CRAZY TRAIN has gone OFF THE RAILS

[motionclone]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

I used to think nuclear power would be wonderful, but I am currently unwilling to vote for more plants. The key is "properly designed and maintained". If you look through the accidents described in the Wikipedia article above, they were largely caused by operator errors. The consequences of mistakes when the large volumes of material needed for electrical power are involved are too great for my taste. People are way too fallible. And then there are the unsolved problems associated with the waste disposal. Some day it could be the answer, but not now.

And yet that same article you reference only lists 2 major incidents and a total of about 50 deaths related to the use of nuclear power plants since they started being used.

Power plants have been phasing out due to FEAR not reality. Fear driven by propaganda.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

The CANDU nukes cannot 'meltdown', I've been told, unlike the other like 3mileisland and chernoble(sp).
Overall, nukes are far safe than 737 Max8s....and that is really sad.
as for the 'toxic hot waste', France figured out a solution to that years ago, but of course 'pollyticks' prevents the USA from using their methods...

 

[sheepfarmer]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

The CANDU nukes cannot 'meltdown', I've been told, unlike the other like 3mileisland and chernoble(sp).
Overall, nukes are far safe than 737 Max8s....and that is really sad.
as for the 'toxic hot waste', France figured out a solution to that years ago, but of course 'pollyticks' prevents the USA from using their methods...

Jay I'll be the first to recognize that my northern neighbors often have hit upon a better way of doing things. I don't have any firsthand information on what prevents your reactors from melting down, or from having dangerous radiation releases. It all boils down to a risk reward analysis, and given the US screwball politics and the current crop of youngsters without a good work ethic, I don't want to risk it unless necessary.

 

[motionclone]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Jay I'll be the first to recognize that my northern neighbors often have hit upon a better way of doing things. I don't have any firsthand information on what prevents your reactors from melting down, or from having dangerous radiation releases. It all boils down to a risk reward analysis, and given the US screwball politics and the current crop of youngsters without a good work ethic, I don't want to risk it unless necessary.

It boils down to who makes decisions based on fear and emotion rather than facts and logic. There has been a fear campaign tugging at peoples emotions about nuke energy for many many years and emotion has won.

BUT here are the facts:

 

[skeets]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Charts can be made to favor anything you want them to, having spent most of my adult life working for the man. I have seen that many many times when an agenda was being pushed. Now let us ask about this chart what is the time frame from what date to what date, nor does it indicate the areas they gleaned this alleged information from, it shows nothing, so in reality it is pretty colors and nothing more.
If you want to prove a point, then research is the answer, you need to show proven facts from a source that cannot be disputed, by the way they obtain the facts, also the criteria they used to establish those facts, IE all the numbers and how they came by them!

So one of two things are apparent, you either work in the nuclear industry, or you are one of those people that are driven by feelings, and not actual hard cold facts.
Again no offence is intended,just show me the facts, that beyond a reasonable doubt, will prove that nuclear plants are the best thing since sliced bread, and I will listen with an open mind. To date nuclear aint got the best rep... just MHO

 

[motionclone]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

So one of two things are apparent, you either work in the nuclear industry, or you are one of those people that are driven by feelings, and not actual hard cold facts.

Wrong, Im a Mason Contractor in Liberalville Maine. Have not a thing to to with the nuke industry. I dont have feelings, so no not driven by that either.

SO what are the "real cold hard facts" since you dispute these? And why go on the attack just because you dont like what you see?

Look around and dig up some cold hard facts about how many people are killed by nuke power, you wont find many. Sounds like you might have a stake in a competing energy sector like say, COAL!! which im totally fine with but just like propaganda took down nuke power, they are also trying to take down coal.

Im not saying we should replace coal with nuke as your defensiveness suggests Im just saying propaganda took nuke down. From environmentalists and probably competing industry.

 

[AndyM]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

The problem with nucs is they break, as all man made stuff will in time. Design error,materials, operation, environment will get you in time. And with nucs the problems last a long time and no fix is possible. I gather some fish are now showing the effects of fukishima. Dosn't seem to be the enviromentally safe solution some seem to believe.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

1,000s have been killed digging for coal to feed the power plants..
millions of acres lost to reservoirs for hydro plants( hoover is one example)
windmills slaughter 1,000s of birds every year....

properly designed amd maintained nukes are statisically safer and cheaper.
as for living near them, your submariiners do that months on end,year after year...

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree.

The land behind hoover dam (lake mead) was and is a desolate desert not much was wasted by putting it under water, but the 100's of millions that are effected by is water, power, but more importantly flood control and water for agriculture control.
And without the hover dam, there wouldn't be all that money flowing around the fine town of Las Vegas.

I live in a state / area that all of or power is derived from hydro electric, and there is very little negative impact from doing so, in fact without the dams to control flow we would be in a sad state from floods and erosion.

This could go on and on, but i digress, your opinion is your opinion and I'm not here to sway it.

 

[sawmill]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Back in 1976 I worked in a nuke plant for about two months. They are extremely dangerous. You cannot see, smell or here radiation. My job was fabricating new piping for the reactor. I would have to go in there 3 or 4 times a day. You have to dress down and wear special suits to go in then shower and redress when you came out. You have to wear a film badge at all times to detect the amount of radiation you are absorbing to prevent burn out! Then there is the issue of the spent fuel rods. They have to be transported somewhere to a nuclear disposal site.
One day at the safety meeting I ask if they could guarantee me that in years to come it would not harm me or my family from what was on my clothing when I went home. They said they could not give such a guarantee. That is when I walked out and quit!
No one can convince me that a nuclear power plant is safe!!!

 

[skeets]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

motonclone,,, I did not attack you, I have no reason to. If you think that my answers are an attack so be it. The problem lays with the fact, that you have not provided any, Have a good life.

 

[motionclone]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Really????
When was the last time that a coal fired, water generated, or natural gas powered power plant kill thousands, and contaminate a 1000 Square miles of land?

The by products from a nuclear power plant will take 1000's of years to degrade to a point where they can be safely handled.

The worst place you can live is anywhere in the vicinity of a Nuclear Power Plant.

Seems like you and skeets, maybe others are under the impression that Nuke power has killed thousands of people or contaminated the world in a way that causes people harm but the stats and records just dont show that.

There have been a few accidents and land has been contaminated but people just arent dying like you guys think. If its as dangerous as you say then there should be lots of documented deaths to support that so give us a link to that info.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Seems like you and skeets, maybe others are under the impression that Nuke power has killed thousands of people or contaminated the world in a way that causes people harm but the stats and records just dont show that.

There have been a few accidents and land has been contaminated but people just arent dying like you guys think. If its as dangerous as you say then there should be lots of documented deaths to support that so give us a link to that info.

The worst nuclear accident to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed 31 people directly and damaged approximately $7 billion of property. A study published in 2005 by the World Health Organization estimates that there may eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.[21] Radioactive fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Other studies have estimated as many as over a million eventual cancer deaths from Chernobyl

Yea I know, probably a lot of political spin on this too.

I've seen, worked and dealt with Nuclear waste, not a good thing, takes 1000's of years to degrade and become anything other than incredibly dangerous and unstable.

If you give me a choice over all forms of generation, Hydro wins every time, it's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Not here to sway anyone opinion, you like what you like in your backyard, and I'll like what I like in my backyard.

 

[motionclone]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

The worst nuclear accident to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed 31 people directly and damaged approximately $7 billion of property. A study published in 2005 by the World Health Organization estimates that there may eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.[21] Radioactive fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Other studies have estimated as many as over a million eventual cancer deaths from Chernobyl

Yea I know, probably a lot of political spin on this too.

I've seen, worked and dealt with Nuclear waste, not a good thing, takes 1000's of years to degrade and become anything other than incredibly dangerous and unstable.

If you give me a choice over all forms of generation, Hydro wins every time, it's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Not here to sway anyone opinion, you like what you like in your backyard, and I'll like what I like in my backyard.

Like 30 people died from Chernobyl including people who later came down with cancer and that was a drunk russian man made problem not likely to happen in the US.

Predicting how many people MAY die of cancer sometime in the future is pure scare tactic that seems to have worked. That kind of propaganda and its success is why we are in the Man Made Climate Hoax now.

I lived 20 miles from a nuke plant and it was decommisioned in the 90s without killing everyone or anyone around it.

Submarines and aircraft carriers all have nukes and those guys live within 1000ft of them for a year at a time.

 

[CaveCreekRay]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Authored by Walter Williams, op-ed via Townhall.com,

The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science.

Tony Heller has exposed some of the egregious dishonesty of mainstream environmentalists in a video he's titled "My Gift To Climate Alarmists." Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming. However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then. Environmentalists hide the earlier data and make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.

Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming. Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now. Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.

Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees. If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955, they show an increase in the number of above 90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40. Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.

You might ask: "Who is Tony Heller? Does he work for big oil?" It turns out that he is a scientist and claims to be a lifelong environmentalist. From what I can tell, he has no vested interests. In that respect, he is different from those who lead the environmental movement, who often either work for or are funded by governments.

Once in a while environmentalists reveal their true agenda.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC's fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth."

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that:

the true aim of the U.N.'s 2014 Paris climate conference was "to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

Christine Stewart, Canada's former Minister of the Environment said:

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. ... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Not all scientists are dishonest and not all news reporters are leftists with an agenda. But one wonders at the deafening silence where there's clear, unambiguous evidence.

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming? Why aren't there any reporters to highlight leftist statements such as those by Edenhofer, Stewart and others who want to ride global warming as a means to defeat capitalism and usher in socialism and communism?

I would prefer to think that the silence of so many scientists represent their fears as opposed to their going along with the environmental extremist agenda.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/scientists-dishonest-or-afraid

 

[dlsmith]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science.

You seem to have never considered politics, politicians and conspiracy theorists.

Why don't all you people who think climate scientists are full of crap, put your money where your mouth is and buy up all the beautiful ocean shoreline property that "they" say will be underwater in a couple of decades. Sounds like a great investment to me.
Or, maybe move to one of those beautiful, idyllic Pacific islands that are already in danger of being submerged as the ice caps and glaciers continue to melt and sea levels rise.

Would you believe astronomers if they said they had discovered an asteroid that was going to strike the earth in 20 or 30 years and wipe out a couple of billion people, unless we built a space tug to nudge it out of it's collision course with earth? Would you support funding building the spacecraft even though it would mean increasing taxes?
Or would you just dismiss it as another hoax?

I'm not saying that there hasn't been some incompetence and fudging of data in the climates sciences, because there has been. I'd be at a loss to name any human endeavor that hasn't been corrupted by over zealous, but well meaning individuals.
However, when 99% of all climate scientist agree that we have an impending climate crisis, I would err on the side of believing them.

Tony Heller is just another conspiracy theorist making money off the fear of the uninformed and gullible.

 

[skeets]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

If you feel that strongly that man is the cause then maybe you should sell you Bota and car and truck ,and stop heating with gas or electricity or gawd forbid wood,, , that way you will not be part of the cause

 

[D2Cat]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

When it comes to politics and truth here's our fearless leader.

Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965; he initially planned to major in English and write novels but later decided to major in government.[18][19] On his second day on campus, he began campaigning for the freshman student government council and was elected its president.[19]

Gore was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[19] but he did not do well in science classes and avoided taking math.[18] During his first two years, his grades placed him in the lower one-fifth of his class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.[18][19] In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs.[18] In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore's interest in global warming and other environmental issues.[19][29] Gore earned an A on his thesis, "The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947–1969", and graduated with an A.B. cum laude in June 1969.[18][30

Gore has been involved with environmental issues since 1976, when as a freshman congressman, he held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsor[ed] hearings on toxic waste and global warming."[60][61] He continued to speak on the topic throughout the 1980s,[62] and is still prevalent in the environmental community.

He had a tough time in science class, but he knows all about it somehow!

 

[sheepfarmer]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

If you feel that strongly that man is the cause then maybe you should sell you Bota and car and truck ,and stop heating with gas or electricity or gawd forbid wood,, , that way you will not be part of the cause

Many of us are doing our best to use whatever dollars we have to decrease our individual contributions to the problem and still have a comfortable lifestyle. We can use a dpf outfitted tractor without bitching about it, and gee surprise mine at least is dandy. Heat pumps and solar panels. It is hard to get rid of everything, but if everyone did a little it would sure help. There are no ideal solutions, all have some drawbacks. It is pretty obvious we have a plastics problem, and dumping garbage mindlessly into the earth and oceans is going to haunt us for generations. I could go on and on. Putting out waste was fine when populations were smaller, but the numbers of humans has been going up exponentially.

 

[skeets]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

That was a sarcastic remark sheepfarmer, and nothing more. You know I enjoy a spirited thread as much as the next person in here, and everyone has an opinion no matter what the subject matter.

Though sometimes, it is fun to poke the pig with a stick and see what happens. And the ones that go off the rail when someone disagrees with them,,,, well ,,,, you know. Rather than discussing things in a logical and friendly way they dive back into the Kool Aid, and, start with indignation, and it goes down hill from there.
Everyone is or should be concerned about pollution of that there is no doubt. I dealt with it on a federal level with the mining industry, heavy metals are in a word ,bad JuJu, we know this. The air, and water standards in the USA are pretty much the highest in the world, though the rest of the world isn't. yes some are higher, but most are no where close.

I think what burns me is people think that, we, in America need to do something about the rest of the world. Sorry, but all that crap they find in the seas aint all ours!

So if anyone thinkgs the problem is that bad then they need to become involved, with real facts not some thing they find on the interweb or the paper someone hands then in the mall. Do the research, do the work read not just one small blog, or post from some crazy Doc Brown lookin wack job.

Dig deep into the subject matter, thats lights your fire,,and most of all learn to THINK FOR YOUR SELF, become a free thinker. You dont have to follow all the other sheepel, to be right or be one of the gang.

I had a HD shirt I picked up in a shop some place, and on it was typical HD stuff. But it said,,,

If you want to ride a Harley to be part of the gang,
maybe you better ride the bus.

What Im saying is following the crowd isnt always the best thing to do.

Y'all have a good day, I got me some tyres ta burn

 

[sheepfarmer]

Re: Man Made Global COOLING?!

Good to know Skeets, I put in my 2 cents worth because A that is what I think, and B some of the other posters are saying things that I think are misguided, unfortunately.

I don't have the time to try to find the raw data to argue about the rise in sea levels, but I think the key to the discussion is not whether they have or are rising, but what is the change in the rate at which they are rising? E.g what does the slope of the graph look like? Is there an uptick in the last 200 years?

And the question you have to ask is not if climate has changed in the past, it has, but if we accelerate change, how much are we in the next 100 years going to be inconvenienced by it? Displacing populations from low lying areas has a lot of global consequences.

Unlike Ray, I tend to separate out the politics from my read of the science. The scientists who attempt to project the future from the data available often make people aware of the limitations of their models, and they are limited. Like describing an elephant 1 mm at a time. My logic is that I can see the consequences with my own eyes of wasting resources, and I have as much as anyone else, and I don't want to add to the problem any more. But it's hard.