Like or Dislike: 0  0

You don’t seem to read what I say, and possibly you just like arguing – because we agree about a lot of things! My central point is that I don’t trust research done by organisations that have a vested interest in the outcome – just as neither of us trusts the research done by climatologists. So I am not that keen to accept claims that a power station would withstand a well-aimed hit by a large plane – maybe a cargo plane filled with explosives.

As regards hydrofluoric acid, to which I think you were referring, yes it is very dangerous, but the danger would be confined to a few people at most. After a tragedy the safety standards would be improved as necessary.

Conversely, if a plane did fly into a power station, and broke the containment vessel, and if the research into reactor safety had been performed in the same way as AGW research, the results for the UK might be catastrophic.

Last time I filled my tank, I had no problems, and the gas is still flowing to warm my house. It sometimes scares me that totally untrue stories sometimes bounce around the internet.

I totally agree about green energy production – you absolutely have to have a good way to store the energy, which is intermittent. Possibly hydrogen production and storage might be an answer, but simply coupling wind turbines to the national grid is useless.

Like or Dislike: 0  3

David Bailey:

Certainly the fact that people often survive car crashes that destroy their car, does not mean that this happens every time.

It may be that we end up with more nuclear power, which would be preferable to the social collapse that might otherwise result from “low carbon” policies.

I find your comparisons of cars and planes and whatnot to nuclear ridiculousness. You are comparing apples to bananas and coconuts. First of all there are not as many reactors as cars and planes and will never be so. 2nd, nuclear reactors do not experience high volumes of consumer contact except via the grid. 3rd, oversight is much more stringent.
You just have a phobia against something you don’t really understand.

Working in a fab as a maintenance technician would be more hazardous. Many chip manufacturers use an acid that can dissolve bones, and once a limb gets contaminated, the only cure is amputation. And they use chlorine compounds along with other nasty chemicals. I think your stuck on 1970’s technology which was a hazard back in that period. But that’s progress, sometimes you learn as you go, you have to start somewhere.

But I find living with the Earth and Gaia far more hazardous to ones existence then much of that dangerous, dirty technology. Tornadoes, hurricanes, carnivores, poisonous insects and reptiles and amphibians, volcanoes, earthquakes, mudslides, floods, droughts, and other common hazards found on this living planet that have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future regardless of human activities. Humans can make their environment worse by stupid actions but they really can’t destroy the planet with all it’s complex systems simply by energy usage and raising CO2 levels incrementally. Human contributions to the yearly 2ppm CO2 increase is only about 5% or even less.

The question is, what steps will be taken to sustain or improve just basic living standards? Some people talk about living in a pristine world but one they enter that world they establish some sort of carbon foot print. So do we go back to medievil living standards, what is really carbon neutral? Can people live comfortability all squished together on a minimal allotment of land verses housing? That smells of Communism and that has never really worked in the past, never! When you look at where people want to live with just follow the human herd for lifestyle choices, it’s hardly ever to communist- socialists republics, although under BO and the Dems, the US seems headed in that direction.

Climatologists have discovered that the Sahara was once a fertile breadbasket around 10,000 BCE to 4,000 BCE. It was caused by the Earth’s orbit wobbling slightly around 10,000 BCE, causing a shift in weather patterns. The monsoons which drench Southern Africa today shifted up, pouring water onto the Sahara, where it formed bodies of water. Around 4,000 BCE, the Sahara became a desert once more, and it is now rapidly expanding, due to a variety of factors. It was known as the Green Sahara period and you will find things like that over the planet wide that had no human fingerprint. So much of this AGW mantra is exaggerations of natural processes. It most likely will happen again just like the present cooling phenomena and past warming.

To let the economy degrade to depression levels is suicide for any country. The economy will lose momentum for R&D and the low carbon replacement will be low revenue service and agrijobs. Is that what you want?

Bailey, you just don’t get it. Present green technology doesn’t even come close to replacing the high energy capacities of nuclear, oil or coal. Conservation can only do so much plus house would have to be rebuilt with the most efficient use of solar thermal usage. Forget PV, it still not efficient enough to replace fossils, show me the economics!

Green technology is like present healthcare, only the rich can afford the best, the middle class person will have to do bandaide approach such as hot air solar, solar films over windows, perhaps solar thermal ad-ons, solar thermal water heaters, LEDs. I noticed that in England people are having a hard time even getting fuel for their cars and homes. But getting people to accept and live with these alternative butts up against quality of life issues, just look at how Al Gore lives his life, would you call him a roll model?!

Here in the US people bought much out of convenience. They though that wind and solar would replace the coal and gas and oil to heat their homes of convenience. So we have these inefficient home everywhere with more space then people can afford to heat and light. Governments are going bankrupt across the nation as the banking fiascoes mounts, as is also being experienced in other countries. Right now the economy is being floated on stimulus and not real productivity.

So with the climate getting colder due to solar irradiance waning and possible other factors down the road, people are going to need more energy to counter that. Green energy doesn’t even come close, unless a major breakthrough in battery technology is at hand to counter fossil replacement energy needs. An economic collapse of what your referring to means people freezing, overheating, and starving or being malnourished. The population would have to die off by half.

So dream on Bailey, like the guy who buys a home e’ can’t afford on the future prospects of a raise or promotion just because e’ can get into a low interest ARM loan. That’s what precipitated the current economic mess, playing on people prospects. If it requires too much subsidization for the return then it probably won’t pan out down the road. But some people still fall for the idealized hype and not the reality. The biggest problem is governments getting in the way of free enterprise solutions with ridiculousness regulations and mandates while being in bed with bankers and other special interest groups. Did you read of the Copenhagen charades? That right there should show you the fiasco of the enviro-politico-industrial complex. It’s carpet bagging on a new level.

What is your energy use situation that makes you think green energy will sustain you Bailey, or the world? Or what sources do you rely on that make you think that? What kind of life style would you expect people to acquire based on current, non fossil and nuclear technology? You seem to be stuck in a revolving door of green expectations based on political and exaggerated salesmanship flatulence rather then realities.

And I see that in one post I inadvertently misspelled your name, it was a typo and not intentional. Sorry about that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry I misspelt your name – no gamesmanship involved!

You wrote, “Bailey, your irrational fears are adolescent. DOE has done actual crash tests that confirm the resiliency of the containment structures and they can extrapolate from that to structural design. If you have concerns about that then avoid bridges and skyscrapers.”

You see the problem is that what one might call the AGW phenomenon can work in other areas too. Science is more easily coruptable than we like to think. There must be huge financial incentives to come to the ‘right’ conclusion in studies such as those you quote, and without getting totally immersed in the subject, it is hard to know what the truth is. Certainly the fact that people often survive car crashes that destroy their car, does not mean that this happens every time.

It may be that we end up with more nuclear power, which would be preferable to the social collapse that might otherwise result from “low carbon” policies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Denny:

Wish it was that simple..The Alarmists do not use “True Scientific” principals towards their work

Yes, you are so right. They will cut down your science, reasoning and sources without any real intelligent dialog. If it doesn’t come from one of their holy climate grail sites like NASA, IPCC, realclimate, no matter what credentials the source has, it’s crap to them. Hit them with the truth, shove it in their faces and demand an intelligent reply. And if you don’t get it then tell them they haven’t convinced you and take your leave. You may want to come back with new overwhelming info from time to time, it’s always surfacing.

But if they don’t delete your reply then you have one more path for others to evaluate and check out.

Here’s one site that lists a bunch of peer reviewed skeptic articles and sites:
peer-reviewed-papers-supporting

Another good reference is:
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

There it is shown that ocean heat and not CO2 forcing is has a great effect on climate by directly absorbing the Suns energy.

The information is changing weekly as new revelations come about. My mainstay is icecap.us, the Newsmax of climate news. some of the info is peer reviewed so don’t let the AGWers blow you off with- Well it’s a blog site! It’s a climate blog news site. It’s the sources and quality of the material plus the credentials of the personnel. The information is out there, you just have to dig it up.

Then there’s CO2science.org with more professional scientific articles.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Con Michael, Wish it was that simple..The Alarmists do not use “True Scientific” principals towards their work…All you have to do is read the ClimateGate emails and this confirms this suspicion. You are correct on all Science discipline’s this how it’s done but not in the newly founded Climate arena…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

{Scotar,}

It’s Scottar Bailey, don’t play games.

{It is easy to do a paper study that shows that a nuclear plant would withstand a direct hit with a jet airliner, but how much trust do YOU have in that? If you get to the point where even one major incident would have unbearable consequences, you have problems.}

Bailey, your irrational fears are adolescent. DOE has done actual crash tests that confirm the resiliency of the containment structures and they can extrapolate from that to structural design. If you have concerns about that then avoid bridges and skyscrapers.

They NRC insures the safety and reliability of the nuclear reactors, the new type III have passive cooling features and shutdown safeguards that I would have next to zero concerns living next to one in the US. If it was a Chinese reactor I may have concerns.

One company has modular reactors batteries that can power anything from a small community to a large town. They are self sufficient, last 30+ years and are placed underground. That would be better than either wind or solar PV energy and can even beat coal. I would have a concern living next to a wind farm and very much to a chemical factory or refinery.

{Quite why you think the EU is socialist, I can’t imagine! The EU is going off the rails because it is not very democratic – which is not the same thing. However, the EU has done one very important thing – it has stopped wars between its member states – there are just too many forms to fill in before you are allowed to start one – LOL!}

They are postponing the inevitable and they are at the mercy of Russian energy sources like Gasprom. They are being overrun by Moslems and they support the ridiculous Kyoto protocol. The way the world is headed now there will certainly be wars breaking out unless China develops a viable nano technology or energy weapon that can neutralize nuclear retaliation. the EU lives in a security bubble of fantasy. And the fact that they have one of the highest tax rate to support all their overloaded bureaucracies and subsidizations, they tax their fuel at 50%! Other then that, their countries are charming.

{You are too ready to disparage environmentalists. Traditionally, they have been the small guys railing against powerful state forces to oppose nuclear weapons, real pollution with toxic chemicals, habitat destruction, etc etc. It is really only with AGW that they appear on the side of Big Brother!}

I’m talking about the radical enviros who distort the science along with the department heads who are after grant monies and prestige and even political power. You have learned nothing to little about the Climategate incident. That is what I mean about the enviro- industrial complex. If I was talking about the industrial-defense industry I would not be including the enlisted nor much of command, it would be those involved in the procurement process and contracts.

If you worked for a pharmaceutical corporation that produces a drug that has some negatives you may have a tendency to object to that. But since the corporation is international and has deep pockets and much influence over the government….. you would be taking a career suicide step by whistle blowing. You are up against an entity that can employ Mafia tactics to discredit you and even threaten your family or love ones. You would be very reluctant to come out unless you had outside funding or support from credible sources.

This is the scenario that people in various scientific realms, like the EPA in the US, that don’t dare come out to tell the truth for fear of retaliation that would wreak their careers. The CRU emails were leaked by an insider whistleblower and has caught the corrupt science instigators red handed. But in spite of that you still see politicals and industrialists still embracing carbon capping or sequestering. That is because their financial and political futures have been stamped in enviro gold- translate money and power.

The present IPCC head, Pachauri, has ‘green’ investments just like Mr. Gore. The IPCC doesn’t have a peer review process from the 2,500 science contributors, it has a cherry picking review process that involves some 5,000 committee head reviewers, finalized by about some 15 head chiefs that message the reports into supporting AGW claims.

This science of convenience pervades the political and industrial sectors and other related government bureaucracies. Any opposition is oppressed or discredited by those who are voted in or appointed by those the voters got conned into voting for. BO is a perfect example. Where money and power is involved there can be corruption, especially when those roots go back to origins of corruption and tainted influence.

This is what Climategate exposes concerning the enviro-industrial-political complex. Get a clue Bailey, David Evans has been through that process and that is what this site is all about. Read Evan’s “I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train”

Regards to Francis Manns:

I like your posts, great analogy on the last one. Human’s can stop global warming????- the Gods are laughing! Time for a political reality check.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I would say I am not 100% against nuclear power, but if we can burn fossil fuel until we find a better alternative, I would prefer that. I can’t give you an exact reference to the pee incident – I heard it years ago, but I feel the essential point is that:

Planes are safe precisely because some have crashed – it keeps everyone on their toes.

It is easy to do a paper study that shows that a nuclear plant would withstand a direct hit with a jet airliner, but how much trust do YOU have in that?

If you get to the point where even one major incident would have unbearable consequences, you have problems.

I agree, renewables do seem to be a problem – not least because you need a way to store the energy to buffer the supply.

Quite why you think the EU is socialist, I can’t imagine! The EU is going off the rails because it is not very democratic – which is not the same thing. However, the EU has done one very important thing – it has stopped wars between its member states – there are just too many forms to fill in before you are allowed to start one – LOL!

I think becoming blase because there might be another super volcanic event is a bit like some Christians that don’t seem to care about overpopulation or nuclear war because the second coming is overdue anyway!

I agree, nuclear technological fears are rather like AGW. The facts are rather hard to come by, subject to distortion by vested interests, and hard to evaluate even with a science background because they cover many subjects.

You are too ready to disparage environmentalists. Traditionally, they have been the small guys railing against powerful state forces to oppose nuclear weapons, real pollution with toxic chemicals, habitat destruction, etc etc. It is really only with AGW that they appear on the side of Big Brother!

Like or Dislike: 0  0