Global Warming

Did any of you watch the program on Global warming on Fox? There were a
couple of what I thought were intersting new things I learned by watching
the program. One was that it is the climatologist who seem the most
skeptical about the prediction and it was the physicist who seem to embrace
the theory. The other part of the program that I found interesting was how
some countries were using the publicity and the call for action, to pususe
what was in their own best interest, but taking advantage of the call for
action, which had little to do with global warming. Then there was a
segment that had someone who worked for one of the environmental groups I
think (sorry I forgot which one, but it was one of the big ones in the US),
who got disenchanged with their position on Global Warming. He made the
point that if the world would simply divert a small fraction of what they
are spending on fighting global warming, we could solve all of the hunger
problems in all of the third world countries. I thought that was an
interesting view, that I had not heard anyone say before. Finally, it
simply blew my mind, what a spokesman for the President said about the
issue. He achnowledged the fact that it is not conclusinve that Global
Warming would occur, then turned right around and told the reporter what
actions this admininstration was doing to combat gloval warming. Sure did
not make any sense to me.

Islander...

There is an excellent article in the May-June issue of Harvard Magazine

This article is unusual in that it looks at what is reasonable to
accomplish if we are to keep the CO2 level below 550ppm (it is presently
380ppm and rapidly increasing). The conclusion is that we need to find
a clean way to use coal of which the USA has large reserves. No other
source of energy will solve the problem (including nuclear). But, coal
is one of the worst fuels for producing CO2! The solution proposed here
is to pipe liquid CO2 produced by coal liquidification down into the
sediment at the bottom of the ocean.