Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming?

  1. #81
    Senior Member JimD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by PaidMyDues View Post
    I find it curious that many (but not all) liberal proponents of global warming are adamantly opposed to nuclear power and buy into the hysterical nonsense of fears generated by the propaganda film, The China Syndrome.


    One question: What do you propose to do with the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes from both current nuclear plants and the new plants that you would (presumably) like to see built? The Yucca mountain site is no longer in play, apparently, and there are no other plans currently on the drawing board.

    Such wastes will need to be safely segregated for thousands or tens of thousands of years, and as yet there is no centralized location for doing so.

    It seems reasonable to me that this issue needs to be resolved before we can rely more heavily on nuclear power - and the health and safety, not to mention the potential terrorism implications, of tons of such waste scattered around the country in questionably secured locations do not seem to me to be 'hysterical, nonsense fears.'

    Comments?

  2. #82
    Senior Member rdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Someplace between Nowhere and Goodbye
    Posts
    12,983
    I don't think it was the China Syndrome movie that scared people, but the real life nuclear accident at Three Mile Island that shortly followed release of the movie.

    I'm for increasing nuclear power plants, but we have to know what to do with the waste before we start to build, as Jim notes.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaidMyDues View Post
    I find it curious that many (but not all) liberal proponents of global warming are adamantly opposed to nuclear power and buy into the hysterical nonsense of fears generated by the propaganda film, The China Syndrome. There are many who are using fear tactics to advance their own agendas resulting in redistribution of income from the middle-class via the implementation of cap and trade energy taxes, which will be passed on to consumers. As I noted previously, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other Wall Street firms are looking to create the next economic bubble through the use of carbon credits trading.
    Please donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org.
    Copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

    Thanks!

  3. #83
    Absolutely -- Few people are questioning that warming is occurring on a global scale (although recent data is showing a minor trough)... The question is whether it's due to human activity. I think our impact pales in comparison to the natural cycles of the sun and earth. I still remember the scare in the 1970's of the coming calamity of the encroaching ice age! -- I also seem to remember the presence of highly polluting cars & industry back then too...

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by 5th Wheel View Post
    I still remember the scare in the 1970's of the coming calamity of the encroaching ice age!
    This is an often repeated untruth. The popular press predicted a coming ice age but even in the 70's the predominant scientific opinion was that warming due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases resulting form human activity was more likely:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

    A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
    One of the atuthors of the papers that predicted cooling had secind thoughts, even in seventies:

    Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run.
    With over a quarter of a centuries more evidence now than in the seventies, the scientific concensus that warming is ocurring is even stronger now than it was then so the fact that a very small minority of papers predicted cooling in the seventies really does not support the case against anthropogenic warming.

    Indudtry financed organisations such as the Global Climate Coalition published a large amount of material to cast doubt on global warming despite the fact that as early as 1995 they believed it was caused by human activity:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...nted=1&_r=3&hp
    “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
    For selfish reasons, organisations like the Global Climate Coalition have sought to manufacture doubt despite the fact that they new their evidence was bogus and conservative politicans like Lord Monckton have had to perform stunning acts of mental contortion in order to believe their own ramblings.

  5. #85

    Red face Dam John, that's a quote

    took me a few times but then it sunk in. Someone had to make the first trip on that road that now exists because so many others have.


    Quote Originally Posted by john smith View Post
    LOL. There are a lot of folks who think the earth is only 6,000 years old. And, unfortunately, some of them are running for President. One of them might even be President.

    John

  6. #86
    A common claim of the global warming deniers is to state that there has been no warming over the last decade. That claim has always had an air of desperation about it but now more than ever it is statisitically feeble:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.
    Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
    But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".
    If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.
    Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
    "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.
    "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
    as the article states, a longer period than fifteen years would be more reliable. However the last fiteen years can be added to an underlying trend from pevious decades.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by JimD View Post
    One question: What do you propose to do with the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes from both current nuclear plants and the new plants that you would (presumably) like to see built? The Yucca mountain site is no longer in play, apparently, and there are no other plans currently on the drawing board.

    Such wastes will need to be safely segregated for thousands or tens of thousands of years, and as yet there is no centralized location for doing so.

    It seems reasonable to me that this issue needs to be resolved before we can rely more heavily on nuclear power - and the health and safety, not to mention the potential terrorism implications, of tons of such waste scattered around the country in questionably secured locations do not seem to me to be 'hysterical, nonsense fears.'

    Comments?
    JimD,

    I didn't have an answer to your question until recently.

    Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon. If you live close to mountains, you are exposed to much more radioactivity than if you live close to a seacoast where there is not much volcanic activity. Just how much radioactivity is present naturally did not become apparent to me until I tried recently to calculate normal radioactive exposure compared to what people were being exposed to in Fukushima. A speaker recently provided a comparison of the radioactive exposure living in the mountains with living close to within 40 km of Fukushima. You are exposed to about the same amount of radioactivity living close to a mountain. It is similar to what an airplane traveller would get from cosmic radiation when they fly over the North Pole where the atmosphere is thinnest. By the way, I fly that route twice a month and get the equivalent a chest x-ray's worth of radiation per trip.

    Radioactivity is dangerous only when it is concentrated. If all the nuclear fuel from our reactors were dispersed evenly into the ocean, the dilution factor is so great that the radioactivity would not be hazardous to anybody or anything. The only problem is when the radioactivity is allowed to concentrate and the period of time when the radioactivity has not yet dispersed is dangerous for living things close to the disposal site. Nuclear reactors are adding only a tiny amount of radioactivity compared to the natural radioactivity that is present on earth.

    Radioactivity, even from spent fuel rods, is very useful for sterilizing food and medicines. So, for example, imagine a facility where radioactive waste is stored until it can be dispersed into the ocean. Robot driven trains can transport millions of tons of food and medicine through the facility to irradiate the food and medicine so that it is sterilized. This will prevent spoilage of the food and medicine. Irradiated food and medicines do not become radioactive (for long). That is all pure nonsense perpetuated by comic books. So, the answer may be to store radioactive wastes in facilities that can be used to sterilize food and medicines and that are then slowly dispersed into the ocean where it will be so dilute that it cannot harm anybody. But, before we can implement such a solution, we have to educate the public that currently has an unreasonable fear of nuclear waste.

    Several economists have pointed out that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest energy source that we have today.
    • Nuclear energy is the cleanest because it produces more energy with less pollution. For example, while everybody thinks that solar energy is cleaner, materials that are used to capture and store solar energy are dangerous and harmful to the environment and people. Solar panels, batteries, and motors are made of ingredients that are costly to isolate, produce waste products that pollute the environment and generate less energy per unit of pollution than nuclear energy.
    • Nuclear energy is safe. If one considers all the nuclear accidents that have resulted in harm to the environment and people, the amount of harm is considerably less than the harm and deaths caused by coal, oil, or any other current source of energy. This is true both on an absolute level and in terms for harm per megawatt of energy produced.
    • Nuclear energy is cheap. Much of the cost of nuclear energy comes from having to build reactors that are designed to survive 10,000-year catastrophes. Despite all this cost, already factored into the cost of nuclear power in the form of insurance and planned disposal systems, nuclear energy is still cheaper than solar and wind power. Nuclear is not cheaper than water power but there is a limit to the number of dams that can be built and the consequences of damming water are seldom included the calculation of costs of energy.


    It would be a shame in nuclear energy became less used because of irrational fear of radioactivity. If you go to China and see the awful pollution that their coal-based industry has done to the land, you would think twice about wishing this on the world. I was in Guangzhou two months ago. In four days, I did not see the sun once. The smog was so heavy that you could not see the tops of the skyscrapers on most days. The number of people dying from lung diseases has skyrocketed in China. All the rivers are terribly polluted and the lakes have dried up because most of the major rivers have now been dammed up for hydraulic energy production. Yes, they have lots of solar energy and China has become the worlds biggest solar energy panel producer but the places that produce the solar panels are terribly contaminated with heavy metals (lead, mercury, and cadminum). The process of making the solar panels produces a great deal of carbon dioxide. While the pollution from making solar panels is not as great as feared (Source), it still offsets much of the myth of clean energy from solar and wind.





    Wise.

  8. #88

    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

    NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/...ming-alarmism/
    JimmyMack
    Member: New Jersey Commission on Spinal Cord Reasearch
    http://www.state.nj.us/health/spinalcord/index.shtml

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,227
    Blog Entries
    1
    we should clean our environment and stop wasting and polluting because we know it is the right thing to do. all that these global warming discussions are is a distraction from action.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •