REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Are you allowed to shout 'FIRE' in a burning auditorium?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, June 24, 2005 14:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4020
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:38 AM

CHRISISALL


Why do some resist the reality of Global Warming? Is it that it's not dramatic enough? I mean it's not going to kill us all next year, or the year after that...
Is it that in the long term it's too scary to admit to?
The changes are evident to anyone who's been around a few decades, in the past these kind of changes couldn't be noticed unless your life span was centuries.
Ice core samples, sea temperatures, water levels- all tell us something is happening.
Deforestation in the Amazon, the largest concentration of plant life on the planet, is like removing most of the liver in a human body...why is this acceptable?
And why do some keep playing the 'volcano emissions' card? Are we plagued with more erupting volcanoes in the past century than in the past 1000 years combined or something?
Holland is constructing houses with the ability to float, permanently if necessary, what does that tell us? (no Waterworld jokes, please )

Scientific data + common sense = awareness of a problem
Big buisness + no restrictions = cause of a problem

Seems simple to me.
President Bush has talked about us living on Mars. First step toward Earth That Was?



Doin' the math Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:36 PM

CANTTAKESKY


I resist the idea because the empirical evidence I've seen does not support the hypothesis. From what I've read, most of the "scientific" data that supports GW come from faulty computer modeling that omits convection variables, for example. Other "scientific" data is hyped beyond warranted conclusions. Another example. So the temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years. What the heck does that mean? Is that a lot, is that just normal fluctuation? I asked on another FFF GW thread what the standard deviation is on that 1 degree celsius. I mean, did the data range from 0-2 degrees, with the average of 1, or did the data range from -10 to 10 degrees, with the average of 1. Simple but critical question, yet no one could tell me the answer. Without understanding the data that this average comes from, how can anyone conclude that 1 degree is significant?

I think GW is an intriguing hypothesis and should continue to be researched and explored. But there isn't enough evidence yet to proclaim it as a true scientific consensus, let alone base public policy and legislation on it. Now, lack of evidence does not necessarily mean it isn't true. It just means it has yet to be proven. Science, good science, is slow. And with GW, we actually have some time to do it right--without the politics, funding biases, and hyperbole. I believe there is no need to jump to premature conclusions, and yet that is exactly what has happened. There is still a debate about GW, and that debate should be allowed to continue honestly without both camps claiming it already knows the absolute truth.

Just so you know, I am not politically invested in resisting GW. I don't have a problem restricting fossil fuel emissions for other environmental reasons (such as toxins and air quality) that have a lot more hard evidence than GW, and is a lot more immediately threatening to the public.

So make sure there is a fire and not just someone who lit up a cigarette, before you go shouting "fire." And if you really want to shout "fire!" then go ahead. Just allow me to disagree.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:18 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Seems simple to me.
Preconceived conclusions based on alarmist rhetoric generally are. When it gets complicated is when you want to know to truth.

For brevity I’m going with what canttakesky said. Sounds like she’s got a reasonably position on the issue. Smart cookie, that one.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:48 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:
From what I've read, most of the "scientific" data that supports GW comes from faulty computer modeling that omits convection variables, for example.
Let me just nitpick for a while. Do you mean to say 'data'? Or 'analysis'?

The 'data' - rising ocean temperatures, rising air temperatures, rising ground temperatures, melting glaciers, early start of spring and late end of fall, early bird and butterfly migration, early break of hibernation, warm-weather tree stress across conifer biomes (which were established over millennia), rising ocean levels, isotopic ratios, etc - ALL either directly measure rising temperatures across the globe, or otherwise indicate overall rising temperature. That is the data. The 'data' doesn't come from computer modeling. Are you trying to say the 'data' is faulty?

Or do you mean the 'analysis' is faulty? So, which part of the analysis is faulty? Is an analysis that says that temperatures are rising somehow incorrect? I don't think that's what you mean. THAT temperatures are rising compared to historical temperatures (or millennial surrogate temperatures from ice core isotopes, biomes etc) is not in doubt.

Or do you mean to say that it doesn't exceed natural variation? Now that might be a question, but you'd have to decide on a time-frame. For the 1-100 millennium time-frame, the answer is yes, it DOES exceed natural historical variation. (recent ice core isotopic studies establish that.)

Going back further presents some problems. While there is some evidence that local weather change can be rapid (frozen woolly mammoths), no deep historical analysis has good resolution. The best I've read is 10,000 years. There is no way to say if the climate shifts of millions of years ago took place over 1 year, 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. So there is no way of knowing if this climate shift is a-historical.

Another issue is that on a global, long-term (hundreds of millions of years) scale, many of the extreme climates of the past have been assigned actual causes: eccentricity of the Earths' orbit was a major driver, along with the variation in solar output. These (and other) regular variations, each on their own cycle, combined to create a (complicated but) predictable climate pattern that can be tracked geologically. But these factors are no longer in play. To look at those past climates for comparison would be in error.

And then there is the question of what to do about this warming of our Earth. Have you considered that by the time anthropogenic global warming is 'proven' it will be too late to actually do anything about it? (And I'm going to reiterate that science can never prove anything, it can only disprove the null hypothesis. If you are waiting for proof, you will be waiting forever.)

To draw an analogy to medicine, sometimes the only way to diagnose an illness is to see if it responds to treatment.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 11, 2005 7:59 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:



The 'data' - rising ocean temperatures, rising air temperatures, rising ground temperatures, melting glaciers, early start of spring and late end of fall, early bird and butterfly migration, early break of hibernation, warm-weather tree stress across conifer biomes (which were established over millennia), rising ocean levels, isotopic ratios, etc - ALL either directly measure rising temperatures across the globe, or otherwise indicate overall rising temperature. That is the data. The 'data' doesn't come from computer modeling. Are you trying to say the 'data' is faulty?



I'm not in a position to address each of these concerns individually, but as a single example of how honestly-collected data can lead to false conclusions, consider the following anecdote:

U.S. Naval records as to ocean temperature in the north Pacific over a hundred-year period showed that the temperatures were fairly stable between 1890 and 1915; the average temperature then dropped suddenly by nearly two degrees from 1916 to 1947; in 1948 they raised suddenly to more than a degree higher than the earliest readings, a condition that remained stable until the hundred-year mark in 1990.

Does this mean that global warming somehow hit a speed bump for thirty years, before resuming with a nearly three-degree quantum leap?

No, it means that the earliest readings were taken by dropping a wooden bucket into the water, hauling it up to the ship's deck with a rope, and then dropping a thermometer into it. The drop in temperature occured when the Navy switched to galvanized tin buckets -- which lost more temperature to wind chill during the hauling process than the old wooden buckets did. (Wood is a good insulator, metal a poor one.) In 1948 the Navy stopped using buckets altogether, and started dropping temperature sensors directly into the water, and getting the temperatures electronically through wires. (Once you adjusted for the changes in temperature-gathering techniques, the temperatures were fairly stable -- a slight gain in temperature, but nothing that didn't fall within probable error.)

No conclusions here -- just a cautionary note. Not all datums are created equal.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It's somebody who gets somebody else killed." -- Zoë Warren

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:30 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I definitely agree.

But regarding ocean temperatures, the data I was referring to came from trade vessels sailing all over the globe, and recently laboriously gleaned from ships logs. This is one of those times where having a lot of data, tens of millions of data points over centuries, is an advantage - any one local factor will be minimized on the average.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It's somebody who gets somebody else killed." So a valiant person who gets themselves killed is - a martyr?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:56 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is still a debate about GW, and that debate should be allowed to continue honestly without both camps claiming it already knows the absolute truth.

I embrace concept because the empirical evidence I've examined supports the GW hypothesis.
There. I used big words. Now you know that I know what I'm talkin' about.
Utilizing particular 'interpretations' of accumulated data, and possibly faulty computer predictions does not negate that this is happening.
Ask an Eskimo.
Is it part of a naturally occuring cycle? Maybe. Is man affecting the climate himself? Definitely. Could it be some combination? Possibly. The only real question is the end result.
Will the water level go up a few feet by the late 21st century, forcing people in lower Manhattan to walk to work in waterproof hip-boots, or will the Earth be covered by tidal waves and blizzards?
Personally, I see the hip-boot thing happening- but that's just me.(actually, they'll probably just build sea walls...)

My friends, you know me to be neither rash, nor impulsive. I'm not given to wild, unsupported statements. And I tell you that we must evaccuate this planet immediatly!

Okay, we're not Krypton, but to say 'nothing' is happening in the face of the evidence is plain silly. Debate should focus on fine-tuning our idea of what is happening, not if it's happening.
The effects may be rather small, in the end.
Then again, they might not.


Ice core sample maniac Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:07 AM

CHRISISALL


One thing, Finn, are you with the idea that nothing's really happening, and that other than a few noxious gasses bein' produced we might choke ouselves on a little, we're having no bad effects on the planet as a whole?


Cough- choke Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:35 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Don't have a lot of time right now, but I MUST respond to Chrisisall briefly. Rue, I'll get to your questions later.

First Chris, I resent your accusation that I am "hiding." We disagree on what evidence exists and the interpretation of that evidence. From what I have seen on these boards, I am neither more cowardly nor less intelligent than you are. I am less witty and funny by far, but well, what can one do? :)

Secondly, the pollution produced by our consumption of all types of energy is, in my opinion, not so easily dismissed as a tickle in the throat. We are poisoning ourselves in all manner of ways. Worrying about GW in this context is like worrying about high blood pressure while you're popping cyanide pills. Well, do it if you want, but please don't cast aspersions on my character if I choose to have different priorities.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:07 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
First Chris, I resent your accusation that I am "hiding." Well, do it if you want, but please don't cast aspersions on my character if I choose to have different priorities.

Totally sorry for the POOR choice of words!!! Really! It was just an easy phrase to use (abuse), and your priorities are well understood, even agreed with.
It's the whole 'not a problem' thing I have a problem with when it comes to GW.
I respect your position, and Finn, too. Bein' witty ain't always a good thing when it gets taken personal and hurts someone's feelings.
Please forgive me .

Chrisisall, who thinks he's smart then chooses his words like a stupid space monkey
Edit: I edited the dumb words out of the post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:47 AM

CHRISISALL


Here's a really good artcle from The New Yorker that my wife Kathieisall found for anyone to read. It goes into detail that I only grazed on in my original post, and more.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3
It's part 1 of 3, I guess there are links at the end of each part. I surely do feel as smart as Jayne when I'm doin' this computer stuff.

My first link Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 11:37 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Chris,

Thanks for being so responsive to my perhaps over-sensitive feelings. That is so rare on discussion boards. You're not only witty, but kind.

Just to clarify, I AM one of those people who don't think GW is a problem. And if it is a problem, I tend to think it is part of the earth's natural climate cycles and not a anthropogenic problem. If it IS an anthropogenic problem, I tend to think it has more to do with 6 billion people breathing in and out and cutting down forests left and right--and less to do with the exhaust of our cars.

I read your article, most of it anyway. Take this sentence I picked at random for example: "Antarctic ice cores also show that carbon-dioxide levels today are significantly higher than they have been at any other point in the last four hundred and twenty thousand years." Someone else may go, "Oh my God! How alarming." But my reaction is more skeptical. I ask myself, how do they really know that ice core readings are an accurate measure of CO2 levels 420,000 years ago? Which ice cores did they sample? Are they representative of all other ice cores, or were these ice cores biased towards more CO2? And if there is more CO2, how do we know it is CO2 from fuel emissions and not from the population explosion? See, it's a curse I have. I have a hard time taking someone's word for it. And when someone answers these questions, I have still more similar questions.

This is not to make a case for my position, but rather to offer a glimpse of what goes on in the perverse mind of a GW disbeliever. Since you asked, you know.


Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 12:26 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let me just nitpick for a while. Do you mean to say 'data'? Or 'analysis'?
Science is the discipline of rigorous and unrelenting nit-picking. By all means, please nit-pick away.

Let me answer your question with a joke.

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train going to Scotland. Right after they crossed the border into Scotland, they saw a black sheep standing in the field outside their window. The engineer exclaimed, "My God. All the sheep in Scotland are black!" The physicist remarked, "Well, at least ONE sheep in Scotland is black." The mathematician added, "Well, really, at least ONE sheep in Scotland is black, on at least ONE side."

The data itself is rarely questioned. It's almost always the interpretation of data that is disputed. There are always assumptions underlying interpretation, and some people are more precise and skeptical in their assumptions than others. Therein lies the punchline of the joke.

Quote:
The 'data'... ALL either directly measure rising temperatures across the globe, or otherwise indicate overall rising temperature. That is the data. The 'data' doesn't come from computer modeling. Are you trying to say the 'data' is faulty?
I am saying the conclusions drawn from these data might be hasty. Do they really indicate overall rising temperatures? Are these temperature measurements confounded, such as in the excellent example provided by Rocketjock? How do you pick which temperatures to represent "global temperature"? Obviously someone thought surface ocean temperature is a good indicator. What about stratosphere temperature, or ocean temperature 1000 ft deep, or soil temperatures 10 feet deep? It comes back to the rigorous nit-picking nature of science--are these temperature measurements truly representative of global climate?

Quote:
Or do you mean to say that it doesn't exceed natural variation? ...For the 1-100 millennium time-frame, the answer is yes, it DOES exceed natural historical variation. (recent ice core isotopic studies establish that.)
If indeed those temperature measurements are considered representative, the next assumption to question is are they significant? Here is where I haven't seen very compelling arguments supporting that recent changes in temperatures are beyond the normal variations of the planet.

Quote:
...many of the extreme climates of the past have been assigned actual causes: ...But these factors are no longer in play. To look at those past climates for comparison would be in error.
Really? There is more interpretation for ya.

Quote:
Have you considered that by the time anthropogenic global warming is 'proven' it will be too late to actually do anything about it?
That is exactly the kind of catastrophic, alarmist interpretation that I believe is unwarranted by the data.

Quote:
To draw an analogy to medicine, sometimes the only way to diagnose an illness is to see if it responds to treatment.
I have no problem with treatment for experiment's sake if it is voluntary. What I do have a problem with is forcing someone to undergo treatment just to see if there is a problem.

The "consensus" in GW is very much an artifact of funding and political rhetoric. I believe using government coercion to enforce one point of view, when there is still a debate going on, is, to say the least, premature.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:09 PM

CHRISISALL


I disagree with you as to the importance of global warming, I would place it up there with polution in general. I am, however, delighted to be in disagreement with someone so thoughtful and gracious. Thanks for your response, fellow Browncoat.

Skeptic is my middle name Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:35 PM

SPQR


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

And why do some keep playing the 'volcano emissions' card? Are we plagued with more erupting volcanoes in the past century than in the past 1000 years combined or something?
Quote:

volcanoes lower the globe temp. Krakatoa 1880: 'The volcanic dust veil that created such spectacular atmospheric effects also acted as a solar radiation filter, lowering global temperatures as much as 1.2 degree C in the year after the eruption. Temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.' & there have be much larger ones in the past. Krakatoa also made a 'small ice age' in w eurpo.

"No matter where you go, there you are."
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:06 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
One thing, Finn, are you with the idea that nothing's really happening, and that other than a few noxious gasses bein' produced we might choke ouselves on a little, we're having no bad effects on the planet as a whole?
I'm with the idea that there is no conclusive evidence that the earth's climate is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic, catastrophic increase in mean global temperature.

As far as “bad effects” in general: there are plenty of environmental concerns that I think are important; sadly however it seems increasingly difficult to discuss, much less address, these issues without the inclusion of the often fanatical and largely unfounded global warming demon. I’m not likely to be swayed by environmental scare tactics and I’m far more frightened of the implications behind many proposed “treatments” then I am of any possible warming trend that may be observed in the earth’s climate.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:06 AM

CHRISISALL


canttakesky (Finn, too),
It seems to me we all agree that deforestation and polutants on this planet are a bad thing...by addressing it on the level you suggest, wouldn't that automatically take care of the global warming to a large degree (assuming for a moment that it exists)? I mean, don't we agree what needs to be done, just not for exactly the same reasons why it should be done?

Greenhouse gasses, bad for people gasses, it's all the same to me Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 12:16 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I guess that depends a lot on what you think needs to be done.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 12:44 PM

CHRISISALL


Protect as much of the Amazon jungle (and other co2 recycling forests) as possible, and heavily (no, I mean REALLY heavily) fine poluting buisnesses, whether it's sea or air fouling creeps.

I know, it's easy to say Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 1:07 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Personally, I think we need to reduce regulation of nuclear power. We need more nuclear power plants and we need more and vigorous research into controlled fusion.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 1:48 PM

CHRISISALL


We have a nuclear power plant up here in Vermont, what a shoddy piece of it is. Fires, spills, cracks, bad management...now if you mean well designed, well run facilities, well that's another story.
And I am absolutly all about fusion.
But rain forests, man! Mother Earth's free air-processors! We need 'em, don't ya think?

Tree huggin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 1:49 PM

CHRISISALL


Double posts are signs that they changed something in the matrix

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 2:20 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But rain forests, man! Mother Earth's free air-processors! We need 'em, don't ya think?
Not exactly free. In some cases a Brazilian family must go without farmland to keep the rain forests in tact.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 2:59 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In some cases a Brazilian family must go without farmland to keep the rain forests in tact.

?
You mean the rainforest must know when to say the right thing, or it'll get cut down?

Anyway, you're right, it's not an easy fix.


Spank that tactless forest Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We have a nuclear power plant up here in Vermont, what a shoddy piece of it is. Fires, spills, cracks, bad management...now if you mean well designed, well run facilities, well that's another story.
And I am absolutly all about fusion.
But rain forests, man! Mother Earth's free air-processors! We need 'em, don't ya think?

Tree huggin' Chrisisall


I used to live in South Florida, one of the places that has a nuclear power plant providing energy needs. I have to say, regular reports of poor maintenance and upkeep plagued that plant as well.

But really, you have to look at what you're talking about.

Most Nuclear Power Plants were built in the 70's. Some were built earlier. They are rarely, if ever, shut down for in depth maintenance. So if you've got a 30 year old power plant that's never been given a good refurbishment, you're going to have problems.

It'd be nice if each area was powered by two independant nuclear plants, each able to assume the other's function during a regular 5 year maintenance cycle.

--Ant


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2005 7:49 PM

HARDWARE


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We have a nuclear power plant up here in Vermont, what a shoddy piece of it is. Fires, spills, cracks, bad management...now if you mean well designed, well run facilities, well that's another story.
And I am absolutly all about fusion.
But rain forests, man! Mother Earth's free air-processors! We need 'em, don't ya think?

Tree huggin' Chrisisall


You know, Yankee Magazine ran an article about power generation in Vermont this month. A brief summation could go like this;

Power guy: We get all of our power from Montreal Hydro and Vermont Yankee. Our contracts with them are up in a few years and the fixed price of electricity will rise. We need to generate more electricity.

Environmental guy: I agree.

Power guy: Let's build more nuclear power plants.

Environmental guy: NO! Vermont Yankee is a horror show! Nuvlear power is unsafe and produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years.

Power guy: Okay, let's build some conventional coal plants.

Environmental guy: NO! Coal plants spew tons of pollutants into the air and scrubber technology causes acid rain.

Power guy: Okay, let's build liquified natural gas plants.

Environmental guy: NO! LNG is a ready made bomb and a target for terrorists.

Power guy: Okay, solar.

Environmental guy: NO! Solar is a blight on the landscape.

Power guy: Okay, windmill farms.

Environmental guy: NO! They cause visual pollution and violate Vermont's pristine mountain skylines.

Power guy: Urk! (turns red, foams at the mouth, collapses and dies of heart attack/stroke)

Environmental guy: Hey! The lights went out. (lights a candle, curses the glare and quickly blows it out for fear of polluting the environment or setting the building on fire.)

You can't have cheap power and no pollution. You have to accept some compromise. Nuclear power actually produces less waste material by weight/KW hour than any other type of power. Otherwise get ready to pedal a bicycle whenever you want to watch TV or surf the internet.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:33 AM

SPQR


The one thing is why the Rain forest is being 'cut down'? (the slach & burn is what is used the most) Anyway the forest is being turn into land for cows for fast food; hambugers. mooo. Also there are still small tribes of poeple living in these areas, but not for long

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/16/brazil.tribe.ap/index.htm
l

We should turn the dry parts of the U.S. (the ares where nothing grows/lives) into masive solor power stations, & also offshore windmills (they can kick out a lot of power). These windmills maybe huge, but if you have ever seen a super cargo ship 10 miles out to sea, they are small (the size is what most complain about). But most of the time you can not sea that far out because of the smoge &/or fog (Bay Area).

This would cost big bucks, but the long term they would cost less. No waste storage, no tranportion of fuel costs, no fuel costs (coal is the most used to power us in the U.S.), no workers for daliy stuff (like a power plant needs), little to no moving parts to brake down, the only thing is UV damage, up-grades, or storm damage

http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/1st/nseasite.htm

"How little do you mortals understand time. Must you be so linear, Jean-Luc?" -Q to Picard, in "All good things..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:57 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
You can't have cheap power and no pollution. You have to accept some compromise. Nuclear power actually produces less waste material by weight/KW hour than any other type of power. Otherwise get ready to pedal a bicycle whenever you want to watch TV or surf the internet.
There does seem to be a lack of appreciation for scarcity in the Left-wing environmentalist camp.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:55 AM

CHRISISALL


Yeah, those left-wing environmentalists think it can all be made right using solar, like we can just put it all into place everywhere (like Seattle-uh-huh) and presto! no polution anymor-
Hey! Wait a minute... Are you lumping me in with them?
Anyway, that reactor I mentioned is, from time to time, messing up the Conecticut river, and if that's the price for cheap power, I could understand that, but people fish in that river as if it's never had a problem. They aren't aware that the fish they get from it is as likely as not to have some pretty heavy duty toxins in 'em.
If the power authority would just tell us the river is no good to fish in now, I'd have no problem with that. But they keep saying that the river's still clean, mostly. ( I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky...)
All I am saying is give truth a chance.
There is some price to be paid for everything, and grown ups will understand this. Er, I mean won't they?


Or am I living in a dream world Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:08 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anyway, that reactor I mentioned is, from time to time, messing up the Conecticut river, and if that's the price for cheap power, I could understand that, but people fish in that river as if it's never had a problem. They aren't aware that the fish they get from it is as likely as not to have some pretty heavy duty toxins in 'em.
I don’t know. Nuclear power is not generally cheap. It’s as much as twice as expensive as coal and gas power. The advantage of nuclear power is that it is clean. I don’t know anything about the reactor you are talking about. It is possible that it is poorly run. Though I think, more likely, you may either be overstating the risks or you may have been told things that have been exaggerated, or both. It seems quite common for people to assume nuclear power is dirty and dangerous. This is not generally true.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If the power authority would just tell us the river is no good to fish in now, I'd have no problem with that. But they keep saying that the river's still clean, mostly. ( I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky...)
All I am saying is give truth a chance.
At least the truth that you want to hear, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
There is some price to be paid for everything, and grown ups will understand this. Er, I mean won't they?
Depends on what grown-ups you’re talking about, I guess.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:21 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Though I think, more likely, you may either be overstating the risks or you may have been told things that have been exaggerated, or both.
At least the truth that you want to hear, right?
Depends on what grown-ups you’re talking about, I guess.

Please pull that pitchfork out of your ass, you play Devil's advocate too much to be taken seriously (on this post, I mean).
I don't want to hear that our river's unclean. But the truth's a might different than that.
Vermont Yankee has problems, got a link to a story that tells otherwise? I'd like to see it.
Okay, the grown-up thing- I was pokin' a little at the fact that most 'grown ups' don't understand much of anything they don't directly deal with, like where their energy comes from.
Sorry if I'm a little terse right now, my son is driving me crazy at the moment.

Sonisall, go to your room! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just taking a break from programming, which fries one's brain right quick ... skimmed through and am definitely coming back for more ...
Quote:
Nuclear power actually produces less waste material by weight/KW hour than any other type of power.
I would have no problem with nuclear power but for the long-term waste hazard. I suggest simple chemical recrystallization to concentrate the waste, and launch it off the face of the Earth heading out beyond Pluto. You know, turn space into the ultimate safe and secure garbage dump. (I actually am for this idea, I just think it's primitive.)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:25 PM

HARDWARE


I am only passingly familiar with nuclear power but I did work at a project at 2 nuclear generation stations. Working there and talking to the operating engineers (who are obviously nuclear power advocates) the following truths about nuclear power were made crystal clear to me;

1) The newest nuclear power station in the US is 30 years old. Most nuke stations were licensed for 30 years with a 20 year optional extension.

2) When the licenses expire the stations close. There are no plans and no capacity to replace nuclear stations with conventional power generation let alone non-polluting generation.

3) Every nuke station is unique. Almost none of them use the same equipment. Any equipment that needs to be replaced needs to custom ordered and fabricated.

4) The long term radioactive byproducts are not as dangerous as the short term "hot" material. The stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years you can handle safely. The stuff that has a half life measured in days will kill you dead.

5) Nuclear power design has not stopped even though building has halted for 30 years. Newer designs are inherently more safe than older designs.

6) It's all for nought since NIMBY guarantees there won't be any more nuke stations built.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:03 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Please pull that pitchfork out of your ass, you play Devil's advocate too much to be taken seriously (on this post, I mean).
Said the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I don't want to hear that our river's unclean. But the truth's a might different than that.
Vermont Yankee has problems, got a link to a story that tells otherwise? I'd like to see it.
You would? I must have missed the post were you provided evidence for all your accusations about this plants poor operation.

Nonetheless, I looked up the NRC Annual reports on the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. And as I suspected, according to the NRC the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is running safely as of 2003, or as they put it: “No findings of significance were identified.” That’s government-speak for ‘A-OK.’

There was an issue that was described as “very low safety significance,” but this has evidentially been addressed as it does not appear in the latest report I read.

You may still be right. I didn’t review all the reports nor do I have the time or desire, but in general, popular sources of news such as newspapers are frequently very critical of nuclear power, often due to a pervasive ignorance of nuclear technology and a lack of awareness of tradeoffs between nuclear and conventional power generation. I would caution against taking the local newspaper as an accurate portrayal of this plants safety record. The NRC is a much better source for that and even they are over critical due to stringent regulations.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, the grown-up thing- I was pokin' a little at the fact that most 'grown ups' don't understand much of anything they don't directly deal with, like where their energy comes from.
Yeah, I got that part, hence my response.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:
I looked up the NRC Annual reports
So far as I know, the NRC was created out of industry people to promote nukular power. Can you address its mandate and MO?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


The NRC is a government agency whose responsibility it is to regulate the civilian use of nuclear material as provided by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:06 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Please pull that pitchfork out of your ass, you play Devil's advocate too much to be taken seriously (on this post, I mean).
Said the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist.

Touche'
Sorry, I wasn't feelin' so good, and my son was grating on me something awful, hence my crappy mood.
About that facility, they had a rather large fire there a couple years back that was brought under control, then not reported to the public for some months, some got pissed and after an investigation they found stress cracks and poor management and such. I guess it's the kind of thing that happens anywhere, but when you add the word nuclear everyone freaks. I just feel a better educated and informed public would be less quick to sweat the small stuff. I mean, like, Homer Simpson's okay, right? ( damn. I can't stay serious for one paragraph )
Anyway, I'm not diggin' for links to evidence 'cause in all my reading on these threads I've discovered that no one takes that stuff seriously, anyway. 'Questionable source', 'Biased agency', 'Left (or Right) wing paper ( network, author, politician, etc.) - people believe mostly what they want to.
If I learn anything on these threads, it's that words and 'facts' can be twisted around like wheat in a windy field, and all we can do is be flexable enough in ourselves to be prepared to accept being wrong about anything, any time.

In the mean time,
It's possible Global Warming is alarmist chicken little nonsense, but everything I've seen and read and observed has me believin' otherwise.
Subject to change without notice.

Okay, I'm done (I think) Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:41 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


nothing to offer to either side. I think of this as my own little chautauqua roundtable. It's nice.



www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:00 PM

CHRISISALL


What? You can't just pop in without an opinion...well, you can, but, you know, give us one, won't ya? Aww common.

Pretty please Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:07 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL


um, okay, I don't think any of the research has proven one thing or the other. Um, I think pollution is bad. Air quality and such, eh, should be better.

*looks around then makes a break for it before chisisall can catch her...*


www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:47 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
um, okay, I don't think any of the research has proven one thing or the other.

What 'research' are you referring to? Lack of proper documentation leads me to believe you have not read any, nor will you ever.
Quote:
Um, I think pollution is bad.

Oh, so that's your impression, huh?
Quote:
Air quality and such, eh, should be better.

2003 Air Quality Studies from the University at Hellmouth, Mass. indicate that the Earth's air quality is actually at an all-time high due to low volcanic co2 and carbon emissions, so you're WRONG!
Quote:
*looks around then makes a break for it before chisisall can catch her...*

Better run, disagree with me and I'll have you for lunch, little(weird)girl.
Quote:
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

And stop with the Italian, already!

Thanks, that was fun Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:06 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Thanks, that was fun Chrisisall


You're welcome!




and it's latin

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:32 PM

CHRISISALL


Since you pointed out my E Plurbus Unum 'error', what does it mean, anyhow?

Wht can I say? Je prener le Francais Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:41 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Not to get too far off topic, but i was a big ol Latin and French dork back in high school.

It means something quite profound and insightful...


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur = Anything said in Latin sounds profound

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:02 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sorry, I wasn't feelin' so good, and my son was grating on me something awful, hence my crappy mood.
No reason to apologize.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anyway, I'm not diggin' for links to evidence 'cause in all my reading on these threads I've discovered that no one takes that stuff seriously, anyway. 'Questionable source', 'Biased agency', 'Left (or Right) wing paper ( network, author, politician, etc.) - people believe mostly what they want to.
If I learn anything on these threads, it's that words and 'facts' can be twisted around like wheat in a windy field, and all we can do is be flexable enough in ourselves to be prepared to accept being wrong about anything, any time.
Yeah. If you put a lot of effort into a post you do so at your own risk. I’ve written many very long and complex posts that took me hours to research and support only to have it scoffed at by people who just couldn’t care less.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In the mean time,
It's possible Global Warming is alarmist chicken little nonsense, but everything I've seen and read and observed has me believin' otherwise.
Subject to change without notice.
Certainly a reasonably stated position.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:12 PM

CHRISISALL


I don't think anyone cares if this thread flip flops a little.
My High School french teacher, Misure Bisagni, used to yell at me and give me zeroes for not doing homework, but I got 100's on all the tests, so I got out of his class with a B-. Tan pis.


Aurvoir, mon amie Chrisisall (wow, it's been a while)
Edit: please excuse my poor spelling, High School was in another millenium

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:26 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you put a lot of effort into a post you do so at your own risk. I’ve written many very long and complex posts that took me hours to research and support only to have it scoffed at by people who just couldn’t care less.

You and three or four others (you all know who you are) put a LOT into these discussions, plus you put up with people who think they're funny ( I know who I am), sometimes it's hard just to keep up readin' , much less participatin'.
Anyhow, thanks for makin' this particular thread most interesting, Finn.

Sleepy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 7:58 AM

CALLMESERENITY


This is a very interesting discussion. I have enjoyed reading it and feel I've learned a few things. The New Yorker article is very interesting. I haven't quite finished it yet.
It's just nice to see an intelligent, articulate (and mostly grammatically-error-free) discussion over here about something I find important where people can voice their opinions without getting shot down (okay, most of the time).

But since I must give an opinion, I have to say that I agree with Chrisisall that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with and that farmers in Brazil should not have to hack into the rainforest to raise cows for our value meals, I agree with Finn that we need better, cleaner and more regulated nuclear power (in addition to other "clean" types of power). And even though I disagree with her stand on global warming, I enjoy Canttakethesky's very articulate writing and applaude her use of big words. And I would also like to state the I am against man-made dams as a general rule. They do horrible things to the existing ecosystem and tend to do more damage in the long run than good.

That is all.

@-}--
Since we're on the subject of latin: Ecce quam bonum et quam i cundum habitare fratres in unum. (TWG-sorry if anything's misspelled.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 10:33 AM

JASONZZZ



At the end of the day, we'll just have to look at global depopulation - there just isn't going to be 2 ways about it. It doesn't matter if you give everyone a personal nuclear plant - they'll still need to plant and eat and grow food stuff, if not for themselves, then someone will have to till the land and harvest for the rest of us folks who doesn't know how to or are too busy (pounding on keyboards and stuffing our faces with Pizza + Coke) to do it. All of that raw materials that we build them Ikea furnitures out of all come from somewhere. Let's face it, some folks are just happy clearing and grazing their own land. Others are just as happy sucking up material that others cleared and grazed.

Now, conservationists might say that we'll just have to get these simple folks something else to do, educate them, give them free energy. Who's going to grow all of these food stuff and raw materials that we need? And just what exactly is going to happen when everyone on the planet is fat, dumb, and happy? Oh, wait. We make even more babies who probably have even longer life span...

So, maybe we need a couple more wars and a few more major bird-flu or ebola epidemic to help thin out the herd a bit.




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 17, 2005 11:35 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by CallMeSerenity:
I agree with Finn that we need better, cleaner and more regulated nuclear power

I think he wanted less regulation, like in competition would naturally produce the best made and safest reactors. Don't know myself if it'd work that way, but...
Nice to have another voice here CallMeSerenity.

Fusionman Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:52 - 5 posts
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL