Interplanner
Newbie
theories like R. Carlsons ban on DDT which has caused the death of some 100M Africans.
Upvote
0
Sorry pal, but the EBR2 ran for 30 years and was built in the 1960's. And guess what? Meltdown schmeltdown!! The EBR2 (an Integral Fast Reactor prototype built in the 1960's) would *easily* have survived a Fukushima-style power outage. A tidal wave knocks out your cooling systems? Big deal!German scientists say that alternative energy will never provide more than half a percent of need. That's after 20 years of trying.
There's all sorts of things wrong with wind and solar, but the main one is intermittency. But that can be solved with a majority nuclear grid. If about 60% or 70% of our electricity come from nuclear power, we'll be OK. Just today's nuclear waste will run the world for 5 centuries. IFR's can be put up on the assembly line, trucked to site, and clipped together like so much lego. This will crash prices!Another new report says that there is a fatal flaw in wind energy devices, which is their vibration stress or harmonics. The use will peak and succumb and the replacement cost is not built in. Perhaps that is why the recent video on US news of the failed one just being pulled down, not repaired.
Your raving, again. Without links to verifiable sources, again. Guess what? I'm not bothering, again. You've got to slow down, breathe a little, and learn to take your time to link to verifiable source material and make a clear and coherent argument. I'm simply not bothering to reply until you decide which particular denialist myth you're quoting, and what you're actually trying to say. The above is just a big bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth who-ha fluff. Faulty premises built on a poor understanding of climate claims. Straw-man attacks and Bulverisms. Excuse me, but I'm just bored by it all.A new island just formed near Japan. Did Al factor that (ongoing thermal activity) into the ocean levels, either the level or the temperature? (note that it's in the north Pacific, and drifts to the American coast.) If we know all that kind of thing, why did the US weather service have to delay its snowpack survey in Washington state 2 years ago by one month to May 1 because "there was so much snow that most access roads were blocked." It was the first time since the program began that that was ever necessary. In 2012! The very year/decade/half century when it ought to have been otherwise! Nay, nay, its just anecdotal nonsense. It's "insensitive to warming"!
Eclipsenow,
Firstly let me say that the facts behind the global fraud committed by banks and financial institutions is beyond debate and they are rightly called banksters. (And no one is suggesting discrediting all their views simply because of their ongoing fraud (as you seem to propose for people that reject the false science of the IPCC). The truly amazing fact is that no one has gone to jail for this massive fraud and abuse of the capitalist system. I rightly call these banksters because it is clear they operate in the same manner as the mobsters of the early 20th century and indeed seem to be untouchable.
So untouchable that they have been encouraged on this next fraud (anthropogenic global warming) which surpasses any fraud of the past. Needless to say the same people and companies have lined up to fleece humanity again. This is indisputable fact!
The only reason why carbon aligned investment is at risk is because of the deceptive policies of the discredited IPCC (who are funded by the same banksters) They are putting people's super at risk by their false science. Meanwhile China and India are building 100's of coal fired power stations which should protect all coal aligned investments for years to come in spite of the hysterical claims of the IPCC. But I guess if you control the media its quite easy to change policies of countries without real science being called upon. (repeat a lie often enough.....)
The reality is that man's impact on climate is frankly insignificant. The sun goes through cycles and greater activity just as it has throughout time. Right now Nasa ia actually disputing the claims of their own climate branch, stating that ice levels in the poles are thicker than ever.... Alarmists then defend by saying colder than usual air is being directed over the poles causing this phenomenon but then reject the reality of warmer air being directed over land masses... You just cant win with these liars.
Time will show this whole global warming drama to be a money making hoax. Those that are perpetuating the myth are set to make trillions of dollars. And that is the end of the matter. Anything else is irrelevant.
I couldn't agree more...a few years ago I used to believe all that global warming stuff, but further research revealed it to be all a bunch of hogwash...another money making racket by as you stated...the banksters...but...it really doesn't matter anyway because God is in control...not man...He has the power to change everything and anything...new heaven...new earth.
Fossil fuels divestment campaign is gathering momentum | Bill McKibben | Environment | theguardian.comThat in turn is why the fossil fuel industry, when it isn't in outright denial about climate change, falls into the first camp: slow, measured change would be nice. Because then we could pump up all the carbon we've told our shareholders and our banks about. Because then our stock prices will stay nice and high. Because then we won't have to confront reality – otherwise known as physics – for a while longer.
The gulf between these two camps poses a huge question for those who might think of themselves on the sidelines. Those, say, who own shares in the fossil fuel industry. In the US, a number of colleges, churches, and universities have begun to divest those stocks, arguing that they can't both simultaneously decry the wreckage of the climate and try to profit from it for a few more years.
The mayor of Seattle explained that his city was already spending millions building seawalls – what sense did it make to invest in the companies making that work necessary? The trustees of San Francisco State University recognised that it made no sense to have, on the one hand, a physics department understanding climate change and on the other hand, an endowment full of oil and gas stocks. The United Church of Christ, which traces its roots back to the Pilgrims, decided it couldn't pay the pastor by investing in companies that are running Genesis backwards.
This same opportunity is becoming part of a worldwide debate. From Africa come some of the loudest voices demanding divestment: Desmond Tutu, who watched the effectiveness of the movement a generation ago when it was stock in apartheid-tainted companies that was at issue, has asked us to take up the same tool. "If you could see the drought and famine in Africa, you would understand why," he says.
And it's not just North America responding. The Uniting Church in Australia, Anglican dioceses in New Zealand, and now the UK's Operation Noah have launched Bright Now – a church divestment campaign whose first success came earlier this month with the Quakers in Britain announcing they will disinvest from companies engaged in extracting fossil fuels making them the first UK Christian denomination to do so.
In addition, UK university students are increasingly engaged in divestment campaigns as evidenced by the work undertaken by People & Planet. To date there are 19 active divestment campaigns across the UK including universities with the largest endowments: Cambridge, Oxford and Edinburgh.
We'll be looking to grow the campaign this month with the Fossil Free Europe tour, a divestment road show with stops in Berlin, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Birmingham and London.
Everyone involved in this campaign understands that divestment won't in fact bankrupt Exxon or BP or Shell, but they also understand how important it is to politically bankrupt them. These are now rogue industries, committed to burning more carbon than any government on earth thinks would be safe to burn. Their irresponsibility belongs to their executives and boards of directors – but it also belongs to anyone who holds their shares. If you think that climate change is a true crisis, then the time has come to sever your ties.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/recursive-fury-huffpo.htmlIn 2012, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues surveyed more than 1,000 climate blog readers and observed a link between science denial and conspiracy theorizing. People who denied scientific propositions such as the link between AIDS and HIV or climate change and human activity were more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories like Princess Diana was murdered or AIDS was created by the government. How did climate deniers respond to evidence associating science denial with conspiracy theorizing? With more conspiracy theories, of course!
The conspiracy theories directed toward the "moon landing paper" began small-scale, but grew in scope and intricacy. Now to social scientists, such a public response can mean only one thing. Data! I collaborated with Lewandowsky in documenting the various conspiracy theories and tracking their evolution over time. The analysis has now been published in the paper "Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation."
Conspiracy theorists exhibit a number of tell-tale characteristics. Almost ubiquitous is the accusation of nefarious intent. After all, people never conspire with benevolent intent (unless planning a surprise party). One theory promoted by climate deniers focused on the experiment design used for the "moon landing paper." The scientists emailed survey invitations to a range of climate blogs -- some endorsing the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming and others denying the consensus.
Climate deniers accused the scientists of lying about contacting denial blogs. A flood of bloggers came forward to say they hadn't received the invitation. Amusingly, five of those bloggers were the five who had actually been contacted. Irony overload was reached when one of those contacted went so far as to provide the email address of the lead author's university, encouraging readers to send allegations of misconduct.
Another trait of conspiracy theorists is the mentality that "something must be wrong." If a theory is shown to be demonstrably false, the conspiracy theorist can smoothly shift to another theory while maintaining an unshaken belief that "the official account must be wrong." After the names of the five contacted bloggers were released, conspiracy theorists transitioned to a spin-off theory: "obviously they never intended for the skeptic blogs to respond." New theory, same accusation of nefarious intent.
Click here for the rest of the story.
...God is in control...not man...that is not a conspiracy theory...and if as Christians we are living as God intended...we have nothing...absolutely nothing to fear...He is our ruler and our judge...not man.The only bit he got right is that we are putting people's super at risk. That is absolutely true! But this is not a conspiracy, but an openly stated strategy! Christian climate writer Bill McKibben puts it this way:
Fossil fuels divestment campaign is gathering momentum | Bill McKibben | Environment | theguardian.com
I am openly, honestly, heart-on-sleeve doing my bit to promote divesting from fossil fuels. That's not a conspiracy: we're all telling you about it openly. It's called a safe climate policy! It's the only real strategy we've got against the lies and misinformation you denialists keep buying from Exxon's programs that your scratch itching ears. The only way you can be sure your super is safe is to join me in this, and get your funds out of coal, oil, and gas!
But your conspiracy theories are evidence of a thinking disorder.
Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
I'm glad to see this topic as I have been reading about chemtrails and watching videos. Some of the sources tell about methane gas and species dying off. I don't know if you have seen what I guess is Mr. T with words posted as to I pity the fool that thinks this is normal. ----Behind him are a lot of trails in the sky going various directions.
Peter was warning his generation (and all generations following) to keep away from false teachers. Remember, it was Peter who said that the Last Days had begun at Pentecost. (Acts 2). Check it out. In explaining Pentecost, Peter says "...this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:Eclispse, I don't care to discuss direct with you because you never summarized 2 Pet 3.
How on earth is any of this relevant to the current discussion? Anyway, it was your choice to blurt out your incomprehensible previous post, and yet you obviously feel comfortable leaving that hanging out there as an unintelligible mess? I did you the courtesy of saying I simply could not understand it as stated, and asked you to unpack it a bit, but now you're sidetracking the conversation?There's a famous quote in the US from the Bush year's. A college student was asked what his/her theology was. The answer was "Why does Bush allow so much evil to happen?" Yes, that was their theology. Until you comment on 2 Pet 3, it's too much like that student.
There's some good in that movement and concept, but I'm not a Nazi about it.Eclipse's friend wrote:
He concludes that there is a place for mourning the wholesale destruction of God's world that God made and cares about.
I do know a few spots in bad shape from human activity. It is not a case of wholesale destruction, nor a trashed planet. One of the most vigorous movements today is the 50 or 100 mile food movement, which says a lot by its size and by its doctrines about the destruction and the trash.
That is, against the use of those terms. Your opening OP forces us to accept the Ph.D. person's ability to reason. Bad start. Only in atheist, state-controlled societies (you would know this from knowing Calvin) is there no reason for improving things, because there is neither The Owner nor an owner, but the state, which is enormous and theoretic.
Nuclear power can generate all the fuel we need to run sustainable airlines. What's your point?This kind of speech keeps coming; this week it was the new Seattle socialist member of council who called Boeing an economic terrorist. Because profit is evil, and she has no idea profit is what creates jobs.
And the totalitarian Right that want to DICTATE to me that I can't have a stable climate, can't have a walkable city, can't live in a nation of energy independence, can't live in a nation of energy security, and can't even breathe fresh air because NOTHING, not even God himself, is allowed to interfere with the 'free' energy market? (Even if fossil fuel companies enjoy HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS a year in kick backs and tax breaks worldwide?)The totalitarian Left wants control of our thoughts, not just our actions.
Please tell me more about it and why you think it is an issue.I don't recall what you said about other periods of known major natural warming in history, so I'll ask for a line or two explanation again.
1, the disappearance of the Havasu from the Lake Mead area in the 12th century SW north America
Due to a colder globe, there were pockets of trapped local air that actually became a little warmer. But be careful what you think about Greenland, because the ice there is hundreds of thousands of years old. The MWP was no where near as warm as today! Next?2, the medieval warm period
El Nino may have been trapped back then, changing air flows. But I'm not sure what you mean about the Sahara. That's been a desert for a long, long time, apart from the areas that us human beings extended by cutting down all the trees for firewood.3, the major famine cycle of the Mediteranean basin, background of the patriach Joseph, and Abraham, and explanation of tropical forests under the Sahara sands etc.
Absolutely correct and absolutely false at the same time!All of which are established warming cycles that just happen; they have nothing to do with carbon or human activity.
I have no idea what tens of thousands choking means. People are pretty good at taking care of themselves and move out.
The Breakthrough Institute - "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"But while European newspapers splashed the news onto their front pages, other energy-crisis related news largely went unreported. Last year, for example, coal mining accidents killed 4,233 in China alone, while coal pollutants killed an estimated 13,200 Americans. And while you may remember a few of the 25 worst energy-related disasters of 2010, most went unnoticed by Western media and the public.
4,000 Times as Many People Die Per Unit of Coal Energy as Per Unit of Nuclear Energy | GeekosystemThis striking statistic and chart comes from this well-sourced Next Big Future article (interactive data visualization available here), which places the average number of deaths per terawatt-hour at 0.04 for nuclear (this takes Chernobyl into account), 36 for oil, and a whopping 161 for coal worldwide. The death rate per TWh of coal is even higher in China, at 278. (A terawatt-hour is the amount of work done by one terawatt of power expended for one hour of time.)
The deaths from traditional fuel sources are generally not as high-profile as those from nuclear energy particularly the one million deaths that the World Health Organization estimates occur each year due to coal-related air pollution. But this only serves to illustrate the tendency of people and the media that feeds that tendency to focus on the high-impact and low-probability rather than the pervasive and pernicious.
Incorrect: you obviously don't read the links I supply on my blog, which clearly shows in the sidebar that I am firmly in the middle. (As is American politics, which, once all the foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric is scraped away, only has 1% less tax per Unit GDP than Australia!) I am into Social Liberalism, which is roughly where Australia is. (America puts too much money into its military and not enough into Obamacare). My political preference is "Social Liberalism: Civil rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy".As Orwell noticed, the only dictatorships leftists have problems with are those on the right; they don't have problems with those of the left. You are an example of that, but history shows those of the left lead in kills.
You're being snide and impolite without ONCE linking to a credible source on this. For all I know you've indulged in yet more hearsay. It's YOUR job to run your argument, not mine. When you can be bothered to post about this properly, I'll be bothered to respond.re the Havasu / Lake Mead area. So why are you suddenly not on the i.net about that? Curious. Anyway, they were thriving until that century and then they had to move wherever they could because temps rose, aridity rose, and remained at the levels of today. For the past 8 centuries. Uh, let's see, wasn't the 12th century when Goodyear built a plant near there or something?
Evidence please? For all I know you've indulged in yet more hearsay. It's YOUR job to run your argument, not mine. When you can be bothered to post about this properly, I'll be bothered to respond. In the meantime, in case anyone here is influenced by Interplanner thinking Fox news or O'reiley is a valid scientific news stream, I'll link to some actual sources of real information!re the medieval warm. London had Christmas markets on the frozen Thames for 115 years or so between warming periods. So actually there is the small matter of accounting for 2 periods. Neither of which were in the evil industrial era.
So you think that democracy is a myth, and we should let corporations tell us how to live instead? You think voting is a farce, and that the power of our vote and our democratic representatives should be invalidated and we should let energy companies continue to kill 1 million people a year (through coal dust pollution), build cookie-cutter, energy intensive, land destroying suburbia instead of the traditional American urban form (now so rare it is called 'New Urbanism'), and most of all, we should NOT let our government representatives legislate policies that might deal with oil addiction once and for all and make the cities in our western nations energy independent, beautiful, coal-dust free and more convenient? Interesting! But we're still 'free', aren't we? Free to live the way corporate developers and Coke and Exxon tell us to live, it appears. Shhh, don't remind the Corporations that we live in a Democracy. It might incur their wrath!The totalitarian right is fiction. they are just responding to market preference.
Incorrect. The natural warming after the Milankovitch cycles finished does NOT explain the last half century of super-heated climate. I would be very relieved if we were still at the natural temperatures prior to the industrial revolution, but we are not.Beyond all of this, the whole earth net temp change since the ice age is warmer. Natural warming. I suppose this is "wrong" too, in your view?
I'm not an expert, but just someone who reads the experts. But I'm just pointing out that you are happy to patronise me with little thought and a bunch of clichés that you obviously heard on Fox news one night and didn't bother to check for yourself.Do you realize what you sound like when you "Do you even know what drives climate?" which props you up like the expert who can invent terms like "insensitive to warming" at will and have them imposed on people.
We have plenty of expertise in solar activity. How arrogantly the right-wing-denialist just asserts stuff without a scrap of evidence!Once again, nothing you've said mentions the solar activity of recent years, which we have no expertise in, except on the telecommunications end of things, it seems.
Please! This is a pathetic attempt at a right-wing justification of a lack of democratic freedoms! Please demonstrate that the Kings of Israel had no power to build roads or impose taxes for legitimate government functions. If Paul could write the following about pagan Roman Emperors who built temples to their own divinity, then we have NO excuse to try and argue that one political economy is more 'Christian' than another.You're right God does not interfere with the free market, because it means individual ownership of property, which is one of the main features of the image of God. That he owns things.
You're way out of line. We're talking about whether or not climate change is scientifically true, and whether our DEMOCRATIC governments are justified in tinkering with today's energy policy which leaves our economies addicted to depleting, dirty, mass-murdering coal and oil and gas. Rather we should be investing in sustainable, secure, safe renewables and nuclear energy. Do you WANT America vulnerable to the next oil crisis? To peak oil? You didn't reply to any of that. Do you WANT tens of thousands of Americans to suffocate from coal dust related diseases? Do you WANT America to be caught unprepared for when coal eventually peaks and starts to rise in price? Remember, the peak of a resource occurs roughly half way through the reserves lifetime. We are not talking about it running out, but suddenly becoming ever more expensive, sometimes suddenly and dramatically!That is why atheist countries like Ceaucescu's Romania are so abject. One rabbi says the most succinct way to put the 10 commands is 'do not steal' because the Creator and the created people have property that is inviolable. So that command truly summarizes all that is in the 10 commands.
“Darwin may become “in terms of climatic extremes, unlike anywhere currently on the planet””
...
"Although nations have committed to limit warming to below 2C, the book calculates that the world emits far too much CO2 – to the tune of 14bn tonnes – to keep to this target. For this gap to be bridged, Australia would have to raise its emissions reduction target to 40% by 2020 in order to do its fair share, based on current emissions levels. This is well above its current target of a 5% cut based on 2000 levels.
Christoff told Guardian Australia that the scenario for Australia was “extraordinarily disturbing and deeply distressing” if average temperatures increased by 4C.
“Australia is exceptionally vulnerable ecologically to climate change,” he said. “It would mean a comprehensive transformation for life in Australia, from its wealth to its access to water to how people spend their time in summer."