World’s Top Scientists: ‘Manmade Warming’ Is A Dangerous Lie

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

excuse me?.....I understand scientific issues quite well, thank you....I simply don't share your liberal bias with respect to those issues.....the fact was, when it was pointed out that the US did nothing to help the children of the world, every liberal in the audience who was willing to ignore the truth agreed...so is there a reason we should care what the liberals in the audience were prepared to ignore?......personally, I am glad the world has finally decided to do something about global warming.....of course, making that decision will have absolutely no effect on global warming, but at least we won't have to hear the left whining about it any more......

I take it from this post you didn't watch the climate debate.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

Your lack of understanding of the political issues is yours.

Climate change HAS ALWAYS been happening. It has been warmer in the recent past, and it has been colder in the recent past. IT IS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM, and, just like meterorology, no matter how many Crays they throw at it, they can't model it well enough to produce a weather forcast for tomorrow, never mind 50 years time.

In the meantime, we have a financial sytem which HAS COLLAPSED. The banks are insolvent. €350 billion of "unprecidented" money thrown at the situation today, only days after the "unprecidented" $50 billion combined central bank effort. I wonder how long todays injection of "liquidity" will be "unprecidented" for? A day? A week?

The financial system is in a worse state than it was in 1929. This kind of thing is always what happens when a system is deregulated to the extent ours has been, because greedy bankers do stupider and stupider things for short term gain.

THIS is the problem of the day, not global warming, which is being promoted in a (futile) attempt to create yet another financial bubble to keep the already dead system going for a few more years.

In the meantime, nothing is being done about African poverty, AIDS, malaria. Our own power, water, transport and health systems crumble around our ears.

Well, fine, ignore todays problems and worry about something that has happened naturally since the beginning of time. You want to stop the use of fossil fuels, so do I, but for different reasons. I want to be able to breathe clean air, thanks.

So if we suspend our distaste for each others positions for a moment, we couldn solve that problem today, with nuclear. In 25 years, we could have removed fossil fuels from the equation totally. But no, we can't do that, can we? We can't have other countries having access to nuclear energy. No sirree! So lets stoke up the green lobby to hate nuclear power, that'll keep that genie in the bottle.

The environmentalist fear of nuclear energy is irrational, just as is their fear of climate change.

Reprocessing nuclear fuel vastly reduces the quantity of waste from nuclear fission. Only 3% of the material sent for reprocessing is unusable High Level Waste. That’s approximately 750kgs from a 1000MW reactor. Read that again - 750 kilogrammes.

This 750 kgs of material is normally incorporated into solid blocks of borosilicate glass, in a process known as vitrification.

Vitrification produces a stable solid that has the high-level waste incorporated its structure. That 750kgs of waste from a 1000MW reactor is contained in 5 tonnes of such glass, which can be readily transported and stored, with appropriate shielding.

There is a cooling period of about 50 years between removal from the reactor and disposal, with the conditioned HLW being retained in interim storage. The level of radioactivity and heat fall rapidly in the first few years and is down to about one thousandth of the level at discharge by 40 years.

So if we reprocess, how much waste is produced?

The UK generating capacity is presently about 70GW. In one year, therefore, we would produce 53 tonnes of high level waste if we were completely nuclear. At any one time, based on a 50 year cycle before this waste can be vitrified, we would be storing close to 3000 tonnes of HLW, equivalent to approx 450,000 litres. To put that in perspective, it compares to 5.5 billion litres of oil based fuels stored in the UK at any one time. I think even the UK has enough space that waste could be stored without being in someone’s back yard.

Nuclear power plants can be used to produce:

* Fresh water
* Hydrogen
* Oxygen
* Precious metals such as palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium
* Radioisotopes for medicine

(In fact, the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor, Ontario, for maintenance, has almost completely halted the global supply of radioactive isotopes used for diagnosing and treating thousands of patients with cancer and other diseases.)

The propaganda from the global warming lobby promotes a world where I must save energy, reduce my “carbon footprint.” This is a world which will devolve scientifically and technologically. It’s a world of slavery, where everything I do is taxed to “offset” my use of energy. It is a world where 3rd world countries are not permitted to develop, and where people continue to starve due to biofoolery. It is a world where the rich get richer by blowing bubbles. That's the world promoted by Al Gore who has only one agenda - keeping his pocket full of cash. (Well, he's also a racist, but lets not discuss that ...)

Instead we could have a world where all nation states have access to cheap energy, fresh water (how many conflicts are going currently over water?), unlimited hydrogen, access to new raw materials and medical isotopes.

But lets have a few windfarms and trade some carbon dioxide derivatives instead. Much better.

Tell me something I don't know.

The only reason the nuclear industry is pushing for more nuclear power stations is beacuse you can trade the fuel. In renewable energy reactors, wind, hydro, tidal power sources are all free, which means no market.
You could be correct on the amount of nuclear waste that is generated, however you fail to mention that it will take 20,000 years to become stable. You also fail to mention the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from producing the enriched fuel required.

Your justification for making more money in view of trying to do something to mitigate the problem of climate change, shows exactly where your values are.
Well I hope you end up being the person in the graveyard.

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Tell me something I don't know.

The only reason the nuclear industry is pushing for more nuclear power stations is beacuse you can trade the fuel. In renewable energy reactors, wind, hydro, tidal power sources are all free, which means no market.
You could be correct on the amount of nuclear waste that is generated, however you fail to mention that it will take 20,000 years to become stable. You also fail to mention the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from producing the enriched fuel required.

Your justification for making more money in view of trying to do something to mitigate the problem of climate change, shows exactly where your values are.
Well I hope you end up being the person in the graveyard.

What's free about wind, and tidal? They don't work! They can't provide the necessary energy to power a nation, never mind a planet, particularly if you want to convert road transport to some form of electrical/hydrogen based power. The engineering development needed to get them to that point is many years off. You're right about hydro - at least gravity doesn't stop in the summer.

How much CO2 is produced by the world today? How much CO2 would be produced to create the uranium if we were to go totally nuclear? Which is better? Have you heard of fast breeder reactors, by the way?

20000 years? Where did you get that from? It is stable as soon as it if vitrified. 50 years.

As for your final point, wise up. Al Gore's companies are not set up to invest in anything to solve the climate change "problem." He has set himself up with some HEDGE FUNDS. I have worked for enough hedge funds to know where their interests lie. His companies are there to trade derivative, financially engineered products. Another bubble. If Al Gore was investing in scientific research, or engineering companies, then I would applaud him. But he's not. Just another set of financial instruments to scam the world with. And you question my values?

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

What's free about wind, and tidal? They don't work! They can't provide the necessary energy to power a nation, never mind a planet, particularly if you want to convert road transport to some form of electrical/hydrogen based power. The engineering development needed to get them to that point is many years off. You're right about hydro - at least gravity doesn't stop in the summer.

How much CO2 is produced by the world today? How much CO2 would be produced to create the uranium if we were to go totally nuclear? Which is better? Have you heard of fast breeder reactors, by the way?

20000 years? Where did you get that from? It is stable as soon as it if vitrified. 50 years.

As for your final point, wise up. Al Gore's companies are not set up to invest in anything to solve the climate change "problem." He has set himself up with some HEDGE FUNDS. I have worked for enough hedge funds to know where their interests lie. His companies are there to trade derivative, financially engineered products. Another bubble. If Al Gore was investing in scientific research, or engineering companies, then I would applaud him. But he's not. Just another set of financial instruments to scam the world with. And you question my values?

Who mentioned Al Gore? If you think I'm going to argue your misunderstanding of the climate change debate, by reacting to your obvious personal dislike for another human being, then you are wasting your time. I have no respect for politicians, as far as I can see their only interested in making money themselves, whether it's from exploiting the climate change disaster, or by fighting illegal wars, trading in Oil, coal, uranium and other limited resources.

Wind and Tidal do work. Try telling the countries that are already getting their power from renewables, that they can't. You'll be laughed at. There are several countries that get their electricity from renewables.

As for the length of enriched Uranium half-life, you are correct, I got it wrong. Here's a link to the real truth. http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

The fact is that climate change IS happening, whether you want to argue about what is making it worse or not is irrelevant, nevertheless it makes more sense to do something about not making it any worse, than to stick your head in the sand and arse in the air.

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

The fact is that climate change IS happening, whether you want to argue about what is making it worse or not is irrelevant, nevertheless it makes more sense to do something about not making it any worse, than to stick your head in the sand and arse in the air.

You are missing my point completely. I agree, climate change IS happening, but it HAS ALWAYS happened. My argument is a) is it anthropogenic (no), b) is it the most serious, or immediate, problem that we face today (no), and c) how should we as a planet move forward.

I am arguing that having never ending conferences and creating new financial bubbles, with no actual action is the wrong approach. I'm arguing that we can solve the problem, real or imagined (it doesn't matter), TODAY, and in doing so, also solve the most important, real, immediate problems we do face today, which are, I suggest, the financial collapse and 3rd world development.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

I am arguing that having never ending conferences and creating new financial bubbles, with no actual action is the wrong approach. I'm arguing that we can solve the problem, real or imagined (it doesn't matter), TODAY, and in doing so, also solve the most important, real, immediate problems we do face today, which are, I suggest, the financial collapse and 3rd world development.

The majority of the worlds scientists have all agreed that human acvtivity is causing global warming to get worse. It is undeniable. Hence why this geological era is being termed the Anthropocene.
Facts are that they can even detect the amount of lead that was put into the atmosphere at the time of the Roman civilisation due to the use of lead in its foundries. They can even detect the increase and then reduction in lead in the atmosphere from when we started using leaded fuel to when we changed to unleaded. So suggesting that our actions are not having an effect is incorrect. In fact if you plot a graph of the temperature increase over the last 200 years against the increase in CO2 production for the same period, you see a a very similar curve. i.e. the increase in CO2 we have put into the atmosphere has had a quantifiable impact on the temperature of the planet. The planet certainly warms and cools, and has done so for millions of years, but suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about it because it's "Not our fault" is childish and tantamount to putting your head in the sand like an ostrich.

We are living in a world where there is more money in the banks than there has ever been. Where the financial collapse is something being felt by the poor and lower classes.
Where the richest economy in the world cannot afford to pay the medicare, pensions, social security of its population, but poorer countries can. Where is all the money that the banks have created? Is this not a further reflection of 1% of the worlds population have 80% of the wealth?

Where the leaders of America are more concerned in keeping the oil economy moving and subsidizing nuclear power, than trying to make money from building renewable power stations and running them with no fuel costs.

Where they are more concerned with trying to confuse the populace with lies about the effectiveness of renewable energy power stations and lies about nuclear power and the waste it produces.

The U.S. economy collapse has nothing to do with the environment. It is already fucked and not because of climate change but because of GWB's illegal war crimes. Continual use of the "We can't afford to stop making 6.0 litre cars", argument just goes to prove that the U.S. corporate community is more important to the politicians than the health and welfare of its citizens.

I agree that having never-ending conferences won't solve the problem, but the U.S. just wants to keep having these conferences and not make any commitments. Well everything changed on Sunday, the U.S. has been put in its place and the rest of the world IS doing something.

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

It is undeniable.

No, its not. A majority view does not make it true. Did Gallileo hold the majority view? There is plenty of science still to be done before the truth is known.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

So suggesting that our actions are not having an effect is incorrect.

I'm certainly not suggesting that. There is a difference between pollution and climate change. I'm saying that there is no evidence for anthropomorphic climate change.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

In fact if you plot a graph of the temperature increase over the last 200 years against the increase in CO2 production for the same period, you see a a very similar curve.

I think you need to do some more research.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

but suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about it because it's "Not our fault" is childish and tantamount to putting your head in the sand like an ostrich.

No, it isn't. And I'm not suggesting that we should do nothing. I'm saying that we are doing the wrong things.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

We are living in a world where there is more money in the banks than there has ever been. Where the financial collapse is something being felt by the poor and lower classes.
Where the richest economy in the world cannot afford to pay the medicare, pensions, social security of its population, but poorer countries can. Where is all the money that the banks have created? Is this not a further reflection of 1% of the worlds population have 80% of the wealth?

Absolutely. And I'm arguing that the climate change debate is being used as a political tool to make sure this remains the status quo.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Where the leaders of America are more concerned in keeping the oil economy moving and subsidizing nuclear power, than trying to make money from building renewable power stations and running them with no fuel costs.

Oil, yes. Nuclear, not sure where you got that impression. The US is doing nuclear all wrong. They refuse to reprocess, except for plutonium production. This is a policy decision so that they can maintain the anti-nuclear lobby with a nuclear waste is hard to deal with myth to push, and keep burning oil.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Where they are more concerned with trying to confuse the populace with lies about the effectiveness of renewable energy power stations and lies about nuclear power and the waste it produces.

Its not a lie. Work it out. How many windmills do you need to produce the 70GW the UK currently consumes? How many will be working at any given time (they're pretty unreliable)? What happens when the wind stops blowing?

Originally Posted by Uplifter

The U.S. economy collapse has nothing to do with the environment. It is already fucked and not because of climate change but because of GWB's illegal war crimes.

No, its not a US economy problem. Its a global problem. The GLOBAL financial system blew up in the summer. We are now seeing the effects of that in the economy with half a trillion dollar injections of cash from the ECB in a classic failed gambler approach to the problem, and inflation beginning to run out of control. GWBs war crimes are a separate issue.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

I agree that having never-ending conferences won't solve the problem, but the U.S. just wants to keep having these conferences and not make any commitments. Well everything changed on Sunday, the U.S. has been put in its place and the rest of the world IS doing something.

No, it isn't. The world has effectively agreed to an energy austerity plan. Contraction of resources. How is that going to help the planet?

At times like these, when stupid bankers fuck it up for the rest of us, we need to be building our way out of the problems, not calling for everyone to switch off.

Starting with basic infrastructure, and working from there ... power systems, water systems, etc. Roosevelt did this in the 1930s, Putin is doing it now. This strategy is a great way to kick start an economy back into life, and to hell with the old financial system and the bankers that created it.

The point I'm trying to get through to you, is that it is possible to solve the most critical problem you see for this planet, and the most critical problems I see for this planet, using the same approach. The fact that we disagree on this single issue is irrelevant.

[thaanatos]

The only reason the nuclear industry is pushing for more nuclear power stations is beacuse you can trade the fuel. In renewable energy reactors, wind, hydro, tidal power sources are all free, which means no market.

what a strange statement.......there is no nuclear "industry" any more than there is wind industry or a tidal power industry........there are utility companies which are in the energy industry (or in some parts of the world, countries building power plants).....

if you are talking about the construction companies, there would be just as much a push from the people who sell the equipment and technology for wind farms as there would be from those who build nuclear plants.......

the simple fact is, because of climate, there are places where wind farms or solar plants simply won't work.....and there are certainly places who can't benefit from hydro power or tidal power because they don't have dam-able rivers or ocean front.......

[thaanatos]

They can't provide the necessary energy to power a nation

actually, that isn't true......the technology is there, it's just that it is still cheaper to operate and maintain the existing power plants than to build new wind generators to replace them.....that and the fact that a natural gas generator in Michigan that is locally owned and operated would have to be replaced by wind power generated somewhere like eastern Montana.....not something a Michigan power company is apt to do voluntarily.......

[thaanatos]

In fact if you plot a graph of the temperature increase over the last 200 years against the increase in CO2 production for the same period, you see a a very similar curve.

that's true....interestingly, if you look at graphs of tests done on arctic ice you will see that the changes in CO2 have always paralleled and followed temperature changes........that's FOLLOWED, not PRECEDED......does that suggest anything to you?.........

[thaanatos]

Where the richest economy in the world cannot afford to pay the medicare, pensions, social security of its population, but poorer countries can.

let's be perfectly clear.....poor nations can't.......

[thaanatos]

How many windmills do you need to produce the 70GW the UK currently consumes?

depends on which technology you go with.......conventional wind farm turbines produce 5 megawatts, so you would need 70GW/5MW.....

though you could go this way....http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/...urbine-maglev/
and reduce the number to 70.....

or if you like the more personal touch, you could go with one of these build your own jobs...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehauJ...eature=related......70GW/1.5KW....

but my true favorite is http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4224763.html

which can be built out of trash found in Haitian garbage dumps and will replace a kerosene operated lantern in a corrugated tin shack........

[thaanatos]

What happens when the wind stops blowing?

well, this guy has an idea.....

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/04/30/highway-wind-power/

you know those cement barriers they have between lanes on the interstate? what if they looked like this?.......

[w14]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

depends on which technology you go with.......conventional wind farm turbines produce 5 megawatts, so you would need 70GW/5MW.....

It was kind of rhetorical. But thats assuming they're all turning. A question I don't know the answer to is the failure rate. All I know is that any wind farm I've ever seen has a fairly high proportion of broken or otherwise stopped turbines.

Originally Posted by thaanatos

though you could go this way....http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/...urbine-maglev/
and reduce the number to 70.....

Now THAT I could support ...

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

let's be perfectly clear.....poor nations can't.......

I didn't say poor.

[thaanatos]

the U.S. has been put in its place

sweet...../e settles into his 'place'.......oh yes, it looks a lot different than the old 'place'........it's amazing what you can do with a bit of paint and an accessory or two......

[thaanatos]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

I didn't say poor.

oh....well crap.....you shouldn't let other people post under your name.....it gets confusing........