Look, I know it's not a trivial problem and the alien bit wasn't serious. But on the path we are heading it's going to be virtually impossible to meet the energy needs of the future let alone doing it in an environmentally friendly way.

You know I'm not some liberal douche that thinks it's down to the taxpayers to fix this. What I'm suggesting is we find some very smart people to show how this can be turned into something not only economically viable, but hugely profitable.

The science behind tapping geothermal or tidal energy is not new or ground-breaking, it's well established physics. It's merely an engineering problem. And one thing is for sure, there isn't going to be enough oil and gas to meet the energy needs of the future for very long at all. New technological patents on energy collecting methods are going to be worth a fortune when the oil dries up. And running energy firms have always been hugely profitable regardless of the energy source.


I'm not advocating electric cars and windmills, that's technology going down the wrong path. Electric cars require batteries, and batteries are hugely unenvironmentally friendly to produce, they take an age to recharge, they don't hold a charge for very long, they are incredibly heavy, and it's not long before the performance drops off. Likewise windmills are a terrible way of generating electricity, they are incredibly expensive, they are ugly, when it's too windy they don't work, when it isn't windy at all they obviously don't work. They barely generate much power, and by the time you get that power to the grid, most of it has been lost. Not to mention the grid can't store energy, it needs to be produced as we need it, the lack of control makes windmills almost useless for large scale power.

But things like Nuclear Fission is well established technology, virtually 100% safe, and carbon free. Tidal power runs like clockwork, it's a huge energy resource which isn't being tapped in a sensible way. We managed to make rivers into huge hydroelectric power plants which generate a vast amount of power, it can't be that difficult in the grand scheme of things to make use of the moon's pull on the oceans.


The anti climate change movement is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. Climate change is like a religion on both sides of the argument. We have people like CS natureboy, he doesn't want any chemicals pumped into the atmosphere, because chemicals must be bad. Yet he's happy to have millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse chemicals dumped into the atmosphere on scales many orders of magnitude larger thinking that's just fine.

 

We are essentially agreed, and I already knew that, because we have had many conversations in the past.

But you have to be careful. Well, you don't, I mean, we're here, and here is nowhere. But you know what I mean. Fools like MagicMan and other lefties here are cheering you, because they don't understand you and they think you're on their side.

Here's an interesting (true) anecdote from the recent past, which illustrates the depth of their delusion.

Lefties are cheering Obama's policies-- shutting down fossil fuel industries prematurely, crushing cost-effective energies through the EPA, and shifting vital R&D resources down the wrong paths, such as electrical vehicles, just to line the pockets of his industry cronies like Elon Musk (who is about to waste billions on the construction of a battery factory at taxpayer expense).

Meanwhile, we have a nuclear fusion initiative that languishes.

But guess who wanted to promote nuclear fusion research and got nothing but grief from the leftstream media and the moonbats for his trouble?

George W. Bush.

Years ago-- early in his presidency-- he gave a speech about lunar exploration and expressed as a vital national interest the need to develop lunar mining colonies, especially on the lunar poles. What did he want there? Helium-three. As you know, He3 does not exist on earth naturally. The prevailing fusion fuel here is deuterium, which burns dirty (by causing neutron and tritium buildup in tokamak cores, part of the reason that it is difficult to use that technology to achieve commercial viability).

He3, on the other hand, burns hotter (i.e. is a more challenging engineering problem) but burns cleanly.

George W. Bush tried to commit the United States to lunar development as a means to establish a Helium-3 fuel source. (He3 is rare on the lunar poles, but from there it would be feasible to build interplanetary craft to places where He3 is much more plentiful, such as the outer atmosphere of Saturn.) With a plentiful supply of He3, mankind would have a concentrated, efficient energy source that would enable it to expand to a solar-system-wide civilization, especially by colonizing Saturnian and Jovian moons that have water supplies.

What did Bush get for his efforts?

Laughter and mockery. All the moonbats vilified him in the press, telling the world that the "fool" wanted to build helium ballons to the moon.

Those same short-sighted moonbats are the ones cheering Obama now, as he siphons vital funds from viable industries to help his cronies make batteries.

 

You know, it just occurred to me that it isn't enough that we, in the developed world, think that we are somehow owed our creature comforts, but we assume that everyone else either has them or wants them.

Air conditioning, heating, lighting and such, for our homes that have 5 or 6 times the cubic space than we really need. TV, stereo, internet and smart phones, that provide us with instant entertainment and information access that exceeds anything that we will ever need. Transportation that whisks us from continent to continent in a matter of a few hours, or from country to country in minutes.

Why do we really need this??

In Guatemala, Honduras, Belize and other such places, people live happily in one room houses with no windows, ac, central heating, internet or cell phone service and they survive quite nicely.

Perhaps if we concentrated on bringing political stability to places like Kenya and Uganda, the rest of the world could subsist without all of the conveniences that we deem so necessary.

 

+1
Agreed. I don't think politicians are interested in the environment. They are only interested in ensuring they or their allies remain in power. And this means they will pump resources down avenues which sound green and nice, under the guise of an initiative to tackle climate change, when it is in fact a way to subsidise the businesses of their contributors, while any positive effects on the environment are minimal to non existent.

Fusion is a tricky business, and ³H would certainly help. Personally I would have postponed that lunar mission too. If that money is available, I think for the time being, the money would be better spent in getting fusion power working by conventional deuterium + tritium means. And further down the line look into collecting ³H and improving the process.

 

Thing is, even if we meet the world's energy needs, population growth requires more farming. And farming is terrible for the environment on many different levels. Including climate change. These aren't problems that can be solved by nuclear power and renewable energy. These are problems which will need direct involvement in controlling climate, such as the geoengineering methods I have mentioned.

But if we can do a good enough job in all the other departments, then we may be able to get away with it.

 

I believe in real climate change. The Earth as been going through climate changes since the beginning. This is a fact and something I do not dispute.

This so called man made climate change is false and nothing more than man-made -up.

Back in the 1970's all the "scientist" were in agreement that the world was cooling. Only when it became evident that world politics, money and power could be manipulated into controlling the worlds resources, wealth and laws did it change.

And it change overnight.... However now the "scientist" are for the most part being paid to come up with predetermined facts that fit what the government wants them to say.

So far, I am the only one who has proposed a real solution to the problem........

 

You were doing so well up to then.... It changed, because untold billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere has subverted the natural cycle of climate change. Instead of cooling down as it should be, the earth is warming up. The science behind all that was well known, twenty years before any policitians - of ANY wing - started talking about it.

 

Scientists become famous, and earn good money by going against the norm, and proving the current understanding of something to be wrong. It's also pretty humiliating if your work is shown to be wrong, and for it to stand up against criticism and scrutiny coming from some of the most intelligent people on the planet it's essential for scientists to be far more thorough in their work than just about anyone other profession.

There is no conspiracy or fudging the data. Granted the press like to take a sentence from a journal paper out of context and use it to scare the crap out of liberals. But this isn't the scientists, it's the press. If you read the journal papers, they provide a whole host of caveats with their arguments, they express uncertainty in their models on what the future climate may look like. But the measurements they take, correlate extremely well over a wide variety of different sources, from a range of different institutions, all across the world. And they all point to a warmer climate, and it all ties in very accurately with man made emissions.

And I can guarantee you that most scientists, particularly climate scientists don't make much money. And these are the brightest people in the world, (I mean not as clever as mathematicians and physicists but more intelligent that the Doctors that fix you up when you are sick) if they were motivated by money, they would likely succeed on any career path they put their efforts into. There are far more prosperous ways for them to make a living.

 

....one of the most obvious ones being, to go work for an oil company and produce "scientific" treatises saying that global warming is rubbish and we should all use more oil...

 

Yes, deuterium/tritium are stepping stones, and we should be pursing both the magnetic confinement (tokamak) and laser techniques.

But we should also be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

My point is that George Bush is a visionary, and he has been mocked and derided, for his troubles, by utter fools. He3 harvesting also requires a two decade commitment and should be started now, so that the source will be ready when we need it.

Imagine all the millions of people such an initiative would employ. Imagine the industries. Worldwide. Imagine the concomitant advances in technology across all fields, if we were to commit to such a project.

And for those of you who are saying, "how could we afford that," or "how would we raise the taxes for that," I give you: Obama's stimulus packages. TRILLIONS. Down the drain. GONE. And for what?

Bread-and-circuses.

Orgasms.

 

Oh really???

Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud, says lying was a 'rush'

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/c...ed-32-months-fraud-says-lying-was-f2D11768995

 

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

• Leaked United Nations report reveals the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
  
• Politicians have raised concerns about the final draft
  
• Fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.


A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2yEzuM6Mq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

This one's for you Dave.....


Climate “Scientists”, Arrogance, And Lies


When prominent “scientists” from governments and universities are caught lying again and again about issues as dire as climate change, is it any wonder there are a great many people that have lost all trust in the so called “experts”? Is it any wonder why many people are now skeptical of any information that is put out by such questionable sources? In addition to the often false and misleading information being dispensed from many “scientists”, there seems to be a level of arrogance, self worship, and mutual admiration that is at times shocking.


Paid Liars?
On June 18th 2013,KCNR radio in Redding California featured 4 prominent climate “scientists” on a 2 hour radio show hosted by Dr. Doug Craig who also runs a blog titled “climate of change”.

In the first half hour a caller asked NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt (NASA) what was being sprayed from aircraft to form grid patterns in our skies. Mr. Schmidt responded in no uncertain terms, “There are NO chemicals in the trails, nothing is being sprayed”. How is it possible a “scientist” can say he knows this for certain under any circumstances? Especially when there are countless videos of jet aircraft clearly spraying posted everywhere on line? Even up close and personal videos of military KC- 10s and KC-135′s that inarguably show the spray nozzles and the jets shutting on and off. There are three possibilities here, Gavin Schmidt is either totally ignorant of the subject of which he is a recognized “expert”, he is clinically blind, or he is a blatant liar.

Liar number two, climate “scientist” Simon Donner, professor at the University of British Columbia. In the second half hour in a rapid 2 minute exchange between myself and Mr. Donner, he emphatically states on the record ’Though geoengineering information and videos (of jets spraying) looks very convincing, its just NOT TRUE. Its just a bunch of people trying to mess with the public.” When asked how he could possibly make such a “definitive” statement, he goes on to say that ” we are testing the atmosphere and those materials (heavy metals named in geoengineering patents) are not showing up.” (aluminum, barium, strontium, manganese, etc). This is also an astounding declaration given the fact that countless lab tests from around the globe are clearly showing massive amounts of these same heavy metals raining down on us all. As I tried to present a few more facts, the host cut me off and that was that. In the next few seconds, Mr. Donner let out a clear chuckle, apparently the subject of global chemical spraying is comical to him.
The host of the radio show did not take any more calls after this exchange. (This is not speculation as I was contacted by a number of people that were trying to get through for an hour,) The show went on with two more “climate scientist” interviews, Robert Hinson and Melanie Fitzpatrick. Both “scientists” pointed the finger only at carbon emissions as the primary cause of climate change. Neither of course mentioned a word about the ongoing global geoengineering programs even though available data indicates geoengineering is likely the single greatest factor in climate disruption at this time.
Selective “Science”
So how can these “scientists” blatantly ignore or outright lie about the mountain of science which confirms the reality of the ongoing global aerosol geoengineering programs? They virtually ignore any and all information that is not from one of their establishment ordained sources. In regard to geoengineering, the host stated the following in an email to me, “we don’t have any evidence that would be convincing to a scientist because it isn’t evidence until it is published in a journal.” ( A journal approved by the global power structure?) It was further stated that these scientists don’t recognize anything that is not ”SCIENCE as defined by the literature published in science journals.”
Well there we have it, reality does not exist unless they say it exists. It does not matter that we can clearly see the spraying day in and day out with our own eyes. It does not matter that there are countless videos of jets spraying in our skies. It does not matter that there are countless lab tests from around the globe which prove massive amounts of the primary geoengineering elements/heavy metals are raining down on us all. It does not matter if we have volumes of government documents outlining geoengineering governance and technology. The bottom line with the “climate scientists”, as already stated above, and in their own words, there is no evidence “until it is published in a journal”.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

 

You're not one of these chem trail nuts are you? Come on let's be serious. They are just condensation trails. It's condensed water vapour. If you look in the videos etc, there is a gap between the airplane and the trails, this is because it needs to cool down before it can condense. Hell, since jet engines were first invented they have always left condensation trails.

As for them doing geoengineering like what I was talking about previously, they aren't at a near high enough altitude to make a difference. Besides, I thought the government made up climate change, why would they secretly be trying to fix it ?

 

High altitude, piston engines left contrails, the mere act of burning hydrocarbon fuels results in water vapor in the exhaust. It is one of the bugaboos in stealth technologies,

 

Indeed they would. Precisely

 

No Dave, you are the "nut" that advocated the spraying of chemical compounds into the atmosphere using aircraft. You must have came to the conclusion that testing of said methods has already occurred, correct?

So tell me Dave, is a climate scientist like Gavin Schmidt credible to you?

If so, how can he make statements like “There are NO chemicals in the trails, nothing is being sprayed”. How is it possible a “scientist” can say he knows this for certain under any circumstances? How did he come to this conclusion?

Was this a prepaid government answer?

Or perhaps he is clueless?

Maybe he gets a rush from lying?

 

I have to congratulate you, you are actually making me chuckle now.
I said aircraft could be used, but not passenger commercial airliners while they are ferrying passengers.

Although jet's airliners can get suitable altitudes in the polar regions, Balloons make more sense as you really want to be at 50 thousand ft to get it nicely into the stratosphere.

Also you wouldn't really want to pump vast amounts of sulphide gases directly into jet engines. Firstly I imagine it's not going to be good for the engines or for generating thrust. Secondly why do that when you can spray it out the back. Thirdly, according to you at least, climate change is a big government conspiracy, if the government knows it isn't real, why are they secretly trying to reverse it ?

Condensation trails can be understood by virtually anyone with a functioning brain.

When the government sprays stuff out of aircraft this is what it looks like



It doesn't look like this

 

Well, you must be laughing at your own ignorance because I NEVER said anything about " passenger commercial airliners "....

You are the one who started talking about spraying shit into the atmosphere using planes..