Ironically one consequence of the current craze for burning wood as a "green" fuel is that rainforest is being chopped down to plant rapidly growing tree crops, alongside the existing biodiesel plantations. It doesn't seem possible to make capitalism truly green.

Since you brought politics into it...There is no system fueled by greed more so then Socialism, Communism and Fascism, ie: three legs of the same table/throne.

Regarding Solar, it is a viable alternative, however, the dangers/risks need to be addressed first so we don't move from one not ideal to another not ideal. DuckDuckGo Solar panels and EMF. Also note the risks to ones health with smart meters and EMF. There is a serious risk of creating millions of cancer clusters with the current technology of solar panels, especially given that many people place them on their rooftop, absorbing the radiation while they sleep. Why not install them far from the house and run cables underground to the converter?

Fusion seems like a probable solution: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-fusion...ss-energy.html
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/poli...e-using-fusion

tweak nuclear to make it safer: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/b...chinanuke.html
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ar-power-plant

LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY&app=desktop

Fusion will have far fewer probelms with radioactive waste, but won't get rid of them altogether - for example, the containment vessels will receive enough neutrons that decommissioned plant will pose a problem. But it's still the way to go for now.

As long as people are greedy for money ("capitalists") or power ("communists") fission power won't be acceptably safe (neither will capitalism or communism).

Chinese Scientists Advance Gas Separation Technology
http://www.tju.edu.cn/english/news/l...127_310512.htm

https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveSGod...29452566097920
"Five steps to create a scientific consensus :
1. Pay everyone who agrees
2. Cut off funding to anyone who disagrees
3. Ostracize and threaten anyone who disagrees
4. Declare anyone who disagrees to not be a scientist
5. Most importantly, make up fake consensus statistics"

https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveSGoddard
https://realclimatescience.com/

https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveSGod...70679033618434
""Climate Change Science™" is easy to understand.
1, Take a commonplace weather event which happens every year
2. Make up a fake statistic about it
3. Declare it due to climate change
4. Shout down all contrary evidence with shrill cries of "weather is not climate"

Since it might have been buried within a bunch of text -------

Remember, France currently provides 78% of that nation's power via fission (no pun intended... well, maybe a little ;) )

Mine is the 190th post in this thread, but only 31st vote in the pole. Are people skipping voting? Or are there only that many people who've posted that many messages?

I have a technical question for those of you who think the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the driving cause of climate change.

A couple facts are well known and unarguable. First there is a huge amount of CO2 in solution in the oceans of the world. Second, warmer water dissolves less gas than cooler water.

Given these facts, consider the case where average global temperature rises over a few decades for any reason. This results in the oceans warming, which releases CO2, which (if your claim is correct) further warms the earth. This is positive feedback. Any uptrend in sustained average global temperature must result in further increases in temperature.

Conversely, if average global temperature falls over a few decades, the oceans cool and absorb more CO2, which (if your claim is correct) further cools the earth.

So the question is if the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the driving cause of climate change, why hasn't the earth's natural fluctuations in average temperature already driven the earth to a Venus or Mars climate?

It might be good to consider fire. Fire has 3 requirements - Fuel, Heat, and Oxygen. If any one of those is missing there can be no fire. However as residents of this planet who evolved as Oxygen-breathing mammals, Oxygen is effectively everywhere, so all we need is fuel and heat and voila! - Fire! If one knows how to "rub two wooden sticks together" (which is also fuel) the heat part is inconsequential so one would be right and accurate in calculating the potential thermal output of a given fire by accounting for just the fuel.

Similarly there is more than one single item that creates the balance point as well as the tipping points in climate change, but CO2 is meaningful to track since recorded History (in vegetation, ice, etc.) for millions of years reveals that it is a critical factor, just not the only factor.

[Added Later] - It's difficult to remember just how provincial our POV is with our lifespans so short compared to the "lifespan" of Mother earth unless we choose to step out and like "The Fool on the Hill" consider it in Cosmic Perspective.

While the time from the Big Bang has been refined more accurately from 15,000,000,000 years ag to 13,700,000,000 years the percentages, the scales, of Carl Sagan's Cosmic Calendar still hold true with insignificant adjustment. We can barely grasp the amount of time involved in any Global Change. Already, people have been born and died, lived out their entire lives and probably some of their children as well, since the concept of "Human-Caused" component of "Global Climate Change" was first glimpsed by humans. We don't live on Geological Time, we just live with the results of it, and very likely and fairly recently contribute to it now that our population is measured also in Billions.

This is worth revisiting repeatedly for a grand perspective adjustment since it takes only a second to say or write "billions and billions" but never really grasp the vastness that represents.

Here is --- The Cosmic Calendar ---

Many explanations have been offered, such as: as CO2 increases, green plants are stimulated to take advantage of the higher levels of CO2, and reverse the oxidation process. Millions of years ago, there was an an 'oxygen revolution' caused by photosynthesis, which changed the methane and CO2 rich atmosphere into one rich in oxygen. This, in turn, led to the evolution of oxygen respirating animals, until Earth's atmosphere struck a balance.

From this and other complexities opined in this thread and elsewhere, I am confirmed in my doubts. I am one of the two who answered that the jury is still out. I belive it may be a hung jury, and we may never know the answer with any degree of confidence.

Meanwhile, I also belive it behooves us to err on the side of caution, and live in a more earth-firndly manner.

Had to vote Yes but would have preferred giving it about 90%*

Common sense is not really a thing; just ask a common kindergartener, Jehovah's Witness or any other "group..." :hattip:

If either of these mechanisms was enough to counter the positive feedback of CO2 in the past, they should still be able to have that effect today regardless the source of the CO2.

If anyone is tempted to claim that many millennia are required for life or the earth or gaia to respond, then consider the Little Ice Age. CO2 feedback in response to falling temperature over 500 years should have driven the earth to a Mars-like climate, or to a Venus-like climate on the rebound.

Perhaps. But conversely, I'm alarmed at the number of people of all stripes, even some friends, who consider anyone who disagrees with their position to be "stupid." It would be nice if we could discuss topics like this with more logic than emotion.

Didn't you get the memo, you're not supposed to bring rational/logical points to a one sided discussion. :)

Ditto on your last comment