[cbacba]

it's the only viable alternative on the short term and developing nuclear is the only longer term viable option. One can fill in the gaps and specialty apps ever so slightly with alternatives such as wind and solar power. There are consequences to these as well as the fact that they are not truly stable.

Despite the pop view that the earth system is fragile, this is clearly not the case as the fact that life currently exists here is proof that the system is extremely hardy and self correcting.

The current foolishness of co2 with its 1 1/2 W/m^2 variation over a couple of hundred years causing the variations observed over the last 20 years exists only because of the ignoring of much greater variations going on at the same time. If 1 w/m^2 increase due to co2 causes 0.5 or 0.8 K rise in avg global T, then what does an increase in incoming solar energy into the system (caused by a decrease in albedo not in TSI) equivalent to an increase of 10W/m^2 going to do over a few years? Hint, there hasn't been a multiyear global average increase of 5 to 8 degrees K. In the same fashion, if 1 w/m^2 increase is worth 0.8K rise in T, then what's the rise from the other 150-170 W/m^2 in GHG 'blocking'? Hint, we have 33 K total GHG contribution to Earth's T and what's more, the first W/m^2 had much more effect than the last one.