Solving Global Warming: Not Easy, But Not Too Hard

[enquirer]

There is an excellent summary and following discussion of this topic that members here might be interested in here www.skepticalscience.com/solving-global-warming-not-easy-but-not-too-hard.html

The opening states:

"A frequent skeptic argument is that solving the global warming problem will be "too hard", and thus we should just resign ourselves to trying to adapt to whatever climate change happens. Considering that many consequences of a large magnitude climate change would be very bad, hopefully this is not true. Although it may be comforting to get in the car, close our eyes, sit back, and hope it does not crash into a brick wall, the wiser course of action is to see the wall in our path and attempt to avoid it if possible.

The argument that solving the global warming problem by reducing human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is "too hard" generally stems from the belief that (i) our technology is not sufficiently advanced to achieve significant emissions reductions, and/or (ii) that doing so would cripple the global economy."

It then goes on to discuss some of the technologies. Nuclear gets a thorough examination in the 'comments' section.

[rsmith7]

Global warming hysteria has been exposed enquirer.

Keep up.

[abacus9900]

Nov 16, 2010 17:00:10 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

Global warming hysteria has been exposed enquirer.

Keep up.

It is the anti-AGW fraternity that seem to be guilty of mass-hysteria. We, who can accept reality, rely on scientific evidence, not hearsay.

[rsmith7]

Oh god...

[Mr Red]

when the idiot public an hear scientific solutions that they should know as logical, without laughing, then we can have a sensible grown up discussion. Like painting all our rooves white to reflect more of the suns energy. I've seen the laughter on TV and yet - stop and think about it - you won't laugh then.

Global warming is an incontrovertible fact.

Now can the intelligent among us discuss the likely causes instead of burying there heads in the sand? Be tit caused by the Earth's precession and gravitational planetary perturbations of 100,000 year cycles, sunspots (cooling us at the moment) - magnetic field reversals, coronal solar discharges that fluctuate, or the releasing 200 million years of insolation in the space of 100 years ( you try sitting in the sun at 2 million intensities - PAL).

Well - can the deniers provide grown up discussion on the causes?

As an inventor and designer I have never yet solved a problem by denying it existed - maybe I have left it for others to solve by denying I can do it though.