TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

[adios]

Not much time for me today to spend here. I'll be back sometime this weekend. Thought I'd post this little blurb from the Washington Roundup column in today's WSJ. Bush recognizing that the burning of fossil fuels is a direct contributor to global warming. Well what about nuclear power? Please spare me the usual left wing rhetoric that the Bush is the lackey of the likes of GE, Westinghouse and such.

TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

At coming G-8 huddle in Scotland, administration aides will hail nuclear energy as clean way to meet demand from rising powers India and China, which now drives oil prices higher. The administration also sees opportunity for U.S. firms General Electric and Westinghouse, which are working on new plant designs.

That stance complicates life for host Blair. Nuclear power remains controversial in the U.K. and Germany amid environmental and weapons-proliferation concerns. But "we're all going to have to diversify away from hydrocarbons over time," Bush tells CNBC.

[andyfox]

Heard a headline on the radio this morning about $100/barrel oil in the next few years. That being the case, one would think there'd be a renewed push for alternative energe resources, and that nuclear would indeed be the alternative of choice for Team Bush.

[johnc]

The idea to me of Global Warming as a real possiblity seems very questionable at best. From a statisical standpoint, the amount of quantifiable data put in terms of timeline of planet earth is minute and way too small to be even slightly statistically significant taken in perspective with the earth's own "natural" global warming and cooling trends over virtually millions of years. Bottomline Global Warming being hastened by fossil fuel consumption is a good guess at best. That being said, the need to drastically reduce the world's dependance on fossil fuels should be followed through based upon:
#1 - It's a limited resource and we'll be literally be left out in the cold at the rate we're going.
#2 - The dependance on fossil fuels has become the US's Achilles Heel in regards to the Middle East further entrenching our interests in their region (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).
#3 - Given #2, reduction of our dependance by maybe 25% will provide th US enormous leverage in the region without dropping a bomb or firing a bullet paving the way for real, viable diplomatic solutions to the ills plaging the region without the spector of ulterior motives.
#4 - Undeniable localized pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels leading a plethora of health concerns.

I see nuclear power as a stop-gap measure until less strategically targetable sources can be vigorously explored and put on line such as solar, cold fusion (which will lead to cost effective hydrogen cell production).

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just not for Iran. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[player24]

Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[slickpoppa]

I think that nuclear power is a great option as a clean source of energy for the US. I would be very wary about promoting it in developing countries like India and China, though. My biggest concern is not nuclear weapons, but the possibility that they will build crappy nuclear plants that malfunction. The governments of India and China have yet to show that they really give a sh*t about the safety and health of their people.

[bholdr]

Nuclear energy has had a bad rap for a long time, but, with the exception of the cherynobyl disaster and the relitivly minor three mile island event, it has been very safe. Also, there has not been a new reactor built in the U.S. since the sixties- modern reactor designs have been touted as meltdown-proof, and the storage problem is more of a result of poor planning than technical difficulties.

Bottom line? the nuclear boogyman has kept the U.S and other countries (germany, U.K) form realizing the potential of this very clean and safe energy source. Nuclear fission, if done properly, is, IMO, an excelent energy source.


wired article on pebble bed reactors (http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html)

an opposing veiwpoint (http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear energy has had a bad rap for a long time, but, with the exception of the cherynobyl disaster and the relitivly minor three mile island event, it has been very safe. Also, there has not been a new reactor built in the U.S. since the sixties- modern reactor designs have been touted as meltdown-proof, and the storage problem is more of a result of poor planning than technical difficulties.

Bottom line? the nuclear boogyman has kept the U.S and other countries (germany, U.K) form realizing the potential of this very clean and safe energy source. Nuclear fission, if done properly, is, IMO, an excelent energy source.


wired article on pebble bed reactors (http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html)

an opposing veiwpoint (http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG , bholdr and I agree on something!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG , bholdr and I agree on something!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. /images/graemlins/grin.gif are you satirizing the post i just made in response to jaxmike in the child rape/ child murder thread?

[vulturesrow]

Of course I am. But I have long been a supporter of nuclear power in the United States.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear energy has had a bad rap for a long time, but, with the exception of the cherynobyl disaster and the relitivly minor three mile island event, it has been very safe. Also, there has not been a new reactor built in the U.S. since the sixties- modern reactor designs have been touted as meltdown-proof, and the storage problem is more of a result of poor planning than technical difficulties.

Bottom line? the nuclear boogyman has kept the U.S and other countries (germany, U.K) form realizing the potential of this very clean and safe energy source. Nuclear fission, if done properly, is, IMO, an excelent energy source.


wired article on pebble bed reactors (http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html)

an opposing veiwpoint (http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely that nuclear power is safe in countries like the US that would dilligently monitor nuclear power plants. However, I don not have the same faith in countries like China and India.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don not have the same faith in countries like China and India.

[/ QUOTE ]

ignoring the fact that india and china each have a large population of highly educated techical workers and ample motivation to keep the nuclear power safe, the pebblebed reactor design is meltdown proof and the waste can be stored very easily and safely.

I think each of those nations would be far safer than russia is now with their nuclear plants.

BTW: "Currently, about 77% of France's electricity comes from the country's 58 nuclear reactors. This represents a dramatic change from 1973, when fossil fuels accounted for more than 80% of French power generation."

just thought that was interesting

[wacki]

Man this sucks. I actually like Bush as a person because I think he is honest. However, I'm really starting to think he is an idiot.

johnc - you need to do a search on global warming in this forum. Zeno, John Feeney, Nicky G, and I have decimated every arguement from the other side countless times.

As for cold fusion ... do some more research.

Adios:

There is so much wrong with this. There isn't enough nuclear material to do this. Plus, even though no CO2 is released from the power plant, the mining and refining process releases 34 grams of CO2 per generated kilowatt (kWh). Nuclear isn't as bright as you think it is. Uranium isn't that common. Also, not even the nuclear people want this. I don't have time to go into this but there is so much wrong with this. Besides, This has already covered this topic countless times. Adios, I'm surprised you don't pay attention to my threads.



[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line? the nuclear boogyman has kept the U.S and other countries (germany, U.K) form realizing the potential of this very clean and safe energy source. Nuclear fission, if done properly, is, IMO, an excelent energy source.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's safe, and we have found the holy grail for disposing of the waste, but....

Why do I even bother.....

I going out.

[ACPlayer]

Man this sucks. I actually like Bush as a person because I think he is honest. However, I'm really starting to think he is an idiot.

Would you rather have an honest idiot or a randy smart guy running the country?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Man this sucks. I actually like Bush as a person because I think he is honest. However, I'm really starting to think he is an idiot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki, he is an idiot because he wants to further investigate the use of nuclear power? Am I missing something?

[adios]

I'm not gung ho about nuclear energy myself. What I noted was that Bush at least recognizes that fossil fuel and global warming are linked together. I believe this is a significant recognition by the president. It may not seem like it's all that significant but think about how many in his base don't acknowledge that link. FWIW when the president acknowledges the problem then solutions to that problem can be debated on their merits. Furthermore this acknowledgement allows the debate to revolve around the viability of solutions and thus it is not impeded by any debate as whether or not the problem exists. Perhaps I'm reading too much into Bush's statmement but I think it's a large victory for those who have warned us about the link between fossil fuel and global warming when the president of the U.S. concurs.

[wacki]

You know what is really sad. I'm incredibly smashed right now and I just realized how many spelling errors I made when I was sober. (In my defense I was multitasking to the extreme, but still)

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, he is an idiot because he wants to further investigate the use of nuclear power?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is nothing wrong with furthering nuclear power IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there was a barn 10 feet in front of you, you couldn't hit it with a shotgun. Nuclear power is not a cure all. Fusion is cure all if we ever do the [censored] research, but depending on fision is a [censored] moronic move.

Will explain later. This has already been explained a million times in this forum. I really don't care anymore. Humans are stupid.

-Drunk wacki.

[[censored]]

Again unless I am missing something I don't think he said it was a cure all. I know I didn't.

[adios]

When I saw this blurb in today's WSJ I assumed that Bush had mentioned climate change in his CNBC interview. Silly me. He didn't as far as I can tell as I took the time to find the text of the interview now. Apparently the WSJ columnist made an implication that was not there.

[Iplayboard]

I also like nuclear power. My friend from high school wants to get a loan to build a nuclear power plant. His dad has made lots of money building hydro-electric plants. How realistic is my friend's plans? He has two problems. 1. Securing a loan/investors. 2. Getting a permit to build such a plant.

Since I've been drinking and Im off an random tangets. I also like Bush the person. He's the kind of guy I would invite to my Super Bowl party if he were my neighbor (though he wouldnt drink my beer). The "Bush is the devil" people are wrong. He just is perhaps a bit arrogant that his view of the world is correct.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
It's safe, and we have found the holy grail for disposing of the waste, but....

Why do I even bother.....

I going out.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're gonna have to do better than this...

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
you're gonna have to do better than this...


[/ QUOTE ]

I have, countless times.

U235- Can be safely used in a power plant.

Problem? There is a very limited supply. Current world supply of 235U: 4400 quads (only a 12 year supply). It is also nowhere near a CO2 free power source.

Solution? Breeder reactors to created plutonium from U238.

Problem? Much more dangerous and it creates tons of radioactive waste. Technology has a long ways to go to solve these problems

Some of the problems:

The uranium is covered by a layer of graphite. The graphite is covered by several other layers of materials including a silicon carbide. The graphite could burn if defects in the fuel defeat the outer coverings. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers. There are approximately 370,000 pebbles in a pebble bed reactor. Germany and Japan have already had serious problems with this and had to completely shut down pebble fuel production for various reasons on numerous occasions. Now spread these reactors across the planet and consider your odds.

If plutonium from breeder reactors is stolen by terrorists, they can easily make nuclear bombs with it. There is a 200 hundred year supply of this so it theoretically possible to use fission as a way to keep the human race lazy for a century or so. However, this means that every country on the planet is going to be using breeder reactors. Do you see a problem here? Not even the nuclear people want this.

Lack of containment building means some extra safety problems. -- There are ways around this though.

Then there is the waste problem. PBMR's create large amounts of waste. If we depend on pebble bed reactors as our main energy source, we are going to literally create radioactive mountains in America. Nevada is the national radioactive toilet and they aren't happy about this.

Cost is also a problem.

I can write more, and this topic has been beaten to death many times in the past, but there is the basics.

Photo of bad nuclear pebble:

http://www.pharmaciaretirees.com/image008.jpg

As for those who don't believe in global warming::

Some stuff (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=1776946&Fo rum=f27&Words=Feeney&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=17 37650&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=7066&daterang e=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bo dyprev=#Post1776946)

Some more stuff (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=2027598&Fo rum=f20&Words=peak&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=2004 957&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=7066&daterange= 1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&body prev=#Post2027598)

http://smalley.rice.edu/
-a must see video I've posted countless times.


From adios:

[ QUOTE ]
What I noted was that Bush at least recognizes that fossil fuel and global warming are linked together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that shocked me. I'm glad (and sad at the same time) you posted the journalist messedit up, I'm not surprised about that though. The media can almost never get stories about this stuff right.

[lastchance]

<-- wants to be wacki when he grows up.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
<-- wants to be wacki when he grows up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming from someone I respect, that is a huge compliment.

I appreciate the gesture.

[jokerswild]

Bush hasn't said this. He still puts out that global warming is not proven, and Limbaugh says that if you believe in it, then you are a Chinese communist.

It would appear that adios's own party believes that he is card carrying member.

Du bist ein dumbkopf.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend from high school wants to get a loan to build a nuclear power plant. His dad has made lots of money building hydro-electric plants. How realistic is my friend's plans? He has two problems. 1. Securing a loan/investors. 2. Getting a permit to build such a plant.


[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be that you would need several powerful politicians in your pocket to get approval to build a nucalear plant anywhere. I doubt your friend could get enough capital when competeing against the major power companies for funds.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I can decode your cryptic post - but I reiterate my support for johnc's post on this topic. He provides four good reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels - none of which rely on junk science.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush hasn't said this. He still puts out that global warming is not proven, and Limbaugh says that if you believe in it, then you are a Chinese communist.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can someone be a Chinese communist who isn't even Chinese in the first place? Do you have a link?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I see nuclear power as a stop-gap measure until less strategically targetable sources can be vigorously explored and put on line such as solar, cold fusion (which will lead to cost effective hydrogen cell production).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let's push cold fusion. A technology that for all we know today is not even theoretically possible.

Oh, and by the way. Even if we manage it, it does not lead to "cost effective hydrogen cell production"
It might lead to cost effective hydrogen production, but will have very little bearing on the actual fuel cell. And hydrogen prodction using electrolysis requires fresh water, which we are already having problems with, and especially so the US.

Then again. The hydrogen economy is a myth, without fusion it will never come to be. And even with fusion it is very unlikely to be of much use.

And fusion is 50 years away, just as it was 50 years ago. Fusion, the power of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
This has already been explained a million times in this forum. I really don't care anymore. Humans are stupid.


[/ QUOTE ]
Watch it, you're starting to sound like me.

Ohh, and by the way. Saudi Arabia is pumping flat out, no more spare capacity. A major canadian bank has issued a report stating Ghawar is in decline. Major investment bank in the US has issued warning for 380$ oil in a few years.

In the words of the conductor in Harry Potter, Buckle up Dorothy, it's going to be a bumpy ride.*

Edit: hmm, i'm probably mixing quotes here, well well

[Il_Mostro]

Intervju with GWB on energy and other things. Pages 5 and on are about energy, makes for an interesting read.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7559029/)

It seems they have the problem in sight, now all they need is to understand that the proposed solutions aren't worth a penny.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Global warming is not a fact.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is not a fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

= 1 more human that is too lazy to click on a link and read. Not to mention too dense to listen to every single scientist that has ever published a paper in reputable journal in the last 20 years. His counterpoints are almost as well researched and almost as eloquent as a toddler that hasn't been potty trained yet.

Humans like this are worth little more then the cattle used for hamburger meat IMO. Cannabilism should be legalized and dumbass steak should appear on the menu at your local psych ward.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is not a fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

= 1 more human that is too lazy to click on a link and read. Not to mention too dense to listen to every single scientist that has ever published a paper in reputable journal in the last 20 years. His counterpoints are almost as well researched and almost as eloquent as a toddler that hasn't been potty trained yet.

Humans like this are worth little more then the cattle used for hamburger meat IMO. Cannabilism should be legalized and dumbass steak should appear on the menu at your local psych ward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see - either everyone must agree with you instantly...or you will feed us to the mentally ill?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
His counterpoints are almost as well researched and almost as eloquent as a toddler that hasn't been potty trained yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Global warming is not a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a fact that those that make thier conclusions based on the vague suppositions of an non scientist on a poker forum whilst ignoring the opinions of the scientific community and its arduos and ongoing research are fools.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Global warming is not a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a fact that those that make thier conclusions based on the vague suppositions of an non scientist on a poker forum whilst ignoring the opinions of the scientific community and its arduos and ongoing research are fools.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose your point is that the views of non scientist poker forum posters cannot be trusted. So, as a scientist, you must be aware that some of your colleagues have reservations about the level of "proof" regarding global warming and its causes.

Surely you are aware that NASA scientists have been studying this issue and have expressed the following viewpoint (below). In light of this scientific opinion, some lay people may be unwilling to accept your views on global warming. Although you almost had me convinced of your views when you began the personal attacks and name calling (which are surefire evidence of your scientific genius).

From NASA Global Hydrology and Climate Center:
Mankind's impact on the global climate and whether pollution from modern energy use is indeed warming the Earth have become important issues for national and international policy makers. Political pressure and public sentiment are based on complex data sets that, alone, cannot tell the whole story. The ultimate question is whether our climate is becoming warmer because of the slow build-up in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The answer is not clear, because much of what we know about global climate change in inferred from historical evidence of uncertain quality. Reliable ground-based measurements by scientific instruments have been made just in this century. These measure conditions only at the location of each instrument, and they are usually land-based, although 75% of the Earth is covered with water. We have been able to take precise, direct measurements only in the last four decades, and not until the advent of precision spaceborne instruments in the 1970s were we able to measure global temperatures at a range of altitudes across the entire atmosphere.

Source Link: http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is not clear, because much of what we know about global climate change in inferred from historical evidence of uncertain quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is all the arguement you need to completely discredit the Vostok ice core data, C12/C14 data, rising oil prices, several billion developing people in China/India, and EM spectral analysis then you are indeed one hell of a gambler.

You also need to realize that NASA, a direct government organization is very much affected by politics. It is much easier, and safer, for them to give out grants to academic/nonprofit researchers and have them say what NASA can't. This is something they do on a very regular basis. This is also something the US Navy does as well.

You also need to realize that NASA's Goddard Institute is strongly pushing climate change education and research. They are even handing out expensive climate prediction software for free to every highschool in america and trying to teach them how to use it. If you read my links you would know this.

Now, after making me repeat information I've already posted countless times, what do you think about that article?

P.S. I will give you credit for atleast doing a google search.

[wacki]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

New findings show soot may be contributing to changes near the North Pole, including increased melting of sea ice and snow and warmer atmospheric temperatures. (Mar. '05)

Although natural variability resulted in a cool summer in the United States, the average global surface temperatures for climatological 2004 turned out the fourth warmest.

A new NASA computer model allows educators and students to simulate the global climate and study climate change in the classroom.

Acid rain is an unlikely help in limiting the greenhouse gas methane. Scientists recently discovered that low levels of sulfate in acid rain block some bacteria found in wetlands from producing methane.

Just read the front page. Randomly clicking on any three of the links on that page should prove my point that NASA is worried.

[vulturesrow]

Wacki,

Let me get this straight. You think there is no valid criticism of the global warming effect, or more specifically, that there is anything humans can do to mitigate it?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
that there is anything humans can do to mitigate it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am a firm believer that technology can solve our energy and global warming problems. Which is why I keep posting the smalley video. The cost of that program is insignificant. About 5 cents per gallon of gasoline.

[ QUOTE ]
You think there is no valid criticism of the global warming effect,

[/ QUOTE ]

There is, but I really haven't seen anyone post it on this forum yet. And when comparing that arguement to all of the data that says global warming is a problem, and the undeniable proof that energy is going to be a problem, it's moronic not to do something about it.

Watch the video vulturesrow. Listen to it while playing a table or two of poker online. His powerpoint is at his website. I would be amazed if you watched it and didn't think it was in Americas best interest to enact that program even if you completely wipe global warming out of the equation. Hell, even if you use the economy as the only reason I would still be amazed if you disagreed.

PDF
http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia20030923.pdf
PPT
http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt

Big Video
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv
Small Video
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_100k.wmv

[vulturesrow]

I havent really made up my mind yet wacki and I am not going to offer much of an opinion yet. My main reason for throwing that question out there is that it bothers me for some reason to see you acting so dogmatic about this. I know you have strong feelings about it and I respect that, but thinking people should be ground up into hamburger meat because they dont agree is a bit extreme. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you have strong feelings about it and I respect that, but thinking people should be ground up into hamburger meat because they dont agree is a bit extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steak vulturesrow, not hamburger, steak. There is a big difference. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I intentionally went a little Zeno. If I didn't, then my post would kill the thread and nobody would hear what I just said. Also, when it comes to lazy posters, it is my firm belief that they need to be smacked around a little. I don't have the time, or the will, to combat lazyness.

Now if you excuse me, I'm late for an appointment.

Good luck and play well vulturesrow.

[wacki]

One more thing.

I also believe that technology isn't the only solution, but it is by far the easiest.

I also believe that if energy is solved, the worlds top 10 problems are either solved or now have an acceptable path to being solved. Smalley discusses this in detail.

[player24]

It is unfortunate that a conversation which began with a strong level of agreement over the desirability of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels quickly transitioned into a debate over which of the many reasons for doing so should dominate our thinking. (Accompanied by personal attacks against those who continue to express skepticism regarding global warming.)

Global warming caused by humans is a possibility that enjoys majority acceptance in the scientific community, but many scientists remain unconvinced as to the extent of the problem and its causes. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Link to useful information, including the views of skeptics within the scientific community: (provided by a so-called lazy poster - sigh...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Link to useful information, including the views of skeptics within the scientific community: (provided by a so-called lazy poster - sigh...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats, you found wikipedia. This has been posted before and discussed. Lets see if you can figure out how to use the search function. Either that or highlight what you think are the most important points and I can counter them.... again.

And yes you are lazy. Your first several posts were horrible. Your NASA post wasn't bad, other then the fact that you didn't read my links. This one was was a decline from the NASA post.

Maybe you should read the links you posted. Here, from an opponent inside your "scientific community":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%F8rn_Lomborg

Now think about this, a political science major accussed of fraud/dishonesty from multiple organizations is one of the top 10 critics of global warming in the "scientific community". When did political science = real science? Doesn't that tell you something?? Also, he a horrible statician and this has been shown over and over again.

BTW, the most respected man on that list recieves $2,500 a day from oil companies for consulting purposes. Just something to chew on.

Next time, read your own links.

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming caused by humans is a possibility that enjoys majority acceptance in the scientific community, but many scientists remain unconvinced as to the extent of the problem and its causes. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by many you mean vast minority, we agree.

[wacki]

More on Lomborg (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=1543361&Fo rum=c7&Words=lomborg&Searchpage=0&Limit=255&Main=1 537129&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=7066&dateran ge=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&b odyprev=#Post1543361)

Here is tons of stuff on Lomborg that Wikipedia left out.

[vulturesrow]

Wacki,

Two things for you. One, be careful of the ad hominems. It doesnt become you. Secondly, my major beef with global warming supporters is the models they rely on. Being pretty familiar with complex models through my economics degree, I am in agreement with some of the criticisms of them. Now up to you whether you want to deal with my laziness /images/graemlins/smile.gif but what say you about those criticisms?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki,

Two things for you. One, be careful of the ad hominems. It doesnt become you.

[/ QUOTE ]

As hominem of who? Lomborg??? He deserves every bit of it. His math is very sloppy and so are his tactics. The global warming critic that get $2,500 a day? I simply used it as a red flag, not an attack.

The poster? Maybe I was too harsh on him but I'm trying to anger the opposition to find something that hasn't been posted 50 times before. I am experimenting with this tactic and I'm not sure if it's the proper way. Get someone reasonable like adios, you, lastchance, Zeno, etc and my tone changes instantly. I don't have time to be polite and thoroughly explain everything to every troll that enters this forum or hold every lazy persons hand.

Maybe this tactic is wrong, I'm not sure, I guess that is up for debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, my major beef with global warming supporters is the models they rely on. Being pretty familiar with complex models through my economics degree, I am in agreement with some of the criticisms of them. Now up to you whether you want to deal with my laziness /images/graemlins/smile.gif but what say you about those criticisms?

[/ QUOTE ]

A reasonable arguement against the hockey stick. However, if you look at the C12/C14 data, Vostok Ice core, spectral analysis of greenhouse gases, you will realize that there is no complex math/models. A simple cross tabulation is all you need.

Now, if you move on to Lomborg and all of those critics, the math gets incredibly complex. Those "scientists" also have a long history of getting even the most trivial problems wrong. So if you want to point to a specific model, please, be my guest.

To be honest, your argument, atleast on the surface, seems more of an argument against the critics. You are going to have to be more precise.

[andyfox]

Good article in the April 25th edition of The New Yorker, the first of a three-parter. It's a report from the Arctic on the realities of global warming.

[Zeno]

We have been over this whole thing very recently 'Global Warming Thread' (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1737650&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1) and previous to that, about a year ago I think, we had another very long thread/ discussion about it. It is taxing and too time consuming to go over everything again and again. So try and have some understanding of Wacki's position.

Indeed there are some inherent problems that come into play in highly complex models; I mentioned this in the last thread about Global Warming or the one previous to it anyway. But this, in itself, does not discredit the whole hypothesis. It may change some numbers and the relative quantity of the error bars for different parameters predicted by a certain model but not the entire model. And further refinements and adjustments can be made when better data or more accurate measurements become available and additional adjustments made, part of a continual process that is the living and breathing model of a working hypothesis - The scientific method in action – which is hardly dogmatic, in fact the antithesis of dogmatic thinking or orthodoxy.

It is possible that human influence on climate change has been overestimated, or underestimated. It is probably too early to say for certain either way. Prudence would dictate that some form of action would be the wise course. What that action needs to be is hotly debated. And mostly debated by morons and demagogues that should be taken out and shot. Anyway, Wacki and I have come out on the same side of the ledger as concerns the Kyoto Accords. They are bosh.

Finally, I to get fed up with the perpetual ignorance and laziness of many that post on this forum. Wacki and I have posted numerous scientific and other very informative links on climate change. I doubt if anyone has seriously read or studied any of them.

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

I doubt if anyone has seriously read or studied any of them.

Actually, I'll confess to reading 2 or 3 of them. I particularly liked the "Tree-ring-hockey-stick" article that discussed PCA (Primary Component Analysis?). I think most poker players would have liked it, what with all posts we get from people using poker tracker software, and the individual stats that they seem to fall in love with. But, I digress...

The thing that bugs me about some of the "scientific" papers is that they are written by scientists and not bookmakers. They seem to support only one side of the issue. I'd like to read a paper that concludes, "After an analysis of the data, we conclude that there is a 70% chance for global warming, 20% for cooling and 10% neither." It's hard to know what to think without seeing the money line. I think an advanced degree in the sciences should require at least six months OJT dishing the line. But, I digress...

And the guy from Rice's suggestion that we might want to start funding some research might not be a bad one.

jmho

[wacki]

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif Zeno

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that bugs me about some of the "scientific" papers is that they are written by scientists and not bookmakers. They seem to support only one side of the issue. I'd like to read a paper that concludes, "After an analysis of the data, we conclude that there is a 70% chance for global warming, 20% for cooling and 10% neither." It's hard to know what to think without seeing the money line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any paper that gives you these kinds of stats would most likely be filled with just a bunch of bad math. The key is to understand the mechanisms and then use common sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I think an advanced degree in the sciences should require at least six months OJT dishing the line. But, I digress...

[/ QUOTE ]

OJT dishing the line????? That's what internships/research assistantships are for. 6 months?? What is the point of this? Why would you say anything like this?

Just curious about your reasoning/position.

[Phat Mack]

Any paper that gives you these kinds of stats would most likely be filled with just a bunch of bad math. The key is to understand the mechanisms and then use common sense.

It seems to me that there are so many variables acting on each other in so many ways that a wide range of outcomes could be expected. Why not use baysean analysis to predict the likeliness of occurance of the different outcomes?

What got me thinking about this was an article I read recently (NYT?) putting forth the idea that global warming could melt the ice caps and glaciers to an extent that the cold-water runoff could shut down the Gulfstream--triggering cooling in certain areas. Another thing I was thinking about was the data in a linked article (it's been a couple of months, I can't remember which one) discussing the capability of airborne polutants to both trap heat and reflect sunlight, leading me to believe that either cooling or warming might be possibile outcomes.

So I guess what I want to know is this: if we accept the fact that climate change is taking place, is it like a train heading down a track, or is it like a drunk staggering back to his hotel room after a hard night in a strange town? I haven't read anything by anybody I consider competent saying "I am certain this is what is going to happen in the next 100 years." Why not try to quantify the likelihood of possibile occurances?

OJT dishing the line?????

You're right. Dishing the line would teach nothing. Six months of P&C would offer better instruction on the vagaries of chance.

[wacki]

I wasn't questioning your belief, I was curious about your reasoning. P&C??? What is that?

P&C Petroleum and Chemical
P&C Points and Credits
P&C Prevention and Compliance (US Coast Guard)
P&C Producers & Consumers (grocery chain)
P&C Property and Casualty (insurance)
P&C Private and Confidential

?????

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to know what to think without seeing the money line.

[/ QUOTE ]


If I had extra cash I would be putting money in companies that monitor 'smokestacks' or build and/or engineer equipment and instrumentation that can measure and monitor emissions in the atmosphere. This all will come into play more and more when 'pollution' and carbon credits become economic commodities. I think they are already traded in Europe and soon will be in America.

But all that is a side issue. The majority of the science community, in academia anyway, is not engaged in the economic sphere, or only to the extent of acquiring grants or monies for their research. So the 'money line' gets pushed back and goes largely unnoticed. But I digress.

'Global Warming' deals with, obviously, the whole earth and indeed the solar system to some extent. Everything from the migration patterns of butterflies, to isostatic rebound, the earths wobble and orbit, to deep or shallow ocean currents, to particles in the stratosphere are all in play. Every poker game conceivable (and some that are not yet conceived but will be and interjected at random later on) is ongoing and constantly changing. Take a seat and start playing. My money is on the house.

But I digress.

Have humans influenced the earth's climate? I'm 99% sure they have. What's the extent of that influence? I'm 99% sure we really don't know - YET.

-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
We have been over this whole thing very recently 'Global Warming Thread' and previous to that, about a year ago I think, we had another very long thread/ discussion about it. It is taxing and too time consuming to go over everything again and again. So try and have some understanding of Wacki's position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly do understand Wacki's frustration, I share it on many issues. My post wasnt intended as an attack. I just dont want him to hurt his credibility by turning people into steak. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I enjoy having him contribute his knowledge to our forum.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed there are some inherent problems that come into play in highly complex models; I mentioned this in the last thread about Global Warming or the one previous to it anyway. But this, in itself, does not discredit the whole hypothesis. It may change some numbers and the relative quantity of the error bars for different parameters predicted by a certain model but not the entire model. And further refinements and adjustments can be made when better data or more accurate measurements become available and additional adjustments made, part of a continual process that is the living and breathing model of a working hypothesis - The scientific method in action – which is hardly dogmatic, in fact the antithesis of dogmatic thinking or orthodoxy.

It is possible that human influence on climate change has been overestimated, or underestimated. It is probably too early to say for certain either way. Prudence would dictate that some form of action would be the wise course. What that action needs to be is hotly debated. And mostly debated by morons and demagogues that should be taken out and shot. Anyway, Wacki and I have come out on the same side of the ledger as concerns the Kyoto Accords. They are bosh.



[/ QUOTE ]

I actually dont disagree with this for the most part. But it seems that much of the debate is argued using these climate models as their basis when it seems clear to me that their accuracy can be honestly questioned. It goes to what I said to a poster in another thread in which I basically said dont pass your assumptions off as fact.

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that human influence on climate change has been overestimated, or underestimated. It is probably too early to say for certain either way. Prudence would dictate that some form of action would be the wise course. What that action needs to be is hotly debated. And mostly debated by morons and demagogues that should be taken out and shot. Anyway, Wacki and I have come out on the same side of the ledger as concerns the Kyoto Accords. They are bosh.

Finally, I to get fed up with the perpetual ignorance and laziness of many that post on this forum. Wacki and I have posted numerous scientific and other very informative links on climate change. I doubt if anyone has seriously read or studied any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Thanks for the reply Zeno.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't questioning your belief, I was curious about your reasoning. P&C??? What is that?

P&C Petroleum and Chemical
P&C Points and Credits
P&C Prevention and Compliance (US Coast Guard)
P&C Producers & Consumers (grocery chain)
P&C Property and Casualty (insurance)
P&C Private and Confidential

?????

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Paying and Collecting. "Dishing the line" and "P&C" are old bookmaker's terms.

Dishing the Line = answering the phones and telling customers what the spreads are.

P&C = running around town on Tuesdays and/or Wednsdays collecting from, and paying off, clients.

Edit: Money line = odds on the outcome of a sporting event without handicapping a team by the addition or subtraction of points.

[Phat Mack]

Have humans influenced the earth's climate? I'm 99% sure they have.

I'd have to agree. I think one would have to be catatonic, or less than 10 years of age, not to think that humans have influenced the earth's climate.

What's the extent of that influence? I'm 99% sure we really don't know - YET.

I agree with this also. I was interested in extent, and I was interested in direction, but what with butterflies in Peking and earth-wobbling poker games, I understand the lack of even an educated guess. But please try to understand--and this may be difficult for a misanthope--that Spring is upon us and I have important wardrobe decisions to make.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
But please try to understand--and this may be difficult for a misanthope--that Spring is upon us and I have important wardrobe decisions to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

By coincidence, I to am making wardrobe decisions. In fact, I just purchased a sharp looking, long sleeve white dress shirt. I already have a short sleeve one. But definitely I think you should lean to the short sleeve and Hawaiian style or beach wear type apparel. Cotton and linen and soft and loose fitting clothes for the cool, suave, and comfortable look, topped off with a white straw hat with a colorful band. And don’t forget the cigar. After all, we need to flame out in style, don't you think.

Le Misanthrope

[wacki]

Just curious Phat Mack, how would a scientist do some P&C??? Also, how would a scientist dish the line?