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?"

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.

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.