02-06-2007, 05:44 PM
|
#61
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: insider trading in WTC 7
|
haven't the french had some success with vitrification, or glass buried deep underground?
i know in utah somewhere there are old mines under a mountain or something filling up with nuclear waste.
what aboot tossing the stuff into a crack in the crust?
we can always load it into ammo and turn every warzone into slowly poisoning hellholes for billions of years, like iraq.
options are endless, though not all very smart from the standpoint of proper disposal.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 06:10 PM
|
#62
|
Referee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
|
Quote:
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.
|
Actually you didn't. I applaud the effort, though. What you did was paste the text of a REVIEW article into a post, and assure us that it came from what you deemed to be a reputable source. 3 points:
1. Pardon me for not taking your word on it--show me the source and I'll decide for myself if it's worth believing. That's called critical reading, a valuable life-skill.
2. Review articles are subject to completely different peer-review processes, something that varies from journal to journal, but sometimes they are approved, sight-unseen, by a single editor. Translation: you don't know what peer-reviewed means. I'd explain it, but I did that before, and apparently you don't want to know anyway.
3. One article does not equal a groundswell. I can find you one article that says that string theory is hokum. I can find you another that says that every other theory is flawed. It's called science--and it thrives on debate. The fact is, in scientific terms, there is widespread consensus on this issue. One review article from one journal changes nothing. That's like saying that because in one week Shean Donovan scored more goals than Jarome Iginla, that there's now a "debate" about who's the better hockey player.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 06:22 PM
|
#63
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
|
Quote:
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?
|
Well he said that they'd be okay for thousands of years.
In any case, mathematical models show that humanity will disappear ten thousand years from now anyway!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
__________________
Shot down in Flames!
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 06:40 PM
|
#64
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
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.
|
What I don't get are those that want to totally disregard the economic effects of reacting. Something has to change, but something/someone has to pay for that change. To totally dismantle the economy, using the environment as a reason, would be disastrous to both the economy and the environment (no money to buy/develop cleaner technologies). Those the support Kyoto, and their almost instant billion dollar payments, fail to realize that.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 06:58 PM
|
#65
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
|
What the argument is not
The Doomsday argument (DA) does not say that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely. It does not put any upper limit on the number of humans that will ever exist, nor provide a date for when humanity will become extinct.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 07:12 PM
|
#66
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
What the argument is not
The Doomsday argument (DA) does not say that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely. It does not put any upper limit on the number of humans that will ever exist, nor provide a date for when humanity will become extinct.
|
Right, well my remark was not really meant to be taken seriously (hence the smiley), but if you take it to be so than you should recognise that I never claimed that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely, I just referred to the statistical model. I am not sure why you posted the quoted passage in response.
__________________
Shot down in Flames!
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 07:44 PM
|
#67
|
Had an idea!
|
I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 08:00 PM
|
#68
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.
|
huh?
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 08:12 PM
|
#69
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
Right, well my remark was not really meant to be taken seriously (hence the smiley), but if you take it to be so than you should recognise that I never claimed that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely, I just referred to the statistical model. I am not sure why you posted the quoted passage in response.
|
Sorry...I took it that you were serious...usually people put the little wink...wink face when they are being sarcastic.
I apologize.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 08:13 PM
|
#70
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.
|
no kidding...look how many have actually been denoated above ground. I don't know the exact number....but I know it is quite a few.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 08:14 PM
|
#71
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
huh?
|
I think the biggest fear people have with nuclear energy is the possible fallout from an explosion/accident, or something like that.
I would assume people put nuclear bombs and doomsday together, where in fact rendering the world useless by using nuclear bombs is a very extreme belief.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 08:27 PM
|
#72
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I think the biggest fear people have with nuclear energy is the possible fallout from an explosion/accident, or something like that.
|
Well maybe. That's not what I'm really worried about, but if I lived in Fort Mac and there was a nuclear powerplant down the road I might be. But I don't live there and I do know that they are pretty safe.
I don't know enough about the subject to say we shouldn't go that route but I did read somewhere that the mining for fuel (uranium?) is a fairly intense operation that burns a hell of a lot of energy just to find it. Now obviously it's a net-gain method of generating power or they wouldn't do it, but it doesn't sound quite as "clean" as some people suggest.
The idea of three-eyed fish in Lake Athabasca is kind of intriguing.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 09:03 PM
|
#73
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The C-spot
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
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?
|
Well said; I completely agree. I came into this thread late, but I too found the linked article to be poorly written and completely devoid of factual evidence to support his claims. It was a rhetorical piece and nothing else, which is particularly precious as that was part of what he was railing against in his piece.
It was further illuminating to discover his "credentials" are misrepresented severely.
|
|
|
02-06-2007, 09:09 PM
|
#74
|
Had an idea!
|
Rouge, France used to have a dependence on importing resources to create electricity....I think they built around 80 reactors, and are now exporting electricity.
We haven't heard anything about their problems.
|
|
|
02-07-2007, 02:45 AM
|
#77
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Actually you didn't. I applaud the effort, though. What you did was paste the text of a REVIEW article into a post, and assure us that it came from what you deemed to be a reputable source. 3 points:
1. Pardon me for not taking your word on it--show me the source and I'll decide for myself if it's worth believing. That's called critical reading, a valuable life-skill.
2. Review articles are subject to completely different peer-review processes, something that varies from journal to journal, but sometimes they are approved, sight-unseen, by a single editor. Translation: you don't know what peer-reviewed means. I'd explain it, but I did that before, and apparently you don't want to know anyway.
3. One article does not equal a groundswell. I can find you one article that says that string theory is hokum. I can find you another that says that every other theory is flawed. It's called science--and it thrives on debate. The fact is, in scientific terms, there is widespread consensus on this issue. One review article from one journal changes nothing. That's like saying that because in one week Shean Donovan scored more goals than Jarome Iginla, that there's now a "debate" about who's the better hockey player.
|
I gave you the title of an article and where you could find it. Pardon me for not pirating and presenting you with the entire article. However, Cowperson was able to find this link ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/) pretty simply by following directions.
Do tell me why my "peer reviewed" articles are not up to the same standard as yours...if you did explain this already pardon my ignorance because I missed that. I simply searched an academic search engine for "peer reviewed" articles on the topic I was looking for. I was under the impression that by limiting by search to only peer reviewed articles that is what I would get. Apparantly just like the scientists disputing our influence on global warming peer reviewed articles on that matter are also not "real" peer reviewed articles...
I never claimed that 1 article was enough to make an informed decision. I simply said that while you (and Mr. Gore and his 928 articles) were unable to find an article disagreeing with his consensus I was. In fact I believe my whole point a few weeks ago and I'll restress it now was not to take 1 movie (Mr. Gores) as truth like so many did.
Personally I have a hard time believing any "scientists" right now on the issue because it seems like every ideal has a group of their own scientists supporting them.
Last edited by kevman; 02-07-2007 at 02:48 AM.
|
|
|
02-07-2007, 03:58 AM
|
#79
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: insider trading in WTC 7
|
...ooh - i didn't know that the asiatic land bridge was mutually exclusive with people being here before...
isn't there plenty of evidence, simply of both?
the polynesian-looking skulls of 40,000 year vintage simply being another unsuccessful and/or integrated north american settlement, people that resemble today's ainoo in japan.
there's plenty of evidence that doesn't have to cancel every other previous theory out.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.
|
|