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

[thaanatos]

Ford Fairlane

had one.....'62 convertible.....

[contracycle]

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane is a 1990 American action/comedy film starring controversial comedian Andrew Dice Clay as Ford Fairlane, a private detective whose beat is the music industry in Los Angeles. The film was directed by Renny Harlin, who also directed Die Hard 2: Die Harder that same year. It was released on DVD on December 16, 2003.

One of my favourite movies actually. The koala was class.

[thaanatos]

I didn't know people actually watched Andrew Dice Clay......

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by contracycle

ROFL

By the way, I went and looked up your boy Lindzen, which was, to quote Ford Fairlane, "like masturbating with a cheese-grater: slightly interesting, mostly painful". Here is the relevant bio page: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Please note the following:

Ah a post reply re-edit using the ourbabyjesusalgore character assassination websites.
Way to go, reinforcing the political basis of the AGW cult. Don't have science? Just use character assassination against the scientists who disprove your religion.

I like the evidence of Lindzens taking money from exxon et al. Funnily enough the site has no mention of Hansen (arch-bishop of AGW and discredited mathematician when he was found to have 'massaged' GIS's observational ground temperature data) who received $250,000 from Teresa Heinz Kerry, nor his consultation fees for an 'inconvenient truth' nor his just leaked acceptance of $740,000 from the CATO institute, nor his appearance fees when he does speaking tours with Gore.
Why is that do you think?

Just think, you only have over four hundred eminent scientists (and counting) to go.
Sooo, barring your much-longed-for National-Socialist totalitarian state actually coming into being, how else are you going to stop the scientists from speaking up, genius?

[w14]

Originally Posted by contracycle

I don't think nuclear is as viable as you do.

Are you going to explain why?

Originally Posted by contracycle

Yes but you have struck at precisely the central issuer here: capitalist dogma prevents us from doing the necessary stuff because they get all phobic about "state spending". Unless we can get past that dogma neither your ideas or mine stand any prospect of being realised.

It has nothing to do with "capitalist dogma." We have got past this dogma many times in history, even in capitalist societies. It just requires some leadership.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

Are you going to explain why?



It has nothing to do with "capitalist dogma." We have got past this dogma many times in history, even in capitalist societies. It just requires some leadership.

If you don't mind contra' I'd like to respond to the Nuclear question.

The reason that nuclear power is not 100% viable is that it requires the trade of enriched nuclear fuel. The production of which is extremely carbon intensive. Also the fuel is traded which means that, although we could have a good supply of Uranium deposits globally, we will still need to either buy it from another less friendly country as a raw material and pay to enrich it ourselves, or we will have to buy enriched fuel from someone else at a greater cost.
You then have a problem with what to do with the waste product which as you can see from my previous post has a seriously long half-life.
(incidentally I spoke to a nuclear physicist about your '50 year' half-life suggestion, and he is very excited to know how this is possible - so please forward the publication that details how an element that is bound/identified by a specific number of quantum particles can degrade faster than any thing else that we know of).

The other problem with nuclear power is the scale of government assistance in the form of financial subsidy that the industry receives as we can see from todays Independent:-
http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...ticle22822.ece

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

The reason that nuclear power is not 100% viable is that it requires the trade of enriched nuclear fuel. The production of which is extremely carbon intensive. Also the fuel is traded which means that, although we could have a good supply of Uranium deposits globally, we will still need to either buy it from another less friendly country as a raw material and pay to enrich it ourselves, or we will have to buy enriched fuel from someone else at a greater cost.

As I asked in one of my earlier posts, have you heard about breeder reactors?

Originally Posted by Uplifter

You then have a problem with what to do with the waste product which as you can see from my previous post has a seriously long half-life.
(incidentally I spoke to a nuclear physicist about your '50 year' half-life suggestion, and he is very excited to know how this is possible - so please forward the publication that details how an element that is bound/identified by a specific number of quantum particles can degrade faster than any thing else that we know of).

Again, I wish you would read what I said. The words "half life" never left my fingertips. I said it is STABLE after fifty years, once vitrified.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

The other problem with nuclear power is the scale of government assistance in the form of financial subsidy that the industry receives as we can see from todays Independent:-
http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...ticle22822.ece

And this is a problem because ...

Isn't your argument that we need to act to save the planet?

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

As I asked in one of my earlier posts, have you heard about breeder reactors?



Again, I wish you would read what I said. The words "half life" never left my fingertips. I said it is STABLE after fifty years, once vitrified.

And this is a problem because ...

Isn't your argument that we need to act to save the planet?

Yes I have heard about breeders. The problem with using them is the same with using any traded fossil fuel. You are not really getting rid of the problem of having to pay for the fuel in the first place. Yes they might be more a lot more efficient but you still need the fuel; What do you think would happen if the supplier suddenly noticed that he was getting smaller and smaller orders?

Please tell me what you mean by stable? The element is still radioactive and will continue to decay. It is this procedure of decay that causes the health problems of radioactive poisoning.

And yes my argument is that we should save the planet. Producing more nuclear waste does nothing to help us achieve that goal, and nor does wasting £billions on subsidizing an already well established corporation. Do you think that if I had a company that was not doing so well, that the government would happily just give me a few billions? So why should they help BNFL?
Surely it makes a lot more sense to have used the billions wasted on BNFL to build renewable energy power stations? You know one day all the resources will be gone, and we will have nothing to keep us running, but there will be several EXTREMELY wealthy individuals rushing to move to Wales.

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

You then have a problem with what to do with the waste product which as you can see from my previous post has a seriously long half-life.

That is indeed the nub of the problem. We surely must be able to tap the sun more easily than starting up our own mini ones without the shielding our magnetic field affords us.

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Yes I have heard about breeders. The problem with using them is the same with using any traded fossil fuel. You are not really getting rid of the problem of having to pay for the fuel in the first place. Yes they might be more a lot more efficient but you still need the fuel; What do you think would happen if the supplier suddenly noticed that he was getting smaller and smaller orders?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand your thinking. In the case that nuclear was to be the basis for a global solution to the problem of CO2 emissions, then uranium supply would be guaranteed through international treaty. End of story.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Please tell me what you mean by stable? The element is still radioactive and will continue to decay. It is this procedure of decay that causes the health problems of radioactive poisoning.

I mean that it can be handled safely and stored.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Producing more nuclear waste does nothing to help us achieve that goal,

Neither does producing concentrated CO2, as in the case of carbon capture.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

and nor does wasting £billions on subsidizing an already well established corporation.

So shut the corporation down and start again.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Do you think that if I had a company that was not doing so well, that the government would happily just give me a few billions?

Why not? They seem to be doing that quite successfully with Northern Rock.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Surely it makes a lot more sense to have used the billions wasted on BNFL to build renewable energy power stations? You know one day all the resources will be gone, and we will have nothing to keep us running, but there will be several EXTREMELY wealthy individuals rushing to move to Wales.

You've heard of the conservation of energy? I'm quite certain that if we stop trying to reinvent primitive technologies that we stopped using generations ago, and instead focussed on fusion research, we'd solve that problem within a generations or two. In the meantime, fission can provide more energy than we could possibly use.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

I'm sorry, I really don't understand your thinking. In the case that nuclear was to be the basis for a global solution to the problem of CO2 emissions, then uranium supply would be guaranteed through international treaty. End of story.

International treay??? Like the oil supply?
You do realise that there is an international treaty that all Oil producers conform to that states that oil price is negotiated on a ten year cycle. That doesn't seem to be working does it? The current price that the U.K. buys its unrefined oil for was negotiated 2 years ago.

I mean that it can be handled safely and stored.

If that REALLY is the case then why is there always a problem dealing with the waste. There is one ship, currently on its way back to Japan, that is carrying 7 year old (at least) nuclear waste that is being prevented from docking anywhere.

Neither does producing concentrated CO2, as in the case of carbon capture.

With renewable fuel sources you do not need carbon capture.

So shut the corporation down and start again.

What and waste £billions on that one?

Why not? They seem to be doing that quite successfully with Northern Rock.

A slightly different problem, Northern Rock is about to be swallowed up by the Bank of England - another independent corporation.

You've heard of the conservation of energy? I'm quite certain that if we stop trying to reinvent primitive technologies that we stopped using generations ago, and instead focussed on fusion research, we'd solve that problem within a generations or two. In the meantime, fission can provide more energy than we could possibly use.

I agree that Fusion is the solution we should be spending more on developing. However wind power and wave/hydro power are tried and tested and are being used to full power several countries today. With this technology available to us we should not continue to use the technologies that are creating the problems we are trying to solve.

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

International treay??? Like the oil supply?
You do realise that there is an international treaty that all Oil producers conform to that states that oil price is negotiated on a ten year cycle. That doesn't seem to be working does it? The current price that the U.K. buys its unrefined oil for was negotiated 2 years ago.

Interesting ... that means that all those oil futures contracts that the guys that I know in the hedge fund business are even more fraudulent than I thought ...

Originally Posted by Uplifter

If that REALLY is the case then why is there always a problem dealing with the waste. There is one ship, currently on its way back to Japan, that is carrying 7 year old (at least) nuclear waste that is being prevented from docking anywhere.

Because some countries do not have a reprocessing capability. The key to safe fission is reprocessing. Please read this.

Originally Posted by Uplifter

However wind power and wave/hydro power are tried and tested and are being used to full power several countries today.

Interesting. Which countries?

[w14]

Originally Posted by contracycle

The top scientists HAVE spoken up, and they have said the problem is real and must be dealt with. YOU are dependent on fringe beardies wearing tin foil hats.

There are IPCC scientists on the list. Are they fringe beardies, then?

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

I agree that Fusion is the solution we should be spending more on developing. However wind power and wave/hydro power are tried and tested and are being used to full power several countries today. With this technology available to us we should not continue to use the technologies that are creating the problems we are trying to solve.

Yes, in the long term, although I am not keen on having a fusion plant on the planetary surface while we still have people on it.

People have also been working actively on fusion since the 60's and progress has been pretty slow. Substantially slower than our progress with solar, and solar is cleaner and less risky. Solar power is the way to go.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by w14

There are IPCC scientists on the list. Are they fringe beardies, then?

Make up your mind, are the IPCC signatories scientists or not? You guys keep flipping the terms of debate.

[w14]

Originally Posted by contracycle

Solar power is the way to go.

Yes, if we conver half of the surface of the earth with panels. Where are you going to sit?

[w14]

Originally Posted by contracycle

Make up your mind, are the IPCC signatories scientists or not? You guys keep flipping the terms of debate.

As far as I can see, I'm on my own in this discussion. No "you guys" here, and I haven't flipped any terms of debate.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by w14

Yes, if we conver half of the surface of the earth with panels. Where are you going to sit?

On the porch: