|
|
|
|
|
by jdietrich
2881 days ago
|
|
If climate skeptics are right, we will have only hastened the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels - there's only enough coal, oil and gas in the ground to last us another century, give or take. If climate skeptics are wrong, millions of people will die due to avoidable natural disasters and hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Those are our choices - do the thing we need to do anyway, or put it off until later and risk catastrophe. Asking whether or not climate change is "real" is entirely the wrong question. It's always the wrong question. We need to ask what the probability is, how wide the error bars are and what the effect size will be across the range of possible outcomes. Even if our predictions are wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude, reducing our carbon emissions is +EV. Doing something now is obviously the best course of action, because you avert a high-probability and high-magnitude loss at a relatively low marginal cost. |
|
First, many (including Russia) contend that petroleum is not old plant matter, but made from a geological process. We also have plenty of Coal & Natural Gas; never mind Solar energy.
There's also weather modification (e.g. Stratospheric aerosol injection). There's also other forms of energy.
There's also Electrogravitics, which contends that Gravity & Electricity are related. The Electrogravitic model provides a unified model that is simpler than String Theory.
If Electrogravitics is an accurate model, then we are living on a massive engine (planet Earth) & can, as Nikola Tesla has demonstrated, harvest the energy generated by this engine.