Who pays you Eclipse now?

It's a simple question, you bragged about briefing politicians.

Is it that all bluster and bravado.

Shuold we suspect you're int he pay of Big Green?

rpg

"Adapting means reviewing past decisions, like having nuclear power."

Yes, but it is complicated and can take decades, we should start now - and we are.

"Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute as many do today".

I think you are confusing adaptation with mitigation.

Adapting and mitigation against AGW is very well understood (thankfully by the real decision makers) - except of course by the 'sceptics'. Here on OLO, I use that term lightly.

Both adaptation and mitigation are required for humanity to grow/develop in an environmentally sustainable way.

rpg says:

<Don't confuse a skeptical view of man made global warming as being in favor of polluting or being against other forms of novel power generation.>
I agree, and it sounds good (whether you are a true sceptic or not).

What I cannot understand is that virtually everyone with that POV thinks adaptation and mitigation are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Hey Q&A, what do you make of the IPCC still rabbiting on about 450 ppm goals when James Hansen and the Australian "Climate Code Red" guys are saying 350? What does that say about the pace of climate science moving on while political inertia drags along behind? Where do we look for the climate "consensus" if this is true? What do you personally make about the 350 argument, because we're already at 385?

Oh, and to RPG and co: I'm just a "concerned citizen". I "briefed" Maxine when I joined the local Labor party a while back just to get access to a few pollies because I'm so desperately confused by their tardiness in addressing this stuff. She didn't believe me, and said as much when she met people 3 days later at the "Smart conference 2007" where she was again briefed by Dr Roger Bezdek.

See video here. 51 minutes web quality, not too data heavy. How she can walk away from that very professional briefing of the whole energy decline situation completely baffles me, and when one considers that ALL politicians at a State and Federal level have been briefed by both citizen-activists like myself and "Professionals" like Dr Bezdek. See what you make of it.

http://fundraisingconcepts.info/spo/bezdek_keynote.mov

When the Australian economy enters the final oil crisis in just a few years, and people start asking questions, I wonder if any of this will come out? Will there be Royal Commissions into who knew what when? Even Dr Karl, Catalyst, the ABC science team, gosh 60 minutes covered it. The Australian Federal Senate covered it in 2007... but no ACTION taken yet.

"3.133 'Early peak' commentators have criticised what they regard as overoptimistic official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut peak oil arguments in similar detail."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c03.htm

We could be free of fossil fuels in 10 years if we got STUCK into it!

http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zerocarbonplan

How could ANYONE walk away from MY briefing? I am the ONLY ONE who KNOWS everything. ALL other briefings are unworthy. I AM GOD. WHY DON'T they listen to ME?

Get over YOURSELF.

Q&A - Which part of that sentence are you having trouble with?

"Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute as many do today".

"I think you are confusing adaptation with mitigation."

I was drawing Eclipse Now's attention to the concept that skeptics and polluters are not necessarily the same thing - what are you on about?

"What I cannot understand is that virtually everyone with that POV thinks adaptation and mitigation are mutually exclusive. They are not." You obviously misunderstand many things and this appears to only reside in your imagination.

Eclipse Now - "Will there be Royal Commissions into who knew what when?" No of course not, there will be nothing to gain by such a witch hunt, there never is.

Let me give you an example. Imagine if the Eco/green industry had not demonized nuclear power 30 years ago where it would be today, how incredibly advanced it would be. We'd probably be up to 7th or 8th generation reactors, even little portable reactors.

Will we have a Royal Commission to find out why we didn't invest in nuclear energy more 30 years ago? To find out who were the culprits and what their motives were. How they misused information, for whatever reason, like they do today to try to sway public opinion to their own personal views, unbacked by science.

Harrisburg and Chernobyl have become legend in the eco/green firmament, the facts don't bother them at all.

Fungo, I guess I deserved that. My 2nd paragraph was poorly written.

What I meant to get across was that I'm just a piddley little nobody activist that spent 10 minutes reading to Maxine McKew at a Labor party meeting (with a few choice paragraphs from the Australian Federal Senate inquiry) but Dr Roger Bezdek FULLY LECTURED Maxine with all the most pertinent information.

I also know from my activist networks that ALL State and Federal politicians KNOW there is a strong case for peak oil hitting in the next few years, and this is why I'm interested in not only a "Royal Commission" but the possible media treatment of these issues.

I was just expressing my surreal disbelief that we are not already busy building an oil-free transport system.

Fungo and RPG have attacked my "anger problem", and then my reply admits I've 'briefed' Maxine McKew try asserting I have a "financial problem." (Apparently I'm getting cheques from Greenpeace. Nice, but where are they?) When I point out I'm just a concerned citizen activist disappointed with decisions of politicians I know have been informed about these matters, I now have a "God-complex problem". Very interesting.

RPG and Fungo, have you noticed your whopping great AVOIDANCE PROBLEM? It would be nice to get back to the discussion at hand, just for a radical experiment in obeying forum protocol and, oh, I don't know, RELEVANCE?

RPG: On nuclear: believe it or not, I tend to be a market-will-fix it kind of guy for many things (but not *all* things).

And this is what the market is telling us about nuclear.

""Nuclear is dying of incurable attack of market forces despite what the industry wants you to believe," he remarked, adding that micropower offer more climate solution per dollar spent than nuclear."
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html

Why should we back a particular energy industry with an extra 50% or 100% subsidy if something else is cheaper, safer, more secure, less NIMBY, is not fuel dependent (even peak uranium is an issue) and has less geopolitical “fallout”?