Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Kansas.com

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 ...

Comments (Page 1,297)

Showing posts 25,921 - 25,940 of26,847
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26802
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26803
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26804
Apr 20, 2013
 
Fusion is also nuclear. There are thus nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26805
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26806
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26807
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26808
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26809
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26810
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26811
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26812
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Money wasted?

"Two-thirds of a trillion" dollars were spent last year alone in fossil-fuels exploration when only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future.

Plus nature destruction and exploration accidents.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26813
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

mememine69 wrote:
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.
When we see the signatures of extra-terrestrial impacts all over our planet, during all the Ages of the Earth; when we look to the Moon, Mars, Mercury, and the moons of other planets, and we see the scars and craters remaining through all the eons of their existence; when we witness impacts with the gaseous planets now, using our modern sky-gazing equipment; yes, we know more impacts are inevitable.

But we are not sure that we have ever seen warming on this planet progressing at the rate the current warming is, and we have a pretty firm idea that our actions are causing it. The "maybe" and "could be" is now at the 95% confidence level. You are backing a 5% uncertainty and I certainly hope that isn't the way you place most of your bets.

If so, you're going to lose your ass at the racetrack.

You've already lost your credibility on this thread. Don't ask me to loan you any money to go to the track.

(BTW, if you go back and watch "Reefer Madness", you may notice that there was a lot of drinking going on also, before the girl was raped. Alcohol does that to people, not the weed.)
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26814
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Excellent.

There were design flaws involved in at least two of the three accidents I mentioned. What guarantee is there that design flaws won't be incorporated into ANY new design?

There is still human involvement, and humans make mistakes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26815
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
Money wasted? "Two-thirds of a trillion" dollars were spent last year alone in fossil-fuels exploration when only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future. Plus nature destruction and exploration accidents.
Not money wasted, more supply means lower prices. Besides, who says "only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future"? Maybe we shouldn't depend on people who hate fossil fuel to tell us how much we need?
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26816
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] Maybe we shouldn't depend on people who hate fossil fuel.........[QUOTE]

"lyin' brian" shows its insecurity complex (as well as inferiority), looking for hatred under every......... oil well.

Me..... I find "lyin' brian" hatred under every one of its slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND alleged & proud threats.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26817
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kiteman sass wrote:
Human error decides whether there will be a failure.
How many failures do you find in the errors of 'lyin' brian', amounting to 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES. Of course, people know that 'lyin' brian' isn't human, so a general guess is what I ask you.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26818
Apr 21, 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. 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.
Kiteman; Your simple dismissal of the facts that illuminate what I have proposed does not relieve us from our obligations to hold fission accountable. Merely by accusing the anti-nukes as immature will require evidence that supports that accusation. Other wise it is dismissed as simple rhetoric.
You have reached a position that you are positive that we have reached our technological maturity for fissionable energy is just your opinion with no facts to support that position.
UN corporation for LFTR’s dispersals is interesting. However their record for maintaining security. as it is, a hit or miss dependent to the strengths of their adversaries. Thus terrorist would seek to obtain the fuel of these LFTR’s and then we can anticipate what that would entail.
Think GE has a program for that, they want to produce these mini atomic reactors for less fortunate energy deprived areas of the world. They face the same dilemma. How can they guarantee security 24/7 for life of the plant? Maturity level of the world is even less than what is in this nation.
Now once again; why such determination for a complex centrally controlled energy program, when the Sunshine is just outside your window. Individuals have the ability to be INDEPENDENT from central energy sources Temptations will forever be within a centrally controlled energy system to exploit their customers. Our Fusion Reactor is already on line and we call it the SUN. Each of us has the ability to extract that energy for less cost than any centralized energy system can ever accomplish for those of us, that choose INDEPEDENCE.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26819
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Brian; It was stipulated that you provide links to sources that demonstrates what your implying is correct. All you have offered is something about what you saw. Then you want me to cite something. NO, NO, NO, that’s not how it works. I have given you a site to find a greater knowledge for what you are trying to converse in. There are other sites but why bother look at you. Stumbling about asking others to give you the answerer and then you will not comprehend it and off on to another of some useless opinionate rhetoric.
You have to cross that lonesome valley all by yourself for no one can do it for you… Here try this; Just one small part of Paleoclimatology and one brief epoch of time. Go to Snowball Earth and study the theories that led us to that snowball . How did it get reversed? After all snow reelects the sun. This might make cheer you up. Observe what the atmosphere was. I know you’re a CO2 fan. Now that should not take more than about an hour of your time to study. Be careful though, knowledge is an addictive process.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26820
Apr 21, 2013
 
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Once again you have demonstrated the failure of your Fail Safe gizmo. Humans made the Fail Safe and Humans Are the prime causes of failure of systems. Paradox.“Its no Fail Proof”; that is no more than saying six of one ½ dozen of another. What this implies is a foundation is being laid for semantically dismissing various obstacles and highlight the benefits. Semantics aside there is no 24/7 /life of reactor guarantee that insures us that it will not continue to add to the radioactivity that is already a-washed world wide. Accumulation of radioactivity is compounding to the top of the food chain. When we get to space and safely out of orbit. Then we can fire up these fissionable reactors. There the probability of the humans employed will be matured enough to comprehend the nature of fissionable material. A simple safety feature to insure that the Earth is no longer threatened with additional radioactivity from these energy sources is to have them in an escaping orbital trajectory. Fail and off they go. Perhaps to the Sun if we should so choose. Adding any more radioactivity pollution to our fragile eco system is no longer tolerable from radioactive generators. Especially all the energy required falls from a huge Fusion Reactor and the pickings are easy and non TOXIC. No need for Fail Safe or worries of Terrorist pursuits.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26821
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
How many failures do you find in the errors of 'lyin' brian', amounting to 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES. Of course, people know that 'lyin' brian' isn't human, so a general guess is what I ask you.
No reply to my questions and my answers to yours go ignored? Is that how your preacher man advises you? Nay, nay never question and when questioned never answerer. Perhaps those other questions were too much for you. Lets get real Simple; {PUN} What I f Adam and Eve were the first two humans and only humans? Then we can deduce that their off springs would have to commit to incest to keep the ball rolling. Hmmm a religion based on incest? Hmm Oh I know abracadabra and hocus pocus and you can have your answerer to that question. Go ahead ask any preacher, priest, rabbi, etc. etc. Then watch how their magic works…

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 25,921 - 25,940 of26,847
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

24 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Buzz Aldrin Describes His 'UFO' Encounter Durin... 2 hr Total BS 2
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr Dogen 171,236
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 9 hr shinningelectr0n 5,038
Chinese man accused of hacking into US computers 13 hr Buffalo Bull 5
Union leader derides Obama education chief 17 hr libertarius 1
Send a Togolese 3D printer made out of ewaste t... (Nov '13) 23 hr mr balogun 2
how do i hide my isp location (Oct '07) Fri Dude 401
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••