Well, I am sure that nanotechnology or some other yet udiscovered technology might someday supplant what we do now. However, in the next 25-50 years, if not sooner, we have to do something that reduces the use of fossil fuels dramatically. All we can do is what we already know how to do. We know how to build windmills, photovotaic cells, and maybe wind or tidal generators. Any new technology takes decades to be fully developed after it is demonstrated in the lab. I invented what might possibly be a process for replcing the Kroll process for making titanium. If it is ever commercialized it will probably have taken 30 years to fully implement. No reduction in energy use, the iron laws of thermodynamics cannot be repealed by wishful thinking. But a much reduced need for capital. Anyway the wind generators and photovoltaic cells need to be made out of something. The only something we know how to make in large quantities is concrete, steel, plastics, and other metals. To make these materials we need raw materials and energy. That energy has to come from existing technology. Better to use nuclear than build new coal plants.

In your letter you allude to steelmaking prior to the use of the electric furnace. Yes, coal and coke were the main fuels for steelmaking 100 years ago. The main source for new steel today is the old blast furnace, a technology that is hundreds of years old. The blast furnace today still uses coke, just like 100 and more years ago. Changing the fuel does not reduce the need for energy. Energy is fungible, no matter what source you use the thermodynamic minimum is still the minimum. The electric furnace is used because it is very good for melting scrap (recycling).

It appears to me that you exhibit the primary characteristic of lack of technological experience. The unknown and yet to be invented technology will save us. And much more efficiently and cheaply than what we do today. You are right in the long run. In the long run we will also all be dead. I have spent my life inventing and implementing technology. I have learned that there is no free lunch.

As a light single engine plane pilot I learned about degrees of turbulence while learning to fly. Light turbulence is when unsecured objects rise two inches off the seat or floor. Moderate turbulence is when they rise 18 inches off the seat. Severe is when they hit the ceiling. Extreme is when the plane is out of control 50% of the time. These are all conditions that a light plane is designed to take. I might have flown in severe turbulence once or twice in 1600 hours of piloting. As Patrick says the best response to turbulence is to not fight it too hard, just let the plane rock and roll. Airliners have a much higher wing loading than light planes, so they are much less agitated by turbulence. The best defense against being the unsecured object is to be secured by your seatbelt.

Well, it seems that CO2 concentration only correlates with warming over the last few hundred thousand years. Over a 500 million year period it does not seem to correlate well. We have to remember that correlation is not causation. This is kind of like the heresy of plate tectonics which was denounced for a generation or two before it was accepted by the scientific community. CO2 concentration might not be the villain that it currently thought to be. We need more research before the "truth" is really known. "Truth" being usually the most recent consensus of great scientific minds. It would be a huge waste of resources to solve a problem that is not a problem. My own opinion is that the attack on CO2 is a cover-up for the deep hatred and jealousy that poor over-educated liberals have for the sucessful upper middle class. On the other hand I have no brief for the assholes of the upper middle class, who love to waste resources showing off what total idiots they are.

I suggest all of you look at the evidence. If atmospheric gas concentrations do not correlate with global warming for most of the last 500,000,000 years, is there any evidence for causation? Because greenhouse gases appear to correlate for the last few hundred thousand years is no reason to believe in causation. Besides, the steppe where I live is due to get a little warmer and wetter, which is fine since it gets to 40 below occasionally. Of course that is based on some still very primitive models, so like most climate predictions it is probably bullshit. As far as leaving it to the scientists, I have a scientific degree from MIT, with graduate studies that include modeling. So just because the majority of the scientific community has jumped on the greenhouse bandwagon, well they are like the geologists who would not believe in plate tectonics until the evidence was overwhelming. A few hundred thousand years of gas analyses correlating with warming is only the basis of hypotheses, not scientific truth. We need a lot more study, but I guess sequestering CO2 won't hurt as long as the cost is reflected in electric bills that you all will pay. I also think that the Siberians will enjoy living in the new corn belt, where they can produce lots of biofuel.