperation people will accept your solution, with all others blocked.

Obviously, that’s not how people react to what they really believe are existential threats, which is why everybody else ends up doubting your sincerity.

The toilet needs fixing, but some folks don’t like outhouses, so you will poop on the floor.

Yes you can, as evidenced by the fact that people are taken seriously regarding climate change who remain opposed to nuclear power.

Ok, sorry, you cannot be taken seriously by outsiders.

I understand that you take yourselves seriously.

very seriously.

But as long as y’all continue to behave like the problems posed by nuclear power are worse than the problems posed by AGW, I will accept that assessment and act accordingly.

Yes you can, as evidenced by the fact that people are taken seriously regarding climate change who remain opposed to nuclear power.

Unlike those silly monkeys who think the world is best understood by observation and analysis of phenomena, newshutz can …

I do think that the world is best understood by observation.

I observe people complaining about a problem and actively opposing the practical solutions. I conclude two things.

1: that it likely not be much of a problem.

2: that even if it is a problem, it cannot be addressed politically until the proponents stop opposing the practical solutions.

I also observe, that it is the same people that have been complaining about fossil fuel energy sources for my whole life that have found a new reason for fossil fuels to be bad, but still are blocking the only reasonable alternative.

Solar and wind power have been the energy of the future for 30 years. They still are. You cannot expect to be taken seriously about AGW and remain opposed to Nuclear power.

The AGW crowd main success has been biofuels. Unfortunately, they require more energy to produce and transport than they provide, so they don’t actually lower CO2, and they are partially responsible for the world food crisis.

good work guys.

For example, solar power plants in America’s Mohave Desert could supply more than half of that nation’s electricity needs. Solar power plants in Northern Africa could supply power to Western Europe, while solar power plants in the Sahel of Africa, just south of the vast Sahara, could power much of West, East and Central Africa.

Why not the rooftops? Same reason that running a gas-powered generator 24X7 in your garage is a terrible idea compare to getting your electricity from a large central powerplant. Thr rooftop is much, much less efficient. In a solar powerplant you’ll have various gadgets, like turning the panels to to follow the sun, for example, batteries, transformers, professional maintenance, etc. Not to mention that there’s much more direct sunlight in a desert. You could even clear the sky above your plant. Hell, perhaps you could even place a huge mirror to the orbit and get some light in the middle of the night – why not.

Do you also consider it wrong in its facts or conclusions? Solar collectors built on rooftops do not require adding a massive road and power grid network to an inhospitable landscape…delivery is not a hurdle to be dismissed. Rooftop implies house implies the resources to construct and perhaps the finances to own and strongly implies a point of use…all of those factors lower the amount of resources any government or other agency must bring to get “free” and clean power where it is needed.

The worst thing about that SRI report is how it will work to kill hope and lead many who were at least trying to go in the right direction to cease all effort as pointless.

The opposite extreme is the optimistic embrace of the factual but impractical suggestion in that Wikipedia art. If we had the money [or, these days, even the borrowing power] to build that daydream system in the Sahara, we could do more practical renwables projects closer to home. The scales required and discussed [by Wikipedia OR by SRI ] are orders of magnitude greater than anything humans have previously done…and the need comes just as we have begun to run low on the wherewithal for massive public projects.

I did not answer your question, because it is irrelevant. As long as those that are crying about AGW not only refuse to be serious about solutions but actively oppose them, then it really can’t be much of a problem.

I didn’t like this piece. See comments here.

How many times must the climate inactivists’ various statements be outright falsified before they’ll admit that they full of crap and just leave things to the real experts?

Brett and newshutz’s excuses are hilarious. It’s a sign that they’re perfectly OK with accepting and propagating outright lies.

To those who cling to the notion that some miracle will occur and we will find a billion barrels of oil under all the old-growth christmas trees or build so many nukes and wind farms that oil won’t be a problem: read a report from someone who actually did their homework.

I’m the one with the physics. Argument from projection again.

And yes, you’re whining, like a little bitch.

Perhaps you can tell us why you think we should be building lots of nuclear power stations when you also think we should keep burning the coal to prevent an ice age?