Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28468 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

Truthsayer777

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#26792 Apr 19, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Worry, yes, by doing God's Will in Love before the Judgement. Help the poor, needy, injured, & diseased. Work to alleviate conditions that will hurt the poor, needy, injured, & diseased.
www.scribd.com/doc/22629976...
Truthsayer777

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#26793 Apr 19, 2013
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#26794 Apr 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I probably wrote something more like:
"If man made CO2 emissions change climate then we are already mitigating climate change...." I don't believe man made greenhouse gases are significant climate drivers, like the sun and altitude. This is where we differ.
I don't call my political opponents 'liars', they are often mistaken because they don't use the scientific method. If you can't find compelling experimental tests for climate change mitigation; how can you not be a skeptic?
NO, LIAR, this is what you wrote:
Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.
We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.

And then I wrote:
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times.

So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#26795 Apr 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I probably wrote something more like:
"If man made CO2 emissions change climate then we are already mitigating climate change...." I don't believe man made greenhouse gases are significant climate drivers, like the sun and altitude. This is where we differ.
I don't call my political opponents 'liars', they are often mistaken because they don't use the scientific method. If you can't find compelling experimental tests for climate change mitigation; how can you not be a skeptic?
NO, LIAR, you didn't "probably" write "If", you wrote:
"Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario."

I don't call my political opponents 'liars' because they don't use the scientific method. I call them liars when they LIE!

LIAR.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#26796 Apr 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I probably wrote something more like:
"If man made CO2 emissions change climate then we are already mitigating climate change
When you confirmed the role of CO2, you didn't say, "Only with the assumption AGW theory is true."

You didn't probably say.

You didn't say "if".

You didn't say you assumed.

You said CO2 mitigates climate cooling. You said we are already mitigating climate change.

You are a liar if you dispute this. You are a liar all the time, anyway. But this is not the only time. That's why you have been honored with the sobriquet, lyin' brian.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26797 Apr 19, 2013
BF:
The neat thing about Technicium is that with the process I have described in one of these topics, the Tc gets extracted with the Pu and can be returned to the LFTR core where it can be transmuted.

Also, we have gotten quite good at handling radioactive materials and can derive some good benefits with very low risk. It is time to take the plunge.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26798 Apr 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
NO, LIAR, this is what you wrote: Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.
We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.

And then I wrote: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain! I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times. So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming." Care to dispute that?
I'm using the same assumption gcaveman uses, we'll never know who's right if we don't have experimental tests. I'm calling climate change mitigation a hoax because it's never been tried or tested. Until it is tested, you certainly may say: "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming." We can't know the truth of an untested theory.

This is the difference between science and faith; in science theories are experimentally tested but faith is more like the pseudoscience of man made catastrophic climate change alarmism.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

#26799 Apr 20, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Worry, yes, by doing God's Will in Love before the Judgement. Help the poor, needy, injured, & diseased. Work to alleviate conditions that will hurt the poor, needy, injured, & diseased.
First this site is more attuned to proof of any speculations you may have, within reason. That said; where is your proofs of god. Was it that god created man?“OR” is it that man created god in his image and likeness? Observe how the gods have evolved as knowledge advanced. Consider the jealous god. Implying a vanity. Did god create evil or does man have that ability to create. Various religions have gods that can not comprehend evolution let alone the ability to create it. That indicates this is a man’s conclusion.
Various religions can only exist within the borders of a limited time frame of 6,500 years. Once again eluding to some frail intelligence that would accept that. Evidence disproves this limit. Is god providing us with false evidence or would it be more probable, that its once again, originating from a frail intelligence of some within our humanity. God deceitful, jealous, vindictive, frail, errors in creation that results in producing evil. These are just a few questions you will be expected to address. Opinionated rhetoric will not suffice. Do you require some sort of religion for you fear god has not endowed you with the ability to have “Free Will” and advance your knowledge and wisdom. Then here I’ll make one for you ; Requires no incantations; to petition god, prophets, messiahs, priest, preachers or churches.

Collective Conscience
Presently we have the internet and its components, such as the cloud programs. Note the similar evolution to our evolutions. Cloud, Internet created in the image of humanities consciousness .. We contribute knowledge through the internet by communicating with various conscious entities. Knowledge is refined as communication increases. A collective intelligence begins to evolve.
Just as our consciousness increases with each of our experiences through our individual lives and as to how we communicate it to other conscious individuals our collective consciousness increases.
Presently quantum physics has discovered how interrelated particles have connections at a distance. What force is impressed upon one particle, will have an immediate affect on the related particle at a distance. Even at a distance of thousands of miles.{CERN Collider} Einstein called it spook physics. This harbors on the metaphysics and physical realms. Wave particle is affected by the conscious observations of that wave particle.{Energy is manipulated by consciousness}
Metaphysically, we can presently observe consciousness effect on another conscious at a distance. Perhaps some of us have had and are experiencing this affect. Some may call it Des-Javeu, predications, out of body experiences, etc.
Now; the entity of all consciousness, exist in all living organisms. With Various degrees of communication, to a collective consciousness. Some tap into this reservoir from time to time to obtain information or add additional knowledge. Psychics?
Physical Energy is not created nor destroyed; therefore the metaphysical collective conscious is equally eternal. Individual communication determines as to the dimension it has chosen. Abnormalities will be taken into consideration, genetic variants, DNA evolutionary existence, etc.
Here is where your meditations can begin and build upon the varieties of ideologies. Collective Consciousness….God? Embracing through us all.
Now go forth and seek and ye shall find… Hmmmm

Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

#26800 Apr 20, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
BF:
The neat thing about Technicium is that with the process I have described in one of these topics, the Tc gets extracted with the Pu and can be returned to the LFTR core where it can be transmuted.
Also, we have gotten quite good at handling radioactive materials and can derive some good benefits with very low risk. It is time to take the plunge.
Kiteman; I’m sure we will eventually resolve the issues of technical frailties that we have discovered in our use of nuclear energy. That we have reached that technical point has not yet been achieved.
Largest contributing factor to why nuclear energy is not required or safe yet to take advantage of it; It’s the maturity of our populace and their corporations idealisms of capitalism. Japan is but one example of many that validates what I’m proposing. Even on this thread we can observe immaturity within our spheres of humanity. This prevails through a multitude of the echelons of our society.
Once again I submit that we are more attuned to a more subtle harmonious change in our energy needs through the Alternative fields that are emerging. Observe something as simple as deriving our energy directly from the SUN is obstructed and the frail , gnash their teeth at its prospects.
Have they comprehension of the Nuclear toxicity and the thousands of years that we have already have infected the world’s population. Let them digest this subtle Solar transfer, then the issue of Nuclear and Fusion can be advanced.
Technology has increased and will continue to increase faster than the majority of the populace, will have time enough to digest it sufficiently.
For them to comprehend the responsibility required for its use will require a more harmonious blending with the required accountabilities that will be demanded by the new technologies.
I do see the benefits of Nuclear and Fusion. It will be required for the final frontier efforts. Space exploration and colonizing orbiting various satellites is the proving fields for their benefits. Out of reach of the of those that have not yet come to appreciate their obligations, that is demanded by Fusion and Nuclear.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#26801 Apr 20, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]I'm using...... assumption......[/QUOTE]

....... instead of science & mathematics. That is 'lyin' brian' has errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

#26802 Apr 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm using the same assumption gcaveman uses, we'll never know who's right if we don't have experimental tests. I'm calling climate change mitigation a hoax because it's never been tried or tested. Until it is tested, you certainly may say: "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming." We can't know the truth of an untested theory.
This is the difference between science and faith; in science theories are experimentally tested but faith is more like the pseudoscience of man made catastrophic climate change alarmism.
Brian you are once again making false statements…“No experiments conducted?” False! You have been given a source for you to examine the experiments that have been conducted. Start with Paleoclimatology and when you have actually researched it, get back to me have several other fields of science that collaborates each others experiments, supporting the experiments conducted in Paleoclimatology.
Rambling about proclaiming HOAX, does not validate your position. It does illuminate it, as it may very will be that you are the hoax.
Observe how I presented you source to relieve yourself from your lack of knowledge on this subject, you in turn give me this;

“This is the difference between science and faith; in science theories are experimentally tested but faith is more like the pseudoscience of man made catastrophic climate change alarmism”[What is your point? Are you denouncing Faith or Man]

Provide links that validate this …. Whatever it is…. Theory of yours? How about some experiments? Now a hoax will continue to regurgitate opinioned rhetoric, rather than providing some sort of proof of what they are theorizing. For example; I theorize you will continue with false information and rhetorical opinions. Now I have this theory that you are a hoax. I presented an experiment to test my hypothesis‘. Your reply will be the test. Go ahead take a chance. Have Faith in yourself? Are you a man? Can you do it without catastrophic alarmism? Hmmm…
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

#26803 Apr 20, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
....... instead of science & mathematics. That is 'lyin' brian' has errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES.
Litesong stops by and is discouraged and inflamed. Mean? Where when how? You disagree? MY, MY with what? Are proposing that we are to bow whatever sermon you spill out. Asked some simple questions. How does that make one who turns the other cheek so disagreeable, that no words of reply can be mustered. Then off and attacks poor Brian.

[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]I'm using...... assumption......[/QUOTE]

....... instead of science & mathematics. That is 'lyin' brian' has errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES.

Not very Christian of you. Come on pick on someone your own size. Go ahead use all of your hearsay biblical quotations. Try archeology for some validation. Hmmm we could have some fun there. Await your pleasure…. There’s no way you can deny it. Man created god…
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26804 Apr 20, 2013
Fusion is also nuclear. There are thus nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26805 Apr 20, 2013
BF:
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree since I am quite positive that we have reached the level of technical maturity,(at least here in the west) to safely handle radioactive materials. I am also pretty sure that without the anti-nukes spreading lies hither and yon, the politics would soon catch up. So it seems the lack of maturity lies with the anti-nukes. Please understand that I refer to commercial systems, not military. So far, they seem to have bit of a problem taking care of their stuff.

I'd kind of like to see a UN Corporation that provides LFTRs at cost+%, under UN control, to any country that is willing to turn over all rights to nuclear research; i.e., they would agree not to do any nuclear research/development. The LFTR would be designed for optimum breeding with an emergency denaturing system to prevent diversion of fuel to weapons projects.

It need not be UN specifically, but it should include buy-in from all the major nuclear powers so that all agree that countries that attempt to violate their agreement are appropriately disciplined.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26806 Apr 20, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
BF:
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree since I am quite positive that we have reached the level of technical maturity,(at least here in the west) to safely handle radioactive materials.
Nuclear power is like cars: you can only trust the people who can make cars with nuclear power. Germany and Japan make reliable cars; America and England (despite great engineering talent) make crap cars that break down (or did before they were forced to learn from the Japs and the Krauts); the Russians borrow somebody else's technology and make cars that explode.

Germany and Japan have reliable nuclear power (excepting a 1 in a 1000 year tsunami), Britain dumped its nuclear waste down a hole at Sellafield and made the North Sea radioactive, and Russia had Chernobyl.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#26807 Apr 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuclear power is like cars: you can only trust the people who can make cars with nuclear power. Germany and Japan make reliable cars; America and England (despite great engineering talent) make crap cars that break down (or did before they were forced to learn from the Japs and the Krauts); the Russians borrow somebody else's technology and make cars that explode.
Germany and Japan have reliable nuclear power (excepting a 1 in a 1000 year tsunami), Britain dumped its nuclear waste down a hole at Sellafield and made the North Sea radioactive, and Russia had Chernobyl.
The three major accidents that I know of (Three Mile, Chernobyl, and Fukashima) were all caused and/or aggravated by human error.

If designs are improved and additional safety requirements are instituted, there will still be humans in any plant, and humans make errors.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#26808 Apr 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
If designs are improved and additional safety requirements are instituted, there will still be humans in any plant, and humans make errors.
Of 1,728 cases of foreign body injury to the esophagus and the air passages, approximately 12 per cent were due to the safety-pin, and in almost every instance the pin.......

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#26809 Apr 20, 2013
27 years of "maybe" proves it "won't be" a crisis.
Not one single scientific study in 27 years has ever said a climate crisis from Human CO2 is as inevitable and eventual as an asteroid hit and the IPCC has never said it "WILL" happen, only might.
The ultimate crisis is a climate crisis and for that we need certainty not "maybe" and could be and might be and.....
Are you remaining believers ready to be mocked as Reefer Madness clowns and end of the world freaks for the history books? "Maybe" is unsustainable and someday perpetuating an exaggerated crisis for 27 years will be a war crime.

REAL progressives know that Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26810 Apr 20, 2013
Bernard Forand wrote:
Brian you are once again making false statements…“No experiments conducted?” False! You have been given a source for you to examine the experiments that have been conducted. Start with Paleoclimatology and when you have actually researched it, get back to me have several other fields of science that collaborates each others experiments, supporting the experiments conducted in Paleoclimatology.
Rambling about proclaiming HOAX, does not validate your position. It does illuminate it, as it may very will be that you are the hoax.
Observe how I presented you source to relieve yourself from your lack of knowledge on this subject, you in turn give me this;
“This is the difference between science and faith; in science theories are experimentally tested but faith is more like the pseudoscience of man made catastrophic climate change alarmism”[What is your point? Are you denouncing Faith or Man]
Provide links that validate this …. Whatever it is…. Theory of yours? How about some experiments? Now a hoax will continue to regurgitate opinioned rhetoric, rather than providing some sort of proof of what they are theorizing. For example; I theorize you will continue with false information and rhetorical opinions. Now I have this theory that you are a hoax. I presented an experiment to test my hypothesis‘. Your reply will be the test. Go ahead take a chance. Have Faith in yourself? Are you a man? Can you do it without catastrophic alarmism? Hmmm…
I've seen citations of lab experiments that show a climate sensitivity far below the IPCC's guesses but no field experiments. Can you cite?

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26811 Apr 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The three major accidents that I know of (Three Mile, Chernobyl, and Fukashima) were all caused and/or aggravated by human error.
If designs are improved and additional safety requirements are instituted, there will still be humans in any plant, and humans make errors.
Human error decides whether there will be a failure. The design defines whether it fails safe. None of the mentioned designs had fail safe designs. The AP1000 approaches it more fully. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers can be made fail safe; not fail PROOF, fail safe.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 5 min One Who Understands 62
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr IB DaMann 51,196
Wotofo The Troll RTA Atomizer, Ideal for Flavor... 5 hr perty 1
Transfer Music/Songs from iPhone to Android pho... (Jun '13) 7 hr Judyhfreeman 21
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 11 hr par five 11,383
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 14 hr positronium 12,262
News The crucial election question is the one that c... 23 hr Le Jimbo 10
More from around the web