Re: Towards Ecological Catastrophe: 2016 or Socialism

Another  infamous maverick on this subject is the environmentalist 
David Bellamy, see;


http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/19/correspondence-with-david-
bellamy/



For what it is worth until quite recently I was myself open minded 
on the subject, being aware like Bellamy, that there has been some 
very dramatic natural changes in climate in the past. 

It would seem at the moment that there is an exceptionally  
unanimous opinion amongst scientific experts, that are not palpably 
tainted with financial self interest, so I can only presume that the 
general thesis that we have a serious human made problem is correct. 

I think there was a US government commissioned report recently that 
had to be doctored, by people with degrees in the social sciences 
presumably, as it was so damming.

I have great faith in humanities, as opposed to the social sciences, 
ability to solve problems especially when unhindered by capitalism. 
I believe that there is a  possibility of generating clean 
electricity from nuclear fusion, something the clever Chinese are 
working on now. 
 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-065917-5783r


It makes you wonder, if this kind of stuff that the Chinese are 
attempting isn't just rubbish, what could be achieved. The "Chinese" 
technology seems to struggle to produce a missile that could hit a 
football stadium, whereas as Western technology can send one through 
a garage door from 1000 miles away.

If the Chinese, with the technology they have, manage to produce a 
prototype then I think the convincing possibility for a solution 
will be tenable. 

As I understand it the idea of nuclear fusion is based on the  
tokamak design, developed by the later dissident scientist Sacharov 
in the USSR  in the 60's. Probably as a result of the "primitive 
accumulation" of our Parecon "theorist" Tom Wetzel, that also put 
Spuknik, Lieka the dog and Gagarin into space.   

The trick is, I think, is keeping a very hot gas away from the walls 
of the reaction chamber to stop it melting like butter and 
everything else  does at 20,000 degrees C.  I could be talking 
bollocks but I seem to remember that the hot gas, the plasma, is 
kept away from the walls by powerful electro magnets. 

The plasma has a magnetic charge and is repelled by the magnets I 
think or something. You have to have the stuff whizzing around in a 
circular tube to make it hot, very hot, sort of. 


The problem or limit is how strong you can make your electro 
magnets. What limit's the strength of an electro magnet, I think, is 
how much electricity you can send through it without it lighting up 
like a light bulb and melting. Super conducting material doesn't get 
hot when you send electricity through it, crap for light bulbs and 
electric fires but great for electromagnets. 

Super conducting materials have been developed but they tend to only 
work at low temperatures ie minus 160 C. and are as yet not very 
practical but remain a theoretical possibility. The electromagnets 
would be kept separate from the reaction chamber so this is not as 
big a problem as it might seem. 


http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/fu/fu_rt/fu_rt_mc/article_1228_en
.htm


Anyway, I was always crap at physics, but if this problem has a 
solution it will most likely be discovered  in socialism, when 
people will no longer bother wasting their time figuring out ways of 
writing the software for delivering  200kg of TNT with a camera on 
top through someone's letterbox. 




--- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "robbo203" <robbo203@...> wrote:
>
> Re: Towards Ecological Catastrophe: 2016 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this very interesting item. The question of global
> warming is a matter of growing concern but what worries me are
> attempts to go into complete denial about it - particularly among 
> pro-business commentators. Two arguments seem to be emerging:
> 
> One is that it is all exaggerated or that there is no real trend
> towards global warming. A notorious recent example is Bob Carter's
> article on global warming having stopped in 1998 which I think was
> published in one or two right-wing broadsheets in the UK . It
> rather selectively used data from the University of East Anglia
> climate change monitoring unit. Anyway, here's a good response to
> Carter's article
> 
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/the_perils_of_cherry_picking.
> php
> 
> A second argument is that in the past, the climate was considerably
> warmer so what are we all worrying about. That the climate was
> warmer in the past is perfectly true but what this overlooks is 
that
> unlike in the past we have a world population exceeding 6 billion a
> significant proportion of which are now highly vulnerable to the
> consequences of climate change - e.g. low lying areas subject to
> rising sea levels , shifting rainbelts affecting agriculture, more
> unstable and extreme weather manifestations e.g. hurricane Katrina
> 
> We simply cannot afford to be complacent about this anymore
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> --- In worldincommon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Citizens of the World
> <iwi@> wrote:
> >
> > You might like to take a look at this.
> >
> > Collapse Of Greenland Ice Shield - Consequences
> > http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-james080806.htm
> > By Dr John James
> > 08 August, 2006
> >
> > The Greenland glaciers that cover the island contain enough water
> to raise
> > sea level twenty feet, or seven meters. It was once thoughts (and
> that was
> > only six years ago) that the glaciers would be self-sustaining
> even in a
> > warming world because of size and so on.
> >
> > We now know that this is not true. Not only are the edges melting
> fast, but
> > the surface melt is seeping through the ice to lubricate the
> junction
> > between the ice and the rock underneath. This is the unexpected
> factor that
> > has turned scientific attention onto this escalating
> problem. . . . .
> >
>