Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2007, 05:44 PM   #61
Looger
Lifetime Suspension
 
Looger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: insider trading in WTC 7
Exp:
Default

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.
Looger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 06:10 PM   #62
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevman View Post
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.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 06:22 PM   #63
icarus
Franchise Player
 
icarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor View Post
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!
icarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 06:40 PM   #64
calculoso
Franchise Player
 
calculoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
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.
calculoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 06:58 PM   #65
jolinar of malkshor
#1 Goaltender
 
jolinar of malkshor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus View Post
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
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.
jolinar of malkshor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 07:12 PM   #66
icarus
Franchise Player
 
icarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor View Post
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!
icarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 07:44 PM   #67
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 08:00 PM   #68
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.
huh?
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 08:12 PM   #69
jolinar of malkshor
#1 Goaltender
 
jolinar of malkshor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus View Post
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.
jolinar of malkshor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 08:13 PM   #70
jolinar of malkshor
#1 Goaltender
 
jolinar of malkshor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
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.
jolinar of malkshor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 08:14 PM   #71
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos View Post
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.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 08:27 PM   #72
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
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.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 09:03 PM   #73
Five-hole
Franchise Player
 
Five-hole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The C-spot
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
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.
Five-hole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 09:09 PM   #74
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

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.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 09:29 PM   #75
MacDougalbry
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

I'm sure most of you have already seen this:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
MacDougalbry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 12:00 AM   #76
Calgaryborn
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
Exp:
Default

Here is another scientist who doubts a strong link between climate
change and human activity:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....59f5d04a.html
Calgaryborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 02:45 AM   #77
kevman
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
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.
kevman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 03:06 AM   #78
FLAMESBURNOIL
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

^^^ I agree, and the reality is there is no real consensus on the issue..All scientist's get their research money from somewhere, so its more than just oil companies paying scientist off to get their word out...

Also you have to have an understanding of how the scientific community works and a good example is the origins of native north americans - and the popular consensus is that they orginated from Asia 10,000 years ago - when evidence suggests otherwise - and any scientist who doesnt agree with the popular theory (clovis theory) is quickly discredited - even in the face of overwhelming genetic evidence

For years archaeologists have have been told there is no need to dig past the clovis line (i.e. digging past depths that represent up to 10,000 years) - because you wont find any artificats, because the majority of scientists agree on the clovis thoery

well some scientist did and they continued to find artificats older than 10,000 years -these scientists where shunned, attacked, shamed etc...by other archaeologists who held true to the clovis theory

well turns out the clovis theory is bogus....yet still remains a common belief for some reason...

this has been happening for hundreds of years...just like when some philosphers came out with that crazy insane idea that the earth was round...
FLAMESBURNOIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 03:58 AM   #79
Looger
Lifetime Suspension
 
Looger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: insider trading in WTC 7
Exp:
Default

...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.
Looger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 08:44 AM   #80
tjinaz
Scoring Winger
 
tjinaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:
Default Another scientist under fire for not towing the line

http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.../70206001/1002


Bad bad scientist
tjinaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy