DailyDirt: Fixing A Hole Where The Rain Gets In...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Pollution from energy generation is an enormous problem that will probably require an expensive solution -- which, thankfully, billionaires like Bill Gates are willing to fund. However, we're already spending billions on energy R&D, but progress seems slow when the doomsday clock appears to be "catastrophically" close to midnight. The option of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere might give us some additional time, though, even if global-scale geoengineering sounds like it might have its own unintended side effects. After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bill gates, biofuel, carbon dioxide, carbon fixation, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy, fluorocarbons, geoengineering, ghg, pollution
Companies: carbon engineering

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2015 @ 2:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


    That "insult" was intended to highlight a very common problem in education today. The lack of ensuring that the minds being educated are open to continual enquiry. I don't know what has happened in the last 30 years, but, education (particularly higher education) has been closing its mind.

    Sure. I still don't see why we can't *discuss* various engineering proposals that could have significant impact on our environment, if we chose to deploy them.
    If we were to put the resources into these, then these resources would not be put into the more important problems (which really don't get a look-see at the moment).
    I'm going to assume that you don't like the tone and underlying assumptions that I've implied in this post. And on top of that, you have a pet peeve against climate change "science" and its supporters.
    Some of what you highlight is interesting and thought provoking, but some of it is just following the herd (in dogma) without asking the questions that would question the underlying assumptions.

    As far as "anthropogenic climate change science", yes I do have a pet peeve when the scientists in question make utterly ridiculous statements about climatic changes without answering the fundamental energy requirements. I have enquired of these "scientists" to answer a simple question, (I even give them all the calculations to go with it) and I get nothing back of any meaningful worth.

    The fundamental problem in all the predictions is the energy requirements. If they cannot explain this, then they are stuck badly. The one (actually two) references I was given to back the claims (by a "anthropogenic climate change supporter, but not necessarily a climate change scientist), on reading it, made even more sense for my questions and demonstrated that the experimental data well indicated a few thousand years for specific changes to occur. Funnily enough, he assumed that it supported his viewpoint. What was funny about reading the paper, was that I predicted to myself, various results they would be reporting. Low and behold, I was correct. My energy calculations (though fairly rough +/-50%) still means that at least 6 (and maybe a lot more) orders of magnitude are not being considered. Even calculations I made based on IPCC officially released data, indicated over a thousand years before significant change would occur. Unfortunately, I can't find my copy of the specific paper. When I find it, I'll put the reference to it in this discussion.

    I have made the comment that even a fifth grader could do the calculations.

    You raise these questions to anthropogenic climate change scientists and you are treated as persona non grata and as an imbecile. When this kind of response is given, one must immediately, assume that the people in question are hiding something and that their public statements are less than accurate or complete falsehoods.

    Rational debate is good, irrational response to challenging current beliefs is not good. The anthropogenic climate change believers are irrational. Those who believe there is no climate change are just as irrational.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.