"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

BlueLightning wrote:
Here's a realplayer clip (about 10 mins) Dr Gray at the Governers
Hurricane Conference 2006

http://www.hurricanecity.com/ram/gray2006.ram

In Summery, he thinks Global Warming has been whipped up into a frenzy
by the media, with a lot of fear-mongering going on.

He admits that some warming has occured. He thinks it's part of a
natural cycle, and the Earth will cool again within the next 20 years

He might be right, although 20 years seems rather a short timescale for
a global phenomenon to reverse the cycle. And even if it did happen, I
assume he means 'start to cool' within 20 years. However, what happens
if the warming effect overpowers the cooling one?

Whoever is right, there are going to be some areas that will be
affected by more severe conditions, and arguing or waiting to
prove/disprove someones theories is not going to help them.

What I dont understand is that after all these years of knowing the
problems associated with fossil fuel emissions and shortages, most
governments have continually dragged their feet over alternatives.
Surely, a few million in research and a decent home wind generator
could have been produced quite cheaply by now, likewise affordable
photo-voltaic roof tiles.

Someone seems to have designed an inner city wind generator, but stuck
it on a stand-alone pole! Why? We have millions of metal poles in this
country, they are called street lamps, and it is not rocket science to
design wind generators that fix onto them - surely? There are between
50 and 70 per mile on many lit sections of motorway, and even if they
did not contribute much to the national grid, they would be a start.

I sometimes wonder if it is in the interests of those in political
power, to have the world continue to rely on oil. Could this be because
it is traded in dollars, and any drop in its importance would see the
collapse of the US economy?


Surely that's a major factor. A world recession would have far greater
consequences than any global warming.

That's why I feel 'many in the know' prefer a growing world economy as
opposed to one pushed into crisis. Just look at the world econimic slump
of the 1930's and it's consequences. For as sure a night follows day a
world economy plunged into major recession will always result in
millions of lives lost through war alone let alone poverty and famine on
a major scale.

Now I'm not agreeing with above scenario but that's how capitalism
responds. It's the best we humans have ever had, but in a time of
exponential growth in human productivity the years we need to work in
the wealthier countries needs to increase; God help the poorer ones if
Co2 controls, throw a spanner into an already very delicate machine.


Why do you think that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels means
economic crisis?

Simply this. If you work to the laws of Capitalism - of which we have no
choice-you cannot 'buck the market".
Like the Gold that flooded Europe in the 16th Century and the break from
the gold standard in the 60's/70's the economic truth will out.

So people and the market place will always default to the best bang for
buck source of energy- regardless of the environmental concerns.


Bear in mind that cheap oil is not going to last forever so we will have to
adapt to using alternative energy sources eventually. Better to start making
the transition sooner rather than later.