coruscadragon wrote:Just to clarify, Mel: in no way do i condone our current ways of generating energy (primarily through the burning of fossil fuels), i merely meant that we should not make the same mistakes when it comes to other sources of energy. No-one knew that by burning fossil fuels we could possibly alter the climate of the world, and many regarded oil and the like as a never-ending source of energy. Hindsight, 20-20 as it tends to be, shows us that our assumptions were wrong and that there were unforeseen consequences to our harnessing of this energy source. This is one of the reasons i don't think we should rush blindly to embrace any apparent panacea for our energy woes without careful consideration of the long-term ramifications.
I don't think anyone would deliberately suggest such a course. Replacing one problem with another at best just postpones the inevitable. But, nuclear energy is pretty well researched, and I wasn't suggesting we go all-out with it until much more research is done. Unfortunately, as technology grows and we can reap greater benefits from it, the magnitude of the damage that can be wrought with it grows at the same rate, whether from malicious misuse or negligence. It's just that nuclear energy has already shown itself to be safer and cleaner in many respects than fossil fuels, and all indications is that will get better with more advancements. If it doesn't, then obviously it shouldn't be considered.
Guten posted some great links, one even from my alma mater. Unfortunately, there are lots of alternative energy technologies out there, but very few that are even close to becoming a valid candidate for primary energy source replacement. I've read about the solar cell advancements recently from several sources, and the calculations of the land areas that would have to be paneled to provide replacement energy for fossil fuels is still staggering. The biofuel and famine debate highlights the kind of hidden dangers in pursuing alternative energy sources without that lengthy investigation and research history, and viewing the issue from a larger perspective. (Although I've seen arguments for and against it, it obviously shouldn't just be dismissed).
Which I think is the real issue with global warming. There's very real evidence our planet is going through climate change, whether we're a contributing factor or not. The magnitude of our impact on that shouldn't just be dismissed. Which is sort of what the guy in the video was saying, he just extrapolated a very bad argument from that. The real problem with that argument being used in a scientific debate, is that it's in a scientific debate.
Real science uses reality to test assumptions (theories), never assumptions to test reality. That's the realm of mysticism and religion, which is where that logic argument was originally applied.
Looking back in time at a single factor, such as CO2 levels, is also a bad way to predict future trends. Glimpsing a single factor of a complex system and making extrapolations can be a risky game. The carbon cycle of the earth, and how it related to the rest of the rest of the earth's bio-geological cycles could very well have been very different 300 thousand years ago. Nature exists in a "dynamic equilibrium", in which any disruption will cascade effects in the system as it tries to restabilize. Not necessarily with all the components of the system in the same state. This is seen in nuclear and chemical reactions, all the way to gravitational interactions of galaxies, as well as all levels of biological systems. Evidence from Mars suggests that the equilibrium of any system is not beyond total disruption, as that planet very possibly had at one time a significant atmosphere and running water on its surface, but likely never will again (short of some extensive terra-forming). Even though that collapse almost certainly wasn't caused by martians driving their SUVs over zealously.
So, while BB is correct that we exhale (and inhale) mainly nitrogen, and we depend on sea algae for most of our atmospheric oxygen that we breathe, it should not be assumed that the world is capable of recovering from any injury we might cause it. Or that the Earth will continue indefinitely on some broad cycle of life-supporting fluctuations that's just too large for us to detect.
And I don't believe that science is ever for sale, just the gullibility of people to believe in something other than the facts (or anything they're handed in the absence of them).
