Luciferin Luciferase,

Sufferin Sukotash, anthropomorphic warming is warming that looks like a human being in some way. You must have meant anthropogenic (human caused)warming.

Why you refuse to call it dirty-nappygenic warming which is identical to human caused warming because it reflects all the unwanted up coming polluters and shakers of the world is no mystery to me.

I feel sorry for you and your problem. But your uncompetitive woes don't change the fact that everything is in decay because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

All the economic immigration/overpopulate get-rich quick consenses in the world won't make it different. It won't make it a true scientific consensus either. It will just mean that more humans equals more severe climate change. Lowering CO2 without lowering poo, pee an solid wastes or lowering CO2 by introducing fossil fuel dependent nuclear or any OIL DEPENDENT renewable energies are fool's errands. The 2LT is most explicit about this. To my mind scientists consensing CO2 warming are nothing more than sexual failures trying to bignote themselves into the big-time. But for how long will it last? The consensus is changing rapidly as OIL prices begin to fluctuate ostensibly on short term US foundations. But I suspect much larger prices loom as much larger geopolitical and true-reserve problems exist.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/oil-advances-as-demand-picks-up-20120319-1vf0v.html
And when these CO2 scientists do fail they will be HATED as much as the politicians and corporate goons who have USED them.

Ah Hasbeen, classic! Perhaps the cut and paste function on 579' puter needs a disable function after 3 uses in any particular session :))

I know KAEP has valid and cogent arguments regarding population, peak oil and 2LT buried deep within the miasma of turgid text, and the use of scat analogies are an amusement, but the link to my 'bonking' preferences or behavior continues to ellude me. Fascinating stuff and cheers to all.

Anthropomorphic! Ha,I did write that, my sincere anthropologies!

There is no escaping entropy but by its inevitability the argument boils down to "why worry about anything, we're doomed in the end anyway". Well, where there's life there's hope and ultimately the second law should see humanity break free of our earthly coil and befoul other parts of the universe if we can just survive our own petri-dish for a little longer.

The idea that you put more fossil fuel energy into going nuclear than you get out of it is sheer Green bollocks. Eventually you leave fossil fuels behind while buying time to establish sustainable alternatives. We do not have the luxury of that time given the virtual standing start position we are in developing the alternatives to the point they can provide base-load needs.

The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

In relation to fossil fuel dependent nuclear, renewable and fossil derivitive energies(eg expensive to harvest algae oil) the following quote from an ex-employer of mine suffices in place of wasting time teaching all the unwelcome 2LT realities to folk who remain stoic, heads in sand:

"Progress does not follow a straight line; the future is not a mere projection of trends in the present. Rather, it is revolutionary. It overturns the conventional wisdom of the present, which often self interestedly conceals or ignores the clues to the future."