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 > General Discussion > Be honest..

Be honest..

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Denialists have ramped up their efforts recently to hijack science for political or ideological reasons and in doing so, are besmirching science’s public image. They are good at doing this, and they are exerting a disproportionate influence on global climate policies.

Groups with vested interests, (pollutant industries such as mining and fossil fuel lobbyists etc) are endeavouring to push so-called “scientific evidence” to support their claims. In fact they are at best drawing selectively on a small part of the evidence, or at worst relying on “junk” science – that is, outdated, discredited or fabricated data and ideas.

If confronted with good science, deniers sidestep valid critiques and ignore counter-evidence (or dismiss it by deferring to other discredited ideas). Now they are using the economic crisis to scare people witless.

They are hard to pin down because they don’t want a serious scientific debate. A typical example this week was Tony Jones’ interview with sceptic, mining geologist and academic, Ian Plimer, who is also a company director of several mining companies and lists his interests as “an ore-body in Broken Hill.”

Rock doctor, Plimer has duped the public into believing he is an expert on climate science. Frankly, if one has taken an interest in the science on climate change and pollution, then one would be as dismayed as I, listening to Plimer’s hubris, though Tony Jones had done his research and wiped the floor with him.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

What makes the current threat of climate warming so special is its speed.

The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1,000 years – yet now CO2 has risen by more than 30 ppm in just the last 17 years.

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times (IPCC) and the industrial barons et al, with their heads in the sand - (or would that be "trough?") intend to keep it that way.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 9:41:15 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
Attention all scientists, or science minded persons.

So let's say we cut emmisions by 20%.

Does anyone have any real idea what impact this will have on our day to day lives.

There would appear to be one possible solution, nuclear power.

Now my understanding is that nuclear power is a clean sourse of power generation. Is this correct?

If so, why don't we adopt it?

If we did adopt it and stop all fossil fuels from being extracted and used, how much would this cut our emmisions by?

It would appear that the real threat of nuclear power is the handling and disposal of the waste. Is this the only real issue and surely there is a way to control this.

It is also my understanding that we have one of, if not the largest supply of urainium in the world. Is this correct?

How far from the end user could the nuclear plant be located?

If distance is no problem then there is plenty of arrid country out there to put these plants.

Is the risk of one major nuclear disaster in 50 years a better option than the continued poluting of our world?

Surely we are better equipped and more knowledgable to handle any such disaster now.

Just a thought.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 30 April 2009 6:48:54 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
Dallas:"Human produced waste and its value is in the eye of the inventive beholder who knows a profit when he sees it."

Exactly! My business is all about dealing with the waste produced by one industry and creating a useful product from it for consumption by another industry.

It's just as well I'm a bloke, though, since according to Foxy, if I was a sheila, I'd never be able to have started my business in the first place and if I had, I'd be paying myself much less (in the absence of a board to make sure I was undervalued).

Far too much whingeing goes on about problems and far too little effort goes into finding solutions for many people. We live in a very cossetted world, in which our comfort is seen as a paramount consideration and all the former milkmaids are now "princesses", quick to point out the pea under the multiple mattresses and expecting someone to immediately jump to and remove it.

However, there still remains the problem of overpopulation, which is not so easily addressed. Perhaps if the peas aren't removed tout suite, the bed will become less comfortable and the first cause of overpopulation will wither...
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 30 April 2009 7:21:54 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
oh dear the over population pherphy
primitive man builds horosontally
future men build verticlly

grow their food in buildings, hydrophonicly, manage their cattle in sky scrapers..[sky scrapers like the twin towers grow ocians of food[recycle rivers of water, house millions on a few acres

ok thousands on a few hundred meters

there is no need to murder..[we just dont all get our quater acre]
that stupid island SINKING we se on the media every king tide is blasting its own foundation to use itself to destroy itself [but they could grow up abouve the water by sinking piles and building up

im sick of sickos thinking the world over populated whole cities will be in buildings[like mided people shareing every huiman need]duty and treasure,
loving neighbour, minding/feeding teaching each others kids..bying whole sale getting bulk discounts..[harvesting their own ccrap, doing it for them selves and each other..[not the tax man the banker or the lawyers, public serve-ants nor politics and their policies nore parties
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 30 April 2009 9:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "Now my understanding is that nuclear power is a clean sourse of power generation. Is this correct?"

As you are undoubtedly aware, you will get a lot of argument about how clean it is. But there is a bigger problem. There isn't that much Uranium in the ground. If we somehow magically switched all our power generation over to nuclear fission overnight, we would run out of Uranium to fuel those plants in 10 years or so. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_uranium_depletion_outlook

You will often see nuclear supporters poohoo that number. Essentially they say while 10 years is correct if we use existing technology, newer methods can extend those 10 years into 100's or 1000's. Most of those methods are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

The only issue is, right now, no one has got any of these new methods to work. My guess is there is a good chance one or more of them can be made to work in the future. But there is also good chance solar, wind, hot rocks or any number of other methods could be made to work in the future as well. And unlike fission, they really are clean, and they don't produce by-products that can be used by terrorists and rogue nations to blow us off the face of the planet.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 30 April 2009 10:05:41 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
Dear Rehctub, Just had to let you know I’ve had to add your name to my spell check dictionary, you should see what it comes up with as word options, sorry about that. Just thought it was funny.

Anyway, your questions about nuclear options. Waste is now much less of a concern, the global nuclear waste inventory over the past 60 years amounts to (in metric volume) the equivalent of a single layer of containers on the area of a footy pitch. The good news is that having never disposed of it we can now use it again as fuel in the new Gen. IV reactors.

Gen III and IV reactors are gas cooled and don’t need to be near water (populated areas). In addition to eventually replacing fossil fuel which accounts for about 40% of emissions, nuclear energy can produce commercial volumes of hydrogen to begin to address the transport emissions.

Many nations are now fast racking nuclear build programs as the old negative perceptions are replaced with modern reality. As far as I’m able to determine, there has never been a safety incident with a Gen. II, III or IV reactor but this remains a major issue for the public.

In my view you are right to raise the question of available, non polluting energy. The objections to nuclear energy are sadly as divisive as the AGW debate itself and seem to me to be and opportunity turned into an obstacle.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 30 April 2009 10:12:47 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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