Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,577
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34740 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Erratum:
First sentence should say "...fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium REACTORS generate..."
understood before .. no confusion ...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34741 Mar 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Big_Goof is able to divert meaningful discussions about global warming science by saying that it cannot be science without "laboratory experiments". That is his only position.
PAKAB almost has it right, man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering atmospheric CO2 is a hoax without field experiments. Due diligence, test a product before you buy. Be more careful how you spend your money.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
By now he knows that science goes beyond laboratory experiments and uses observation for many things that do not adapt to a laboratory type experimentation.
But not things where they advise policy, if they tell you there's a way to mitigate a man made problem they better show you man made experimental results. There's a difference between purely observational and when you dear to breach a technology or policy to improve a man made or natural situation. Then you need to produce results instead of theory, get a product off the drawing board, through the lab and into the market.

Climate change mitigation is a big zero when it comes to demonstrations and results.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Yet he persists in continuing to post his contention that all science must be performed by laboratory experiment. It is best to ignore his posts by understanding what they are, simply a diversion.
The tests of climate change mitigation are essential to the policy discussion. Don't buy a pig in a poke. Emitting CO2 is too important a freedom to give up for theory and models.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Global warming is a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. Science has established that. The discussion should progress to what steps can we take to decrease the effects.
Or whether we should increase the effects, that's my plan. I stand for growth, using and producing fossil fuels and emitting carbon. That's to my best welfare and benefit. I really don't understand you, I'm sorry.

I hope carbon dioxide paranoia is a passing fad; I find it tiresome and ugly.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34742 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
You are not a scientist.
No, I'm not a scientist. But I can tell an experimental test from a computer model from climate history and coincidence.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Stop wishing that there are no scientists who post in this forum.
Stop telling me what to wish for, I wish scientists would post, that would be a relief from SB's bullying posts.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
It is always clear that you push here for uncontrolled and limitless fossil fuel burning.
Good, I believe emitting CO2 is healthy, fun and productive. Fossil fuels work, that's why we buy them. Your utility company powers your home with some fossil fuels and you use them to move yourself and your goods. Don't be down on fossil fuel, appreciate what you've got.

Don't be so ungrateful.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
You butcher science terms to confuse the public because you are not of science.
I hope I make myself clear, there are no field tests of climate change mitigation, no experiments of man made greenhouse gas emissions changing climate published in peer reviewed journals so I'm a skeptic.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Your opinion of scientists has no significance.
My opinion of science has some worth. I hope you'll learn the significance of experiment to the scientific method. Then ask a climate scientist for a compelling experimental test.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34743 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm not a scientist. But I can tell an experimental test from a computer model from climate history and coincidence.
.
.
No, you are not a scientist and you can not differentiate history from science. And you don't understand how science is pursued.

You just overrate yourself but we are not fooled by your wording.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34745 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Stop telling me what to wish for, I wish scientists would post, that would be a relief from SB's bullying posts.
.
<quoted text>Good, I believe emitting CO2 is healthy, fun and productive. Fossil fuels work, that's why we buy them. Your utility company powers your home with some fossil fuels and you use them to move yourself and your goods. Don't be down on fossil fuel, appreciate what you've got.
Don't be so ungrateful.
.
<quoted text>I hope I make myself clear, there are no field tests of climate change mitigation, no experiments of man made greenhouse gas emissions changing climate published in peer reviewed journals so I'm a skeptic.
.
<quoted text>My opinion of science has some worth. I hope you'll learn the significance of experiment to the scientific method. Then ask a climate scientist for a compelling experimental test.
LOL. You have a thick skull or a shrunken brain or both to call me "bullying" and proceed with bullying me.

What a loser! You can't even tell who's a scientist and who's not. But we know you have no science. Yet you publish to the world to lie about science.

No, your opinion is worth zero, nada, nil.

I proved to you that you are a denier, not a skeptic. Your brain runs on the same very short track. You repeat the same still.

Each day nowadays 90 million tons of man-made CO2 are emitted into our atmosphere. That's not healthy because our global climate is changing to produce dire consequences.

You just lie, year after year, almost 40,000 posts here, already.

Since: Mar 09

Parsons, KS

#34746 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>PAKAB almost has it right, man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering atmospheric CO2 is a hoax without field experiments. Due diligence, test a product before you buy. Be more careful how you spend your money.
.
<quoted text>But not things where they advise policy, if they tell you there's a way to mitigate a man made problem they better show you man made experimental results. There's a difference between purely observational and when you dear to breach a technology or policy to improve a man made or natural situation. Then you need to produce results instead of theory, get a product off the drawing board, through the lab and into the market.
Climate change mitigation is a big zero when it comes to demonstrations and results.
.
<quoted text>The tests of climate change mitigation are essential to the policy discussion. Don't buy a pig in a poke. Emitting CO2 is too important a freedom to give up for theory and models.
.
<quoted text>Or whether we should increase the effects, that's my plan. I stand for growth, using and producing fossil fuels and emitting carbon. That's to my best welfare and benefit. I really don't understand you, I'm sorry.
I hope carbon dioxide paranoia is a passing fad; I find it tiresome and ugly.
And you sir, attempt to divert the scientific findings by trying to convince others that they are somehow simply political in nature. You also attempt to divert the conversation by saying that since the science is really politics, that it would be counter productive to attempt to mitigate the effects of CO2. Yours is a false position because you circumvent the actual scientific findings and substitute propaganda instead. The fact is, burning fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has been scientifically determined that CO2 is a GHG. It is implicit in global warming.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#34747 Mar 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Alas! I've never been to Maryland or had the pleasure of meeting the gay circle there.
Just jerking your chain. Couldn't resist. I myself have never run across the "gay circle," even though I'm in Maryland frequently.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>I encountered the phrase on the New York Times as used by an economist. It aptly describes posters like brian_g, tina anne and fun facts.
<quoted text>
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/t...
Krugman? An economist? Yeah, ok. As we share an alma mater I have to throw him a bone, and yes, on economics I probably agree with him more than disagree.

But he has long ago moved from being a center-left scholar to being a liberal polemicist - and we part ways there.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34748 Mar 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> I hope you'll learn the significance of experiment to the scientific method. Then ask a climate scientist for a compelling experimental test.
LOL. You have no idea who knows what. Be clear you are the one who's ignorant in science.

"Compelling" ... haha

Any way, AGW is raging while you're not even on the first page.

Since: Aug 07

SFV

#34749 Mar 26, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>27 years of wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis proves it was an exaggeration and you and the neocons sit and wish this misery was real. Nice!
What's tragic is the toe dragging or knuckle dragging on trying to at least try to save ourselves. I am glad you have made money. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong and even down right evil is when the love of money overtakes the love of life. Human and otherwise. Greed > Life = Evil. We don't want to change for fear of disrupting the money flow.? Insanity. This "climate crisis" is real and saying otherwise is folly. You and your ilk can watch glaciers disappear and say "no they are not". This is empirical in your face data....you can see and feel it...yet you deny it. That is an impossible position to defend let alone try to sway. Finland and other northern european countries are years ahead of us in tide and water level control. We need to step it up or we are going to watch NY and N.O. disappear probably in our lifetimes. Oh, right, maybe they should just move. Insanity.
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

#34750 Mar 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium generate smaller amounts of MUCH less dangerous waste (which for many is the limiting step). The former can even use what we currently call "waste" as fuel.
Sure, as can all fast neutron reactors.

Imagine the total waste generated by your electric power consumption over your entire life fitting in a soda can. That's a sustainable future.

Those are viable reactor designs also - let the market decide.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>We still have a problem, though, in that construction of plants, mining of ore & other necessary activities associated with the industry are carbon-intensive.
Align your mind, dude - your argument is letting perfection be the enemy of the good. Irrational.

Surely you are not suggesting that these activities are even within an order of magnitude of approaching the carbon intensity of the fuel cycle activities associated with our present coal-based or natural gas-based electric power base load generation industry?

Not a wrong point, but it's a facile and fallacious rap when not applied equally to other "greeie" wind and solar technologies ON THE SAME SCALE. How many millions of wilderness acres are you willing to blight with turbines and solar panel arrays having in order to power a morden info-based society of 300 million? How many millions of tons of highly toxic metals are you comfortable seeing mined and released from manufacture of photovoltaic panels and batteries?

Since: Aug 07

SFV

#34751 Mar 26, 2013
oh and water is weight. we are melting water into the ocean. We are distributing weight differently for the entire planet. Weight that affects plate tectonics. More earthquakes and volocanic activity is in our future. The earth will force us to change. We will move but not voluntarily. We will move when a lava flow tells us too. Wondering what will happen to your precious capitalism then. Barter much?
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

#34752 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed. Safety is still a problem as well.
Teddy <that was him> does try to bring a twist. Alas an SMR is nonexistent anyhow.
"... an SMR is nonexistent anyhow??!!"

Rank horsecrap - you certainly know better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_re...

Dozens of competing SMRs to choose from, at various stages of the licensing process.

Certainly FAR, FAR closer to large-scale production reality than any competing green, renewable, carbon-free, sustainable, low-cost base load generation technology option out there.

And stop with the flip neo-Luddite "safety" scaremongering - it's unworthy of you. ALL technologies have safety problems. They are being and have been addressed - as the licenses will certify.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#34753 Mar 26, 2013
dekajed wrote:
oh and water is weight. we are melting water into the ocean. We are distributing weight differently for the entire planet. Weight that affects plate tectonics. More earthquakes and volocanic activity is in our future.
Please tell me you're joking.

Did you run any numbers on this delta water weight vs. total crustal mass for yourself before posting?

Your post is on a par with this moron's statements:

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34754 Mar 26, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
"... an SMR is nonexistent anyhow??!!"
Rank horsecrap - you certainly know better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_re...
Dozens of competing SMRs to choose from, at various stages of the licensing process.
Certainly FAR, FAR closer to large-scale production reality than any competing green, renewable, carbon-free, sustainable, low-cost base load generation technology option out there.
And stop with the flip neo-Luddite "safety" scaremongering - it's unworthy of you. ALL technologies have safety problems. They are being and have been addressed - as the licenses will certify.
Of course, I know better. Teddy is WRONG again... I'm puzzled that Teddy is not ready to read:

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are part of a new generation of nuclear power plant designs being developed in several countries.[from Wikipedia, Teddy's link]

Read: "designs being developed"

So an SMR, even just one, is nonexistent. Of course I was RIGHT!

There goes Teddy's credibility move into the horsecrap pile...:-)
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

#34755 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, I know better. Teddy is WRONG again... I'm puzzled that Teddy is not ready to read:
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are part of a new generation of nuclear power plant designs being developed in several countries.[from Wikipedia, Teddy's link]
Read: "designs being developed"
So an SMR, even just one, is nonexistent. Of course I was RIGHT!
There goes Teddy's credibility move into the horsecrap pile...:-)
Your bullshit strawman twisting of my post makes it clear you are the one with intentional reading comprehension deficit.

I posted: "Dozens of competing SMRs to choose from, AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE LICENSING PROCESS."

"Certainly FAR, FAR closer to large-scale production reality than any competing green, renewable, carbon-free, sustainable, low-cost base load generation technology option out there."

NOWHERE did I say there was an SMR presently in commercial operation - that's YOUR bullshit invention - putting words in my mouth.

Where's YOUR green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster?

Oh - that's right - you don't have any solution. You're proudly part of perpetuating the problem, Mr. "Scientist."

Of course, if you DO have a superior green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster than a crash program to build SMRs, let's hear it. And please do hurry - we're cooking the planet while you pontificate and posture.

Otherwise, there goes SpaceCase's credibility right back into the horsecrap pile...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34756 Mar 26, 2013
Hey Teddy the unready for the public ..

Read my previous post.
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

#34757 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed. Safety is still a problem as well.
Talk about safety problems! This should scare the bejeezis out of anyone within a half-mile of one of these death machines:



Ask any of these folks what they think of wind turbines:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/354707...

And the eagles! The raptors dying by the thousands!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/...

Oh! The environmental carnage!

See? Isn't bullshit scaremongering fun!!
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

#34758 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Hey Teddy the unready for the public ..
Read my previous post.
Translation: "I got nothing. I've been owned"

Your previous post?

Flushed. Took two flushes, in fact, it was so rancid.

Do get right back to us with your superior solution to save the planet, mmm-k?
litesong

Everett, WA

#34759 Mar 26, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I'm not a scientist.
Stop telling me what to wish for....... relief from SB's bullying posts.
I hope I make myself clear.....
My opinion of science has some worth.
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" clearly is & wishes to be a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4 time alleged & 3 time proud threatener. brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" isn't a scientist because he couldn't even get upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course, the science opinion of brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has no worth, since he has mathematics errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34760 Mar 26, 2013
Teddy is rynning a scam with Reddy ...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min RealDave 1,128,958
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 min PEllen 98,529
Abby 10-30 7 min Sublime1 5
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 19 min Chicagoan by Birth 179,640
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 35 min Poof1 50,750
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 1 hr RJS 7,829
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Eric 70,140
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]