Global Warming

[Root of Jesse]

Coal plants don't require buildings or delivery systems?

On top of that, the newest nuclear power tech produces 1/10th the waste of older reactors. It isn't that hard to get rid of the waste.



You claimed that nuclear and hydroelectric could not produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels. That is plainly false.

I did not. I claimed that they couldn't produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels right now. For fossil fuels, they're already there.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hold on. I thought you said that any fluctuation in temperature is natural, and can never be the result of anything humans do.

I don't think anyone is saying that. We're saying we're not the primary cause. Quite a big difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Then you admit that even though temperatures have fluctuated in the past that this doesn't eliminate the possibility that man can also cause temperatures to fluctuate?

We're saying we're not the primary cause.

Why can't we be the primary cause?

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not. I claimed that they couldn't produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels right now.

Why not? Why couldn't we replace every single coal plant over the next 30 years?

 

[Aldebaran]

Hold on. I thought you said that any fluctuation in temperature is natural, and can never be the result of anything humans do.

"Can never"? Did I say that?
BTW, I didn't hear you say anything against spraying aluminum particles into the atmosphere. I'll take it you have no problem with that practice, even though breathing it in isn't going to help us in the end anyway. Supposedly save the planet from a degree or two of warming at the expense of years off the lives of every person on the planet. But even more importantly, all air breathing wildlife as well.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why not? Why couldn't we replace every single coal plant over the next 30 years?

With what? Far less efficient "green" plants?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Can never"? Did I say that?

Yes, over and over. At every turn you have said that natural cycles have changed temperature in the past, so it is impossible that humans are causing temperatures to change now.

BTW, I didn't hear you say anything against spraying aluminum particles into the atmosphere. I'll take it you have no problem with that practice, even though breathing it in isn't going to help us in the end anyway. Supposedly save the planet from a degree or two of warming at the expense of years off the lives of every person on the planet. But even more importantly, all air breathing wildlife as well.

But you have already said that only natural cycles can cause the Earth's temperature to fluctuate, so why even bring it up?

 

[Loudmouth]

With what? Far less efficient "green" plants?

Nuclear and hydroelectric.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, over and over. At every turn you have said that natural cycles have changed temperature in the past, so it is impossible that humans are causing temperatures to change now.

You'll need to provide proof of that rather than just make the claim. Same goes for the global warming idea.

But you have already said that only natural cycles can cause the Earth's temperature to fluctuate, so why even bring it up?

Because you're arguing for measures to be taken to prevent "global warming". So are you in favor of spraying tons of aluminum particles into the atmosphere or not?

 

[Aldebaran]

Nuclear and hydroelectric.

Everyone has their opinions about nuclear. I, for one, wouldn't want to be near one in the event of an EMP event or earthquake. If wind or solar became much more efficient than they are now, to the point of equaling the efficiency and cost of coal, then I'd say to go ahead with them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Everyone has their opinions about nuclear. I, for one, wouldn't want to be near one in the event of an EMP event or earthquake. If wind or solar became much more efficient than they are now, to the point of equaling the efficiency and cost of coal, then I'd say to go ahead with them.

 

[Loudmouth]

You'll need to provide proof of that rather than just make the claim. Same goes for the global warming idea.

post 322:

No. I'm showing you that the earth has warmed up before and melted the precious glacial ice that everyone seems so concerned about and that it all happened without human intervention. I was originally responding to what JackRT said in Post #322 about all the ice that's melting, as if it was such a horrible thing. People like to bring up these things with the implication that we must "do something" to make it stop, and that only the evil, arrogant, selfish people would oppose the measures suggested by those on the Left. But when it's pointed out that much more massive ice melts have happened in the past, and that it wasn't such a bad thing, and that humans had nothing to do with it, the point is dismissed or the subject gets changed.


post 331:

I didn't exclude anything. I'm simply pointing out that the temperature of the earth has changed at times (even drastically) when it couldn't possibly have been caused by human activity. It seems that whenever this is mentioned, you get defensive about it.

Because you're arguing for measures to be taken to prevent "global warming". So are you in favor of spraying tons of aluminum particles into the atmosphere or not?

You have already stated that man can't cause temperature fluctuations, so why are you even suggesting it?

 

[Aldebaran]

Nice pictures without even a source being referenced. Maybe when the total number people who continue to be poisoned by radiation from Fukashima finally die off (they still haven't got that under control), then you can update your picture.

 

[Aldebaran]

You have already stated that man can't cause temperature fluctuations, so why are you even suggesting it?

Then you have no problem spraying aluminum particles into the atmosphere by the tons, even though much of it will be inhaled by people and wildlife and cause health problems and death?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice pictures without even a source being referenced.

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

Maybe when the total number people who continue to be poisoned by radiation from Fukashima finally die off (they still haven't got that under control), then you can update your picture.

How many people is that? Any evidence?

Also, the new generation of power plants can not meltdown like Fukushima did. They don't require any external cooling. They are physically incapable of melting down.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you have no problem spraying aluminum particles into the atmosphere by the tons, even though much of it will be inhaled by people and wildlife and cause health problems and death?

I am asking if you have a problem with dumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

 

[Aldebaran]

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

I love how the article says:
"Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force", yet you won't even address the question I've repeatedly asked you about spraying aluminum particles into the atmosphere.

How many people is that? Any evidence?

The same evidence you provided for the "estimated" 13,200 cited as dying from coal each year. I've never heard of a doctor proclaiming a coal fired power plant as being the cause of death in one of his patients.

Also, the new generation of power plants can not meltdown like Fukushima did. They don't require any external cooling. They are physically incapable of melting down.

If that's true, which I have to question since it's only a claim made by you with no evidence whatsoever), then I'd have no problem with those.

 

[Loudmouth]

I love how the article says:
"Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force", yet you won't even address the question I've repeatedly asked you about spraying aluminum particles into the atmosphere.

You won't address the question of pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

The same evidence you provided for the "estimated" 13,200 cited as dying from coal each year. I've never heard of a doctor proclaiming a coal fired power plant as being the cause of death in one of his patients.

Yet another set of facts you refuse to accept.

If that's true, which I have to question since it's only a claim made by you with no evidence whatsoever), then I'd have no problem with those.

"Pandora's Promise" is a documentary that used to be on Netflix, and it may still be there. You should check it out. They even go to a test reactor for the new generation of technology. They manually shut off all cooling and all external power, and then watch as the core starts to heat up. When the core hit its critical temperature the reaction shut itself down and cooled off with zero outside interference.

It contains all the info I have been talking about, if you are interested.

 

[Aldebaran]

You won't address the question of pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

It's been addressed for 21 pages of posts. But continue to avoid my question if you can't handle answering it. Long-term effects of aluminium dust inhalation. - PubMed - NCBI

Yet another set of facts you refuse to accept.

Assertions by some guy who calls himself Loudmouth on an internet site without even posting any sort of evidence is not considered to be a fact, accept by the poster himself. If you'd care to provide documented evidence for your assertion, then it might actually be a viable claim, but still not a fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's been addressed for 21 pages of posts.

Are you still claiming that pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere aren't having any effect on temperatures?

But continue to avoid my question if you can't handle answering it. Long-term effects of aluminium dust inhalation. - PubMed - NCBI

I have no idea what you are going on about. I never said anything about pumping aluminum particles into the air. This is all your fantasy land.

Assertions by some guy who calls himself Loudmouth on an internet site without even posting any sort of evidence is not considered to be a fact, accept by the poster himself. If you'd care to provide documented evidence for your assertion, then it might actually be a viable claim, but still not a fact.

The facts are in the New Scientist article I already posted for you.

You can read about molten salt reactors here:

LFTR has No Chance of Nuclear Meltdown |

You can google "breeder reactors" while you are at it.