Top Climate Change scientists plead: Please go nuclear

Ghoti posting stuff from 1970 and thinking it debunks the consensus before 1970... :rolleyes:

porchrat said:
I don't really understand the objection to nuclear power. I don't understand where these people get the idea that running nuclear power stations, if done correctly, is somehow going to cause environmental devastation.
Click to expand...
There's your answer. Humans are prone to doing things incorrectly.

Humberto said:
  1. Solar power and wind power, even if not able to supply electricity consistently, are very useful to reduce demand and relieve stress on the power grid, regardless whether the power grid uses coal power or nuclear power.
  2. Earth is radiated with massive amounts of sunlight most of which goes to waste. This energy can be better utilised.
  3. The energy found in wind generally goes to waste. This energy can be better utilised.
  4. Office parks (which operate mostly during the day) can save themselves much money, and relieve stress on the power grid, by incorporating solar panels in their design.

It is not an exclusive nuclear or solar/wind proposition. All these technologies can and should be used concurrently. I'm not sure why the nuclear lobbyists are so opposed to solar and wind power.
Click to expand...
What I get from wind isn't that it's hard to harness but nobody has found a way to deal with the noise. Solar has the most potential but it needs more support from local authorities. A partial rebate on the units generated doesn't really do it for an incentive.

Nuclear imo is just trading one form of pollution for another. Quite an illogical step if the argument is to prevent pollution.

@killa: The main problem we are facing isn't pollution or global warming or anything but the lack of true and honest skepticism in science. Ideas get investigated like they are true which is actually fine but then afterwards nobody stops and thinks for a few minutes if they are actually true.
 
Nuclear imo is just trading one form of pollution for another. Quite an illogical step if the argument is to prevent pollution.
Click to expand...

nuclear can buy time until a better solution is formed.
 
Swa said:
Ghoti posting stuff from 1970 and thinking it debunks the consensus before 1970... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I pasted information about the 1970`s. Ie its information about information from the 60`s & 70`s... and its was from 1965. It is empirical, ie you can go count the studies yourself.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

However you seem to have some argument I havent heard before so I am always up to learn about the latest fib. I was not aware of any "ice age theory scientific consensus" fib that predates 1965. Please do share :) Im up for a good chuckle.
 
Last edited:
RiaX said:
nuclear can buy time until a better solution is formed.
Click to expand...
How does it buy time when we are dying from radiation?

ghoti said:
I pasted information about the 1970`s. Ie its information about information from the 60`s & 70`s... and its was from 1965. It is empirical, ie you can go count the studies yourself.
Click to expand...
And the fact still remains it's irrelevant to anything before that.

ghoti said:
However you seem to have some argument I havent heard before so I am always up to learn about the latest fib. I was not aware of any "ice age theory scientific consensus" fib that predates 1965. Please do share :) Im up for a good chuckle.
Click to expand...
So by 1970 only 6 out of 7 believed the warming story. That's nowhere close to a consensus. It's more like the wikipediot "consensus"™.

That also indicates a trend that way less believed it some time before that. If you want it correct then the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report is more accurate. On page V of the forward
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.
Click to expand...
The actual consensus in 1975 was that it's impossible to predict climate change from the knowledge at hand.
 
Get said top scientist to fix the mess at Fukushima first.

(For those that missed it - 2.5 years later that place is in worse shape then ever before and *nobody* worldwide knows wtf to do about it. Its just spiraling out of control & has been doing so for 2.5 years)
 
Swa said:
Ghoti posting stuff from 1970 and thinking it debunks the consensus before 1970... :rolleyes:


There's your answer. Humans are prone to doing things incorrectly.


What I get from wind isn't that it's hard to harness but nobody has found a way to deal with the noise. Solar has the most potential but it needs more support from local authorities. A partial rebate on the units generated doesn't really do it for an incentive.

Nuclear imo is just trading one form of pollution for another. Quite an illogical step if the argument is to prevent pollution.

@killa: The main problem we are facing isn't pollution or global warming or anything but the lack of true and honest skepticism in science. Ideas get investigated like they are true which is actually fine but then afterwards nobody stops and thinks for a few minutes if they are actually true.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...e-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."
Click to expand...

You can read more details of the new NASA SABER study by visiting:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Articles like this are written off as absolute crap by the believers and they say it's all BS, they just blatantly ignore evidence. So focused on being right instead of getting it right. never a good thing to be more focused on being right rather than focusing on getting it right.

For me personally i have no idea, so much conflicting data and i don't think we can say with certainty we are the cause and nor can we can with certainty humans are not the cause. So some people will believe 97% but there is still that 3% and if history is anything to go buy, man made global warming could be wrong.

Let's assume it is right, what then? tax countries for emissions while stating we cannot reverse the man made global warming so naturally tax countries and pocket the money.

1998 is still the hottest recorded year on record. So how is it possible since 1998 the planet has not had a hotter year i wonder? O wait that changed to the giss data so 1998 was cast aside and they started from 1999 onwards.

Let's assume though swa we are the cause, let's assume the scientists are right and we cannot stop it, why are they taxing us? So humans are bad but then we are even worse by taxing emissions instead of making major changes. So basically we are saying fine pollute but pay.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ens-to-disrupt-u-n-climate-conference-agenda/
Granted we could be causing the heating but the global warming lies are beginning to be seen, 2013 has seen some of the coldest weather in a long time but that is blamed on global warming created by man. So when the planet actually shows a cooling trend man made global warming is still the reason. I think we need a mini ice age to end this issue once and for all. Even a mini ice age will have the believers blaming humans :D

This is possibly another nail in coffin but again i don't know nor am i claiming we are not the cause.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/nongovernmental_climate_scientists_slam_the_uns_ipcc.html
 
Last edited:
global waming works on averages. Certain areas will get cold certain will get hot. 2013 is still the hottest year on record
 
RiaX said:
global waming works on averages. Certain areas will get cold certain will get hot. 2013 is still the hottest year on record
Click to expand...
How do you figure that?
UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2013_v5.6.png
 
RiaX said:
global waming works on averages. Certain areas will get cold certain will get hot. 2013 is still the hottest year on record
Click to expand...

2012 was only the 8 or 9th hottest year meaning we are actually cooling now, well according to this http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/07/...ation-2012-was-among-coolest-in-21st-century/

The hottest year year on record is 1998(not GISS of course) so it's tossed aside, then if we use a different model GISS 2005/6(possibly 2010, it changes to fit into the man made global warming theory) is the second hottest or the hottest year on record. Read the article, again whether it is the truth who knows.
 
Last edited:
was just a news thingy i watched. Suppose it was wrong
 
well written blog ... bring the journals rather. Keep the articles recent not more than 3 to 5 years old
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X