Are human activities influencing the climate?

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

The sun has been heavily studied and has been ruled out as the cause of the current warming.



http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The sun is now in a solar minimum cycle.Previously it wasnt.Plus there are many scientists who would figure solar activity into climate change.

Subcomandante Marcos

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

The sun is now in a solar minimum cycle.Previously it wasnt.Plus there are many scientists who would figure solar activity into climate change.

The 11 year solar cycle is accounted for in every credible climate model.

dr.fuzzenstein

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Brilliant,now we have "back of the envelope science " to back up your theory.

Well, the beauty of science is that it doesn't matter what material the theory is written on.
If you think the theory is incorrect, you simply try to disprove it with your own calculations.
Can't watch your YouTube link right now, I'll check it out later.

Master of the Omniverse

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

The 11 year solar cycle is accounted for in every credible climate model.

These are the credible climate models that may turn out to be not credible at all.After all,they are a model,not the real thing.

Master of the Omniverse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, the beauty of science is that it doesn't matter what material the theory is written on.
If you think the theory is incorrect, you simply try to disprove it with your own calculations.
Can't watch your YouTube link right now, I'll check it out later.

Agreed,however im not going to consider this hiroshima nuclear bomb versus man made co2 as anything other than diy science.

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Brilliant,now we have "back of the envelope science " to back up your theory.

The point is that the amounts of energy trapped by the GHGs are enormous, and one nuclear accident is insignficant in comparison

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

The point is that the amounts of energy trapped by the GHGs are enormous, and one nuclear accident is insignficant in comparison

This is where some research is essential.Fukishima is not insignificant.It is ongoing.The radioactive plume that was initially sent up into the troposphere,will be knocking around for probably generations,will be coming down with rain on all of us,not just japan or the pacific.The leakage into the pacific is not controlled ,or halted in any manner.In fact permission was sought by tepco to release the contaminated water held on site in containers back into the ocean because the containers were only temporary anyway,and would fail .Th radioactive particles are now part of our weather system,and they are not going away.Please remember the nuclear material was used to generate huge amounts of heat,this will not have stopped.

srsly78

And all of that is completely irrelevant to climate change. Radioactive material is NATURAL, the earth is full of it. What do you think happens when volcanos etc explode? Your fukushima leak is insignificant.

Do you actually think that nuclear material just suddenly undergoes fission and gives off loads of energy? This does not happen, instead it's more like a small chemical spill - does not affect global climate.

Completely barking up the wrong tree.

Master of the Omniverse

srsly78 wrote: »

And all of that is completely irrelevant to climate change. Radioactive material is NATURAL, the earth is full of it. What do you think happens when volcanos etc explode? Your fukushima leak is insignificant.

Dont dismiss this without research,isnt that the foundation of any science?

srsly78

Yes I have a qualification in this area. It has NOTHING to do with global warming! What is the link? What should be investigated?

Master of the Omniverse

srsly78 wrote: »

Yes I have a qualification in this area. It has NOTHING to do with global warming! What is the link? What should be investigated?

How are you qualified?Taxi driver phd is it?

srsly78

Nice try, answer the question or stop trolling.

Master of the Omniverse

srsly78 wrote: »

Nice try, answer the question or stop trolling.

Now I remember why I stopped coming on this site.People get so offended when you display a different opinion.Theres no point continuing because you dont have an open mind.This is the main problem with the climate change debate. Some people would prefer no debate,which is where this is heading.If you want your brain to explode completely,check out the new film geostorm.Truth or fiction?It is always good to look at a problem from every ane before sticking to just what is directly infront of you .

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Now I remember why I stopped coming on this site.People get so offended when you display a different opinion.Theres no point continuing because you dont have an open mind.This is the main problem with the climate change debate. Some people would prefer no debate,which is where this is heading.If you want your brain to explode completely,check out the new film geostorm.Truth or fiction?It is always good to look at a problem from every ane before sticking to just what is directly infront of you .

Meant to type "every angle".

xckjoo

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Now I remember why I stopped coming on this site.People get so offended when you display a different opinion.Theres no point continuing because you dont have an open mind.This is the main problem with the climate change debate. Some people would prefer no debate,which is where this is heading.If you want your brain to explode completely,check out the new film geostorm.Truth or fiction?It is always good to look at a problem from every ane before sticking to just what is directly infront of you .

What poster is coming across as offended? Dr Fuzzenstein is even going to watch the YouTube video you linked to.

Master of the Omniverse

xckjoo wrote: »

What poster is coming across as offended? Dr Fuzzenstein is even going to watch the YouTube video you linked to.

Yes,dr fuzz is,and im looking forward to his appraisal.Its something that msm isnt reporting on,and it should be .

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Now I remember why I stopped coming on this site.People get so offended when you display a different opinion.Theres no point continuing because you dont have an open mind.This is the main problem with the climate change debate. Some people would prefer no debate,which is where this is heading.If you want your brain to explode completely,check out the new film geostorm.Truth or fiction?It is always good to look at a problem from every ane before sticking to just what is directly infront of you .

Before people investigate something like this, there needs to be a plausible mechanism for how a small radioactive plume could possibly cause global climate change.

What is the mechanism by which Fukushima could be affecting global climate?

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mFfWvCNpW0U

"in association with David Icke dot com"

Not a great start, but I'll see how far I can get into it......


...... Ok, he's talking absolute horse****

I had to skip loads because he was going on about whales, Took him 20 minutes to get to climate change, and, I think, he said the nuclear plume is melting the rocky mountain glaciers. That's his entire mechanism

Absolute nonsense. He even blames Demons near the end of the video.

Dude, Stop wasting your time with this rubbish. It's not educational, every moment you spend listening to this Richie Allen fella, you're actually making yourself less informed, less knowledgeable and more paranoid about imaginary conspiracies

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

"in association with David Icke dot com"

Not a great start, but I'll see how far I can get into it......


...... Ok, he's talking absolute horse****

I had to skip loads because he was going on about whales, Took him 20 minutes to get to climate change, and, I think, he said the nuclear plume is melting the rocky mountain glaciers. That's his entire mechanism

Absolute nonsense. He even blames Demons near the end of the video.

Dude, Stop wasting your time with this rubbish. It's not educational, every moment you spend listening to this Richie Allen fella, you're actually making yourself less informed, less knowledgeable and more paranoid about imaginary conspiracies

For starters going on about whales should translate into the food chain of the pacific has broken down to such a degree that now entire species are washing up on beaches of the western americas and canada starving.Nuclear plume melting the rockies should translate into the entire troposphere is now contaminated with radiation which is falling with the rain and this is not just limited to the rockies,it has to be everywhere,this is how our weather systems work.Remember that this material was capable of producing incredible heat,and it will continue to do so.So is it affecting our climate,of ofcourse,its only logical that it is playing a part.Ofcourse there are many factors,and this is one of them

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

A university science dept who publicly renounced global warming would be treated in a similar way to one that renounced plate tectonics.

It's not that there is huge social pressure to accept plate tectonics, it's the sheer weight of evidence. An academic body would be expected to provide evidence to support a controversial position.

There is valid debate over aspects of climate change, but Dense doesn't even accept that the planet is warming, and that is ridiculous given the weight of evidence

It's not really an answer though.
My point is not how real global warming may be, it's more about the pressure scientists might now feel to go along with the consensus.
It's not a very healthy way to keep things.
What if a scientist in a small university in Nicaragua came up with something interesting, but he won't publish it for fear of backlash ?
What if lots of smaller studies like the above did raise some valid questions ?
I suppose with your convictions you would argue that there are no valid questions anymore.
This baffles me, when there are still valid questions about say, the laws of physics in our universe.

dense

Anyone seriously interested in learning about how the IPCC has got it wrong should read this.

"Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2"

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/


And the comments.

I have invited Akrasia to log on there and chastise the author pointing out various flaws etc;, but they've refused......

They can't dispute it. Yet, they will, here.

But folks, don't take my word for it, read it yourselve.

You've already been fooled by the 97% of scientists lie.

Don't get fooled again. Unless you want to be, that is.

Read it and come back here to say what you think.

If you can disprove it log on there and post a link here so we can follow you.

If you can't or won't like Akrasia here, well then Ed Berry is right and the IPCC bandwagon is wrong.

As it stands:

Ed Berry 1
Akrasia and the whole IPCC hysteria bandwagon 0

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's not really an answer though.
My point is not how real global warming may be, it's more about the pressure scientists might now feel to go along with the consensus.
It's not a very healthy way to keep things.
What if a scientist in a small university in Nicaragua came up with something interesting, but he won't publish it for fear of backlash ?
What if lots of smaller studies like the above did raise some valid questions ?
I suppose with your convictions you would argue that there are no valid questions anymore.
This baffles me, when there are still valid questions about say, the laws of physics in our universe.

i have never said all questions have been answered. We know that the current warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Its unequivocal now. There are still lots of uncertainties about the details of how the biosphere will react.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Anyone seriously interested in learning about how the IPCC has got it wrong should read this.

"Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2"

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/


And the comments.

I have invited Akrasia to log on there and chastise the author pointing out various flaws etc;, but they've refused......

They can't dispute it. Yet, they will, here.

But folks, don't take my word for it, read it yourselve.

You've already been fooled by the 97% of scientists lie.

Don't get fooled again. Unless you want to be, that is.

Read it and come back here to say what you think.

If you can disprove it log on there and post a link here so we can follow you.

If you can't or won't like Akrasia here, well then Ed Berry is right and the IPCC bandwagon is wrong.

As it stands:

Ed Berry 1
Akrasia and the whole IPCC hysteria bandwagon 0

Yeah, you win, and the real cause of extreme weather is Haarp

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The scientific method has mechanisms built in to address fraudulent research.

Mainly, reproducibility and peer review.

The peer review process is summarily flawed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Master of the Omniverse

The 35,000 scientists who dont go along with the current presentation of the causes and data regarding climate change dont get a look in.The petition they signed doesnt get a mention either.Or "climate gate" 1 and two.I think it was in 1972 that the u.n. got countries to sign an agreement not to use weather modification technology,which has been around since world war 2.So here we have some other things to consider.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The peer review process is summarily flawed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Its flawed, but compared to the non peer reviewed sources like youtube videos, internet blogs and the mainstream media science reporting, it's a hell of a lot better.

We have two skeptics on this forum today, one of them thinks nuclear fallout can melt snow because he saw some guy say it on youtube, and you seem to think that HAARP can manipulate the weather because you spend your free time reading european parliament archives (and thinking you're reading european commission documents... yeah, I know you got the info from some CT blog that you're too embarrassed to link to)

Neither of you got your information from peer reviewed papers, because the authors wouldn't have gotten within an asses roar of being published in a top journal.

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

Its flawed, but compared to the non peer reviewed sources like youtube videos, internet blogs and the mainstream media science reporting, it's a hell of a lot better.

We have two skeptics on this forum today, one of them thinks nuclear fallout can melt snow because he saw some guy say it on youtube, and you seem to think that HAARP can manipulate the weather because you spend your free time reading european parliament archives (and thinking you're reading european commission documents... yeah, I know you got the info from some CT blog that you're too embarrassed to link to)

Neither of you got your information from peer reviewed papers, because the authors wouldn't have gotten within an asses roar of being published in a top journal.

Herein lies the problem,when your mates get to check out the papers then something is up.If any scientist questions climate change then their funding dries up.

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

The 35,000 scientists who dont go along with the current presentation of the causes and data regarding climate change dont get a look in.The petition they signed doesnt get a mention either.Or "climate gate" 1 and two.I think it was in 1972 that the u.n. got countries to sign an agreement not to use weather modification technology,which has been around since world war 2.So here we have some other things to consider.

How many of those 35,000 scientists were qualified in a climate related field?


Figure 1. Level of consensus on AGW versus expertise across different studies. Right colour bar indicates posterior density of Bayesian 99% credible intervals. Only consensus estimates obtained over the last 10 years are included (see S2 for further details and tabulation of acronyms).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

How many of those 35,000 scientists were qualified in a climate related field?


Figure 1. Level of consensus on AGW versus expertise across different studies. Right colour bar indicates posterior density of Bayesian 99% credible intervals. Only consensus estimates obtained over the last 10 years are included (see S2 for further details and tabulation of acronyms).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I dont know.I will find out if I can .There not all going to be taxi drivers im sure.

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Herein lies the problem,when your mates get to check out the papers then something is up.If any scientist questions climate change then their funding dries up.

The idea that the 'funders' of research into climate change have some kind of agenda to promote global warming is laughable.

I think Exxon Mobil or Saudi Arabia (or any other fossil fuel exporting country) might have a few shillings to support scientists who have evidence that fossil fuels aren't to blame for global warming.

Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP have all been doing their own climate research for decades and their own climate scientists have been telling them for decades that climate change is real. Instead of using this information, they covered it up and spent a lot of money on paying shill scientists to spread misinformation in public to delay climate change.

“It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I dont know.I will find out if I can .There not all going to be taxi drivers im sure.

The paper I linked to already goes into it. You can start there.

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

The paper I linked to already goes into it. You can start there.

Its ok.I will try and find some of the scientists who signed the petition and see who comes up.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

We have two skeptics on this forum today, one of them thinks nuclear fallout can melt snow because he saw some guy say it on youtube, and you seem to think that HAARP can manipulate the weather because you spend your free time reading european parliament archives (and thinking you're reading european commission documents... yeah, I know you got the info from some CT blog that you're too embarrassed to link to)

You know no such thing.

This is the second time you've made assumptions about how "you know" I know something.

The first was the USGAO report.
I let that pass. Maybe I knew you'd chance it again, and yes indeed, here we are again.

How could you possibly know if I spend my time reading European Parliament proceedings?

You don't. Simple as.

So maybe stop making leaps about things you just haven't got a clue about?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah, you win, and the real cause of extreme weather is Haarp

So you lack the strength of your convictions when put to the test. That's OK.

Maybe someone else here who supports the IPCC is going to take up the challenge.

I saw a number of visits from Ireland on his site when I checked it in the last hour, so who knows, maybe there's a member of boards who's setting out to try to disprove him.

There might be tentative moves afoot to post there.

What a coup that would be eh, a boardsie toppling him.

Could be just a complete coincidence of course.......

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

You know no such thing.

This is the second time you've made assumptions about how "you know" I know something.

The first was the USGAO report.
I let that pass. Maybe I knew you'd chance it again, and yes indeed, here we are again.

How could you possibly know if I spend my time reading European Parliament proceedings?

You don't. Simple as.

So maybe stop making leaps about things you just haven't got a clue about?

If you're past time is reading eu Parliament proceedings, why did you get them mixed up with the commission. They're very different.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

So you lack the strength of your convictions when put to the test. That's OK.

Maybe someone else here who supports the IPCC is going to take up the challenge.

I saw a number of visits from Ireland on his site when I checked it in the last hour, so who knows, maybe there's a member of boards who's setting out to try to disprove him.

There might be tentative moves afoot to post there.

What a coup that would be eh, a boardsie toppling him.

Could be just a complete coincidence of course.......

Eh, you post a link to his site, some people click on that link.
mystery solved

If you want me to debate with him, why don't you send him a link to this thread. Ill happily discuss it with him here on an independent forum.

I'm not intimidated by him.

If he decides not to debate me here, then he must be afraid of me and I win by default. (flawless logic)

Roger_007

I think that everyone accepts that climate change is happening, simply because all the evidence points to the fact that it always has, and probably always will.
I don't claim any great knowledge on the subject. But I do have an interest in the debate.
when I was a kid, many moons ago, there was a generally accepted theory that there would be another ice age starting soon, (in geological time scale). This was because the pattern over the last few million years has been long glaciation periods interspersed with short relatively warm periods. We are currently in one of those warm periods and, if the past pattern is anything to by, we are nearing the end of our current warm period.
I am not sure where the thinking on recurring ice ages is at the moment but I am getting the impression that the consensus is that, because of global warming, there will never be another one.

server down

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Now I remember why I stopped coming on this site.People get so offended when you display a different opinion.Theres no point continuing because you dont have an open mind.This is the main problem with the climate change debate. Some people would prefer no debate,which is where this is heading.If you want your brain to explode completely,check out the new film geostorm.Truth or fiction?It is always good to look at a problem from every ane before sticking to just what is directly infront of you .

Lol. You just called a guy you disagree with a “qualified taxi driver”. And now you are recommending a Hollywood movie.

Nobody’s offended by your position, they are just looking for reasons or argued points.

Master of the Omniverse

server down wrote: »

Lol. You just called a guy you disagree with a “qualified taxi driver”. And now you are recommending a Hollywood movie.

Nobody’s offended by your position, they are just looking for reasons or argued points.

I think the positions are entrenched at this stage.Ofcourse people are offended by my position.And climate change fascists,of which there are many are completely unwilling to aknowledge anything we say or argue.So whats the point.I cant be arsed to argue the toss,and there are plenty of taxi driver climate experts who claim to have a qualification yet give no evidence to back it up.The sun logically is playing a massive role.We also have manipulation of data,which was found out years ago.

Doctor Jimbob

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I think the positions are entrenched at this stage.Ofcourse people are offended by my position.And climate change fascists,of which there are many are completely unwilling to aknowledge anything we say or argue.So whats the point.I cant be arsed to argue the toss,and there are plenty of taxi driver climate experts who claim to have a qualification yet give no evidence to back it up.The sun logically is playing a massive role.We also have manipulation of data,which was found out years ago.

People aren't offended, you just don't have anything solid to back up your claims with. Disagreement isn't taking offence.

You're very dismissive of other people's qualifications, do you have a relevant one yourself?

Akrasia

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that everyone accepts that climate change is happening, simply because all the evidence points to the fact that it always has, and probably always will.
I don't claim any great knowledge on the subject. But I do have an interest in the debate.
when I was a kid, many moons ago, there was a generally accepted theory that there would be another ice age starting soon, (in geological time scale). This was because the pattern over the last few million years has been long glaciation periods interspersed with short relatively warm periods. We are currently in one of those warm periods and, if the past pattern is anything to by, we are nearing the end of our current warm period.
I am not sure where the thinking on recurring ice ages is at the moment but I am getting the impression that the consensus is that, because of global warming, there will never be another one.

Glaciation is driven by earth's eccentric orbit and a wobble in the earths rotation that changes the season lengths and greenhouse gas concentrations.

Currently we are fundamentally changing the composition of our atmosphere. It's not permanent though. If humans were to stop this pollution, or go extinct, the earth would find a new balance after a geologically short period of time.

If humans survive this period of our history and figure out how to live sustainably on our planet, we will no doubt be able to regulate the earths climate in order to maintain a suitable habitat for humans. Humans need never experience another ice age on earth as long as we continue as technologically advanced species, but if humans disappear, the climate will return to natural cycles controlled by whatever elements of the carbon cycle dominate a post human globe

srsly78

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I think the positions are entrenched at this stage.Ofcourse people are offended by my position.And climate change fascists,of which there are many are completely unwilling to aknowledge anything we say or argue.So whats the point.I cant be arsed to argue the toss,and there are plenty of taxi driver climate experts who claim to have a qualification yet give no evidence to back it up.The sun logically is playing a massive role.We also have manipulation of data,which was found out years ago.

You are talking ****e about radioactive chemtrails and haarp, while dismissing scientific consensus. Don't be surprised when noone takes you seriously.

Natural radiogenic heat from the earth is about 27TW, and this is insignificant compared to solar input. But you think Fukushima matters!?

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I think the positions are entrenched at this stage.Ofcourse people are offended by my position.And climate change fascists,of which there are many are completely unwilling to aknowledge anything we say or argue.So whats the point.I cant be arsed to argue the toss,and there are plenty of taxi driver climate experts who claim to have a qualification yet give no evidence to back it up.The sun logically is playing a massive role.We also have manipulation of data,which was found out years ago.

Why would anyone be offended by your position on science? I think amused is the more likely emotion, or perhaps worried that someone capable of walking around and feeding him/herself thinks a hollywood disaster movie about 'weather control satellites' going wrong might actually be happening now.

Master of the Omniverse

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

People aren't offended, you just don't have anything solid to back up your claims with. Disagreement isn't taking offence.

You're very dismissive of other people's qualifications, do you have a relevant one yourself?

Yes I have a qualification,its called an open mind,and I also have a brain,its my brain,not tainted by the sycophant scientists ,politicians,or media who jump on the climate change bandwagon without recognising the many contributing factors .I point out the many reasons but you are all too blind to see them,hence the taxi driver reference.Youre all experts spouting evidence that you cannot verify and mistake for fact just because some scientist says so.Science is always being proven wrong.As long as the funding keeps rolling in,scientists are quite happy to bull**** us,and you all fall for it.

srsly78

Conspiracy Theory forum is that way buddy ->

flaneur

srsly78 wrote: »

You are talking ****e about radioactive chemtrails and haarp, while dismissing scientific consensus. Don't be surprised when noone takes you seriously.

Natural radiogenic heat from the earth is about 27TW, and this is insignificant compared to solar input. But you think Fukushima matters!?

Confusing apples and oranges here.
Fukushima, Chernobyl or any other nuclear industrial accident along with all the live weapons testing they was carried out in the 50s and 60s especially is a risk to biological systems and is basically a toxic pollutant.

The impact on the earth’s energy cycles is so small it’s barely recognizable but they have left a deposit of radioactive material and radionuclides that would not normally be present and that’s a simply a toxic risk to biological systems including ourselves, particularly as heavy metals would tend to get concentrated by the food chain and end up in fish.

If we are going to be continuing using nuclear fisssion for the forseable future, it needs to be done on a cost no object basis.

Atmospheric nuclear testing is also something we (as a planet full of biological systems) could do with ceasing.

In terms of climate change, nuclear power has probably has a significantly beneficial impact by largely reducing fossil fuel emissions.

Also I think we underestimate how dangerous certain fossil fuels are - coal, heavy oils etc all contain nasty chemicals and heavy metals and even radioactive elements that get vaporized and aerosolised by burning. Also incomplete burning or inappropriately controlled burning generates carcenogens like dioxins.

The net impact of burning these fuels is grossly underestimated. They cause climate change, lung diseases, cancers and all the stuff we would typically freak out about Chernobyl causing ... we just have some cozy nostalgia about burning stuff like coal.

We need to be moving much more quickly towards genuine renewables and trying to ensure nuclear is safer and cleaner to avoid any future Fukushima, Chernobyl type accidents!

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

If you're past time is reading eu Parliament proceedings, why did you get them mixed up with the commission. They're very different.

Yes of course they are, I should have said European Parliament.

If you really want to split hairs, in the above, "you're" should be "your", "past time" should be "pastime", "commission" should be "Commission" and a question should be denoted by a question mark.

Five errors in one small sentence now compound your previous mistake of assuming to "know" what someone's pastimes or reading material may consist of.

Subcomandante Marcos

The climate change conspiracy in a nut shell.

"Big Science" is inventing back crisis by creating false information to drive hysteria and ensure their pitiful funding stays in place so they can live that post doctoral research gravy train all the way to a late pension and 60 hour work weeks tutoring undergrads.

Meanwhile a plucky band of billionaires, petrochemical companies and unqualified individuals are exposing this gross injustice headed by an orange skinned neo-nazi with a comb over and tiny hands.

It's a great story, when is John Cusack starring in the movie?

BoltzmannBrain

Ireland’s largest wind farm in Connemara has entered commercial operation and will generate more green energy than any other wind site on the island.

http://coastmonkey.ie/largest-wind-farm-connemara-commercial-operation/

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Yes of course they are, I should have said European Parliament.

If you really want to split hairs, in the above, "you're" should be "your", "past time" should be "pastime", "commission" should be "Commission" and a question should be denoted by a question mark.

Five errors in one small sentence now compound your previous mistake of assuming to "know" what someone's pastimes or reading material may consist of.

Typing on a phone is a pain in the ass.
But it's nice that you're completely avoiding all the substance of everything I said.

The difference between 'the Commission' having a position on HAARP, and some MEP making silly claims and asking silly questions is the same as Danny Healy Rae saying climate change is fake, and the Minister for the Environment saying the same thing.

But I don't want to talk about HAARP causing extreme weather. It's a nutty conspiracy theory that is has absolutely no scientific credibility. I find it amusing that you think this is plausible, but don't accept the easily proven science behind the greenhouse effect.