The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Leaders debate misses the mark on climate > Comments

Leaders debate misses the mark on climate : Comments

By Suzanne Harter, published 31/5/2016

With both major parties talking about innovation as a major part of growing our economy, how is it possible that clean technologies were not connected to that message?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
We should all embrace LFTR (Liquide Floride Thorium Reactor) safe, reliable, cheap nuclear technology, the only viable electricity generation technology left on the planet at today's technology scale.

It can produce cheap electricity, transport fuels, medical isotopes, safe U238 plutonium fuels for space power requirements. If we do not we are idiots.

Forget renewables, they just don't cut the mustard at today's 24/7 requirements.

Sit down, take off your blinkers and watch this: https://youtu.be/YVSmf_qmkbg.

Cheers
Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 10:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant, sorry to burst your bubble but Price Waterhouse Coopers? I would call them prostitutes but that would be a disservice to prostitutes. PWC ask "What is the answer?" before looking at anything.
I could call them money-grubbers but then that would give you, know how it goes.
Here is a thread what other descriptions can readers find for PWC?
Game on!
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 10:33:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, JBower.

You have illustrated the denier technique on two counts.

Firstly, you make disparaging comments about PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Secondly, you take what you perceive to be the low hanging fruit, ignoring the rest of my references.

There is a degree of consilience in my previous post.

I worked for Price Waterhouse and Co; Chartered Accountants 48 years ago. They were very ethical in how they dealt with matters at that time. Chartered Accountants have a code of ethics; so any complaints should be investigated. The PWC reference is an aside to the one about radiation forcing by greenhouse gases. Like professionals in other fields, they place a high price on the service they provide.

Please find evidence against:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

You need to remember in doing so that we are up to satellite modelling of data Mark VI, and that the modelled slabs of temperature measured is showing a substantial increase (per Dr Spencer).
Also, you need to be able to debunk the many experiments that show how radiated infrared operates, particularly the 11 year ARM research project. The 11 year ARM project was based at two locations and took data pretty well on a daily basis.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

You might also like to debunk the fact that Arctic sea ice is at a level weeks in advance of normal melting. Or, the Fort McMurray extremely early wildfires have burnt a record amount of area for the time of year. Meanwhile, the drought continues in Southern California; and Houstan has been rain bombed several times this year.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:48:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant PWC and the GFC? I need say no more. You just carry on son, you are doing a great job. Good on you, saving the planet lol!
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 5:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBower

Once again you prove my point, please debunk the ARM and ERSL NOAA references.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 5:41:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Alan,

I am not interested in discussing this stupid "climate change" hoax. It started off as a ploy of Margaret Thatcher in order to suppress the British coal miners and their unions and subsequently it was taken over by the "United-Nations" as part of their plan to control the world and us in it. If need be, I rather have the world boil up than come under their control.

As I said, it is indeed a good thing to unwind our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels - but the reasons have nothing to do with this ridiculous claim of "pollution" since CO2 is not a polluter. Conversely, the theft of earth's resources is not a myth or a con: we dig and use up fossils at a rate of about 1000 years of accumulation per hour and that doesn't seem right and shouldn't go on.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy