Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:
The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The
issue is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that
has been developed to a point where we can start construction on
1000 GW worth of new plants this year.

If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that
we need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real
effort into developing the technology to that level. But we can't
wait for that to happen.

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to
do what we reasonably can do??

I have yet to see a persuasive argument disputing the concept that,
on a global scale, a little global warming would be a GOOD thing.
Arguments for local disruptions, yes. Arguments for global
catastrophe, no.

Right.
* More people die from the effects of cold than of heat.
* Growing seasons in much of the world would be extended.
* An ice-free Northwest Passage would foster considerably more economical
trade routes. Europe could, for instance, revel in cheap Chinese imports.
* Some cities, i.e., San Francisco, New York, etc., might have to be
abandoned.