Anyone right or left who thinks nuclear pollution is the answer to environmental concens is like a person who thinks that the answer to famine is locusts.

There are safer, renewable, non-polluting energy sources (e.g. solar, wind) that given the proper economic incentives could provide much of our power.

Anything else is a scam.


Jack Shalom

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever read. You guys claim that global warming is a myth perpetrated by liberal hippie wackos, but you provide little to no proof in support of your hypothesis. The articles you guys link to aren't fact-based; they're opinion articles loosely written around scientific reports (but many of the articles skew the facts from those reports). You bash Gore's movie, but you haven't even seen it.

Come on.

I'm currently in college majoring in Engineering Physics (I'm a senior), so I spend tons of time continually analyzing and learning about the scientific method and how to apply it to the real world, including how to look at studies and "facts" and interpret whether or not they make sense or are reasonable. This is why it kills me when people (like some on this forum) aren't willing to spend time looking at the actual facts, but are happy to shout out their ill-informed opinions and look down on anyone with a different viewpoint than they have.

That said, I disagree just as much with the “sky-is-falling” leftists as I do with the people who claim that climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy. I try to look at the scientific facts and data as much as possible and make up my judgments based on that. Climate change makes this more difficult, however, because any real scientists won’t make any utterly conclusive statements in terms of humanity’s exact impact on the climate or the effect that global climate change might have (even if they believe that it is real and a grave threat) since there is a degree of uncertainty in any scientific research, especially when it is current and ongoing. Therefore, we have to be wary about anyone making any claim for or against global warming with absolute certainty in their conclusions.

You want to get a better opinion about climate change? I suggest reading the IPCC report (not just a summary from someone who might have an agenda) at http://www.ipcc.ch/ or checking out the 2003 Pentagon report on climate change (where they concluded, interestingly, that climate change could potentially be a more serious threat to national security than terrorism) called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” (just do a google search to find it). If you look at the latter, keep in mind that they were specifically looking for potentially negative effects of climate change (although the more recent data tends to agree more with their model than the less threatening climate change models). Both of these are fact-based resources that should allow you to draw your own conclusions in regards to this topic.

If turk happens to read this rather long post, the answers to most of your questions lie within these two sources, so I hope you check them out.

Also, I wanted to point out to kregg that the idea behind dumping iron into the ocean wasn’t to kill algae, but to create an entire field of algae centered around the iron deposits that could absorb CO2, thereby reducing climate change. Helps to get the basic facts correct ;-)

Anyway, sorry about the length, it ended up being bigger than I expected.

Neither solar nor wind is able to produce power continuously on a regular basis, and therefore can't be the sole source of our power (though it can play a much larger part than it is now). You may dislike it, but nuclear power is cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable than solar or wind, and is thus (at least at the moment) a much better alternative to traditional coal-based power plants. Trust me, I'm all for going with renewable energy as much as possible, but we have to look at the realities of the situation. Nuclear is already competitive with coal, and it's a lot better for the environment overall. It is a proven technology that works.

Essie,
We've had this discussion before (several times) and it floats off into dark, emotional waters, then ultimately it vanishes from the Café. This one is heading in that direction. Though many don't use the terms anthropogenic or manmade, most have an understanding that the earth does indeed warm and cool. Having read the IPCC report, when it was too big to download, I didn't agree with the initial conclusions. I felt the same over the Kyoto treaty. The same question kept coming up, why exclude the largest populations on earth poised to strike a huge blow on the ecosystem (thanks to emerging economies)? Who invested in their economies?

Governments and industries are always suspect when they do their own studies. Had IPCC stood for
Inter-Corporational Panel on Climate Change it would have been tossed out in an instant.

I too am for nuclear energy solutions.

Kregg

Where's Val Kilmer and cold fusion when you need them?

I think cold fusion was put on the back burner with Val's career.

Possibly here

http://business-school-blog.elliottback.......mes-bbc/

Val Kilmer? What does Doc Holliday have to do with cold fusion?

Interesting.

http://www.ecowatts.co.uk/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar......and=true

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblo......le_tube/

To be fair, though, they are not really claiming that it creates more energy than is put in, just that it releases more energy than is put in.

Here is a different water as energy story ... did you know that you can actually 'burn' water with radio waves? Apparently a scientist at PSU has verified this.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/10/......ts-true/

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/200......rgy.aspx

So is your problem really primarily with the facts and science of global warming, or is it with some of the policy being proposed to combat it?

It sounds to me as though you are concerned with policy and with the fairness of the resulting economic consequences.

I'm sure many people who believe the scientists saying that global warming is a problem are similarly not satisfied with some of the policy being developed to combat GW.

Throwing out the science (if you are) just because you do not believe in the policy is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Yes but it takes more energy to generate the radio waves than you get out of the hydrogen produced.

It's unfortunate that people get too emotional to discuss this issue rationally, since it really doesn't help anyone involved if no one is willing to be open-minded. No large report or study, like the IPCC, is going to be entirely free of bias (no matter how hard they try), but I still think it's worth looking at since it is currently the most up-to-date, "official" consensus on global warmng at the moment. Also, I'm probably more likely to trust a governmental study than a study by a corporation because (at least ostensibly) a government is more focused on the welfare of its citizens rather than money. That said, it's clear that that idyllic view of the government isn't necessarily true, and all studies need to be looked at objectively. I also agree that Kyoto isn't really a good solution because of the selectivity of the requirements for each country (not to mention the relatively small impact it would have even if everyone agreed to it), but on the other hand at least it's an attempt to give things a push in the right direction.

Apparently not necessarily:

"Dr. Roy speculates that because the 13.56-MHz radio frequency is a harmonic of the natural frequency of sodium ions, the waves are causing these positive ions to vibrate intensely. Van der Waal's effects attract the oxygen end of water molecules to the positive sodium ions, and the vibration shakes the oxygen molecules hard enough to break the hydrogen bonds, freeing the hydrogen gas, which then ignites and burns. If true, the radio waves may be giving us electrolysis at a deep energy discount, allowing the flame to produce a net energy gain without breaking any thermodynamic laws."

See http://www.motortrend.com/features/edito......hnologue

Yes on both counts. I don't think that a warming of 6/10 of one degree over a 150 year history is a big deal. This keeps getting downgraded. We've only been keeping accurate records for a short time. The United States has the majority of weather stations and those stations don't follow specific standardized guidelines (I can only imagine how they're taken/recorded elsewhere?). The rest of the data has been devised in labs, quite often using faulty modeling software; like the famed hockey stick or the recent admission by James Hansen that the NASA computers were affected by a Y2K glitch, making 1934 the warmest year on record and dropping 1998 to second place.
The simplified version: The build up of CO2 feeds more vegetation, which helps to create more water vapor, which leads to cloud cover; thus cooling is the outcome. Many cite convection with relation to CO2 build-up it the troposphere, but the earth isn't like a convection oven with a closed door. It's more like having the oven door open.
Too many look for the simple answers and have stopped there. The solar maximus, changes in the lunar orbit and the gradual reversal of magnetic (+/-) poles have a lot of influence on our tiny sphere, but, the data collectors have played down the importance of these occurrences.
Peer reviews make sense, but, the best way to keep friends and colleagues from copying one another's notes would be to always require a double blind review. Not to mention, trying to keep outcome driven bureaucrats and politicos fingers out of the frosting (me,me,me,now,now,now,yum,yum,yum). Fear is a big seller.

The press has been reporting a lot about a "super bug" of late. If it comes down to the fault of schools for using environmentally friendly cleaning products, instead of bleach or ammonia, will this get the same press coverage? I dare say no. But, memos will make there way to superintendents nationwide.