Global warming and the end

[Interplanner]

theories like R. Carlsons ban on DDT which has caused the death of some 100M Africans.

 

[Interplanner]

the totalitarian left wants to control our thoughts not just our actions. thats why opposition to same sex marriage is not just wrong but 'slime.'

 

[eclipsenow]

German scientists say that alternative energy will never provide more than half a percent of need. That's after 20 years of trying.

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!

"Argonne's advanced fast reactor (AFR) has demonstrated its passive safety conclusively on a working prototype. "Back in 1986, we actually gave a small prototype advanced fast reactor a couple of chances to melt down," says Argonne nuclear engineer Pete Planchon, who led the 1986 tests. "It politely refused both times." "
http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/hn/logos-winter02-psr.shtml

The real crime was that the IFR program was cut by Clinton in the 90's, and that the world' doesn't have GE's waste-eating S-PRISM model commercialised yet. The technology is there, just waiting for us all to stop day dreaming and get real about our climate emergency.
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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!

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"!

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.

 

[Zanting]

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.

 

[eclipsenow]

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.

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:

That 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.

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.

In 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.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/recursive-fury-huffpo.html

 

[vinsight4u]

\

 

[Zanting]

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

...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.

 

[Interplanner]

Eclispse, I don't care to discuss direct with you because you never summarized 2 Pet 3.

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.

 

[eclipsenow]

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.

Chemtrails are not real, they're just normal ice crystals called contrails. The Chemtrail conspiracy theory is about as unhinged as the other great conspiracy theory: that all the world's physicists got together and concocted a story about global warming. People who actually believe that are, sadly, a victim of their own political presuppositions and cognitive dissonance. The facts about global warming are just too inconvenient for them, and so they freak out and disaccociate from the real world and believe any alternative theory. Unfortunatley this places them in the same basket as 'the moon landing was faked' crowd, and has them fighting the news headlines and normal peer-reviewed science the rest of their lives.

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclispse, I don't care to discuss direct with you because you never summarized 2 Pet 3.

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:
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.[/quote]

We've been in the Last Days since Pentecost. So, in that context, Peter urges his readers in 2 Peter 3 to watch out because they're living in the Last Days and people are evil and selfish buffoons will invade the church and try to lead people astray. It's been that way for 2000 years. Anytime someone says something contrary to the gospel, that's the case.

So I'm left wondering why you think this has anything to do with transitioning our economy off limited, dirty, deadly fossil fuels onto safe, clean, practically renewable nuclear energy? Coal kills tens of thousands of people every year through mining accidents, but above all, particulate pollution in the atmosphere. Surely that gives us grounds for reasons of Christian compassion to transition to cleaner energy that does not pollute and kill our neighbour?

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.

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?

Basically, Calvin believed in Judgement Day and the return of the Lord, but he also believed farmers had a duty to try and leave their fields in better condition than they received them, if at all possible. The reality is we just don't know when the Lord is going to return, and so we live as if each day were our last and yet also try to hand a habitable planet to our children and grandchildren and all future generations the Lord may grant us in His patience. It is up to Him, after all.

 

[Interplanner]

I thought at one point you said this global warming belief was the judgement of God a la 2 Pet 3. I guess not.

The totalitarian Left quote (by Dennis Prager.com) was given because it is how you sound. I'm not just wrong, I'm slime.

For someone who can find so many things on the i.net, you sure pile blame on a person for not supplying links, when all you yourself have to do is search. It is so distrustful, and therefore less than enjoyable to speak to you, for the above reason as well. (I do find many times when I put a link in something for people, they get some generic or home page anyway, even when the words-of-the-article-are-showing-in-the-address-bar).

Enjoy your other conquests.

 

[Interplanner]

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.

I sensed there was more connection between 2 Pet 3 and global warming than there actually is in the OP. My apology. I had heard others saying that we were actually bring about the intense burning. Hence the Bush "theology."

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.

 

[eclipsenow]

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.

There's some good in that movement and concept, but I'm not a Nazi about it.

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.

You're talking about my friend there, someone who can think rationally and deeply, and who is both concerned for the gospel and how that works out in how we manage the planet. He respects data, careful arguments, and rational thinking. Do you?

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.

Nuclear power can generate all the fuel we need to run sustainable airlines. What's your point?

 

[Interplanner]

you completely missed the point about the local food movement. It says to me in the clearest terms that there is no wholesale destruction or trashing which your brilliant friend assumed was true and got his PC Ph.D. doing so. I was not talking about the degree of fanaticality about the local food movement; I find them to be rational, practical people, unlike the new councilperson in Seattle. The totalitarian Left wants control of our thoughts, not just our actions.

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
2, the medieval warm period
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.

All of which are established warming cycles that just happen; they have nothing to do with carbon or human activity.

The "point" of my bringing up anecdotes is to ask...whether they are. Is that "logical"? How do I know that "anecdotes" and "insensitivity" is not your way of practicing denial, like the councilmember's denial of the role of profit?

Do you really not understand Dr. Gibson from the Gaskell novel?

 

[eclipsenow]

The totalitarian Left wants control of our thoughts, not just our actions.

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?)

Boy are you naive!

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

Please tell me more about it and why you think it is an issue.

2, the medieval warm period

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?

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.

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.

All of which are established warming cycles that just happen; they have nothing to do with carbon or human activity.

Absolutely correct and absolutely false at the same time!
YES there are known, quantifiable natural mechanisms at work. Remember the ice ages? Do you even know what caused them, and what role CO2 may have had in them? Hint: Google Milankovitch cycles.
NO, the FACT that the earth has various natural climate cycles does NOT change the fact that we're warming it now. Arguing that natural cycles rules out human cycles is like arguing that ice is found in nature, therefore all ice is natural and none is man-made. It's just illogical!

1. Do you even know what drives climate? Do you even have an alternative theory? Try this on for size: climatologists do. They study this stuff. They are modelling it remarkably well, that is, feeding it all into a computer and running their models to compare against what we actually know from history. There's all sorts of influences, such as the sun's 11 year cycle, volcanic particles that act like sunglasses for the earth, soot, the albedo of the Arctic (heat reflecting when covered with ice, or heat trapping when that big 'mirror' melts away), Co2, methane, and even the 'wobble' in the earth that we call Milankovitch cycles. These Milankovitch wobbles run around every 50,000 to 100,000 years, and we're simply not due for an ice age for 50,000 years. Climate scientists study and test and model all this stuff, and you just pretend that 'natural forcing' means we can't have a forcing as well? That's like saying that water is natural, so therefore it can't kill you! Unless you get hit by a tsunami, fall off a bridge into a bay or river or ocean, drown, or even drink too much water in one day and die of water poisoning! But hey, it's still natural, right?

2. Any decent physics lab on the planet can show how CO2 traps heat.
If you want to *see* the way Co2 actually traps heat, please watch the following video. It shows how candle *light* can penetrate a tube filled with Co2 but a candle's *heat* cannot. The demonstration starts at 90 seconds in but the whole video itself is well worth watching.
This Year's Model - YouTube

3. One really big nuclear war could plunge us all into a nuclear winter and 'solve' global warming for us. Same with a super-volcano, as in Yosemite park blowing. But hey, that's not my preferred solution to climate change. I'd prefer us to wean off dirty, dangerous coal and start to deploy Integral Fast Reactors that burn nuclear waste. I'd prefer us to start driving less oil cars and more electric vehicles. I'd prefer us to prepare for a future without oil and gas and coal, so that it doesn't come as an economic catastrophe when these things peak!

But you right wing totalitarian dictators want the 'free energy market' to have their way with us so that tens of thousands of us choke to death as we spit up our lungs on coal dust and are then slapped back into the next Greater Depression when they raise their hands and shrug and say, "Oh dear, it looks like the global oil supply cannot EVER meet demand again!" after peak oil. Nice one! Yes, there are some bright spots in oil production as fracking and tar sands and shale oil come online. But they're very, very dirty, very bad for the climate, and also known to decline a lot and have a pretty poor EROEI. That means they'll always, always cost more than conventional sweet crude. There's a reason we burnt the world's sweet crude first: it's the low hanging fruit and easiest stuff to use. That's why oil prices have shot up over the last decade!

Here, this is an article that I wrote for Zadok, a Christian magazine.

What is peak oil? | Eclipse Now

Get ready, because peak oil is coming.
(PS: I'm much more optimistic about the ability of nuclear power to solve the energy crisis now than I was when I wrote that Zadok piece years ago, but the principles are still the same).

 

[Interplanner]

I have no idea what tens of thousands choking means. People are pretty good at taking care of themselves and move out.

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.

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?

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.

While we're on evil industry, what do you think of the Unilever infomercial running at Fox?

The totalitarian right is fiction. they are just responding to market preference. Do you know in Seattle there is now "Bike rage" in which people on bikes are so superior they are verbally abusive and even now some cases of hitting drivers who differ with them? These are really particular problems that are not being imposed and do not need large government (God forbid it be Obama) solutions. I walk Seattle every time I go. No a problem at all. When I go to soccer or the airport. Yes, there is traffic to watch for, but it is not a dictatorship like Pelosi and Reid about Obamacare; "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it."

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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

 

[eclipsenow]

I have no idea what tens of thousands choking means. People are pretty good at taking care of themselves and move out.

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.

The Breakthrough Institute - "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"

Or try here:

This 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.

4,000 Times as Many People Die Per Unit of Coal Energy as Per Unit of Nuclear Energy | Geekosystem

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.

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".

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?

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 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.

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!

There is a thousand year old "real estate fraud" that feeds the sceptic's myth about a so called Medieval Warm Period — that Greenland was a lush farmland about a thousand years ago. But as Dr Karl explains:

"At that time, in 985 AD, the climate in Greenland was similar to what it is today. And it wasn't particularly green — that was just creative advertising on the part of Eric the Red. Once the colonising fleet arrived, the new home wasn't quite as lovely as Eric had told them."
Wreckless Eric has Greenlanders seeing red › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

The Wiki on Eric the Red says:
"When Erik returned to Iceland after his exile had expired, he is said to have brought with him stories of "Greenland". Erik deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name".[5] He knew that the success of any settlement in Greenland would need the support of as many people as possible."
Erik the Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) just isn't backed by the facts.
Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In summary:
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions."
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

The totalitarian right is fiction. they are just responding to market preference.

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!

Obama solutions? Australia has universal heath care far more comprehensive than Obamacare, and yet still has private health insurance for added extras. (Like cosmetic surgery and dental. Personally, given the broader impacts dental can have on our whole health, I think that should be included as well.) Our government medicare scheme delivers longer lifespans at a fraction of the price of your health care system, yet is largely government driven. Yet our tax to GDP ratio is *only* 1% more than yours. Please explain?

Australia has universal heath care far more comprehensive than Obamacare, and yet still has private health insurance for added extras. Would you call Australia's health system 'Socialist'? Australia has a universal Medicare program where most Aussies are covered for most life-threatening conditions and injuries. If you break your arm, a plaster cast and pain killers are ready to go at the local government hospital. But we still have private health cover for plastic surgery, dental, and other optional surgery. (In my opinion, given the broader impacts dental can have on our whole health, I think that should be included as well.) Our government medicare scheme delivers longer lifespans at a fraction of the price of your health care system, yet is largely government driven. At a cost of at a cost of $3,137 per Australian, our average life expectancy is 81.5. But America’s health system costs 232% more at $7,290 per American, yet only delivers a life expectancy of 78 years.
nothing new under the sun: Healthcare and the market

Yet Australia’s tax to GDP ratio is *only* 1% more than America’s.
File:Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-(75-05).JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Years ago my son had Leukaemia. I needed help! I am *incredibly* and forever grateful that I lived in Australia when that happened. I cannot imagine what would have happened if I had been poor, uninsured, and American when my son had Leukaemia. You cannot imagine the stress I was under with my son dying before my eyes, cancer and chemo wasting his body away. Why on earth would you think it is MY duty to go out and campaign and beg for hundreds of thousands of dollars when all I wanted to do was sit and hold my innocent little 5-year-old boy’s hand? Asking me, and the thousands of parents like me, to go out and campaign for funds in a time of crisis like that is just heartless! It's immoral. It’s not Christian.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have plenty of expertise in solar activity. How arrogantly the right-wing-denialist just asserts stuff without a scrap of evidence!

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.

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.

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


Rather, lets discuss political economies on the grounds of data, of evidence, of efficiency, and of compassionate social justice. Just stating that 'the markets should do everything' because we are made in God's image ignores the obvious counter argument: we should have government representatives that provide human dignity to the poor because we are all made in God's image! Both are true aren't they? Or is there something more 'Christian' about a corporation doing this than a government?

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.

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!

If your answer is YES, then you don't value democracy or common sense, but are instead are a victim of the thinking of the Totalitarian Right. The Corporations MUST rule, no matter what, hey? As for me and my household, we will value democracy instead.

 

[eclipsenow]

I'm baffled by the conspiracy mindset across America. This is simply happening!

Have a look at the 15 year trend *all* 3 agencies report. There is a confronting graphic here.
Climate monitoring - Met Office

 

[eclipsenow]

Great. Just great. Here’s what happens if we hit 4 degrees warming:

• 250 million people in the Asia-Pacific will be displaced.
• 250,000 coastal properties inundated by rising sea levels at a total cost of $63 billion
• 17,200 heat-related deaths a year - up from 5800 today
• Snow will disappear from all but the highest alpine peaks
• Sydney will be like Rockhampton,
• Melbourne like Griffith NSW
• Canberra like outback Cobar.
• Great Barrier Reef destroyed.
• Darwin? Uninhabitable.

SMH Dec 3


production in the key Murray-Darling food bowl could slump by 90%

“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."

Guardian Dec 2

 

[Codger]

This may be the longest running thread ever. It will probably not end until the second coming. And it will not be resolved even then.

Say this is a real problem - which it is not. What can you do as an individual to cause a change? Lie on the floor for three hours a day and try not to breathe. Only run your computer for one hour a day? Stuff a potato up your exhaust pipe to stop emissions? Put plastic bags over your trees at night? (trees give off CO2 at night in the absence of sunlight)
No - CO2 is an ESSENTIAL nutrient for all plant life. Presently we are on the low end of the scale as it now is. This is why hydroponic gardeners "Feed" their plants with liquid carbonic.

As far as survival is concerned there is a much more important event hovering on the horizon. When it happens global warming will not even come to mind. There are about six prophetic people that have been telling us of a coming collapse of the economy and what to do to prepare for this event. You don't have to be prophetic to deduce this coming failure. all you have to do is look at the "Reckless Endangerment" that the present administration has led us into. This didn't start just recently but it became prevalent in the Roosevelt era.

Here is one of the latest video's on the near future of the USA. As usual God does not seem to attach dates to any prophesy under the New Covenant.

A recent prophetic message from Terry Bennett

Terry Bennett - Historic Era Part 6 - YouTube