Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.

[B_JQblonde]

Excuse me? higher demand for electrical energy --> (non-nuclear) power plants -> carbon emissions --> global warming. Oh wait, you don't want to acknowledge the causal link between carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, and global warming

Correct. I do not believe a causal link has been definitively established .

As for "going there", I responded to your question about what we can do about global warming. I listed some, hopefully, non-controversial measures that one can take immediately to lessen one's personal impact on contributing to carbon emissions and (hence) global warming]..

Then do it. And tell that to AL Gore. :wink:

 

[Shelby]

I wonder what brand AC the Gore's have.

 

[Nitrofiend]

Ice caps - Again, through observational evidence only we assumed that as the surface of the ice caps had apparently warmed by 1degree on the surface and some bits of the caps were becoming unstable that the ice caps were shrinking. That's just plain wrong -
A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

Do you refer to the Antarctic ice caps in the first paragraph? Keep in mind that if sea ice melts, nothing really happens to the sea level because the volume displacement is already accounted for. Only if the glaciers (on land) melt into the ocean will the sea level rise. Also, more fresh water from those glaciers spilling into the ocean = more sea ice. Be less vague.

Btw, JQBlonde, did the United States ever land on the moon?

 

[Nitrofiend]

How the hell would you even go about building a craft big enough to carry the United States to the moon? :tongue:

You're one of them... -.-

:tongue:

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

So we invaded Iraq over SOLAR PANELS? Well that really is a stinker.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Yeah , here's the master debators in action..


ME: "Hey did you see the research which indicates that urbanization may have had a much more dramatic impact on on mean temperatures in China than was previously thought?"

160IQ: " .b...b...b..ut every scientist agrees about everything..oh and I'm real smart"

ME" : Not these guys , they are questioning some of the data upon which the IPCC consensus was based."

160IQ: " Hey you're the dumbest poster ever...oh, and I'm real smart"

ME: " ..but what about the research which indicates that "China has experienced rapid urbanization and dramatic economic growth since its reform process started in late 1978. In this article, we present evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate based on analysis of impacts of land-use changes on surface temperature in southeast China, where rapid urbanization has occurred. Our estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05°C per decade attributable to urbanization is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations

160IQ : " You're the dumbest poster ever ...Oh,and I'm real smart"

LEX: ' why is anybody paying attention to this retart".

MADAME ZORA:" "yeah what a fucktard. "

Yes, that's *exactly* what the rest of this thread looks like. You, like Cheney and Bush it seems, have fogotten that what you have said in the past is on record apparently and anyone can go back and look at it. and yes, compared to some, I'm flippin' brilliant. But only compared to some.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Please, you people don't want to go there.
I drive very gas efficient cars. I car pool.
I use flourescent bulbs.

Why? What about all the positive effects of polluting our environment nobody ever talks about? How is this (driving fuel efficient cars, using flourescent lighting) being anything but completely selfish?

 

[Freddie53]

Please, you people don't want to go there.
I drive very gas efficient cars. I car pool.
I use flourescent bulbs.
All the normal stuff a good conscientous citizen should do. < except Al Gore >
None of it has anything to do with global warming ,tho.

I don't doubt you have some intelligence. You seem smart enough to barely stay within the limits to keep from being banned for being a troll.

The whole point of what Al Gore and others who advocate actions to "slow down" the global warming of the earth are only being conscientious citizens. No one knows for sure that it will have a significant impact on the earth's temperature. It will have some effect I'm sure. How much. No one is for sure.

But the steps advocated by Al Gore and the other "global warming" alarmists will make the earth cleaner, look better and with better air to breath make our citizens have better health.

You have already said that a good conscientious citizen would do all these things that conservationists would do.

By beef with you is that you have mixed politics into this discussion lining up all the "left wing, I assume Democrats, on one side and all the and the right wing and again I assume Republicans on the other side.

What causes global warming should be considered by scientists whose salaries are not paid by any special interest group.

We once had a debater here that you remind me of. That was in the day when minors could be members. That particular debater was 15.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

The exponential for catastrophe has and can never be measured - could be 200 years or 3. To the rapacious and their political protectors free thought is anathema. One does not have to be a scientist (in the pocket of some corporation) to observe the nuances of danger for the earth. The funny thing is that when the environment, economy and society breaks down it will be those who told us that it cannot happen who will be protected. Too general and simplistic? Then just look at history.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I don't doubt you have some intelligence. You seem smart enough to barely stay within the limits to keep from being banned for being a troll.

The whole point of what Al Gore and others who advocate actions to "slow down" the global warming of the earth are only being conscientious citizens. No one knows for sure that it will have a significant impact on the earth's temperature. It will have some effect I'm sure. How much. No one is for sure.

But the steps advocated by Al Gore and the other "global warming" alarmists will make the earth cleaner, look better and with better air to breath make our citizens have better health.

You have already said that a good conscientious citizen would do all these things that conservationists would do.

By beef with you is that you have mixed politics into this discussion lining up all the "left wing, I assume Democrats, on one side and all the and the right wing and again I assume Republicans on the other side.

What causes global warming should be considered by scientists whose salaries are not paid by any special interest group.

We once had a debater here that you remind me of. That was in the day when minors could be members. That particular debater was 15.

Well Freddy, then I guess you debated him on equal terms.

Your grasp of US politics and public policy is stunning in its naivete.
Trust me, pal I know you Trotskyites :wink:

 

[HotBulge]

Again, I'll ask our resident Roskolnikov, JQB, what is so troublesome about change and the desire to reduce carbon emissions that Mankind generates? Where's the threat in advocating non-pollution? Is there no faith in Mankind's ability to produce technology that sustains our lifestyle while polluting less? Why can't the Earth's government's set goals for industries to strive for with non-pollution? Where's the threat in encouraging individuals to curb activity that contributes towards environmental pollution?

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Well Freddy, then I guess you debated him on equal terms.

Your grasp of US politics and public policy is stunning in its naivete.
Trust me, pal I know you Trotskyites :wink:

Yes, and from your useless pile of banter here, I now clearly know an asshole troll when I see one.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Again, I'll ask our resident Roskolnikov, ? Where's the threat in advocating non-pollution? Is there no faith in Mankind's ability to produce technology that sustains our lifestyle while polluting less? Why can't the Earth's government's set goals for industries to strive for with non-pollution? Where's the threat in encouraging individuals to curb activity that contributes towards environmental pollution?

Ok I'll give you one example of "what is so troublesome about change and the desire to reduce carbon emissions that Mankind generates".

Take our firend coal < boo hiss>. Now what would happen if we decided to cut back on use of goal..

1> tens of thousands of high paying jobs would be lost . Communities would be destroyed.You know, communities , as in what we are supposed to be SAVING form the catastrophic effects of GW.

2> Hundreds of thousands of people would have to pay alot more for electricity as coal is a low cost provider of such. We all know who suffers MOST DISPROPORTIONATRLY from higher electric bills, right? Poor people.

3> One of the substitute sources for coal is nuclear energy. Do you want to go there???

 

[HotBulge]

Yes, I do want to "go there" - meaning opening the discussion about nuclear energy. I believe that our fears about nuclear power and nuclear waste, based in the '70s 3 MIle Island Disaster and '86 Chernobyl, are oudated. I believe it's in our vital national interest to build more nuclear reactors - ones that are more efficient than their '60s/'70s counterparts. We have enough experience to realize that nuclear reactors needs a double layer of concrete surroundings in case there is an accident. We also have a better understanding how to handle the byproducts - either through repurification or through concrete encasement and deep underground burial. The US hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in > 30 years; at the very least, it's time to update the nuclear infrastructure.

China is already ahead of the US in its planning to build more nuclear power plants. China has approached Canada and countries in Africa, purchasing their mineral rights, which includes uranium production. France, already, is a country that relies on nuclear power for ~70% of its power production. ... The point is that many other countries recognize the benefits and efficiencies of using nucelar power. The United States should adapt as well.

So, Yes, the use of nuclear power is one of those areas in which I believe that traditional environmentalists are hindering progress. I believe their reasonable concerns about environmental waste and pollution can be allayed in activie discussions about how nuclear power plants intend to manage their waste. Low level nuclear waste (i.e. the lower mass isotopes) have short shelf lives and can be used in other areas, such as nuclear medical imaging and such. Higher level waste (i.e. th higher mass isotopes) should undergo some form of transmutation, changing a radioactive element into some other usable form. Besides, the nuclear waste that is produced is small relative to the waste produced by other forms of power generation e.g. coal plants

2> Hundreds of thousands of people would have to pay alot more for electricity as coal is a low cost provider of such. We all know who suffers MOST DISPROPORTIONATRLY from higher electric bills, right? Poor people.

3> One of the substitute sources for coal is nuclear energy. Do you want to go there???

 

[madame_zora]

We once had a debater here that you remind me of. That was in the day when minors could be members. That particular debater was 15.

Ahh, ChimeraTX- I remember him well. The difference is that while he said things that were offensive to most, he actually had a fairly high IQ, he was articulate, and when it came down to brass tacks, he was capable of learning. I miss that kid, he would have argued circles around this 'tard.
Chimera whill probably grow into decent human being, given his ability of introspection. I actually miss him a lot.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Yes, I do want to "go there" - meaning opening the discussion about nuclear energy. I believe that our fears about nuclear power and nuclear waste, based in the '70s 3 MIle Island Disaster and '86 Chernobyl, are oudated. I believe it's in our vital national interest to build more nuclear reactors - ones that are more efficient than their '60s/'70s counterparts. We have enough experience to realize that nuclear reactors needs a double layer of concrete surroundings in case there is an accident. We also have a better understanding how to handle the byproducts - either through repurification or through concrete encasement and deep underground burial. The US hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in > 30 years; at the very least, it's time to update the nuclear infrastructure.

China is already ahead of the US in its planning to build more nuclear power plants. China has approached Canada and countries in Africa, purchasing their mineral rights, which includes uranium production. France, already, is a country that relies on nuclear power for ~70% of its power production. ... The point is that many other countries recognize the benefits and efficiencies of using nucelar power. The United States should adapt as well.

So, Yes, the use of nuclear power is one of those areas in which I believe that traditional environmentalists are hindering progress. I believe their reasonable concerns about environmental waste and pollution can be allayed in activie discussions about how nuclear power plants intend to manage their waste. Low level nuclear waste (i.e. the lower mass isotopes) have short shelf lives and can be used in other areas, such as nuclear medical imaging and such. Higher level waste (i.e. th higher mass isotopes) should undergo some form of transmutation, changing a radioactive element into some other usable form. Besides, the nuclear waste that is produced is small relative to the waste produced by other forms of power generation e.g. coal plants

Fair points.
I guess I'm one of those who are really skittish when it comes to nuke plants, but I'm probably not being rational.

 

[HotBulge]

Ok I'll give you one example of "what is so troublesome about change and the desire to reduce carbon emissions that Mankind generates".

Take our firend coal < boo hiss>. Now what would happen if we decided to cut back on use of goal..

1> tens of thousands of high paying jobs would be lost . Communities would be destroyed.You know, communities , as in what we are supposed to be SAVING form the catastrophic effects of GW.

Some jobs may be lost - tens of thousands may be an exaggeration. Those lost jobs are not necessarily problematic. A traditional economist would refer to those lost jobs as an elimination of inefficiencies. Those lost jobs do not constitute a distaster IF they are substituted by an equal or lesser number of well/better paying positions.

Let's say that we do eliminate positions as a result of closing down coal power plants. We can equally create a comparable amount of jobs within the same energy sector by focusing on revamping our electrical energy infrastructure. The unglamorous infrastructure receives little attention, but newsflash - it's aging and in a state of disrepair. We can offset the job loss from coal based plants with job creation that enhance the nation's power grid.

• Imagine if the we raised corporate and civic bonds to enhance the power grid with new equipment. (We haven't really bothered with a wide scale refurbsihment in ~ 30 years).
• Imagine purchasing new dynamos and electrical switches from General Electric.
• Imagine installing more efficient transmission wires that suffer less from heat degradation.
• Imagine hiring more engineers - electrical, structural, and mechanical - to install the new electrical grid. (Gasp!)
• Even more so, imagine that the government and corporate utilities implement these updates progressively in phased, 5 year plans. (How Trostky-esque or rather Stalinist of me to suggest phased 5 year plans). We could possibly have managed growth and development. (Gasp!)
• Imagine encouraging more kids at university to pursue engineering disciplines. They would learn about the technical maintenance, design, and enhancement of a a new power grid. Let's think about think about the new software that needs to be written for a newer grid - newer sensors and monitoring.

This all sounds like job creation to me. We can both pollute less and improve our situations more if we take a longer term view of investment and our future. The problem with corporate America is that it's beholden to share holders who are only interested in quick profits, which often leads us to rather short-sighted conclusions and impedes change with wisdom.

 

[HotBulge]

Fair points.
I guess I'm one of those who are really skittish when it comes to nuke plants, but I'm probably not being rational.

Well, any child of the '70s (and earlier) will recall the discord about nuclear energy and nuclear waste in particular. Thirty years ago, we didn't have regulations that detailed how to deal with the nuclear waste. Any sane person didn't want a nuclear waste dump in their backyard. (Fears of radiation sickness and higher rates of cancer,etc.).

We can consider, however, that the world has not had a nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in '86. That accident was so environmentally devastating because it was a singly cased reactor instead of a doubly cased reactor, as American ones are by design. At least the US ' probability of nuclear disaster is less than the probability of a space shuttle accidents.

As for the waste, we now have better techniques for dealing with lower and high grade waste. Use low grade waste for medical imagining, and purify or transmute higher grade waste into other elements. (Although waste purification does constitute nuclear enrichment which introduces fears about weapons grade uranium and plutonium). In the worst case scenario, why not place spent nuclear waste in defunct, geologically stable, impervious deep mines??

There is a pragmatic trade-off to be made between nuclear and coal generated electricity. I fall in the camp of nuclear energy - arguing that the long term benefits, efficiencies, and lack of pollution offset the negatives.

 

[B_JQblonde]

pollute less and improve our situations more if we take a longer term view of investment and our future. The problem with corporate America is that it's beholden to share holders who are only interested in quick profits, which often leads us to rather short-sighted conclusions and impedes change with wisdom.

Yes that is reality , sir.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Well, any child of the '70s (and earlier) will recall the discord about nuclear energy and nuclear waste in particular. Thirty years ago, we didn't have regulations that detailed how to deal with the nuclear waste. Any sane person didn't want a nuclear waste dump in their backyard. (Fears of radiation sickness and higher rates of cancer,etc.).

We can consider, however, that the world has not had a nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in '86. That accident was so environmentally devastating because it was a singly cased reactor instead of a doubly cased reactor, as American ones are by design. At least the US ' probability of nuclear disaster is a less than the probability of space shuttle accidents.

As for the waste, we now have better techniques for dealing with lower and high grade waste. Use low grade waste for medical imagining, and purify or transmute higher grade waste into other elements. (Although waste purification does constitute nuclear enrichment which introduces fears about weapons grade uranium and plutonium). In the worst case scenario, why not place spent nuclear waste in defunct, geologically stable, impervious deep mines??

There a pragmatic trade-off to be made between nuclear and coal generated electricity. I fall in the camp of nuclear energy - arguing that the long term benefits, efficiencies, and lack of pollution offset the negatives.

Again, fair point. Nuke energy from a rational standpoint, makes sense.