> Current global warming hype is largely hype, boondoggles and 
> pc and politically driven, and fails to note the overwhelming 
> part that natural solar cycles play in what we are presently 
> seeing.

With Bush et all actively attempting to squash scientific reports of global
warming, how do you figure this is politically driven? If our best
scientists are saying it is so, why are we arguing?

> But notwithstanding this, it doesn't mean they aren't 
> right :-). Too many opponents of the current GW bandwagon 
> deride the hoopla while failing to note that there are/may be 
> real risks. *IF* eg the Atlantic Conveyor is as sensitive to 
> atmospheric CO2 concentrations as some suggest it is, and 
> it's looking increasingly likely that they are wrong,

Huh? Scripture and verse brother... (that is a request for links to
evidence, for those of you who didn't grow up Christians)

> then 
> within a century there may be records set for fastest time 
> ice skating from England to France.
> 
> But, re nuclear:
> 
> I suggest that you read through some of my recent posts re 
> long lived nucleotides with special affinities for biological 
> attack, comments on bacteria living IN vitrified nuclear 
> waste barrels and mining selected components and bringing 
> them out, the fact that the "solid" rock is teeming with life 
> and the longevity of the longest known man made devices ever 
> made (and the expected lifetime of current ones). Or
> gargoyle(tm) on the subject and be disturbed.

The mines that were holding the uranium held it just fine for a darn long
time. Just put it back. The extra radiation isn't going to be that big a
deal. Or dump it in the ocean. Or atomize it and spray it in the air. All of
these will do less damage than we have done with fossil fuels.


> All up there is an extremely strong case to be made for the 
> perspective that the nuclear waste problem is not only far 
> from solved but that there is not presently any reliable 
> indication that we have the capability to solve it in the 
> foreseeable future with the requisite level of certainty.
> 
> As I've already said, IF the nuclear waste problem can be 
> shown to be solved in a manner that leaves the greatest 
> reasonable doubter certain that matters are under control and 
> that the all up costs of power generation including dealing 
> with waste results in a net benefit then I'm very happy to 
> join the cheering line. Safe and cheap energy conversion is 
> something I would applaud. But, until that happens I'll 
> continue to plan to save the world using other energy 
> conversion techniques :-).*
> 
> 
>         Russell
> 
> * One target is to revolutionise the NZ solar thermal heating scene. 
> But I may have to settle for lesser achievements, or none :-).

Just building our houses to use passive solar heating could make a huge
difference. Mandate that all new houses use passive solar. Offer some tax
incentives for the conversion of conventional homes.

Look into earth tubes for cooling.

Grow your own food in your back yard if you really want to save energy since
most fossil products are used to produce food. Over 1500 miles is traveling
by the average meal before it sits on your table. And it was grown with oil
based fertilizers and insecticides.

Ah, well.. I go on. Time to go weed my pepper plants and water the banana
trees...

---
James.
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist