Canadian Scientist comes out against Global Warming

[photon]

I agree, I don't understand why there isn't a lot more pushing for nuclear power, or at least more reasearch into it to make the waste easier to deal with. Yes it'd be nice to get to the point of zero emissions, fusion, solar, etc, but while we're working on those nuclear seems like a reasonable stepping stone.

[worth]

I don't see how substituting one problem for another is progress.

[photon]

The amount of waste produced would be far far less and would be controlable, and as was said it becomes a management issue. As opposed to the current method of taking the byproducts and dumping them into the atmosphere.

[icarus]

Regarding ideology... those who opposed and still oppose the theory of evolution also try to make the debate about ideology. Scientists, they claim, have a vested interest in dismantling religion and so all have conspired to concoct the theory.

So if you are willing to consider the possibility that ideology fuels the climate change argument, then you should also be willing to countenance the proposition that ideology perpetuates the theory of evolution.

[Tron_fdc]

FWIW I read an article stating nuclear power was one of the worst polluters when it came to the different types of power generation. I'll have to do some digging to find it, but the point is that it seems a lot of power generation is not as clean as some might think.

I was also told by a political figure that we'll be getting nuclear power up north in the very near future, not that it was a big secret in the first place.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by photon

I agree, I don't understand why there isn't a lot more pushing for nuclear power, or at least more reasearch into it to make the waste easier to deal with.

A few months ago I met an inspector from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna who told me that the way nuclear waste is dealt with is unquestionably safe and effective.

Essentially you lock the waste away in a super thick vault deep in a mountain or underground. The negligible amount of radiation that escapes from the vault is still too far away from any living thing to cause a problem. He had me convinced.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Here's an interesting read for anyone interested in the real story behind "Dr." Timothy Ball.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...for_325000.php

The full story is also available on globeandmail.com for subscribers. Essentially, Dr. Ball is suing a professor of climatology (a REAL scientist) for defamation, after Prof. Dan Johnson called him out for playing fast and loose with his credentials. Debate is a good thing: a debate on climate change that shuts out proven liars and quacks like Timothy Ball is even better.

What'd you think about the article from the National Post that called out Gore as a liar? (in last weeks Global Warming debate)

In reference to your comment about the legions of scientists that don't believe we're causing the issue I showed you an article, peer reviewed no less, that demonstrates this view last week. I can find you more but it doesn't seem like you want to read them anyways.


On a somewhat related note... doesn't Mr. Moore have a documentry with a major point that American's love fear? The media knows that fear sells and as a result that's what they're selling. I'm not trying to throw out conspiracy theory's I just found it humerous (Moore complaining abour fear mongering...Moore's buddy Gore using fear mongering...get it? har har ). A prime example can be found on CNN involving the flooding of San Francisco. They have "scientists" that claim that global warming will completely flood the San Francisco air port by the year 2100. This astonishing realization came after the IPCC anounced last week that climate change could increase sea levels 7-23inches by the end of the century. All Global Warming debate aside if they built the airport only 7inches above the sea level they deserve to have it flooded That's ignoring the fact that the run way is actually 13ft. above sea level...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Looger

i disagree hulkrogan.

the heart of the debate for me lies in the mechanism at work to 'clean up our act'.

being blamed (taxed) for something i didn't do - that is finance entire economies to go in this wasteful direction, when no emergency situation exists, is not a positive outcome and doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - look at kyoto, where the rich countries can just buy credit off of the poor countries that aren't even close to being allowed to HAVE polluting industries! what total garbage, what insane nonsense.

the blame game is a bad one to play, and unfortunately it's one being played.

i think we should realize that we're not in emergency mode, and change via regulations and new standards to adjust to lower outputs of harm without deep-sixing our economies or filling up the coffers of the super-rich with global taxes - a bad precedent.

Isn't keeping life viable on Earth a greater goal than making sure our economy doesn't tank? Why is the economy the most important thing in the universe to some?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

I don't see how substituting one problem for another is progress.

So we just keep burning up fossil fuels at an alarming rate?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Isn't keeping life viable on Earth a greater goal than making sure our economy doesn't tank? Why is the economy the most important thing in the universe to some?

what kind of logical progression are you using here???

it's like we only have two choices - kill all life on earth or shut everything down!!!

oh. my. god.

i'vs stated aboot 20 times in these global warming threads that I AM IN SUPPORT OF LOWERING OUR EMISSIONS TO NON-HARMFUL LEVELS THAT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL CLIMATE RHYTHMS OF THE PLANET BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE ARE HAVING SOME EFFECT.

that being said, the hysteria involved is so out of control and is so spun in the media, what i fear is that drastic changes will be made that will have disastrous consequences for people on earth, just be careful who we will be trusting to solve all these problems, and exactly why this is so important RIGHT NOW.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by kevman

In reference to your comment about the legions of scientists that don't believe we're causing the issue I showed you an article, peer reviewed no less, that demonstrates this view last week. I can find you more but it doesn't seem like you want to read them anyways.

Something I find kind of strange when this issue comes up is people seem to be saying "I don't trust the scientists, now look at what this scientist who I believe has to say on the matter".

One article doesn't really equal "legions", although I'm sure there are more.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Something I find kind of strange when this issue comes up is people seem to be saying "I don't trust the scientists, now look at what this scientist who I believe has to say on the matter".

One article doesn't really equal "legions", although I'm sure there are more.

I agree...it seems everyone wants to believe the scientists they want to believe. This thread has an article saying we are not the cause and an article calling him a liar. We also have a movie saying it's all our fault and an article calling him a liar. With so many articles supporting both sides of the argument how can it be so unamanous one way or the other???

[Azure]

Right now...




Say we reduce the amount of coal we use by 15%, cut gas down 10%, push oil back to 5% and make up for those losses, and push nuclear and hydro up to 30% each.

Coal-fired electricity generation gives rise to nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas per unit of power, but hydro and nuclear do not directly contribute any. If the amount of nuclear power were doubled, emissions from electricity generation would drop by one quarter.

Something to start out with...

Coal-fired power stations worldwide consume over 3200 million tonnes of coal each year to produce 38% of the electricity. This compares with about 61,000 tonnes of natural uranium (72,000 t of oxide concentrate from the mines) providing the fuel for the nuclear power stations which provide 16% of the world's electricity.
Much of the coal is used in the country in which it is mined, but often it has to be transported long distances, which requires considerable energy (and results in further greenhouse gas emissions).
By comparison, very little uranium is required to do the same job. The 1000 MWe nuclear power station requiring 27 tonnes of fresh fuel per year means an average of about 74 kg per day, which would fit in the back of a car. An equivalent sized coal-fired station needs some 8600 tonnes of coal to be delivered every day.

http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm

I find it ridiculous that people bitch about global warming, yet refuse to support nuclear energy.

This is not 1986 anymore...I'm sure advancements have been made on the nuclear side.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Here's an interesting read for anyone interested in the real story behind "Dr." Timothy Ball.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...for_325000.php

The full story is also available on globeandmail.com for subscribers. Essentially, Dr. Ball is suing a professor of climatology (a REAL scientist) for defamation, after Prof. Dan Johnson called him out for playing fast and loose with his credentials. Debate is a good thing: a debate on climate change that shuts out proven liars and quacks like Timothy Ball is even better.

Interesting. I found Ball's piece particularly poorly written and defended for the level he claims to have achieved.

I think if there was a massive swell of scientists who have credible information against global warming both politicians and industry would be falling all over themselves to hype it and promote it. Worrying about climate change is pricey and involves making political decisions that likely won't be popular. That our media and politicians are slowly coming to a consensus on this issue points to there being a lot of evidence on the side of climate change.

Op-ed pieces like this certainly aren't going to sway my opinion. Why wasn't there a summit on the myths of global warming just recently? Why did scientists get together themselves to talk about this issue if it was not well supported by their own method?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think if there was a massive swell of scientists who have credible information against global warming both politicians and industry would be falling all over themselves to hype it and promote it.

you won't find many scientists that dispute the current changing climate, point of fact there has never been a period in history where the climate WASN'T changing.

you will however find much discussion regarding mankind's direct role, and how much effect comes from other observable factors.

please tell me that you don't seriously consider the debate centering around whether or not scientists believe that global warming is happening, because if you do, i may have lost enough faith in common sense to stay at home and cry for a few days.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Looger

what kind of logical progression are you using here???

it's like we only have two choices - kill all life on earth or shut everything down!!!

oh. my. god.

i'vs stated aboot 20 times in these global warming threads that I AM IN SUPPORT OF LOWERING OUR EMISSIONS TO NON-HARMFUL LEVELS THAT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL CLIMATE RHYTHMS OF THE PLANET BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE ARE HAVING SOME EFFECT.

that being said, the hysteria involved is so out of control and is so spun in the media, what i fear is that drastic changes will be made that will have disastrous consequences for people on earth, just be careful who we will be trusting to solve all these problems, and exactly why this is so important RIGHT NOW.

I guess it depends on how you view and frame the issue. If you believe that extremely hard to reverse damage has and is happening then you have to take drastic steps as soon as you can. If you decide that species extinction, land development, etc are important issues then you take drastic steps as soon as you can.

What I don't get is those that are much more worried about the economic effects of reacting then they are about the actual earth and the viability in the future of not only our race but other species as well. The economic hardships that potentially may be caused by turning to a more sustainable living pattern are not going to be more disastrous then real climate change will be. We're talking about the future of life on earth and human life on earth.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Looger

please tell me that you don't seriously consider the debate centering around whether or not scientists believe that global warming is happening, because if you do, i may have lost enough faith in common sense to stay at home and cry for a few days.

Of course I consider it. The information that has been brought to me by those against humanity's role seems more suspect then the other side. Based on the credibility of those arguing against it and their arguments I am currently siding with the scientists who believe humans are in part responsible for some of the current change. Let's not take human psychology out of it either. Do we like to consider the possibility that we are poisoning ourselves or hurting ourselves through our desire for progress, advancement and industrialization? Of course we don't. It's much easier to try and explain it away and I think there's some motivation for many people whose ideologies will be attacked when we are forced to question the way we view the world and the environment.


But to focus solely on global warming is to miss many other important issues. Our attitude towards the earth has had many other effects and we may be facing issues like the loss of certain fish species that WE rely upon for food. Acid rain is not myth. Species extinction is not a myth and neither is mankind's role in it.

Global warming is not the only issue we have to address, it's clear that humanity has had a profound effect on the world in the past couple hundred years through industrialization and we haven't spent enough time reflecting upon whether this has been good and whether we need to take a different approach. The idea that the earth is ours to plunder as we see fit may prove to be a deadly ideal for us.

I'm scared that the response of "well don't do anything drastic yet cause we don't know for sure and we don't wanna sacrifice any of our money unless we do know for sure" may result in us waiting too long. As one of my profressors points out, there's lot's of money to be made in clearning up our act as well. New industries, new technology will spring up. To view environmental reforms as being purely negative in terms of economics is a short-sighted view.

[Looger]

fair enough Flames Draft Watcher...

but there are plenty of people in high positions of power that do NOT have the best interests of earth on their minds, yet are the very same people pushing this agenda into the public conciousness.

to suddenly embrace drastic change can potentially do more harm to the earth, AND to our economic future - which quite honestly in my opinion, when properly applied and directed, sure has a hell of a lot better chance at establishing some form of balance then huddling around the wood stove or the coal fire.

we have the chance, right now, with our high level of technology AND economic affluence, to seriously affect change. if we throw that away and put all our hopes and dreams into a global tax-fed government system that wants only control and will step on dolphins and humns alike for that goal, well we'll sure feel like idiots - if we feel anything at all that is.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by icarus

A few months ago I met an inspector from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna who told me that the way nuclear waste is dealt with is unquestionably safe and effective.

Essentially you lock the waste away in a super thick vault deep in a mountain or underground. The negligible amount of radiation that escapes from the vault is still too far away from any living thing to cause a problem. He had me convinced.

What about 10 thousand years from now.....do we really know where these pollutants will be then? Why don't we fire them off to the sun?

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What about 10 thousand years from now.....do we really know where these pollutants will be then? Why don't we fire them off to the sun?

That would probably work, but getting them into space in the first place would be the tough part. All it would take is one rocket of nuclear waste to explode on the pad and render Florida a wasteland to make it not a good idea