Slashdot Mirror

1). Acording to the IPCC we're talking about a couple of degrees and a few inches of sea level rise over the next 100 years.

2)What we know is that humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere and America is only responsible for a fraction of that (on track for 1-10% by 2050)

3) so to make even a measurable difference we'd basically have to completely eliminate GHG.

4)We also know that with current technology, alternative energy sources are something like 2-3x as expensive as what we're using and doubling energy costs would completely cripple our economy which is heavily dependent on mechanisation.

5) Real people would certainly be unable to feed their families, pay their mortgages etc. Real social and political instability would result in real death.

Typical denier talking points

1) WRONG! The IPCC report gives a range of values for different scenarios. The worst case they included was what they called A1FI, which represented, under certain emissions conditions , a change of 6.4 degrees.

Actual emissions have exceeded the assumptions in the A1FI scenario, as shown in this paper:.

ahref=http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.abstractrel=url2html-19999http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.abstract>

People who don't know anything about climate science may think "Well , what's a few degrees in temp change going to mean really? So it was 85 outside and now it will be 87. It's not so bad".

In fact, at 4 degrees, the average summer temp in Zurich would be about 118 F.

This is the end of agriculture over much of the globe and mass starvation is a virtual certainty. . At 4 degrees. we've essentially lost our ability to control future temp increases and 6 degrees becomes not an "if" but a "when" .

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/globalWarmingUrgency.htm

For those still living in civilization at 4 degrees, the certainty of 6 degrees will effectively end civilization because civilization requires its participants to believe they have a shared future. This is not a world you want to try to survive in. There is no law and order, there is no government (hey Libertarians! Finally!) and there is no social contract, no hope no long term thinking at all. Only murder, rape, starvation, desolation and death.

My job its to make goddamn sure this scenario never materializes.

Next post I'll address your 2.

Look forward to it presently.

Nearly all of it. THink of it this way: UK has 18-25% of their electricity nukes (basically, 18 reactors). Now, not a big deal, it is about the same as America. What is interesting is that they have accumulated all that fuel since 1967 (average appears to be 35 years). And that is less than 5% burned. So, if UK, puts in these reactors, then they will be able to burn the rest of the fuel. How long will it take? Over a 100 years depending on how many reactors they put in.

Note that this is simply GE's IFR and here is the info on IFR.

Basically, if UK or America builds these, it will be cheaper than storing them. In addition, it will likely be safer.
And yes, I know that you want a QUANTATIVE number, but not really needed. Think instead in terms of how much and how long. If they build new reactors to cover ALL OF THEIR ENERGY NEEDS, they can run them for 100 years with just this waste fuel. What is missing is that the reactors are not cheap.

Integral Fast Reactors are awesome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/21/response-to-an-integral-fast-reactor-ifr-critique/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99xx7.htm
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/10/21/how-the-integral-fast-reactor-was-killed-10214.aspx

... any viable energy source we have except theoretical fusion processes will run out in less than 100 years time ... 200 years tops for nuclear power ...

Integral Fast Reactors can extend our nuclear fuel reserves out for 1,000 - 50,000 years, depending on the estimate, while burning up our current waste.

Kirsch holds the first patent describing an optical mouse. Mouse Systems, which developed and sold the produce of this invention was Kirsch's first company never could be called a failure. He sold it to KYE Systems, producer of the Genius brand of mice, in 1990. No failure there.

Framemake is still the number one desktop publishing program for technical writing, and by a huge margin. Nothing else even comes close. So, no failure there either.

Infoseek was sold to Disney and the technology was merged with Starwave, another Disney acquisition, to form the Go.com network. It is no longer in use. Success or failure? For Kirsch, certainly a success.

The article fails to mention Propel however, another of Kirsch's brainchildren. Propel started out with the idea of creating software it promoted as "Amazon in a box", a commercial web site builder and complete back-end application server. This company was a huge failure partly because of the dot com bust but also because Kirsch's software architects had no clue about space they were in. I know. I worked there. This company still exists but it re-invented itself to produce dial-up acceleration software. I count Propel as a failure but who knows, maybe dial-up will see a comeback. ;-)

Abaca is an offshoot of Propel. It remains to be seen whether it will be successful or not. But either way, you have to give Kirsch credit for constantly coming up with new ideas and persistently pushing them to the limits. How many people do you know who think they have a good idea but never do anything to turn it into reality. Kirsch is a guy who makes things happen. Yes, he is human and has the occasional failure, but his success ratio is outstanding.

I suggest reading his explanation of how he hopes to beat his disease, by the way. I think he stands a good chance of succeeding.

> Unless they're all still in business that's probably 3 failures on record.

Why? Do companies have to run forever? He founded InfoSeek. It ran well enough in the 90s. Disney bought it.

> But he got out before the ship sank and with a bundle of cash too. I wonder what his ex-employees got...

Again, does it mean that every entrepreneur be considered sly if he sold his company on a good bid?

> How philosophical...So he's going to cure himself single handedly of a rare disease in 4 years, because medical research is as easy (and cheap) as writing software or tinkering with a home engineering project. I think he's been watching Crusade and sniffing glue.

Sure. He may not be able to get through it. But can't a man with terminal illness be irrationally optimistic (at least, as long as he remains asymptomatic)? What do you think he ought to say?

>> Why human beings will be extinct in 90 years.
> Don't even know where to start on this one.

Homepage: http://www.skirsch.com/
His argument: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/Extinction.htm
I am not equipped to evaluate it but he is putting his money where his mouth is. Like you, I don't accept that statement. But then again he need not be right on everything and I need not make sweeping judgments on him based on his few beliefs. Just like you and me, he puts many of his opinions on the web. Some of them will be out of expertise, and others out of emotion. That's all OK since he is not selling anything based on that.

Information Retrieval research community works on spam problems. They have research tracks on it. I don't know about this guy but he has enough presence in the community to be a keynote in one of their conferences. I also consequently expect him to know the body of research already available on it.

His solution may or may not work. But what he certainly is not is a crackpot or a snake-oil salesman you interpret him as.

> Unless they're all still in business that's probably 3 failures on record.

Why? Do companies have to run forever? He founded InfoSeek. It ran well enough in the 90s. Disney bought it.

> But he got out before the ship sank and with a bundle of cash too. I wonder what his ex-employees got...

Again, does it mean that every entrepreneur be considered sly if he sold his company on a good bid?

> How philosophical...So he's going to cure himself single handedly of a rare disease in 4 years, because medical research is as easy (and cheap) as writing software or tinkering with a home engineering project. I think he's been watching Crusade and sniffing glue.

Sure. He may not be able to get through it. But can't a man with terminal illness be irrationally optimistic (at least, as long as he remains asymptomatic)? What do you think he ought to say?

>> Why human beings will be extinct in 90 years.
> Don't even know where to start on this one.

Homepage: http://www.skirsch.com/
His argument: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/Extinction.htm
I am not equipped to evaluate it but he is putting his money where his mouth is. Like you, I don't accept that statement. But then again he need not be right on everything and I need not make sweeping judgments on him based on his few beliefs. Just like you and me, he puts many of his opinions on the web. Some of them will be out of expertise, and others out of emotion. That's all OK since he is not selling anything based on that.

Information Retrieval research community works on spam problems. They have research tracks on it. I don't know about this guy but he has enough presence in the community to be a keynote in one of their conferences. I also consequently expect him to know the body of research already available on it.

His solution may or may not work. But what he certainly is not is a crackpot or a snake-oil salesman you interpret him as.

and someone e-mail someone in austraila some child pron..

New Zealand, not Australia.

Fucking ignorant yanks.. you get attacked by terrorists who came from Saudi Arabia(15) and Egypt(4) using "Weapons" designed and built in the USA(4) so you bomb Afghanistan and Iraq?!!

Ahh, but Afghanistan was where Bin Laden (Also from Saudi Arabia) was hiding.. this is the guy who was trained and given weapons by the CIA. The guy who's family has close ties with the Bush family. Being protected by the Taliban, who were approximately a year earlier being given millions by the USA government as a reward for doing something about the drug problem.

I'm really confused here. Someone please explain all this because http://www.skirsch.com/politics/iraq/Lessons911.ht m
and http://www.futurepower.net/us_government_violence. html leads me to believe that most americans have no idea what their government is doing, or why they're doing it, or who they're doing it to.