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 > O'Farrell on Energy

O'Farrell on Energy

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
July 15, 2010

Last month’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made it the warmest June on record and the warmest on record averaged for any April-June and January-June periods, according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature was the warmest on record for June and the April-June period, and the second warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period, behind 2007.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 21 February 2011 7:42:35 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
Philo spreading FUD

http://www.wnho.net/letter_concerning_carbon_tax_and_global_warming.htm

If Philo wants to 'debate' carbon tax, ETS, etc - fine. But to be blind, deaf and dumb, WHY?!
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 21 February 2011 10:16:37 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
Philo has posted something that has already been posted by another here this week.
Philo only sees a world that is full of fraud and lies, it partly is, he is peddling one of the products.
But unknowingly.
One day we will watch in wonder as todays denialists try to forget or hide views they sprout today.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 6:37:01 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
In November 2010, North Korea disclosed to visiting U.S. experts an operational uranium enrichment facility at Yongbyon, prompting fears that the secretive state had again begun developing nuclear weapons.
North Korea has been subjected to several rounds of UN Security Council sanctions since it declared itself a nuclear power in 2005. The state broke off talks with South Korea, China, the United States, Japan and Russia over its nuclear program last April.
If Australia is to go nuclear do you see a problem with not allowing The Rogue States of North Korea or Iran to do like wise. After all they can justly point to the United Rogue States of America as one who's nuclear program has lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 7:51:32 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
http://www.cfact.org/a/886/Melting-the-facts-about-Greenlands-ice-sheet

Melting the facts about Greenland's ice sheet
Viking history, ice core samples, and observations of solar cycle cast doubt on human responsibility for climate change
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 8:11:07 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
Paul, you have missed the point.
There is a vast difference in publically running an enrichment process
with IAEC inspections and doing it in secret.

Iran admitted to having a secret enrichment plant.
It is still not inspected.
I wonder why ?

We should build an enrichment plant, open to all, and lease the fuel.
A customer gets no more fuel unless he returns the depleted fuel.
The returned fuel can be reprocessed a number of times I believe and
each cycle reduces its half life. I don't know the details but I
believe it reduces the waste and half life dramatically.

Whatever alternatives that may exist they will take at least 40 years
to get up to scale. Without nuclear we are looking at about 20 years
of very little energy being available.
Frankly a return to the 19th century but without coal.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 8:31:02 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. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

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