Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

what are we talking about here? we're talking about practice? practice??

 

Unless you use Hayesian logic, which requires one to gather a perfect consensus first regardless of human factors such as conflicts of interest, greed, and reputable data.

 

To follow on Sam's post there are plenty of measures that can be taken now short of going back to candles and horse and buggy. Actually candles and horses would still be adding to global warming since candles give off greenhouse gases and horses are um... off gassing methane. There are many steps we can take such as replacing incadescent lights with flourescents, driving fuel efficient cars, turning down thermostats and so on.. For my own field we are encouraging green design to create more energy efficient buildings that use materials with less invested resources and energy. Technology in fields like your own can reduce the amount of paper you use along with having to drive so much since meetings and documents can be conducted and transmitted online. Preparing for the worst has costs but those need not be extremely burdensome. The cure doesn't have to be worse than the disease.

 

I admit that 200-5000 years is a small blip in geologic time, and if that happened anthropogenic influence is likely. Yet the main drive for the Global Warming movement is fears for the near future, namely our children.

If technology expands at its current rate, then I believe that humanity can adjust to climate factors in the next 200 years. I think that's what politicians and diplomats are banking on...

Playing more Devil's Advocate, scientists don't know how large it our fire extinguisher. It might be too small to make a dent, or like some ambitious plans, its feedback might be too great and hurt us all.

The arguments can be all over the place because of the degree of uncertainty. Even among pro-Global Warming experts, there's debate about the influence of CO2, methane and water.

Maybe it will have take our survivors to realize the necessity of ecology for economic stability. They would get to play with a lot of data.

 

Oh man, the whole melting ice thing is such an inexact science. How do they know how much ice will melt and temps will rise?

First of all, the idea of an "Average" global temperature is quite ludicrous to begin with. As we all know, averages can be skewed and mis-leading. And what's the methodology. Just the fact that cities are using more concrete and expanding (therefore increasing their temperatures) causes the "Average" temperature on earth to rise. But it's really not rising. Not away from the cities.

No one is saying the temperatures in Antartica has risen. Funny thing huh?

The sea level rises aren't going to happen. Coastlines recede not because of global warming, but because of development and interferance (like the levee system in lousiana). Of course, it's much easier to blame global warming.

And this is not a game, I'm not radical at all. I'm just being scientific in my approach. To a enviromental fundamentalist, rationale people appear to be "radical"

 

Actually, that's how I ended up growing in Texas. My father use to be the head enginneer for various nuclear power plants. He built Waterford 3 in Lousiana in 6 years and we moved to Texas and he took over the construction of the plant as it was having delays and helped get it done. He is still in the industry - but now is just a consultant for Nuclear power plant safety (mostly against terrorist attacks from bombs or suicide planes).

Anyway, U.S. nuclear power plants are extremely safe. This ain't Russia. There's not going to be an accident because the number of safety checks and systems are enourmous. And even if a reactor went meltdown, they are encased by enough concrete to completely contain it - not like Chernobyl.

The amount of waste produced by nuclear power plants is enough to cover a football field a few feet. That's not a lot of waste to deal with - especially on global level. And what's the big deal, you bury it in an inactice mountain where it does no one any harm.

Look, don't buy into the paranoia around nuclear power - especially since many of those who start these ideas come from the oil industry. You just don't know the history and politics of energy. Big oil was able to push out the nuclear industry - and thus we stopped building plants in the U.S. Meanwhile countries like France are 100% nuclear, and have far more cleaner skies.

But I guess you'd rather breathe carcingenic air that takes years off your life then pay 2 cents a kilowatt more for nuclear power.

 

Maybe we need to start another thread about nuclear power. I've read that one of the guys who was in charge at Greenpeace is now a big advocate for nuclear power. Does he have an angle I should be suspect of?

I watched an HBO special called Chernobyl Heart. They showed the effects of the meltdown there. There was an Irish (woo hoo) woman who opened an orphanage there to take care of children with deformities from the incident there. She talked about the ridiculously bad job the Russians did in sealing up the plant...even now. There's a great likelihood the thing will implode causing even more damage. Her comment was, "The next Chernobyl is Chernobyl."

My understanding is the plants here in America are FAR safer. But I'm certainly no expert on the topic...soooo...anyone know something different?

 

Ok, at least admit this is funny!!!

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

 

New reactors are basically meltdown-proof, particularly pebble bed reactors. The Chernobyl stuff is very true -the concrete tomb that encases it was built too quickly and is very unstable. They are designing/constructing a massive new structure to cover the existing one, to prevent a huge cloud of reactor debris from spilling out it it ever collapses. There was a good article on chernobyl in National Geographic not too long ago.

 

Sigh...Have you been reading the rest of the thread? Pretty much everyone agrees its inexact and we are discussing probabilities and given the probabilities of something bad does it make sense to do something about it.

Anyway if you say its so inexact why bring up an economic benefit to a warmer world in the first plae?

First off the term is "Global Warming" which means that you are looking at a global temperature average to determine if the planet is warming.

Anyway several studies have said its getting warmer away from cities including in the ocean and the upper atmosphere. Last time I checked there isn't an Atlantis or a Bespan Cloud City.

There has been evidence that temperatures have risen in Antarctica especially at the edges. Temperatures have fallen in the middle but that might be partially due to higher temperatures at the edges.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

Warmer ocean temperatures are a sign of Global Warming and also contribute to the melting ice shelves that we've been seeing happening in both Arctic and Antarctic.

Receding coastlines are due to many factors but its undeniable that ice shelves are melting faster than has ever been previously observed and that ocean temperatures are warmer and basic physics will tell you those mean increased water volume.

When you've previously said that you're determined to remain anonymous so you can make radical and unpopular statements, and have admitted to misrepresenting yourself to move a debate forward, and have also said this is all an intellectual exercise, along with making a statement like "die granola scum", I have a hard time taking your comments as being anything more than a game on your part.

 

I don't follow nuclear power much but from what I've heard is also that new reactors are many many times safer than the Chernobyl generation. Also the Chernobyl reactors used a technology that even in the 1980's we didn't use which was more dangerous than American reactors of the same generation.

The only problem I have with nuclear power though is that we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste. For me I have a hard time justifying leaving waste that is lethal for 10,000 years just to power my waffle maker now.

 

Chernobyl was just the fruit of the Soviet system. A reactor like that would never have been in commission here, even in the 70s. Three Mile Island was the American Chernobyl.

Rhad is generally correct about nuclear power now. They've been using new generation nuclear power in Europe and Japan for awhile now with no problems. Not sure about the waste with these new reactors but I think they make a lot less waste than the 70s era plants do.

 

You say global warming is a possible threat. Yet that means we should do something about it.

Ok, I say then go nuke to cut greenhouse gases. But then you worry about the waste. So what's your solution then????

Cut back on whole thing? But hey, that's going to kill the livelihood of so many people. China and India will have their recoveries squashed. Millions of people will be forced to suffer. For what? To calm your conscience about the possible threat of global warming vs. the facts?

What's your solution. And saying that "something should be done" isn't a solution.

 

What I like about PBRs is that they can be modular and the spent pebbles are much easier to transport. An argument against the Yucca Mtn. waste disposal site is that the transportation risks from local storage to Nevada exceed public safety standards.

I think the available technology in breeder reactors can handle waste concern issues. They went the extra step of designing one that converts recycled fuel into non-fissile material.

I read an estimate (lost the source) that claimed that if we devoted solely to nuclear with today's reactor technology, then our proven reserves of uranium would last around two years under current rate of consumption. This probably didn't factor in breeder reactors, but there is a supply constraint that prevents total conversion.

Wind, solar, and biomass are the ways to go. Nuclear can be a good transition fuel. As for transportation, we might have to stick with a liquid fuel medium, like hybrids for transportation because of its ease in storage and our current battery technology.

 

Crikey...

Scroll back up the thread and you will see where I propose several solutions.

Also if you notice I don't rule out nuclear and even admit to not following nuclear very closely. Invisible Fan has posted some interesting information about new generation reactors regarding waste. I would certainly consider nuclear power if their is something that can be done about the waste.

Again scroll back up the thread. I address this several times.

Also regarding the PRC they themselves are aware of the Global Warming and pollution problem and are taking steps themselves to go green. The 2008 Olympics is going to showcase a lot of green design and energy efficient technology.

 

How green are the 2200 new coal burning power plants they plan on building in the next 20 years? It's good to know that they're interested in pebble-bed reactor technology, I wonder how much research they're doing on IGCC (gassified coal plants)?

Here's a good article on pebble-bed technology: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=1

On the nuke front, it's good to know that there's beginning to be some movement towards renewing nuclear power in the US:

Nancy Pelosi says she has a "more open mind" on nuclear energy and that "We need to compare it to the alternatives … I think it has to be on the table."

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder & former director of Greenpeace thinks , "It is logically inconsistent to hold that global warming is the greatest threat to the planet and humankind and then reject one of the obvious solutions, even if it does have some downsides.... I believe we can manage nuclear waste from a technical perspective." [ed - and if we can't currently, there's no reason to think that we won't be able to in 20, 50 years.] Dr. James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis, quips that "We live in a nuclear-powered universe. We’re the oddballs by getting energy from burning carbon."

Popular Mechanics reports that "You know the energy picture has changed when some of the world’s biggest companies [General Electric, Hitachi, tangentialy BP] are making news by joining forces on nuclear energy—a sector that’s been, well, radioactive in the United States for a generation."

The hard truth is that, according to the Electrical Reliability Organization's initial report, the US will need a little less than 3 times the planned increase in electrical outupt over the next 10 years. Conservation will have to be emphasized, but new plants will have to be built to avoid shortages & the resulting blackouts - it's time we got the environmental industry & the NIMBY hypocrits (see the "Save our Sound Coalition", among others) to acknowledge this fact.

Also, does anyone else see the disconnect in Deckard's extolling the need to "get serious about tackling the problem" [of global warming] while bragging of keeping his AC at 69 degrees?

 

Buck, that is a turgid comment!
My wife won't let me keep it that cold.



D&D. Cold... COLD!!!

 

I never said they were doing enough or aren't hypocrites, like Deckard..

 

Was a serious question, as I have no idea a) what technology they're planning on using and b) how clean "clean coal" technology really is.

This ties in to the proposed new coal power plants in Texas. There's so much white noise & b.s. being spewed (for example, the natural gas industry is one of the largest underwriters of the anti-coal campaign), it's hard to know what the facts are.

And, no, I wasn't meaning to call Deck out as a hypocrite, that's a pretty strong word. Just struck me as an example - kinda like Al Gore flying all over the world to tell people that they need to fly less; or John Edwards preaching conservation & sacrifice while unnecessarily over-building his home, no matter how energy-efficient it is; or Laurie David's & others' private jet usage (a Gulfstream V emits 5 tons of C02 per hour of usage, the same amount that the average American home emits in a year); or etc...etc....

We are the problem. I read recently (haven't verified it, though) that industrial C02 emissions in the US have pretty much been level since the early 90's. It's consumer use in the home (the average size of which has just about doubled in the last 40 years) and in transportation (flattened gas efficiency, largely driven by consumer choice, coupled with large increases in commute distance, again driven by consumer choice) that are increasing. We all have to make sacrifices & alter our personal behavior.

 

Driving more efficient cars ain't going to save us from Global warming. Nor more efficient homes. YOu have to roll-back to 1950 levels if you want impact. You're talking about sending the world back to the semi-stone age. Hybrids still contribute to global warming - hate to break it to you - that's not a solution. It's putting a bandaid on a shotgun wound. It just ain't going to do anything.

You might as well tell people to fart less. I mean, that's not a solution. it's a feel good measure to make you think you're doing something.

You either got to change civilization or go nuclear. Or do nothing. Which do you support?

I wish Greenpeace would stop recommending we cover the world in windmills as the solution to global warming