Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to work in a 4 unit 750 megawatt each unit Canadian Candu nuclear power station. The station it's self releases extremely little pollution to the atmosphere. Month to month we met a 1% of allowable emissions target. There is the issue of thermal pollution, we heated up a lot of Lake Huron water. Uranium mining does cause some pollution issues. Overall, nuclear is the cleanest source of large amounts of energy we have.
No one worries if a coal power plant blows a hot water boiler. The point is, even if coal power plants eliminated 50% of the current toxins from their smokestacks the AGW crowd would hate them, because they still produce CO2.
That is how freaking screwed up the global warming scammers are, even if we discovered a 100% clean burning fuel, the scammers would prevent it from being used if it produced CO2.
I've already informed you of this. I'll do so again so as to eliminate the possibility of error.
Why do you keep pretending "But they said there'd be an ice age!" is a good point after your argument had already been debunked once? People with intellectual integrity, when presented with new facts, change their minds.
I'm not pretending anything. They said there was a New Ice Age coming. Look at any environmental report on the subject and you will find they said it.
20 years from now when they can no longer get money and power from the warming lie they will say they said warming was only predicted, just that we should've looked into it. While they are perpetrating a new lie to get money and power.
Since they have been wrong about cooling, acid rain, deforestation, starvation, SARS, swine flu and virtually every other environmental disaster in the past why would anyone but a fool believe them when they say the exact same thing about warming, err, I mean climate. lols.
More fun facts. I want to make absolutely sure that this information is in this thread so no one can plead ignorance.
Quote:
George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted. One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
The thread title is stupid enough to make one's eyes bleed. There is no doubt that global warming/climate change exists, but if you choose to not believe that it is caused by human actions that is your choice. Denying the exisence of the problem is beyond stupid.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 06-24-2013 at 03:11 PM..
I'm not pretending anything. They said there was a New Ice Age coming. Look at any environmental report on the subject and you will find they said it.
20 years from now when they can no longer get money and power from the warming lie they will say they said warming was only predicted, just that we should've looked into it. While they are perpetrating a new lie to get money and power.
Since they have been wrong about cooling, acid rain, deforestation, starvation, SARS, swine flu and virtually every other environmental disaster in the past why would anyone but a fool believe them when they say the exact same thing about warming, err, I mean climate. lols.
Why do people like to be clowned? lols.
I think there is this belief that scientists are above such common needs such as monetary gain. However, time and again, we've seen the ethical standards of scientists broken in favor of monetary gain. I do not think it is wrong to questions the proponents of climate change (or global warming or whatever they're calling it these days) when they clearly benefit greatly by their positions. Scientists, like all humans, are fallible and not above reproach. Personally, I believe the altered datasets for the climate models illustrated that point perfectly.
The thread title is stupid enough to make one's eyes bleed. There is not doubt that global warming/climate change exists, but if you choose not believe that it is caused by human actions that is your choice. Denying the exisence of the problem is beyond stupid.
Actually, that's quite accurate and perhaps a bit too subtle for some people to realize. Climate change is very real. We have ample evidence of that occurring in times past. The real debate, and the one which may or may not be true, is if man's actions have caused adverse effects with respect to the global climate.
I already told you my sources. They are noted after each quote.
They are relevant because the exact same people making then initiated the global warming (sort of like you just dismissed them on the spot). They detoured into the ozone layer and acid rain first. They were unable to change government policy and the grant money dried up rather quickly with cooling, ozone and acid rain. So they switched to warming and now climate change. They never have to admit they were wrong because no one challenges them and the money and power keep rolling in.
Interestingly, they use the same computer models for warming that they did for cooling.
I did not dismiss your sources, I asked for links so I could read them.
Global warming has nothing to do with the ozone layer or acid rain. Global warming involves the "greenhouse effect."
And every government on Earth is taking steps to combat global warming (except for America's political right.)
I'm not pretending anything. They said there was a New Ice Age coming. Look at any environmental report on the subject and you will find they said it.
The links I sent you tell you what was what regarding climatology at the time. I don't care what you think they were saying, and I don't care what half-cocked granolas were writing in the ill-informed pop-science best-sellers you were reading. I'm telling you what the scientific community had to say about the matter then, and I'm showing you how their actual opinions don't support what you claim. To say "they predicted ice ages then" shows a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of what they were saying. And since I've taken you by the f'n hand and shown you what they were saying in no uncertain terms but you still insist you're right, I have to conclude your ignorance is willful.
Quote:
20 years from now when they can no longer get money and power from the warming lie they will say they said warming was only predicted, just that we should've looked into it. While they are perpetrating a new lie to get money and power.
What money? What power? What kind of glamourous lifestyle is it you think climatologists lead?
Good for Obama! New studies have shown that autism is directly related to pollution, and coal-fired power plants are the worst. From releasing arsenic and mercury into the water supply, to black lung disease, coal is an abomination.
I would hope that you will now heat your home with animal dung, abandon electric lights and air conditioning, and no longer use electric appliances. Then and only then will you be "safe".
I guess you didn't know that solar energy causes a much greater problem with heavy metals than coal. They probably do not go over such information in liberal indoctrination camps.
Perhaps you should review the medical literature regarding "black lung disease" and cigarette smoking. Then you might realize that it was a disease created by the trial lawyer's association.
I would hope that you will now heat your home with animal dung, abandon electric lights and air conditioning, and no longer use electric appliances. Then and only then will you be "safe".
I guess you didn't know that solar energy causes a much greater problem with heavy metals than coal. They probably do not go over such information in liberal indoctrination camps.
Perhaps you should review the medical literature regarding "black lung disease" and cigarette smoking. Then you might realize that it was a disease created by the trial lawyer's association.
What a phenomenally absurdist stance! Curtailing our emissions does not equal heating our homes with animal dung or living in caves. If everyone at least chose to walk a lot more, recycle, car pool or use public transit (our buses run on used restaurant grease), not buy SUVs (oil rigs on wheels), eschew things like styrofoam, it would make a difference.
I heat and power my home with kinetic energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
