Comments on: A Report from Montreal http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Linda http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2445 Linda Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:35:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2445 Sorry about your surname, it's Clarke, of course Sorry about your surname,
it’s Clarke, of course

]]> By: Linda http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2444 Linda Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:34:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2444 Dear Mr Clark, I meant by my first comment that people think (it seems) that they can do whatever they want, polluting our planet, that the supplies of oil and coal is endless. (sorry I was too ironical, but I can't help it) Killed the Earth? Uh! There are lots of other planets... As for the further comments about difficulties of alternative energy development, noone says it's gonna be easy, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE!!! e.g. the first computers also we as huge as buildings and too expensive... and what? now they are pretty affordable and they're everywhere. That's the progress...the problem with the environmental things is that everybody wants profit NOW (why should I buy more expensive energy if everybody buys the common stuff?) Here policy is needed to impose, to enforce the development of the environmentally-friendly things... that's why I mentioned The Kyoto Protocol... you say it was imperfect but can you say that those who opposed it offered any alternatives? you see? Dear Mr Clark,
I meant by my first comment that people think (it seems) that they can do whatever they want, polluting our planet, that the supplies of oil and coal is endless. (sorry I was too ironical, but I can’t help it) Killed the Earth? Uh! There are lots of other planets…
As for the further comments about difficulties of alternative energy development, noone says it’s gonna be easy, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE!!! e.g. the first computers also we as huge as buildings and too expensive… and what? now they are pretty affordable and they’re everywhere. That’s the progress…the problem with the environmental things is that everybody wants profit NOW (why should I buy more expensive energy if everybody buys the common stuff?) Here policy is needed to impose, to enforce the development of the environmentally-friendly things… that’s why I mentioned The Kyoto Protocol… you say it was imperfect but can you say that those who opposed it offered any alternatives? you see?

]]> By: Jim Clarke http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2443 Jim Clarke Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:40:39 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2443 Linda wrote: "It seems like most people (especially those who opposed the Kyoto Protocol) have real estate on some other planes and space crafts as well. What is more surprising it seems like nobody really wants to make money producing the alternative energy (using the energy of the Sun , eg)." I am not sure what you mean by your first comment. Are you saying that super-intelligent, inter-dimensional beings, who have mastered interstellar travel, oppose the Kyoto Protocol? Or, are you implying that people who oppose Kyoto do not have both feet planted in reality. I am guessing the latter. Since full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would have no measurable effect on climate, but a very measurable effect on the economy, I find it extremely realistic to be opposed to it. Furthermore, it is based on extremely speculative science that has a very high probability of being incorrect. While various groups may treat the science as a 'sure thing', the reality is that the science of climate change is still in its infancy. As to your second comment on the economics of alternative fuels, I would like to point out that it is very difficult to profit on a product that costs more and does less than existing products. The economics of alternative energy sources is changing. Areas isolated from traditional fossil fuel supplies already use solar to meet their needs, because the cost of solar is cheaper than the cost of developing a supply line for fossil fuel energy. In the not too distant future, technology will make alternative fuels economically competitive, and people will begin to make money selling them. Mandating that people use alternative fuels now is like mandating that they pay more for a half gallon of nearly sour milk than for a gallon of fresh milk. It is a pretty tough sell! Concerning the original article, Marilyn Averill seems to be concerned with adaptability in the face of climate change. Well, climate has always changed and always will. It was just 13,000 years ago that we left the last glacial period and entered the current warm phase known as the Holocene. While some species did not survive, most of them did, proving their adaptability. Humans were the most adaptable then, and are several orders of magnitude more adaptable now than we were then. Consider our mobile society that is rapidly becoming more mobile each year. Information technology not only increases our ability to adapt, it also makes us less dependent on location. We still have very real problems in this world, and there is plenty to worry about, but as millions of people flee cold northern winters and relocate in Sun Belt (an increase of more than 20 degrees in the average annual temperature), it is difficult to get excited about a few degrees warming over the next 100 years! Linda wrote:
“It seems like most people (especially those who opposed the Kyoto Protocol) have real estate on some other planes and space crafts as well. What is more surprising it seems like nobody really wants to make money producing the alternative energy (using the energy of the Sun , eg).”
I am not sure what you mean by your first comment. Are you saying that super-intelligent, inter-dimensional beings, who have mastered interstellar travel, oppose the Kyoto Protocol? Or, are you implying that people who oppose Kyoto do not have both feet planted in reality. I am guessing the latter.
Since full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would have no measurable effect on climate, but a very measurable effect on the economy, I find it extremely realistic to be opposed to it. Furthermore, it is based on extremely speculative science that has a very high probability of being incorrect. While various groups may treat the science as a ’sure thing’, the reality is that the science of climate change is still in its infancy.
As to your second comment on the economics of alternative fuels, I would like to point out that it is very difficult to profit on a product that costs more and does less than existing products. The economics of alternative energy sources is changing. Areas isolated from traditional fossil fuel supplies already use solar to meet their needs, because the cost of solar is cheaper than the cost of developing a supply line for fossil fuel energy. In the not too distant future, technology will make alternative fuels economically competitive, and people will begin to make money selling them. Mandating that people use alternative fuels now is like mandating that they pay more for a half gallon of nearly sour milk than for a gallon of fresh milk. It is a pretty tough sell!
Concerning the original article, Marilyn Averill seems to be concerned with adaptability in the face of climate change. Well, climate has always changed and always will. It was just 13,000 years ago that we left the last glacial period and entered the current warm phase known as the Holocene. While some species did not survive, most of them did, proving their adaptability. Humans were the most adaptable then, and are several orders of magnitude more adaptable now than we were then. Consider our mobile society that is rapidly becoming more mobile each year. Information technology not only increases our ability to adapt, it also makes us less dependent on location.
We still have very real problems in this world, and there is plenty to worry about, but as millions of people flee cold northern winters and relocate in Sun Belt (an increase of more than 20 degrees in the average annual temperature), it is difficult to get excited about a few degrees warming over the next 100 years!

]]> By: Eugene http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2442 Eugene Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:12:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2442 It was really interesting to read the article and comments as well. Thanks for this one It was really interesting to read the article and comments as well. Thanks for this one

]]> By: Linda http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2441 Linda Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:24:57 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2441 It seems like most people (especially those who opposed the Kyoto Protocol) have real estate on some other planes and space crafts as well. What is more surprising it seems like nobody really wants to make money producing the alternative energy (using the energy of the Sun , eg). People surprise me a lot. Thanks for the article, probably it will make at least one person think about the results of global warming It seems like most people (especially those who opposed the Kyoto Protocol) have real estate on some other planes and space crafts as well. What is more surprising it seems like nobody really wants to make money producing the alternative energy (using the energy of the Sun , eg). People surprise me a lot. Thanks for the article, probably it will make at least one person think about the results of global warming

]]> By: Roger http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2440 Roger Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:47:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2440 Thanks I have received a sheer pleasure reading to the comment. Science and technology have always played a critical role in climate change - perhaps I with you shall agree with it dear Marilyn. Thanks I have received a sheer pleasure reading to the comment. Science and technology have always played a critical role in climate change – perhaps I with you shall agree with it dear Marilyn.

]]> By: Paul Dougherty http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2439 Paul Dougherty Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:25:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2439 Cheer Up Marilyn, Your statement, "What is a little scary here in Montreal is the increasing reliance the entire world seems to place on S&T to bail us out of a difficult situation by developing a silver bullet.", turns the situation on its head. S&T has and will develop many bullets. That's part of its beauty.. new fuels that reduce CO2 as well as pollutants are already commercializing, sequestering is being done, designs for super efficient and practical vehicles are here, fuel cells are real, try to buy a solar panel right now! Nuclear is only a small and temporary fix so don't worry about it. S&T working in free societies is what has lifted most of the human race from its primitive miseries and solved its real problems. Kyota and its like is the old silver bullet! The idea that you can set up an international authority to command and control man's activities and even the weather was about as dumb as you can get. Remember that noble undertaking of the twentieth century in which central authority was going to ensure that everyone gave according to his ability and took only according to his need? What a great objective! Yet tens of millions of dead people, waste, destruction, and the biggest rape of the environment ever was its legacy. You will also see an unanticipated consequence of the death of the Kyotas. There are many powerful groups who know the reality of AGW but have fought it tooth and nail because of the command and control approach. Watch the opposition diminish and expect many of them now to join this sensible approach . Thanks for the good news! Cheer Up Marilyn,

Your statement, “What is a little scary here in Montreal is the increasing reliance the entire world seems to place on S&T to bail us out of a difficult situation by developing a silver bullet.”, turns the situation on its head. S&T has and will develop many bullets. That’s part of its beauty.. new fuels that reduce CO2 as well as pollutants are already commercializing, sequestering is being done, designs for super efficient and practical vehicles are here, fuel cells are real, try to buy a solar panel right now! Nuclear is only a small and temporary fix so don’t worry about it.

S&T working in free societies is what has lifted most of the human race from its primitive miseries and solved its real problems. Kyota and its like is the old silver bullet! The idea that you can set up an international authority to command and control man’s activities and even the weather was about as dumb as you can get. Remember that noble undertaking of the twentieth century in which central authority was going to ensure that everyone gave according to his ability and took only according to his need? What a great objective! Yet tens of millions of dead people, waste, destruction, and the biggest rape of the environment ever was its legacy.

You will also see an unanticipated consequence of the death of the Kyotas. There are many powerful groups who know the reality of AGW but have fought it tooth and nail because of the command and control approach. Watch the opposition diminish and expect many of them now to join this sensible approach .

Thanks for the good news!

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3670&cpage=1#comment-2438 Mark Bahner Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:13:08 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3670#comment-2438 "What is a little scary here in Montreal is the increasing reliance the entire world seems to place on S&T to bail us out of a difficult situation by developing a silver bullet." What "difficult situation" are we in...as compared to, say, 150 years ago? “What is a little scary here in Montreal is the increasing reliance the entire world seems to place on S&T to bail us out of a difficult situation by developing a silver bullet.”

What “difficult situation” are we in…as compared to, say, 150 years ago?

]]>