formatting link
OT if you like Lomborg (IPCC)
Oct 10, 2018
10 Replies
Follow replies to this discussion?
Information here may be outdated?
visit via a search engine to side-step paywall
Nordhaus is right of course. The suggestion that mankind could exist on 100% fossil-free energy or even close to it in the near future, is so far from reality that it makes you wonder about the quality of the people on the IPCC!
Mankind might achieve totally fossil-free energy eventually if enough nukes are built, probably including new developments such as LFTRs and fusion reactors, but they're both so far away into the future that by then the whole AGW hypothesis will be seen to be totally flawed.
Going nuclear also means a shitload of hydrocarbons are preserved for something far better than burning and pissing away between 40-70% of useful heat up the stack / exhaust.
Oh thanks, I didn't hit one by my route
Should economic be let anywhere near correcting the climate so our descendents do not all have to live half way up mountains at the poles? Brian
It's easy, just cull 99% of the population and we can have a natural world. Trouble is, deciding which 99%.
The reality is that it is *all* economics. We shouldn't be letting scientists anywhere near policy. Like Churchill said.
or politicians.
Judith Curry's take on the IPCC report here
formatting link
For those who don't know who Judith Curry is, her Wiki entry is here
formatting link
Some retired politicians are OK
+1
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required