The eery silence that is ClimateGate

This is a discussion on The eery silence that is ClimateGate within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; My question is, how come there was widespread drought and heatwaves before the industrial revoloution? One of the big problems ...

  1. #31
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    My question is, how come there was widespread drought and heatwaves before the industrial revoloution?

    One of the big problems with solar is...

    Solar Panel -> Battery -> House

    ... and those batteries usually have a high cost, full of chemicals and don't last that long in scheme of things (usually 10 years).

    I have a friend who is working a coal power station (clicky) at the moment, it was built in the 1980s and puts out as much polution as a few hundred cars a year. The removed soil and left over carbon is also thoroughly processed before being put back. And anyone who complains that the big hole they dig is a twit. The hole is nothing compared to the size of the Earth. My bet is, the amount of people who complain take up more surface area than the hole itself. I'll be supporting coal for as long as my country has lots of it. I'm not giving up my two strokes any time soon either.

    Perhaps the real issue is the amount of cars, how often do you see a massive 5 seater car with 1 person in it? 90% of the cars usually
    Last edited by zacs7; 12-02-2009 at 11:17 PM.

  2. #32
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7 View Post
    My question is, how come there was widespread drought and heatwaves before the industrial revoloution?
    The issue is not actually occurence but frequency and severity.

    Many systems are built to only just withstand the extreme temps we occassionally get (like buildings are only built higher than the 100 yr flood mark, not the record flood mark).

    A few degree (2-5 depending on the numbers you believe) does not sound like much but added to a heatwave we get hot enough to damage vital systems (ie the rails buckling in the story below).

    Tracks buckle and so does Connex-run rail system

    This happened at only 43 C (109 F).

    Computer systems that are built to withstand up to 70 C (rather than standard 35 C), by using industrial grade components, cost ~10 times more (military grade is ~100 times).
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula View Post
    Well, the "hockey stick" was certainly an "embellishment".

    Here are some items that have passed my view of late, merely cherry-picked from ESR as more middle-of-the-road.


    As he mentions, open source it.

    (And I'd prefer some of these questions be answered before trillion dollar economies are turned upside down.)


    [edit]As long as I'm at it on ESR's blog, let's throw this one in too:
    Why Alternative Energy Isn’t
    While I haven't completely made up my mind on the subject, I read arguments like those in the blogs mentioned above, and then I read those given in blogs like on realclimate.org (like this, this and this), and I just can't help but believe the folks at realclimate. Their arguments are so much more logical and persuasive, I don't understand why global warming skepticism is so in vogue, especially among people who I generally consider to be quite logical.

  4. #34
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7 View Post
    I have a friend who is working a coal power station (clicky) at the moment, it was built in the 1980s and puts out as much polution as a few hundred cars a year.
    Ummm....

    The average car emmits ~14 tonnes greenhouse per year (based on 20 mpg and 500 miles per week).

    Loy Yang Power Plant uses ~30 mill tonnes of brown coal (dirtier) and emmits >14 million tones greenhouse gasses per year.

    So closer to a million cars or over a quater of all vehicles in Vic (2008 Vic. had ~3.8 million registered vehicles on the road).

    BTW I have worked at coal mines/dumping facilities in Qld.
    The most unpleasant place I have been in the world. Extreme noise, heat and vibration (you get sea sick) working 12 hr days with a bunch of cowboys (the only place I have reported someone for safety issues in the last 12 years).
    Last edited by novacain; 12-02-2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason: Numbers are for total greenhouse gasses not just CO2
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  5. #35
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Wind power is pretty much a commercial joke. They can plaster all the cool wind power commercials on the tube and internet and whatever else they may find but fact is they cannot hope to produce the amount of power required to replace our current power production. Plus they are a huge eye sore, take up a ton of real estate, are extremely annoying to live around, and are not all that safe when they malfunction. There is also the argument that they affect birds but I'm not sure how sound that is since there is a gigantic wind farm back in my home state and having been there I didn't see a mass birdie graveyard anywhere.
    Nonsense, 19% of the electricity generated here is from wind power, that's a significant amount.
    And your points about nuisance and danger are all moot, 80% of these mills are placed on open water, where they don't bother anybody and won't crash into people, besides, i don't think there has ever been a death in this country due to a windmill malfunctioning. From time to time we hear about a windmill running rampant, but they just seal of the area and wait for the winds to blow off, then they fix it, hardly a big deal?

    The only real problem with wind-power is that it can never be the only source of electricity, since there is always a demand for power, but not always wind to generate it from. So wind power needs to be combined with something else to work, or the power must be stored which i would imagine is not feasible.
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  6. #36
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7 View Post
    One of the big problems with solar is...

    Solar Panel -> Battery -> House
    That's only in do it yourself solar, industrial solar plants don't use batteries, although they need to be augmented by a more stable source, such as nuclear.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  7. #37
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by novacain View Post

    I provided an example to refute this claim.
    You provided a single data point and claimed that your theory that human activity effects global warming was thus proven. At this point there is no point in continuing the discussion with you, as you refuse to accept logic and just want to win the argument. I'm adding you to my ignore list.

    Global warming has occurred throughout the earths history. The current warming trend is well within the standard deviation of normal temperatures. Therefor if your argument that your single example proves my theory wrong, then my single data point proves your theory wrong as well. You can't have ti both ways and my thoery has 4.5 billion years of proof against your 100 years of conjecture.
    Last edited by abachler; 12-03-2009 at 12:40 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #38
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Loy Yang Power Plant uses ~30 mill tonnes of brown coal (dirtier) and emmits >14 million tones greenhouse gasses per year.
    I assure you that an American power plant would never be allowed to emit that much. There are strict EPA guidelines on what can and cannot be emitted. Most US power plants emit very little for the amount of power they produce. This type of power has been around for 50 years or more so the technology is by now quite advanced. Most of the emissions from factories here have gone through scrubbers and other filtration systems long before they hit the air. Most factories emit some form of steam from production processes combined with very little, if any, particulate matter. The particulates must meet federal regulations. Scrubbers must be changed at regular intervals and filtration systems must be maintained in order to continue operation.

    BTW I have worked at coal mines/dumping facilities in Qld.
    The most unpleasant place I have been in the world. Extreme noise, heat and vibration (you get sea sick) working 12 hr days with a bunch of cowboys (the only place I have reported someone for safety issues in the last 12 years).
    Doesn't sound much different than an American factory. The noise levels at my previous factory were so intense we had to wear ear protection at all times. In the summer the temp would get to 118 F in some places with others being even hotter - namely near the weld line. Safety was of prime importance and we had numerous safety initiatives ongoing at all times. Only 1 person was ever killed in the factory years ago and that was due to an improper lockout procedure. I'm not sure about foreign factories or how business is done in a foreign factory but I assure you that a US factory is both quite safe, clean, and extremely efficient. Cleaning was a regular part of the work day although production always took priority. The factory manufactured very large mining and construction equipment and was actually very impressive. I have never had the privilege of visiting an American auto factory but I did know some who worked at a few like Diamond Star (Mitsubishi) and Chrysler. I've also had the opportunity to work at a plate glass company (PPG Industries) and it was extremely efficient and kept clean as one could expect from a 24/7/365 production line. Everything was automated and safety was of prime importance.

    So before people go passing laws about this or that keep in mind that at least here in America we cannot just pollute the air and force miserable working conditions. We have organizations like OSHA who regulate the safety of every working environment. If a company knowingly and willfully continues to violate OSHA standards they can be heavily fined and/or forced to stop production (very rare since most find it easier to comply than be forced) until the issues are resolved. There are also civil suits that can result from unsafe working environments. There were several suits related to mesothelioma resulting from working with asbestos and several parties were awarded huge sums of money. Contrary to popular belief a business and/or factory in America cannot do what they want, how they want, when they want.

    We have the EPA who monitors all emissions and output from every single factory and/or production based establishment in the country. It is a federal violation to knowingly and willfully violate EPA standards and it can result in very hefty fines and/or temporary shutdown until the issue is resolved. The EPA can also stop certain products from going to market if they fail to meet regulations.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-03-2009 at 02:25 AM.

  9. #39
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    That plant is a brown coal plant, 3 times as dirty as normal coal. I can't find which US palnts use brown (as opposed to black).

    AEP is the largest of the US coal powered power station company. Here is a list of the plants and the emissions data (the highest is over 18 mill tones of CO2).

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Electric_Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Doesn't sound much different than an American factory.
    It is very different to a factory...
    Much worse than an iron ore, which tend to not use bottom dumping cars.
    PPE is long pants, long sleeve shirt (both with reflective strips), steel caps, gloves, hard hat, glasses, sunscreen 30+ and ear protection (even if working on a laptop in the crib room).

    It is an open steel shed, with lots of heat producing machinery, in a tropical climate (high humidity). According to my equipment the max temp last month was 56.1 C (133 F) and ave temp at 1 pm was ~50 C (122 F) and Jan / Feb are hotter.

    Everything turns black from the dust and if gets everywhere. Blowing your nose later was 'interesting'...

    Aside from the extractors, coal conveyors, generators and train noise you have the jack hammers.
    To free the last of the coal 2 operators use jack hammers on the slots each car has next to each of the bottom dumping doors. Up to three trains passing at a time.

    Its like being at a rock concert and standing right next to the speakers, the sound hits you in staccato bursts as the jack hammers work the 15 m stainless steel drum sides of each rail car, 1 per minute on up to 3 lines.

    Then you have the vibration of the whole building, makes you nauseous after a few hours (like sea sickness). This vibration caused faults in cables running between the 2 IPCs every few months (until I fitted a wireless network so I wouldn't have to go back).

    You are not allowed in certain areas if you have a pacemaker or other metallic objects in your body as huge electro-magnets are used to remove metallic impurities before the stock pile.

    And half the time you are walking on a steel grate with a 3 floor drop to the coal pits, knowing a trip could take you under the train. Not easy to relax and debug complex realtime code.
    Last edited by novacain; 12-03-2009 at 06:35 AM.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  10. #40
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    While I haven't completely made up my mind on the subject, I read arguments like those in the blogs mentioned above, and then I read those given in blogs like on realclimate.org
    Might that not be akin to believing tobacco companies' views on tobacco?
    [/aside]
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    I don't understand why global warming skepticism is so in vogue, especially among people who I generally consider to be quite logical.
    Maybe economically some things don't quite make sense:
    The result will be a global price tag of $46 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose cost findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press next year.
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  11. #41
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula View Post

    * Hiding the Decline: Prologue
    * Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins
    * Will the AGW fraud discredit science?
    * Facts to fit the theory
    * AGW fraud unravels at an accelerating pace
    * Facts to fit the theory? Actually, no facts at all!
    Do you really take Blogs with dead links, unverifiable opinions and written by politically motivated strangers as a serious source, Dave?

    I don't know, really. But as soon as I read something like:

    “the team” (as the network of professional anthropogenic-global-warming alarmists communicating through CRU likes to style itself)
    I immediately lose interest. I don't give a rats arse to his opinion. It's clearly been made already. What else can he teach me? Absolutely nothing. And the same would go to anyone so clearly bent in giving credit back to the CRU with such allusive wording.

    What?

    Everyone is now a private investigator? Let's just call the cops off. Why do we need them? FBI? Bunch of useless fools. You want to know the truth, read the blogs!... For pete's sake! Why do we need to have a formulated opinion on everything even when we can't tell its head from its arse? You really believe a bunch of blogs of questionable motivation and origin have resolved this issue? Only in your mind if you are so inclined.

    You obviously linearly (and without any kind og support. Just your "gut") reject such arguments as "these emails were deliberately taken out of context", and you have obviously never heard specialists or scientists talking about their findings or how they so often force themselves into rejecting or doubting them as to further their research or confirm it. Neither you seem to realize that in fact most specialists and scientists are feed up of the way the press and even specialized magazines are handling the global warming issue.

    But on the other hand it could be true. It could be true that someone purposedly hacked into their system to find the filth. And that they found a lot of filth and decided to publish it. Even ignoring the obvious question of what exactly motivated someone to hack into the CRU, and forgetting the countless stories in the past of similarly fabricated smear campaigns, I -- you heard it right! -- agree that it may all be true and a few key players in the CRU were paying the scientific community a very bad service.

    But then what? Where exactly does that leave us in terms of the Global Warming Theory?
    Last edited by Mario F.; 12-03-2009 at 10:44 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #42
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Even ignoring the obvious question of what exactly motivated someone to hack into the CRU
    In fact, no!
    I don't want to ignore it. If there is one thing that makes my blood pressure rise is conscious ignorance with an intent. The ability some people have of ignoring the obvious and make others ignore the obvious to fulfill their own personal agenda.

    No one. But I mean NO ONE, will ever convince me that someone unscrupulous enough to break the law, hack into a private system and read personal information, suddenly turns legitimate by posting an unabridged, non-biased, down-to-the-facts list of emails in order to expose a fraud. Such a fine gentleman, so caring for the public well-being and information simply does not exist in the real world. Only on the minds of those wishing to use that information for their own purposes.

    The motivation behind such an act is only too obvious. Call me blind if you will, but without proper investigation from the proper authorities and a definite closure in a court of law or by similar means, I will call bluff on anyone trying to attack or support the CRU.

    And leave the bloody blogs out of it. It doesn't suit your character and it insults your intelligence.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #43
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Do you really take Blogs with dead links, unverifiable opinions and written by politically motivated strangers as a serious source, Dave?

    I don't know, really. But as soon as I read something like:



    I immediately lose interest. I don't give a rats arse to his opinion. It's clearly been made already. What else can he teach me? Absolutely nothing.
    Dead links? All of them worked for me.

    The opinion is what I was after, on a blog that is not a blog to be a blog, but a blog from a software guy since at least on of the links did discuss the software aspects of this. A blog whose author I am not in agreement with politically. A shot at finding something asking questions -- much like the topic of this thread -- and making a few statements. The handful of links that were there for sources or support I felt was minimal (as opposed to a linkfest). You don't care for the approach; okay, fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    And the same would go to anyone so clearly bent in giving credit back to the CRU with such allusive wording.
    Good then we can toss out some stuff mentioned earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    (like this, this and this)
    noise-generating components of the blogosphere


    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    For pete's sake! Why do we need to have a formulated opinion on everything even when we can't tell its head from its arse? You really believe a bunch of blogs of questionable motivation and origin have resolved this issue? Only in your mind if you are so inclined.
    Do you really believe that vested interests have no interest when their interests are threatened? Only in your mind if you are so inclined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    You obviously linearly (and without any kind og support. Just your "gut") reject such arguments as "these emails were deliberately taken out of context", and you have obviously never heard specialists or scientists talking about their findings or how they so often force themselves into rejecting or doubting them as to further their research or confirm it. Neither you seem to realize that in fact most specialists and scientists are feed up of the way the press and even specialized magazines are handling the global warming issue.
    You seem to ignore or discard the fact that peers -- skeptical climatologists -- exist or have an opinion. You seem to dismiss out of hand something that you have not researched? Or should we both quit this silliness of reading each others' mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    But on the other hand it could be true. It could be true that someone purposedly hacked into their system to find the filth. And that they found a lot of filth and decided to publish it.
    It could also be true that an insider felt obligated to release this information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Even ignoring the obvious question of what exactly motivated someone to hack into the CRU, and forgetting the countless stories in the past of similarly fabricated smear campaigns, I -- you heard it right! -- agree that it may all be true and a few key players in the CRU were paying the scientific community a very bad service.

    But then what? Where exactly does that leave us in terms of the Global Warming Theory?
    How about we do like with the rest of science? Endlessly continue testing and continue to independently verify that it is correct? And if (a) defect(s) are found, correct the theory and/or model?

    Verify Newton over and over and over again until an Einstein comes along and says 'uh, that doesn't quite cut it'? No. We should lock up the data and keep the formulas locked away.


    Trying to get back to this thread's topic, though, why isn't there curiosity and reporting on this? ABC, CBS, or NBC don't touch it. Yet...
    Quote Originally Posted by George Monbiot
    It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. …

    There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

    Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
    I think what is most curious is the fact that so many people seem incurious about the nature of the information contained in the leaked data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    No one. But I mean NO ONE, will ever convince me that someone unscrupulous enough to break the law, hack into a private system and read personal information, suddenly turns legitimate by posting an unabridged, non-biased, down-to-the-facts list of emails in order to expose a fraud. Such a fine gentleman, so caring for the public well-being and information simply does not exist in the real world. Only on the minds of those wishing to use that information for their own purposes.
    Have you ever heard of Watergate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    And leave the bloody blogs out of it. It doesn't suit your character and it insults your intelligence.
    Right. Only listen to the ones telling me nothing or that there is no story. No raw data allowed to be pointed to.
    Last edited by Dave_Sinkula; 12-03-2009 at 02:51 PM. Reason: Back-to-back posting.
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  14. #44
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    And leave the bloody blogs out of it. It doesn't suit your character and it insults your intelligence.
    Where else can you go? Mainstream media has written it off and quite quickly I might add compared to how often and how long they run other stories. We care more about Wacko Jacko in this day and age than an obvious attempt to twist data, quell opposition to theories, and essentially force one theory down people's throats even though the data behind it is scarce at best.

    When a climate scientist on the other side states in an email that they truly have no real explanation for the warming yet publicly the same people act as if their word is somehow holy and without contestation - you'd think climate science was all about being a religious fanatic. We have believers and deniers complete with a body of people trying to sway the masses based on faith instead of real data. Sounds like a religion to me instead of scientific process.

    You can get good information off of the internet without going to the mainstream media for it. In fact you can probably get better, less censored, information b/c the blogosphere pays no attention to who is or is not funding this or that movement. Of course you must use common sense and filter the information...but that is even true with so-called good professional news reports as well. CNN and the likes are owned by people with lots of money and lots of influence and if you claim they are 'neutral' in their reporting then I would say that insults your intelligence. They clearly are not and several studies of various news agencies by universities reveals that 75% of the stories on CNN are lefttist oriented. And this study was done by rather liberal universities. Oh wait they aren't called liberal anymore...sorry...progressive universities. Whatever. Just like global warming isn't called global warming anymore b/c there isn't enough warming to make the name stick. So now it's climate change which is really dumb and akin to saying that I believe that the weather changes from time to time. How stupid we have become.

    Can you not see that there is no freedom of information here? Can you not see the obvious attempt to cover up a theory and pass it off as fact even when it has holes in it as big as the Grand Canyon in Arizona? Why are those who ask questions marked as idiots or stupid? Isn't science about asking questions...even questioning known things further to find out more information and make new discoveries? It's not like we are questioning gravity here or the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. We are questioning a theory which last time I checked is perfectly valid. It is perfectly valid for a scientist to go against the norm and question. Something tells me that if someone at IBM did not go against the norm of the day or their ideas were somehow silenced...we wouldn't have the PC. Same idea. When I see a scientist become extremely defensive to the point of calling another scientist names or attempting to tarnish their reputation just b/c they disagree on a couple of things....it tells me that defensive scientist has a whole hell of a lot to hide. If he didn't then his theory would pass the litany of tests and questions and then it would be looked into further. But what is happening right now is essentially the warming side saying...."Just trust us...the earth is warming and if we don't act now we will all die or we will completely mess up the planet'. For all of you who are so dead set against religion yet believe this type of behavior is science I believe you are some of the most religious people I've ever met. As for me I believe in a God that I cannot see and I believe he spoke everything into existence and yet I have no proof and never will. But I'm also willing to admit that is pure religion and not science. If I were to try to tout that as science or somehow try to prove the existence of God when I myself know I cannot and never will you guys would run me off the forums. Quelling opposition or trying to silence the masses and even dumb down the masses so they don't ask questions and just 'accept' your theories as fact is not science. It's wrong, thwarts the whole process, and does not advance knowledge. It's primitive cave-man behavior at best and not very becoming of people who have had more schooling than any of us on the forum and who should know better. If it were not for questioning the world around us there would be no reason to continue studying it. If one man or one group already has the answers and we all should just sit at their feet and listen to the masters taking it all hook, line, and sinker then why study at all? Why ask questions? Why even care?

    The real truth must be that their is a ton of money waiting to be made when new green treaties get passed. This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why bills and policies are being rushed through without truly investigating both sides of the issue. I guess a lot of you just can't wait to spend 43 trillion dollars on something we think is occurring. If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-03-2009 at 07:33 PM.

  15. #45
    {Jaxom,Imriel,Liam}'s Dad Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by novacain View Post
    Nuclear power plants take time to build, require special, limited locations and have a limited supply of fuel (~85 years depending on price of Uranium).
    I have read that the Chineese are developing a graphite based nuclear plant, making them much safer (as no radioactive steam under pressure), cheaper to build and efficient.

    Then we come to waste. Politically you can only lose votes by allowing a nuclear waste dump to be built in your constituency.

    We could always shoot the waste into space....(at a mill per kilo?)

    Fuel is a issue as much of our food in now transported long distances to allow consistent supply (rather than seasonal availability).

    So transport cost is can be a fair percentage of the actual cost of food. This is very noticeable here (where transporting food 100s of Kms by truck is common) and food has increased inline with fuel.
    The cost of the building is not the issue. Here is a plant (in Scottsboro, Al) that is 85% complete on chamber 1 (for a time, they even had the rods there) and [I think] 65% complete on chamber 2. This plant was to be operational way back in the late 80's (IIRC). I cannot recall the name of the plant, but I do know that $$ had NOTHING to do with it. I remember that there was some huge to-do about this plant and it got stopped by politics. What a shame, too. Georgia Power (prior to it becoming Southern Company) upgraded their coal plant just outside of Rome to make up the difference. Wonder which of these two plants would have caused less environmental issues?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. C programing doubt
    By sivasankari in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 09:19 AM
  2. silence warning when assigning pointers
    By eth0 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-27-2005, 11:18 AM
  3. Omens and the Silence Before the Storm
    By Unregd in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2003, 06:19 PM
  4. internet radio day of silence.
    By ygfperson in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2002, 09:23 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21