Hi Mike,
I understand your point. I don't want to anything that's bad in the long run. And 100 years is barely long enough to be long. I want our great grandchildren to have a high quality of life. It's clear to me that CO2 doubling isn't going to matter climate wise despite what we've been told. The feedback is negative, not positive. Richard Lindzen mentions this in his lecture. I've been reading on RealClimate, ClimateAudit, etc., every day over the past few years and I believe the calamity of global warming to be quite overdone.

We in the computer field should understand this as well as any group. The Y2K issue was treated much the same. I remember the articles by Ed Yourdon. I have friends who may still have their buried supplies. Millions spent and when nothing happens, Ed deleted his articles and went on being an author. And folks like me, actually in the industry, with experience in software and embedded CPU projects -- I did nothing. Better safe than sorry, that's what folks said. There was no one to pay the price for the bad predictions.

At some point fossil fuels will run out. That's why nuclear power is so important. There are a ton of new designs that are quite promising. As you know we haven't built a plant in over 30 years. We have tons of nuclear power, most of it is in submarines and aircraft carriers. Wind and solar make up 1-2% and only because they are highly subsidized, again, lowering the standard of living. I'm not hoping the government will do anything but lower roadblocks to nuclear power. In my dreams I imagine coal plants that burn coal for about one forth their power output, and the rest comes from the Thorium harvested from the ash. Don't tell me if the calculations don't work out -- it's my dream.


>What makes me uncomfortable with your message, and Jake's ongoing campaign as well, is the fixation with economic issues and apparent lack of concern about environmental ones. You make it sound like everything that is aimed at preserving the planet we live on is some bleeding heart liberal cause with no merit. One doesn't have to take every environmental initiative at 100% face value to be discomfited by that. This is the only planet we've got. Do we really want to do things we know are bad for the earth for no better reason than short term profit? Mighty short sighted IMO.
>