Post by ***@bid.nes
Except since the "science is settled", no "peer" will review it.
One does not take heretics' arguments seriously. Not and keep one's job.
You do have a point. However, in general, positions don't get that "settled"
among scientists unless they really are settled.
The actual impact of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is not
settled. A lot of complex and poorly-understood factors, like carbon dioxide
dissolving in seawater, will affect the outcome.
But that a higher level of carbon dioxide will promote warming by the greenhouse
effect, and even the rough order of magnitude of how much warming that will
cause: those things are known.
The "climate skeptic" arguments which are attempted as "scientific" rebuttals to
it often come from maverick scientists... who are getting paid by oil companies.
And they generally hold about as much water as Creation Science.
Any reviewer for a peer-reviewed journal who tried to let such junk in *would
not be doing his job*. It's not about orthodoxy, although _of course_ that claim
will be asserted. It can be asserted by people who want to convince us the Earth
is flat too.
While one side is right about the climate science, the other side *is* right
about certain other stuff.
It happens to be very important, both for the well-being of the people who live
in the Western industrialized world, and for the survival of liberty on the
Earth, that the United States and other Western industrialized nations have
access to abundant supplies of cheap energy.
Generally speaking, the measures proposed for dealing with global warming are
not consistent with that.
Conservation, through more careful use of energy with better technology, so we can use less energy to support the same level of prosperity... will reduce our
fossil fuel use by a modest percentage. Not as much as is needed to address
global warming effectively.
Wind power and solar energy are proposed as alternate methods for obtaining
electrical power. The wind does not always blow, and it isn't always daytime.
Unproven methods of energy storage, and enormously expensive long-distance power
distribution systems are proposed as the ways to deal with that.
Given, therefore, the obvious consequences of following the recommendations of
the most visible elements of global warming concern... it is easiest to just
dismiss the whole thing.
as I've noted, the _real_ situation isn't that bleak and hopeless.
I don't have a good replacement for gasoline in cars.
But when it comes to home heating - well, houses can be heated with electricity,
and are in places where electricity comes from hydroelectric dams.
And when it comes to electricity... hydroelectric dams are a proven source of
reliable electrical power in abundance. So they're used already where it is
possible to do so.
What about everywhere else?
Well, there's another proven way to generate electrical power without carbon
dioxide emissions. The fission of Uranium-235 is a source of large amounts of
It takes a little political will, of course, to address the waste disposal
problem, and the proliferation security problem. But those things can be
addressed, and the situation is important enough that excuses of this sort, as
opposed to issues connected with real problems, like physical impossibility or
the required technology not being available, cannot be accepted as anything but
excuses which are not valid reasons for not doing what is needed.
Minor lifestyle changes that don't impact the ability of the nation to produce
what is needed for defense, though, may indeed happen. Thus, people living in
cities may face gasoline rationing - if they can't afford to get an electric
car, they'll have to take the trolley bus to work. That would not be a disaster.
(It would have to be phased in, since it would take time to improve public
transit in some cities - and switching from buses using fossil fuel to trolleys
will also take time.) It would not stop the United States from being militarily
strong, or from being a wealthy nation.
China? They can get with the program, or lose all foreign markets for their