I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.


In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:22?am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jun 22, 2:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Temps in the low '60s, reasonable humidity, winds NNW at 10,
occasional rain showers...
Man, this Global Warming is wonderful!
Heh, heh, heh...
Just got back from Alaska.
On one leg of our cruise ship vacation we motored up Endicott Arm,
(east of Juneau) and got up fairly close to the Daws glacier. (Got to
hand it to the Captain, I would never have thought anybody would
attempt to run a vessel of that size up through a snakey fjord filled
with ice bergs, but he did).
A lot of the passengers on this cruise seemed to hail from the south
and the midwest. Every time a whale would spout or somebody would spot
an eagle, a dolphin, etc there would be a chorus of oohs and aahs and
cameras would be snapping madly. (The scenery was a lot like Puget
Sound or SW BC, only a lot less populated, so it wasn't quite as
stunning or surprising for residents of the Pacific NW).
While stopped in sight of the glacier, one of the ship's Norwegian
officers gave a lecture over the PA system about glaciers. How they
form, why they're blue at the bottom, how many there are, etc.
Everybody listened with at least moderate interest until the officer
began mentioning the number of glaciers that have retreated
substantially or disappeared in Glacier National Park during the last
several years. You would have thought he had announced, "We support
Hillary for president." The crowd got pretty lippy. Comments like "Who
the hell is up on the bridge, Al Gore?" (and some worse) were
frequently heard. It was pretty obvious that the negative reaction was
*political*, not scientific.
The telling moment, for me, occured when the officer mentioned that
"as recently as 10,000 years ago much of the earth was covered by a
sheet of ice." Once person standing immediately behind me grumbled
"Not according to the Bible!", and another bystander confirmed that
sentiment by stating, "I guess it all depends on what you believe."
Indeed. As always, a solid belief or disbelief is unlikely to be
swayed by anything as trivial as actual evidence- on either side of
the question.
What was interesting was the Eagle Glacier outside Seward, AK. There are
markers as you hike the trail to the glacier of where the face was over the
years. From 1917-1926 was the major retreat. Maybe 300 yards. Tells me it
is not all mankinds fault.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's normal for individual glaciers to advance and retreat. Always has
been, for millions of years.

What is so unusual about current global climate conditions is that
nearly all glaciers are receding at once. Many are disappearing
entirely, and no new glaciers are appearing to take their place Yes,
there *are* exceptions to the prevailing conditions of glacial
retreat, just enough to prove the rule.

I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem. Nobody is well served by
side-tracking this scientific concern into an "us vs. them" political
snot fight. If things come down as they well might, nobody is going to
be spared the consequences simply because he or she voted for the
prevailing candidate in the most recent election.



Chuck,
I was following up on SWF's statement that 50% of scientist did not
believe that there was Global Warming. I thought it was the opinion of
the vast majority of climatologist that global warming was a fact, and
the only controversy was the cause of global warming. I found this
interesting article on the "Global Warming Controversy". It seemed to
be a fairly unbiased review of the differences of opinion. There seems
to be more scientist than i realized who question the accuracy of the
statistics concerning global warming in relationship to historical data.

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

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.

In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.

Not at all. The "Deniers" are Galileo railing against the Church of
Global Warming, Pope Al Gore presiding. :)

Answer me this Harry. How many times in Earth's history, based on
archeological, paleontological and anthropological evidence, has the
Earth warmed or cooled?

Now take those same disciplines and apply them to the time that
Homosapiens has been walking the planet - how many times?

Take your time - I'll be back this evening. :)

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:15 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.

In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.

Not at all. The "Deniers" are Galileo railing against the Church of
Global Warming, Pope Al Gore presiding. :)

Answer me this Harry. How many times in Earth's history, based on
archeological, paleontological and anthropological evidence, has the
Earth warmed or cooled?

Now take those same disciplines and apply them to the time that
Homosapiens has been walking the planet - how many times?

Take your time - I'll be back this evening. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, you mean the sky ain't a-falling???

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

It's high humidity today. jsut walked in from outdoors, and it reminds
me of the philipines. .

looks like its going to be hot and really muggy today, unless we have
a nother little storm pop though.


gag!

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Jun 25, 3:29?am, Short Wave Sportfishing

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.


Thanks for telling me what my opinion should be in order to be
"honest". :-) But, honestly, I don't fit your stereotype as neatly as
you might hope.

The three big questions, again, are.

1. Is the climate changing? (I believe the climate is changing. I
also believe that the climate has never been constant and is always in
a state of warming or cooling)

2. If the climate is changing, is it changing more rapidly or to a
greater degree than it has in the past? (I don't know about this. I
suspect it may be- although certain climate changes have been so
catastrophic in the past that they may be the underlying events behind
world wide stories of global deluge (ie Noah and/or Gilgamesh) or even
the planetary imbalance that could have led to the sudden shifting of
magnetic poles several times in the history of our planet. Is the
current change as rapid or severe as changes that may have contributed
to deluge mythology or pole relocation? We darn well better hope
not....)

3. If the climate is changing more rapidly or to a greater degree than
it has in the past, is there something mankind should do or should not
do as a result? (As a conservationist, I recommend that everybody
examine their lifestyle for any ridiculously destructive or unduly
wasteful practices and consider modifying their behaviors when
necessary to put less stress on resources and the environment. But I'm
not an extremist. Some of the measures recommended by global warming
factions make sense from other considerations, like pollution
ccontrol, as well.)

My specific concern is the rapid disappearance of the polar ice caps.
Most of our weather, winds, and currents are generated by thermal
gradients between the poles and the tropics. If wind and currents get
screwed up weather will follow and life as we know it will change- a
lot.

One major risk is that organisms, including man, may not be able to
adapt rapidly enough to a new weather and climate dynamic to survive-
so it would be in our best interest not to accelerate the rate of
climate change if we can avoid doing so.

Is it man's fault? All of it? Any of it? Can't personally say for
sure. Nor can you say, for sure, that it isn't.

Global warming at the kitchen table?:

Last night one of my wife's girlfriends dropped by to see our photos
from Alaska. She was last in Alaska in 1980, and she brought over her
photos to show us.

We started with ours, and when we showed her the picture of the
Mendenhall glacier she almost went into shock. "That can't be!" She
said. "I've got a photo of the Mendenhall glacier, and there's no
great big huge lake like that in front of it....in fact there's this
insignificant little pond and nothing more!" She got out her photo,
that according to the profiles of hills and landscapes in the area
appeared to be taken from a location not too far from where we took
ours. The difference was dramatic. If her photo was indeed of the same
glacier, (as it appears to be) it has probably retreated a mile and a
half to two miles in the last 27 years. It is also substantially lower
than in her photo. That's hardly scientific evidence- we don't know
for sure where her photo was taken or how our photo would look if we
stood on the *exact* same spot where she took hers, but it brings the
possibility home more credibly than photos from any single source on
some website that may have a pro or anti-warming agenda.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jun 24, 6:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Ah yes - I see.

It's all our fault.

~~ yawn ~~


wrote:
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem



It may not be all our fault. May not any of it be our fault. My point
all along is that this is a scientific issue that is still open to
debate. That debate should be scientific, not political.

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem. That was the basis of my "dueling websites"
comment. Everbody could link to hundreds of sites on both sides of th
issues, some of them prepared by people with exceptional scientific
credentials that exceed even those of Sean Hannity, Al Gore, or Rush
Limbaugh. :-)

Way back in the days of yore....there was one lonely voice crying out
that the earth revolved around the sun. All the evidence available at
that time and popularly accepted by the established religious and
political powers seemed to indicate that the earth was the
geographical "center" of the universe. That one lonely voice was
right...

One side or the other in the global warming debate is right. I don't
know which it is, and you don't either. The three main questions a

1. Is the climate changing? Almost any reasonable person would have to
answer yes because the climate has always been in a state of change
for as far back as we can detect.

2. If the climate is changing, is it changing differently or more
rapidly than it has in the past?

3. If the climate is changing differently or more rapidly than in the
past, is there something man should do or should stop doing as a
result?

The tough aspect is that it's going to take 100 years to know who's
right about climate change.....and in the meantime it's silly (IMO) to
get all worked up on a personal basis or start characterizing people
who disagree with your personal guess on the issue as a bunch of bad
guys.



Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about mankind's
contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the use of
nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is minimal, given
the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of nuclear energy.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:54:11 -0000, Tim wrote:

It's high humidity today. jsut walked in from outdoors, and it reminds
me of the philipines. .

looks like its going to be hot and really muggy today, unless we have
a nother little storm pop though.


gag!


No, not gag. I'm hoping we get the 'chancy' thunderstorm this afternoon!

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

John H. wrote:
No, not gag. I'm hoping we get the 'chancy' thunderstorm this afternoon!

John, you could probably use it.

But around here, things are getting danky and moldy. We aren't
flooded by any means, but it would be nice for the humidity to back
down a few points.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Jun 25, 7:43?am, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Ah yes - I see.

It's all our fault.

~~ yawn ~~

wrote:
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem

It may not be all our fault. May not any of it be our fault. My point
all along is that this is a scientific issue that is still open to
debate. That debate should be scientific, not political.

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem. That was the basis of my "dueling websites"
comment. Everbody could link to hundreds of sites on both sides of th
issues, some of them prepared by people with exceptional scientific
credentials that exceed even those of Sean Hannity, Al Gore, or Rush
Limbaugh. :-)

Way back in the days of yore....there was one lonely voice crying out
that the earth revolved around the sun. All the evidence available at
that time and popularly accepted by the established religious and
political powers seemed to indicate that the earth was the
geographical "center" of the universe. That one lonely voice was
right...

One side or the other in the global warming debate is right. I don't
know which it is, and you don't either. The three main questions a

1. Is the climate changing? Almost any reasonable person would have to
answer yes because the climate has always been in a state of change
for as far back as we can detect.

2. If the climate is changing, is it changing differently or more
rapidly than it has in the past?

3. If the climate is changing differently or more rapidly than in the
past, is there something man should do or should stop doing as a
result?

The tough aspect is that it's going to take 100 years to know who's
right about climate change.....and in the meantime it's silly (IMO) to
get all worked up on a personal basis or start characterizing people
who disagree with your personal guess on the issue as a bunch of bad
guys.

Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about mankind's
contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the use of
nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is minimal, given
the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of nuclear energy.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't believe "the liberals" or anybody else can solve the problem
at this point. First we have to reach a broad agreement, based solely
on scientific evidence and not talk show or political rhetoric,
whether the problem exists and whether human activities contribute to
it. If we decide that there is a dire problem and that human influence
is making the situation much worse, then we should be prepared to take
whatever steps are required.

Right now we have group one: "There's no such thing as global warming.
It's a liberal conspiracy to make George Bush look bad. And even if
there is, my personal consumption of fossil fuels and other resources
absolutely has nothing to do with it at all."

And we're got group two: "The planet is heating up so quickly due to
the production of excess greenhouse gas by industry and consumers that
we're all doomed to a miserable fate. Life as we know it may end in
the next couple of decades. We need to park our cars, unplug our
lightbulbs and computers, turn off the heating and air conditioning,
and return to living in caves."

The earth doesn't give a darn about political or personal opinions,
and if there is a problem we should be prepared to take realistic and
practical steps in response. Extermism on either side of the issue,
before conclusive evidence is at hand, serves nobody. Extremism will
only forestall the implementation of corrective measures if it becomes
evident that corrections are required.

Boaters should be concerned about this debate more than many other
groups. We are more dependent upon winds and weather, which can be
altered significantly by a major climate change. We are also more at
risk for having our recreational activities black-listed by folks
seeking ways that *others* should sacrifice to promote a healthy
environment.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:01:16 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:



Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about mankind's
contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the use of
nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is minimal, given
the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of nuclear energy.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't believe "the liberals" or anybody else can solve the problem
at this point. First we have to reach a broad agreement, based solely
on scientific evidence and not talk show or political rhetoric,
whether the problem exists and whether human activities contribute to
it. If we decide that there is a dire problem and that human influence
is making the situation much worse, then we should be prepared to take
whatever steps are required.

Right now we have group one: "There's no such thing as global warming.
It's a liberal conspiracy to make George Bush look bad. And even if
there is, my personal consumption of fossil fuels and other resources
absolutely has nothing to do with it at all."

And we're got group two: "The planet is heating up so quickly due to
the production of excess greenhouse gas by industry and consumers that
we're all doomed to a miserable fate. Life as we know it may end in
the next couple of decades. We need to park our cars, unplug our
lightbulbs and computers, turn off the heating and air conditioning,
and return to living in caves."

The earth doesn't give a darn about political or personal opinions,
and if there is a problem we should be prepared to take realistic and
practical steps in response. Extermism on either side of the issue,
before conclusive evidence is at hand, serves nobody. Extremism will
only forestall the implementation of corrective measures if it becomes
evident that corrections are required.

Boaters should be concerned about this debate more than many other
groups. We are more dependent upon winds and weather, which can be
altered significantly by a major climate change. We are also more at
risk for having our recreational activities black-listed by folks
seeking ways that *others* should sacrifice to promote a healthy
environment.

I should have said, "Wy are the folks talking the most about mankind's
contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the use of
nuclear energy?"

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:43:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about
mankind's contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the
use of nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is
minimal, given the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of
nuclear energy.

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering
standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering
amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn
rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239
then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which
is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in. �

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory



Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.

I agree nuclear has to be part of the answer, but it is by no means *the* answer. I also do not seem to
share the trust you have in this government. Living down wind of Three Mile Island, I clearly remember
the assurances that the problem was under control, only to find out later that 1/2 the core had melted
down. Oh, and if you think things have chanced, remember the assurances about the air quality at
ground zero.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

Tim wrote:
On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:15 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem
That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.
The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.
However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....
Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.
I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.
Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.
In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.
Not at all. The "Deniers" are Galileo railing against the Church of
Global Warming, Pope Al Gore presiding. :)

Answer me this Harry. How many times in Earth's history, based on
archeological, paleontological and anthropological evidence, has the
Earth warmed or cooled?

Now take those same disciplines and apply them to the time that
Homosapiens has been walking the planet - how many times?

Take your time - I'll be back this evening. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, you mean the sky ain't a-falling???


The sky is falling but, it will rise again just like it has for hundreds
of thousands of years. The cycle is about 150,000 years with a the
global temperature rising to a point that is about 6*F higher than now
and then it makes a share drop of about 12*F. And the whole process
starts again.

Since we, human type peoples, were not burning coal or oil nor using
aerosol sprays 150, 300 and 450 thousand years ago we can come to the
conclusion that us human type peoples are not the cause of this cycle.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:11:14 -0000, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:43:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about
mankind's contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the
use of nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is
minimal, given the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of
nuclear energy.

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering
standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering
amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn
rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239
then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which
is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in. ”

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory



Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.

I agree nuclear has to be part of the answer, but it is by no means *the* answer. I also do not seem to
share the trust you have in this government. Living down wind of Three Mile Island, I clearly remember
the assurances that the problem was under control, only to find out later that 1/2 the core had melted
down. Oh, and if you think things have chanced, remember the assurances about the air quality at
ground zero.

You missed the line preceding your quote, which came from the interview
with Goodstein:

"PROFESSOR DAVID GOODSTEIN: It depends on what kind of nuclear power you
mean.

If you mean the kind of conventional power that we use for power in the
United States, burning uranium 235, which is a rare isotope of uranium,
there are a couple of problems."

The conventional power being used at that time did not use the recycling
technology available today. Furthermore, I didn't suggest replacing *all*
the fossil fuel power with nuclear, as posited in your reference.

It may well be a while before we have nuclear powered aircraft.

Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was that?
How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the technology hasn't
improved since then?

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:08:42 -0500, John H. wrote:


Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was
that? How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the
technology hasn't improved since then?

The technology has improved considerably, pebble bed reactors, for example, but the bureaucrats that
make decisions haven't improved. The Three Mile Island event happened in 1979, around the same time
that studies of Yucca Mountain were started. Yucca Mountain isn't expected to be in use until @ 2017, at
a cost of somewhere between $50-100 billion. It's capacity is expected to be 70,000 metric tons of
waste. We have already generated @ 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. So, basically, Yucca
Mountain will be full before it ever becomes usable, but hey, let's all just jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:08:42 -0500, John H. wrote:


Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was
that? How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the
technology hasn't improved since then?

The technology has improved considerably, pebble bed reactors, for example, but the bureaucrats that
make decisions haven't improved. The Three Mile Island event happened in 1979, around the same time
that studies of Yucca Mountain were started. Yucca Mountain isn't expected to be in use until @ 2017, at
a cost of somewhere between $50-100 billion. It's capacity is expected to be 70,000 metric tons of
waste. We have already generated @ 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. So, basically, Yucca
Mountain will be full before it ever becomes usable, but hey, let's all just jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.




I'm ok with nuclear power plants if there is trustworthy civilian
oversight of the construction and operation, and if the nuclear waste
will be stored only in red states such as Texas, Alabama, and
Mississippi, the places I never willingly visit.

We don't live that far from a nuke plant. I figure when it goes up, I'll
be an even more glowing personality.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Jun 25, 4:19 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:22?am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jun 22, 2:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Temps in the low '60s, reasonable humidity, winds NNW at 10,
occasional rain showers...
Man, this Global Warming is wonderful!
Heh, heh, heh...
Just got back from Alaska.
On one leg of our cruise ship vacation we motored up Endicott Arm,
(east of Juneau) and got up fairly close to the Daws glacier. (Got to
hand it to the Captain, I would never have thought anybody would
attempt to run a vessel of that size up through a snakey fjord filled
with ice bergs, but he did).
A lot of the passengers on this cruise seemed to hail from the south
and the midwest. Every time a whale would spout or somebody would spot
an eagle, a dolphin, etc there would be a chorus of oohs and aahs and
cameras would be snapping madly. (The scenery was a lot like Puget
Sound or SW BC, only a lot less populated, so it wasn't quite as
stunning or surprising for residents of the Pacific NW).
While stopped in sight of the glacier, one of the ship's Norwegian
officers gave a lecture over the PA system about glaciers. How they
form, why they're blue at the bottom, how many there are, etc.
Everybody listened with at least moderate interest until the officer
began mentioning the number of glaciers that have retreated
substantially or disappeared in Glacier National Park during the last
several years. You would have thought he had announced, "We support
Hillary for president." The crowd got pretty lippy. Comments like "Who
the hell is up on the bridge, Al Gore?" (and some worse) were
frequently heard. It was pretty obvious that the negative reaction was
*political*, not scientific.
The telling moment, for me, occured when the officer mentioned that
"as recently as 10,000 years ago much of the earth was covered by a
sheet of ice." Once person standing immediately behind me grumbled
"Not according to the Bible!", and another bystander confirmed that
sentiment by stating, "I guess it all depends on what you believe."
Indeed. As always, a solid belief or disbelief is unlikely to be
swayed by anything as trivial as actual evidence- on either side of
the question.
What was interesting was the Eagle Glacier outside Seward, AK. There are
markers as you hike the trail to the glacier of where the face was over the
years. From 1917-1926 was the major retreat. Maybe 300 yards. Tells me it
is not all mankinds fault.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's normal for individual glaciers to advance and retreat. Always has
been, for millions of years.

What is so unusual about current global climate conditions is that
nearly all glaciers are receding at once. Many are disappearing
entirely, and no new glaciers are appearing to take their place Yes,
there *are* exceptions to the prevailing conditions of glacial
retreat, just enough to prove the rule.

I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem. Nobody is well served by
side-tracking this scientific concern into an "us vs. them" political
snot fight. If things come down as they well might, nobody is going to
be spared the consequences simply because he or she voted for the
prevailing candidate in the most recent election.

Chuck,
I was following up on SWF's statement that 50% of scientist did not
believe that there was Global Warming. I thought it was the opinion of
the vast majority of climatologist that global warming was a fact, and
the only controversy was the cause of global warming. I found this
interesting article on the "Global Warming Controversy". It seemed to
be a fairly unbiased review of the differences of opinion. There seems
to be more scientist than i realized who question the accuracy of the
statistics concerning global warming in relationship to historical data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...g_controversy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We can't possibly be reading the same article.

Lead statement in the item you linked:

"The existence of a rise in average temperatures since the mid-19th
century is not disputed. The controversy focuses on the specific
causes of the recent warming, and concentrates on the warming after
World War II; the likelihood and magnitude of future warming; and
whether additional warming would be harmful or beneficial."

****


Another statement in the item you linked (under Scientific Concensus)

"The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only
scientific society that rejects the predominant opinion.[19][20]"

*************************

And then there's this account of a person who reviewed 928 scientific
opinions on the subject, was initially rebuked by another reviewer,
and how the rebuking reviewer has apparently backed off once the
desired publicity and talking points were generated:

(The supposed de-bunker retreated to a position stating, "Yes there is
a overwhelming majority of scientists in agreement on globl warming
issues, but it is far from unanimous".... When was the last time,
except in a murder trial, that *everybody* had to agree before the
position of the majority could be found credible?)

From your site:

"A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a
survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate
change in the ISI database.[21]. Oreskes said:

Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by
controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The
scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "Remarkably, none
of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". Benny Peiser
claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing

" Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928
abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or
implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is
man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional
two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just
over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast
majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.
[22] "

In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion
pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation
Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to
include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in
all indices,[23][24] and the interpretation of the remaining parts of
his attempted refutation is further disputed.[25] In a later op-ed
piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to
his review [26].

Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

************************************************** *************************

According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jun 25, 4:19 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:22?am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 22, 2:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Temps in the low '60s, reasonable humidity, winds NNW at 10,
occasional rain showers...
Man, this Global Warming is wonderful!
Heh, heh, heh...
Just got back from Alaska.
On one leg of our cruise ship vacation we motored up Endicott Arm,
(east of Juneau) and got up fairly close to the Daws glacier. (Got to
hand it to the Captain, I would never have thought anybody would
attempt to run a vessel of that size up through a snakey fjord filled
with ice bergs, but he did).
A lot of the passengers on this cruise seemed to hail from the south
and the midwest. Every time a whale would spout or somebody would spot
an eagle, a dolphin, etc there would be a chorus of oohs and aahs and
cameras would be snapping madly. (The scenery was a lot like Puget
Sound or SW BC, only a lot less populated, so it wasn't quite as
stunning or surprising for residents of the Pacific NW).
While stopped in sight of the glacier, one of the ship's Norwegian
officers gave a lecture over the PA system about glaciers. How they
form, why they're blue at the bottom, how many there are, etc.
Everybody listened with at least moderate interest until the officer
began mentioning the number of glaciers that have retreated
substantially or disappeared in Glacier National Park during the last
several years. You would have thought he had announced, "We support
Hillary for president." The crowd got pretty lippy. Comments like "Who
the hell is up on the bridge, Al Gore?" (and some worse) were
frequently heard. It was pretty obvious that the negative reaction was
*political*, not scientific.
The telling moment, for me, occured when the officer mentioned that
"as recently as 10,000 years ago much of the earth was covered by a
sheet of ice." Once person standing immediately behind me grumbled
"Not according to the Bible!", and another bystander confirmed that
sentiment by stating, "I guess it all depends on what you believe."
Indeed. As always, a solid belief or disbelief is unlikely to be
swayed by anything as trivial as actual evidence- on either side of
the question.
What was interesting was the Eagle Glacier outside Seward, AK. There are
markers as you hike the trail to the glacier of where the face was over the
years. From 1917-1926 was the major retreat. Maybe 300 yards. Tells me it
is not all mankinds fault.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's normal for individual glaciers to advance and retreat. Always has
been, for millions of years.
What is so unusual about current global climate conditions is that
nearly all glaciers are receding at once. Many are disappearing
entirely, and no new glaciers are appearing to take their place Yes,
there *are* exceptions to the prevailing conditions of glacial
retreat, just enough to prove the rule.
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem. Nobody is well served by
side-tracking this scientific concern into an "us vs. them" political
snot fight. If things come down as they well might, nobody is going to
be spared the consequences simply because he or she voted for the
prevailing candidate in the most recent election.
Chuck,
I was following up on SWF's statement that 50% of scientist did not
believe that there was Global Warming. I thought it was the opinion of
the vast majority of climatologist that global warming was a fact, and
the only controversy was the cause of global warming. I found this
interesting article on the "Global Warming Controversy". It seemed to
be a fairly unbiased review of the differences of opinion. There seems
to be more scientist than i realized who question the accuracy of the
statistics concerning global warming in relationship to historical data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...g_controversy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We can't possibly be reading the same article.



Please. You're playing with right-wing Reggie.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:47:50 -0400, HK wrote:


I'm ok with nuclear power plants if there is trustworthy civilian
oversight of the construction and operation, and if the nuclear waste
will be stored only in red states such as Texas, Alabama, and
Mississippi, the places I never willingly visit.

Hey, I agree. I think nuclear has to play a part in our energy future. I just don't think it is the magical
solution. We are going to spend $50-100 billion to store nuclear waste. Personally, I wonder what the
future would look like if we spent that kind of money on sustainable energy development.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:37 -0000, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:08:42 -0500, John H. wrote:


Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was
that? How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the
technology hasn't improved since then?

The technology has improved considerably, pebble bed reactors, for example, but the bureaucrats that
make decisions haven't improved. The Three Mile Island event happened in 1979, around the same time
that studies of Yucca Mountain were started. Yucca Mountain isn't expected to be in use until @ 2017, at
a cost of somewhere between $50-100 billion. It's capacity is expected to be 70,000 metric tons of
waste. We have already generated @ 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. So, basically, Yucca
Mountain will be full before it ever becomes usable, but hey, let's all just jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.

Do some reading about the recycling technology available today.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:

According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)


Chuck,
In my mind the most important quote was:
Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

I DO believe their is global warming, and agree with the large percent
of the scientist who believe man has a impact on the global warming, but
I did find it interesting how there will always believe enough reputable
scientist to provide those who disagree all the "experts" they need.

this should never be a political debate, but it will be for a long time.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)


Chuck,
In my mind the most important quote was:
Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

I DO believe there is global warming, and agree with the large percent
of the scientist who believe man has a impact on the global warming, but
I did find it interesting how there will always believe enough reputable
scientist to provide those who disagree all the "experts" they need.

this should never be a political debate, but it will be for a long time.

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

On Jun 26, 9:21?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
According to the site you linked, your initial impression that most
scientists are in general agreement about global warming is probably
more accurate than a revised impression that the scientific ranks are
split 50-50 or so on this issue. Unless, of course, 50% of the
scientists belong to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. :-)

Chuck,
In my mind the most important quote was:
Peiser also stated:

" ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the
current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this
majority consensus is far from unanimous.[24]"

I DO believe their is global warming, and agree with the large percent
of the scientist who believe man has a impact on the global warming, but
I did find it interesting how there will always believe enough reputable
scientist to provide those who disagree all the "experts" they need.

this should never be a political debate, but it will be for a long time.

It's all semantics. An overwhelming majority of scientists in
agreement
(a fact grudgingly admitted by a party who initially attempted to de-
bunk
statements that scientists were in agreement on this issue) can be
extremely significant even *if* the agreement is not unanimous.

Heck, I'm pretty sure that there isn't "unanimous" agreement among
medical practitioners that there's any direct link between smoking
tobacco and heart disease or lung cancer. That wouldn't make the other
90-some percent of health professionals automatically wrong simply
because a few crackpots are still being paid off by RJ Reynolds.
My own doctor, who is somewhat overweight and a smoker, actually told
me that he believes it's the cigarette paper that's primarily to blame
for the health risks associated with smoking, not the tobacco
itself....(whatever).....otherwise I think he's a pretty good
doctor. :-)

I'm loving this Global Warming...
 

thunder wrote:

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.


Economics and poor management is what killed the WPPSS
projects and economics is why the Trojan plant (Oregon's
only nuke plant)was shut down early.