Another blow to the global warming nuts Options

[ShempTheOtherStooge]

well, the vast majority of the scientific community believes it, for one.

it is intuitive to assume that a substantial increase in co2 pollution is directly related to a substantial increase in human industrialization.

and things like deep ice core analysis have demonstrated that there is more c02 in the atmosphere today than at few points previous.

also - the pollution of a city like NYC (i.e.) is easily "experienced" and it is again a simple matter of intuition to assume that the more and more we pump pollutants into the atmosphere the worse it is for the environment.

You didn't read my earlier post did you? Here's part of it...

"There is global warming, but we don't know the cause, if it is a problem or if it will get worse. There are scientists who say it will increase the world's capacity to grow food. Dr Gray says it is a matter of ocean salinity and that the current trend will reverse itself in the next couple of decades. The science is far from conclusive.

We do know that the largest contributor to greenhouses gases is third world agriculture. We do know that Al Gore's house consumes 30Xs the energy of the average american house. We do know that both Dianne Feinstein and Al Gore fly around the country/world in Gulfstream IV private jets that on a single coast to coast flight discharge more carbon into the atmosphere than the average american family discharges in a year.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: We do know that almost all the environmental grant money ($100s of millions ) is being thrown at scientists whose work supports the concept of manmade global warming. "

The science is corrupted by money, plain and simple. You want/need a grant to keep your lab, you appease the people handing out the money.

You advocate spending billions and rearranging the lives of hundreds of millions of people based on faulty science and intuition. I think you're wrong.

[Jason Halogen]

A shitload more people have been killed by fossil fuels than nuclear power.

Of course these people are killed one or two at a time by pulmonary disease or the occasional mining accident as opposed to in bunches when something like Chernobyl happens. Your argument is analogous to saying flying is more dangerous than driving, because when people are killed in flying they are killed in bunches and it is newsworthy, whereas a simple auto accident isn't worth reporting beyond the locality in which it occurred.

I wouldn't disagree. But just as you're comparing hundreds of millions of cars on the road each day to mere thousands of flights, you're also talking about over a century of fossil fuel power versus a relatively short time with nuclear, and far less nuclear power plants than traditional energy generators. So it's analogous in more than one way. The thought of the entire nation switching to nuclear should at least worry, if not terrify. That's an awful lot of plants requiring incredibly careful maintenance.

[Jason Halogen]

You advocate spending billions and rearranging the lives of hundreds of millions of people based on faulty science and intuition. I think you're wrong.

So things like recycling, cutting down on waste, developing more fuel-efficient vehicles and working on alternative energy sources for the future, even though it's 100% guaranteed, with no debate, to improve the quality of the air, water and land you live in is just too much effort - regardless of whether it could maybe, just possibly, if all these hippie crackpots are right, save the goddamn planet? Who cares if he's wrong, your argument is asinine. We're already spending billions and rearranging the lives of hundreds of millions of people to "liberate" the Middle East from itself, why not spend a fraction of that money to improve our own way of life?

[Evil Eddie C]

I wouldn't disagree. But just as you're comparing hundreds of millions of cars on the road each day to mere thousands of flights, you're also talking about over a century of fossil fuel power versus a relatively short time with nuclear, and far less nuclear power plants than traditional energy generators. So it's analogous in more than one way. The thought of the entire nation switching to nuclear should at least worry, if not terrify. That's an awful lot of plants requiring incredibly careful maintenance.

The first commercial nuclear plant went online in 1954, so it's been around for half as long (roughly) as fossil fuel power...I agree, that there is no perfect solution, and I am generally a left leaning guy, but I immediately recoil and start looking elsewhere once I realize I've been lied to. Which is what has happened with me and the whole global warming issue. Being lied to for my own good is what soured me on the republican party, and it is what makes me not believe a word of what Al Gore has to say.

Fossil fuels are dirty and limited in supply. Solar, wind and hydro are impractical. Until they work up some kind of Fusion power, the safest and cheapest we have going is Fission.

Nuclear power is responsible worldwide for about 1,000 deaths per year (including the deaths that resulted from Chernobyl). That seems like a lot, until you compare it to the Clean Air Task Force report, which attributes 24,000 deaths IN THE US ALONE to air pollution from fossil fuel emmissions. Look at the science, and realize that, yes, there are those interests who benefit from keeping Oil as our primary fuel source. Aren't the same motivations in place to demonize Nuclear power as there are to demonize conservation?

[Jason Halogen]

Nuclear power is responsible worldwide for about 1,000 deaths per year (including the deaths that resulted from Chernobyl). That seems like a lot, until you compare it to the Clean Air Task Force report, which attributes 24,000 deaths IN THE US ALONE to air pollution from fossil fuel emmissions. Look at the science, and realize that, yes, there are those interests who benefit from keeping Oil as our primary fuel source. Aren't the same motivations in place to demonize Nuclear power as there are to demonize conservation?

OK, but my point is that there are a lot more fossil fuel generators than nuclear generators, yes? So if we switch to nuclear, we have a lot more nuclear plants, right?

Just at a guess, I'm thinking that if we attempt to generate all the power we're getting from fossil fuels (which, I remind you, I'm not a fan of) with nuclear, it would require so many more plants that we'd see that 1,000 multiply year after year. And if we get up to 24,000 deaths in the US from nuclear power accidents, you can bet your non-irradiated ass that your ass will be irradiated.

[Evil Eddie C]

OK, but my point is that there are a lot more fossil fuel generators than nuclear generators, yes? So if we switch to nuclear, we have a lot more nuclear plants, right?

Just at a guess, I'm thinking that if we attempt to generate all the power we're getting from fossil fuels (which, I remind you, I'm not a fan of) with nuclear, it would require so many more plants that we'd see that 1,000 multiply year after year. And if we get up to 24,000 deaths in the US from nuclear power accidents, you can bet your non-irradiated ass that your ass will be irradiated.

Actually, I looked it up (because I fully realize that I am half talking out of my ass, here) and the US gets just under 20% of it's power, currently, from nuclear plants and 49% from coal fired plants (we can ignore natural gas and oil, to keep it simple). If we increase the Nuclear portion to 100%, we'd need five time the number of plants (again, to keep it simple we can ignore the increased output and efficiency that engineering has brought since a nuclear plant was last built in the US - thirty years ago). Increasing the number of Nuclear fatalities worldwide by five still brings us to 5,000 deaths per year worldwide vs. 24,000 deaths in the US alone, based solely on air pollution (that figure does not include mining accidents, power plant fires, etc.).

Here's a pie chart from the department of energy:





Basically, I'm depending on my kids to be better at not fucking things up than my parents were. I'm doing my part to not wreck the place before they get a shot at it.

[guest_bob]

why is it the righties always bring up al gore's house when talking about global warming? to me that is evidence of how little they have to work with.

i think you can have a prefectly reasonable discussion on global warming without ever mentioning al gore. he didn't invent the push to understand it and mitigate it.

[Jason Halogen]

he didn't invent the push to understand it and mitigate it.

He was too busy inventing the internet.

I'm on board with everything you just posted (with the chart and all) and wholeheartedly agree that 5,000, while still shitty, is a lot better than 24,000. The only remaining issue I have is with waste and radiation. How are those things being dealt with?

The Noise Board: Your Source For Scientific Research By Those Less Busy At Work Than Yourself.

[Evil Eddie C]

The Noise Board: Your Source For Scientific Research By Those Less Busy At Work Than Yourself.

Heh! Too true.

The waste issue I don't quite have licked, yet, but with all the bosses mysteruiously out of the office for the next few hours, I'll see what I can come up with.

[guest_bob]

re: COAL

they can make coal a much cleaner source of energy. watch me not describe how, - because i don't know - but they can. I've read and heard about this a lot.

the point there is similar to the strip mining practices that get at the coal. back under nixon and then ford the coal mining co's of appalachia were just destroying the environment with absurdly destructive practices ... and remember NIXON started the EPA ... so he wasn't ANTI-environment ... but all the big coal oeprators told him that to do things differently would put them all out of business... then Jimmy Carter FORCED them to stop using certain chemicals in extracting the coal and to start replanting the lareas they stripped .... they again said it would kill them, but it didn't, they adapted to the new realityy and in the end it was a win/win.

Point being: LEGISLATION ==drives==> INNOVATION

[subway]

The following statements,

“One which includes NO ICE on the polar caps just a short 3000 years ago. Long before the industrial age.”

“The fact is that just 3000 years ago there wasn't one scintilla of ice on the poles.”

are news to me and I couldn’t find any substantiation looking through the usual research sites. Can someone please provide a link to any reputable site that confirms what is stated above?

What I find most puzzling is that I have read several reports of ice cores being taken to study the amount of CO2 in the air and they were drilling down to reach ice formed 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Now, this could have all been alpine ice located in the Alps, not at the poles (thats one explanation that would fit with the above statements...). But I'd really like to see some clear confimation that there was NO ICE at EITHER pole as recently as 3k years ago. seems hard to believe considering how recently that was. (unless you believe that the earth is only 6k years old, in which case 3k years ago is half the existence of our planet.)

[mhaverty]

why is it the righties always bring up al gore's house when talking about global warming? to me that is evidence of how little they have to work with.

i think you can have a prefectly reasonable discussion on global warming without ever mentioning al gore. he didn't invent the push to understand it and mitigate it.

No but he is the focal point of most of the exageratting, lying, and flat out being a hypocrite about what we need to do in order to prevent what he claims is going to happen. If he was really that concerned he would take action himself. He is a fraud. A phony. A douche.

[Quill]

"Global Warming Nuts"

Sounds like a kind of snack food brand.

[guest_bob]

No but he is the focal point of most of the exageratting, lying, and flat out being a hypocrite about what we need to do in order to prevent what he claims is going to happen. If he was really that concerned he would take action himself. He is a fraud. A phony. A douche.

you'd be hard pressed to catch me defending / touting al gore ... but there is a lot to consider on the subject well outside of anything he has done.

I think he jumped on this as a venue for his sociopathic weirdness ... but even good causes need self-important jerks.

[dimenno]

Thank you, Dimenno. You said what I wanted to say, and you also miraculously did it in under 25,000 words.
(Why can't all your posts be this succinct?)

Thank you.

I've been studying this issue for fifteen-plus years, and know a lot about it. Perhaps that accounts for the concision.

Some of my lengthier posts may be a result of unformed thoughts working themselves out before youtr veryu eyes.

[mhaverty]

you'd be hard pressed to catch me defending / touting al gore ... but there is a lot to consider on the subject well outside of anything he has done.

I think he jumped on this as a venue for his sociopathic weirdness ... but even good causes need self-important jerks.

Absolutely agree with you 100 percent. But when key figures spout off about global warming being a direct cause of more hurricanes while touting forecasts as proof it hurts the cause far more than it helps especially when each subsequent season is less active than the predecessor. That is my whole point in all of this. I also get the added benefit of reading self righteous asses make shit up about what my intentions are and do more disservice to the act of paraphrasing than any Rupert Murdoch enterprise.

The sad reality is that it is the cost of energy that is driving the search for cleaner more efficient fuel. All the elks in the world getting up on their high horse isn't going to change that one iota.

[subway]

still looking for any source / link / reference regarding those statements about there not being a single ice cube on either pole as recently as 3000 years ago. Having looked into it a bit further, I'm gonna say that I believe that the south pole was happily resting under a few thousand feet of ice at that time, but I'm open to PROOF to the contrary...

[FrankD]

blow my nuts.

[Marvio]

It's understandable that this would upset you, but to follow through you'd have to abandon literally all political and social debate or activity of any real magnitude. Having the right idea doesn't make you rich enough to do anything about it.

I say, if there is disagreement, fine. But if one side wants us to clean up our mess and hope that is staves off environmental damage, I don't really see a problem with going along with that as it most f-ing certainly won't hurt anything.

You are not serious about this, are you?

Saving earth can become as much as an industry as anything else, much worse, it can becme a religion of sorts.

Think about all you hate about the Oil conglomerates, add shame/regret, and cut any other alternatives to what's considered "green"; And you get an idea what this can become

[Jason Halogen]

do more disservice to the act of paraphrasing than any Rupert Murdoch enterprise.

See, you folks start to make sense and then you pull something like this out of your ass.

"Blah blah, I'm making sense, blah blah good argument, OH AND BY THE WAY, FOX NEWS IS HARMLESS AND AWESOME blah blah..."

[Jason Halogen]

You are not serious about this, are you?

Saving earth can become as much as an industry as anything else, much worse, it can becme a religion of sorts.

Think about all you hate about the Oil conglomerates, add shame/regret, and cut any other alternatives to what's considered "green"; And you get an idea what this can become

I'm totally serious! You are faced with two crazy people: One compulsively dismisses anything that forces them to stop counting their money, and the other compulsively nags you to pick up your trash. Come on.

[dimenno]

[twistnshout]

I'm totally serious! You are faced with two crazy people: One compulsively dismisses anything that forces them to stop counting their money, and the other compulsively nags you to pick up your trash. Come on.

you will be sued if you don't pick up your trash--bingo the two monsters are one

[dimenno]

[dimenno]

See:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/