Man made Global Warming

[midnight Target]

I was there. The protests lasted maybe 1 year. The delay caused by the protests was minimal. It takes a long time to build a reactor. Needless to say, the last one built was not in 1973.

[RASTER]

I used to work in the nuclear power industry. At the time I felt very guilty and was happy to distance myself from it. The technology does not suffer fools. The consequences are serious if even one moron gets into control and they always do. Complacency follows success and there hasn't been a serious nuclear accident for years. I would rather go with golbal warming than nuclear accidents.

One time, for the last time, there is no solution in our life times which can correct a nuclear accident. With golbal warming we have a fist full of good solutions once we get past the simple answers and into the complexity of climate. Letting nations like Iran, India, Korea have nuclear facilities for power generation is not very wise but as I said we have a growing success rate.

These nations would think absolutely nothing in dumping their nuclear waste into the oceans. What's to stop them? We are still fighting endlessly on where to dump our current waste and the scientists again say oh poo, there is nothing to worry about. It's simple.

Global warming gives all the chicken littles a chance to wind themselves up into the popular topic of the day and in order to have an opinion they have to learn something more than pornography. The best thing a person can do is get a small tree and plant the bastard in the front yard. That one act has done about as much as a single person can do but thats the reality. Few if anyone is planting trees and last I saw there is an increase in tree removal services. The move towards nuclear power rather defeats the purpose of global protectionism. I simply can't emphasize how stupid scientists can be from time to time.

As an addendum, the new particle accelerator in the Alps scheduled to begin research soon may have the ability to create miniature black holes. The smaller colliders were not big enough they said, so they built a bigger one. The thing about a black holes is that they are attracted to large masses, and regardless of their size they begin to compress matter as they grow bigger, in microscopic terms. Scientists know what they are doing is dangerous but they simply must.

RASTER

[john9001]

<December 12, 2006
A Dutch scientist predicts a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy while
producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste.
Wilfred van Rooijen of the Delft University of Technology received his doctorate based
on research conducted at the Reactor Institute Delft. He focused on the nuclear fuel
cycle and safety features of Gas-cooled Fast Reactors, or GFR -- one of the so-called
fourth generation nuclear reactor designs.
Fourth generation GFRs are economical in their use of nuclear fuel and are capable of
rendering a great deal of their own nuclear waste harmless. They use helium as a
coolant at high temperatures and create a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in which only
natural uranium is used as a raw material and in which the resulting waste consists of
only nuclear fission products.
Von Rooijen`s research showed it is possible to obtain a closed nuclear fuel cycle with a
GFR and revealed the GFR could use the waste materials of other light water reactors,
thus serving as an 'incinerator' of nuclear waste.>>

you see, not all scientists are predicting the end of the world, some are actually doing something useful.

[oboe]

Originally posted by john9001
<December 12, 2006
A Dutch scientist predicts a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy while producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste....
They use helium as a coolant at high temperatures and create a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in which only natural uranium is used as a raw material and in which the resulting waste consists of only nuclear fission products.

What are the products of nuclear fission?    It produces radioactive waste, doesn't it?

[RASTER]

you see, not all scientists are predicting the end of the world, some are actually doing something useful.

It certainly sounds wonderful but once again this is speculation, a prediction, a guess, estimate, whatever you  want to call it, it aint real.

RASTER

[john9001]

why don't you call van Rooijen and ask him , what do i look like, a nuke scientist?

[lazs2]

I think everyone admits that man has a footprint on the earth.. from almost none all the way up to "we should all slit our throats right now to save mother earth"

to admit that man has an effect is nothing... to say how much is a big thing... an actual number and why...  that is where the "science" starts breaking down... C02 is being debunked... the sun is gaining in prominence in the equation.. some even predict global cooling in a few years...  the science is shaky to say the least...

But even so... most are willing to listen to the chicken littles and even pay lip service to it ... politicians for instance... like the article fastfwd points to...  "we are looking into it".

But where it really gets dicey... where the fecal matter really hits the fan...

Is when the lefties tell us what has to be done about it on a personal level...

fastfwd and curval and angus are all willing to see sacrafice by others... something they don't care about that is far away in other lands....It is someone else causing the problem and they are more than willing to restrict and punish those people to make themselves feel better about what may or may not be happening..

But.. will angus stop fishing?  will he spend 100 grand on a better home more earth friendly?   Will curval move from his 5,000 sq foot house into a studio apartment?

fastfwd is willing to have us all drive whatever car he drives but he is not willing to stop driving entirely... he isn't even willing to stop taking jet flights to be a tourist.

They are all willing to see the suffering affect others tho.   So long as the bother and expense has little or no effect on them.

Ask them what they think should be done (as I have over and over) and watch em tapdance around the subject...

Will they or algore get smaller houses and stop jetsetting?  hardly.  Would they be willing to take a 50% hit on their income?  no, of course not but they would certainly be willing to see you do so.    

This is the way of the left.   The left is driving the whole thing...  some middle of the road people like curval and fastfwd and angus are sucked in but only.... so long as it affects others and not them.    In this respect they are like the left.

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by lazs2
Will they or algore get smaller houses and stop jetsetting?  hardly.  Would they be willing to take a 50% hit on their income?  no, of course not but they would certainly be willing to see you do so.    

lazs

They don't have to. They can buy indulgenc... er... carbon credits... from companies they own or have large amounts of stock in... and not actually develop new technology because all that money goes back into raising more awareness... to raise more money... to raise more awareness... to raise more money... to raise more awareness... to raise more money... to raise more awareness...

holy crap my brain just got stuck in a loop.

[Jackal1]

Any suggestions, ideas, data, or theories that doesn`t jive with doomnsday theory are rejected . Why? You tell me. If you were behind something as earth shaking as this supposedly is, wouldn`t you want all the facts and theories to be reviewed and considered?  Wouldn`t you wish to make absolutely sure that you were giving people facts? Facts based upon proven statistics and data with a proven outcome instead of ifs, maybes , could bes, etc.
The only reason I can think of to why other theories and data or not considered is that it could possibly make you look like a fool and completely destroy your dash for cash and power.
One here is asking for answers to questions. Questions that have no definite answers. Why? Because even the suggestion of their possibilities are rejected offhand. They do not fit into the scenario or fairy tale that is being dished out in large doses. But still the what ifs , maybes, etc. are being taken for fact when in truth they have very little if any backbone to support their own pile of garbage.
If you wish people to take something seriously, give them the facts. All the facts.
Otherwise you are going fall suspect to those who think for themselves instead of being led around by a ring in your nose with no thought given.
Money and power have no conscience.

The "for the good of the world" type statements give me a chuckle. No two places in the world can agree on anything. Haven`t been able to for as long as I have lived and before. Anything that is attempted on a worldwide basis is doomed. Everyone knows that. At least anyone with half a brain realizes this. It just won`t happen. Some can be manipulated though. Only if it provides a good possiblity for money and power though.

[RASTER]

As in Amityville from "JAWS" I find myself say the "beaches are safe" when I am not qualified to make that determination. My position is that "almost certain" is not a good enough answer upon which to release the laws night stick in suppressing the liberties of others.

I can't understand why planting a tree is not a good idea. If planting a tree can't hurt and in fact can benefit society in many ways, why is there no tax benefit or property tax incentive encouraging people to do it. If every person in North America planted a tree and kept it, what would be the total effect? Would it hurt the planet in any way? Obviously, if what is being said were true the direction of their actions would be full force in this direction also. So of course I am going to doubt them and question if there is some kind of selfish dual agenda at work.

RASTER

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by lazs2
fastfwd and curval and angus are all willing to see sacrafice by others... something they don't care about that is far away in other lands....It is someone else causing the problem and they are more than willing to restrict and punish those people to make themselves feel better about what may or may not be happening..
.
.
.

fastfwd is willing to have us all drive whatever car he drives but he is not willing to stop driving entirely... he isn't even willing to stop taking jet flights to be a tourist.

They are all willing to see the suffering affect others tho.   So long as the bother and expense has little or no effect on them.

No Lazs - I never told you what you could and could not drive. But these do-gooder empty gestures would be as much use as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. If I stopped driving completely, the drop in world CO2 output would only be about one ten billionth of what it is now.

Ask them what they think should be done (as I have over and over) and watch em tapdance around the subject...

I already told you - and you agreed - that other energy sources such as nuclear power should be considered for electricity generation.

And... I can prove, using warming skeptic Mace2004's own figures, that man's CO2 output in the next 60 years (in reality closer to 40) will be equivalent to the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why this will not affect the average global temperature.

Will they or algore get smaller houses and stop jetsetting?  hardly.  Would they be willing to take a 50% hit on their income?  no, of course not but they would certainly be willing to see you do so.

How would a cut in my income begin to address the problem of climate change?

[Jackal1]

I din`t realize that climate changing was a problem. If it is then we have had one since recorded history began.
It is always changing. Always has, always will.

[FastFwd]

- because only in the last ~200 years have we engaged in the mass burning of fossil fuels.

[Angus]

Lazs: you are perhaps getting a little personal:
"But.. will angus stop fishing? will he spend 100 grand on a better home more earth friendly? Will curval move from his 5,000 sq foot house into a studio apartment?"
1. What's bad with fishing. (oh forgot, our fishing resources are relatively well balanced, since the control relys on RESEARCH of the source)
2. Earth friendly home? Depends on what you mean. Mine is heated with electricity based on hydro-power. The household utilizes lots of resources that "normal" households (i.e. a lot in your country) would dump, which means eating funny stuff like bull's liver and sheeps head. More? Well, there is the painful choice, - I do NOT buy S-American beef although it's bloody cheap etc...etc...
And, we don't use tobacco
On your side I don't expect you to do anything, since you don't belive it makes a difference, - that attitude extending to many other fields...

[Angus]

Originally posted by FastFwd
- because only in the last ~200 years have we engaged in the mass burning of fossil fuels.

IMHO our impact would sum together to about 400-500 years, notably the last 200.
500 counts in a lot of deforestation with a rapidly growing population, beginning in Europe, then expanding to the new world.