Climate Change

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

What are we left with? Coal, oil and gas, OR nuclear. Nuclear produces off-the-scale toxic waste. Stuff that won't be safe for 10,000 years. Really bad. But it does it in very small quantities; in the tens of thousands of cubic meters per year globally. Now, compare this to the billions of tons of toxic waste produced each year by petroleum-based energy sources.

With GEN IV reactors the nuclear waste problem is essentially solved. As to safety: don't forget that there were three more nuclear installations flooded by the tsunami. Only the oldest one got in trouble. Proves that it s actually possible to build a nuclear power plant that is able to survive anything short of an ELE

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So... you are a full blooded supporter of the Nuclear Industry... to take a flip truism so personally...

Is it so hard to believe that people in favor of nuclear energy want a better world too?

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I am not in disagreement with these facts... but quoting death statistics is a stupid statement in my opinion... we've yet to see the end results from Japan... be a damn sight higher than 24,000 I'll wager from 1 accident... and they'll not be workers..

I wouldn't hold my breath. The death toll from Fukusima is, and is likely to remain that way..

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Another thing against renewables is 'Infrastructure'... gotta have a Grid or two boys... gotta make a buck..
Individual energy sources only benefit the shop that sells the panel and the house that buys it... no profits to be skimmed by 3rd 4th parties...
Here in the EU folk who've gone down the I make my own energy path are selling their surplus electricity to the electric companies... seems to work fine over here... seeing as daylight hours are only 8-30 to 3-30 4 mths of the year...

Solar energy does get heavy subsides in some parts of Europe, however governments are starting to reconsider that, as they are finding out that they really can't afford it. As a result the market for photovoltaics has collapsed. Germany is now mostly investing in coal...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Is it so hard to believe that people in favor of nuclear energy want a better world too?

Nope... we all want a better world... its just the %'s that actually will versus the %'s that actually won't... ie the masses...
Hope your still enjoying your evening walks through the pine plantations of the New Forest..

[Kaptain Ken]

Did you ever take the time to notice the very premise of this thread is "Climate Change". The Progressives who think they are smarter than anyone else have quietly altered the discussion from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Why?, because there hasn't been Global Warming. NASA used to post the data from their satelite's random earth temperatures. They no longer do because it didn't fit the narrative. If you could see this data, as close friends of mine have, you'd see that the earth is still actually cooling.

The National Weather Service (NWS) get's its data from ground stations. The problem with this is that an ever increasing number of these stations are located in increasingly urban areas. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows that urban areas are "heat sinks". The large amount of impervious surfaces (roads, sidewalks, parking lots buildings, etc.) retain the sun's heat for prolonged periods - so long that much of the heat cannot dissipate overnight. Therefore, the next day starts out with a higher base point, and on and on and on.

To make matters worse, these same know-it-all Progressives want to herd all of us into these urban areas - has anyone heard of something called "Agenda 21", sponsored by our "friends" at the U.N..

Lastly, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! It's not for nothing that Al Gore bet the farm on a new Commodity Exchange to deal in Carbon Credits.

No one is in favor of allowing massive pollution. We all want relatively clean air and water, but let' get real. The greatest carbon producers on Planet Earth are you and me. I don't know about you, but I plan to keep on breathing as long as The Good Lord until He takes me Home!

[Group9]

Well, the good news seems to be that we don't really have to do anything, except demand that others accept climate change, and lifestyle change, in order that we don't have to.

I'm okay with that.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Germany is now mostly investing in coal...

and power cables to the French Nuclear plants .

France went Nuclear in a big way for energy back in the 60's and 70's, mostly for energy security reasons:

76% Nuclear
14% Renewable (including Hydro)
10% fossil fuels (little coal or oil)

IIRC a big electricity exporter in the EU.

Is it overall cheaper than oil? No idea, it depends on how the figures are calculated - but to my mind the big advantage of Nuclear and Renewables is that the money spent on Energy largely stays in France, mostly to the State!......and you have a permanent pool of skilled jobs that can't be sent to China.

So clearly can be done - just a matter of will.........

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by capngeo

I just love the hypocrisy of the GW folks; scream and whine about our impending doom..... on their electrical powered computer, in their air conditioned office to which they drove in their automobile, from the airport where they got off the jet which took them home from their eco-vacation in Alaska. You want people to pay attention? Practice what you preach: live in the Amish style.

Ah, it's the "you can't talk about junk food because you don't subsist on bark and grubs" argument. Always a crowd-pleaser.

I just love the hypocrisy of the knee-jerk deniers who have nothing better to go on than the fear of change, or a chip on their shoulder about people trying to make changes, and of course for their juvenile ad hominem attacks.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kaptain Ken

Did you ever take the time to notice the very premise of this thread is "Climate Change". The Progressives who think they are smarter than anyone else have quietly altered the discussion from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Why?, because there hasn't been Global Warming. NASA used to post the data from their satelite's random earth temperatures. They no longer do because it didn't fit the narrative. If you could see this data, as close friends of mine have, you'd see that the earth is still actually cooling.

Groan...

Here's just one peer-reviewed research article covering this tired tactic of the denier crowd: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. From the abstract:

"The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."

It's not hard to find actual published research. Please Kaptain, share your friends' research papers, journal articles, datasets. If they are credible, I'd love to read them.

BTW, I guess my desire to use actual published research from credible, peer-reviewed journals, makes me one of those "know-it-all Progressives" .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

What makes you so sure I have misconceptions?

It appears that you think your lifestyle is okay and doesn't need to be changed, but that others should change theirs.

That's a misconception. But don't let me spoil your snark.

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by Kaptain Ken

Did you ever take the time to notice the very premise of this thread is "Climate Change". The Progressives who think they are smarter than anyone else have quietly altered the discussion from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Why?.....

...I don't know about you, but I plan to keep on breathing as long as The Good Lord until He takes me Home!

The "progressives" didnt change the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" - the republicans did. While in power they felt the original term was too "frightening". Ironically the change in terminology is more accurate.

When eventually your good lord takes you home and leaves the rest of us heathens drowning in the quickly rising waters and suffering from heat stroke would you mind ever so much asking him to lighten up and maybe turn the thermostat down a bit?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

and power cables to the French Nuclear plants .

France went Nuclear in a big way for energy back in the 60's and 70's,
...
So clearly can be done - just a matter of will.........

Watch out DOJ, you're coming across as a nuclear supporter who clearly must have a vested interest. Oh, and obviously you "don't give a damn for the world or his [your] offspring.."

Sorry, couldn't resist. Must put filter back on...

[jackdale]

Talk about misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Kaptain Ken

Did you ever take the time to notice the very premise of this thread is "Climate Change". The Progressives who think they are smarter than anyone else have quietly altered the discussion from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Why?, because there hasn't been Global Warming. NASA used to post the data from their satelite's random earth temperatures. They no longer do because it didn't fit the narrative. If you could see this data, as close friends of mine have, you'd see that the earth is still actually cooling.

the IPCC has been around since 1988 - any idea what the CC stands for.

The current push for the phrase climate changes comes the right in 2003.

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

The White House has removed damaging references to global warming from a major US government report on the environment due to be published next week.

References to health threats posed by exhaust emissions that were part of the draft report by the environmental protection agency (EPA) have been removed, according to leaked versions of the report.

White House officials have cut details about the sudden increase in global warming over the past decade compared with the past 1,000 years and inserted information from a report that questions this conclusion and which was partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, according to the New York Times, to whom the draft documents were leaked.

The removal of controversial passages has caused concern within the EPA. At the end of April a memo circulated among staff members and also leaked to the paper said the report "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change".

Here is Luntz doing a mea culpa

FRONTLINE "Hot Politics" at pbs.org/frontline/ - YouTube

Here are NOAA temperatures. Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

They show warming.

BTW Spencer is an AGW denier.

The National Weather Service (NWS) get's its data from ground stations. The problem with this is that an ever increasing number of these stations are located in increasingly urban areas. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows that urban areas are "heat sinks". The large amount of impervious surfaces (roads, sidewalks, parking lots buildings, etc.) retain the sun's heat for prolonged periods - so long that much of the heat cannot dissipate overnight. Therefore, the next day starts out with a higher base point, and on and on and on.

That has been disproven by a Koch Foundation study.

Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

Berkeley Earth

To make matters worse, these same know-it-all Progressives want to herd all of us into these urban areas - has anyone heard of something called "Agenda 21", sponsored by our "friends" at the U.N..

How does your tin hat fit? You may have heard of Agenda 21, you know nothing about it.

Lastly, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! It's not for nothing that Al Gore bet the farm on a new Commodity Exchange to deal in Carbon Credits.

What is with the Al Gore fixation by deniers? He is a messenger. The messenger comes from climatologists and other scientists. You want to follow money? Check out Jim Inhofe's donors. James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2014 | OpenSecrets

No one is in favor of allowing massive pollution. We all want relatively clean air and water, but let' get real. The greatest carbon producers on Planet Earth are you and me. I don't know about you, but I plan to keep on breathing as long as The Good Lord until He takes me Home!

Mammalian respiration is part of the natural CO2 cycle, dumping millions of years of stored CO2 into the atmosphere is not.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kaptain Ken

Did you ever take the time to notice the very premise of this thread is "Climate Change". The Progressives who think they are smarter than anyone else have quietly altered the discussion from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Why?, because there hasn't been Global Warming. NASA used to post the data from their satelite's random earth temperatures. They no longer do because it didn't fit the narrative. If you could see this data, as close friends of mine have, you'd see that the earth is still actually cooling.

Our first conspiracy theory! and free of any pesky cites or links. Nice.

To make matters worse, these same know-it-all Progressives want to herd all of us into these urban areas - has anyone heard of something called "Agenda 21", sponsored by our "friends" at the U.N..

Conspiracy theory #2! Everyone drink!

Lastly, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! It's not for nothing that Al Gore bet the farm on a new Commodity Exchange to deal in Carbon Credits.

... it's the ever-popular "Al Gore has nice things and rides in a plane, so what kind of eco-messiah is that, amirite?" meme.

No one is in favor of allowing massive pollution. We all want relatively clean air and water, but let' get real. The greatest carbon producers on Planet Earth are you and me. I don't know about you, but I plan to keep on breathing as long as The Good Lord until He takes me Home!

The Good Lord would probably consider it a kindness that you spend at least some of your remaining years cleaning the place a bit and ensuring that things are better for your offspring, not worse.