Bullet, I don't recall ever having this discussion with you in the past, so I'm going to assume you're arguing in good faith, and address your issues one by one in the hopes you are actually interested in such a discussion.

Quote:Sounds like your leap of faith the evil oil companies are causing the planet's temperature to rise.

I have never used that kind of language on this messageboard, nor do I intend to. It's clear you're projecting a narrative onto me that I haven't presented, and I would ask you only respond to things I actually post instead of arguments I have not, nor would not, make.

Quote: There is substantial evidence that we are on a warming trend, but that isn't even "proven." The causes of global warming are a theory with no proof and no way to test it.

That totally depends on your definitions of the words 'proven' and 'test'. We certainly can show a trend of warming since the industrial age, with periods in which that warming was slowed down due to outside factors (volcanic eruptions, aerosol usage, etc), but with the trend staying constant. We can also use geological data to show similar trends in the past that correlate to the levels of greenhouse gases, and along with that, we can do all sorts of tests to properly understand how greenhouse gases interact with heat, and apply those principles. We can also observe other planets with other known greenhouse gases, and use our predictions concerning those greenhouse gases to see if they are accurate concerning their temperatures. The idea that we can't "prove" a scientific theory is one that isn't really tenable to those within the scientific field, instead they look at the overwhelming weight of the evidence and it shows that anthropomorphic global warming is occurring and a variety of our actions are causing it (CO2, Methane, etc).

Quote: A lot of climate scientists were saying in the 70s, all that oil and coal would cause the next ice age because the 60s and 70s were cooler than the 50s.

This is something that is often stated, but you'll notice a distinct lack of sources. Certainly some scientists did predict a cooling, however most of those were doing so due to the effects of the aforementioned aerosol gasses being released in high quantities at the time. Relatively few scientists claimed CO2 would cause a global cooling, and a review of the scientific literature during the 1970's shows that despite the fact climate science was a burgeoning field at the time, the overwhelming results pointed to the climate warming due to CO2.



And this goes even further than that, with articles cherry picking quotes out of older research articles that go counter to what the research itself shows. For instance, the article Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled uses this quote from the National Science Board to defend it's position that the science pointed towards a global ice age -

Quote: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."

When in reality, this is the entirety of the text of that report

Quote: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"

That report was in 1974.

Quote:The climate change egalitarian church unquestioning true believers fail to understand there are two very distinct issues:
1) Is the globe warming? and
2) What is causing it?

While there are certainly those who believe in climate change for poorly rationalized ideals and beliefs, they exist in every group, this goes against everything I have ever read or discussed with anyone educated in the field itself. And quite frankly, painting your argument against the lowest common denominator of your opponent doesn't really bode well for your understanding of the issue itself. But rest assured, both of those issues are well understood and documented in the actual literature.

Which brings me onto the most important point; what you read in the news is not indicative of the actual research being done. This goes for the articles both for and against Climate Change. You know what doesn't make the cover of the NYT's? The title "Climate Research shows steady increase in temperature which could have far reaching effects in particular sublimates over the next century". That get's changed to "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL END LIFE IN NEXT CENTURY!" or something equally as different from the actual results of the studies itself. The more outrageous the claims being made, the more likely they make the news. This goes for anything scientifically related, but it's very pertinent here also, and it's something you simply must understand.

Quote: They often seem incapable of grasping that natural planetary cycles have caused warming and cooling trends many times over the planet's history and that humans had absolutely nothing to do with that in the past.

I can assure you that those variables are most certainly taken into account in actual research, though I cannot speak to the average "climate change egalitarian church true believers" knowledge of those matters, but I need to ask; are you reading the research on those subjects? Are you taking the time to sift through the actual data itself, and comparing the whole of climate change research into account, or are you simply accepting the information of another person choosing which information to present to you on this subject matter? I will easily admit that I am not interested in sifting through that sort of research, I have enough research to look through on my own to not add that to the pile. If you actually are reading the original research and came to this conclusion on your own, then that's fine and I have nothing that I can say to change your mind on the matter because you're getting it from the source itself and I can admit I'm not. But I have taken the time to look into who actually supports the concept of anthropomorphic climate change, and the list is hard to argue against. Not because science cannot be wrong, it most certainly can, but because any of the usual subjects claimed to be the cause of this intellectual conspiracy do not line up with that list. When the national scientific bodies of the US, England, Sweden, Israel, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Africa, China, Japan, Taiwan, and France all agree on this issue, along with the International Energy Agency and OPEC themselves agree that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring and is due in part to CO2, then I question anyone who thinks there is some overriding conspiracy involved here.

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees, 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

“Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no whitefish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”


An article distributed by the Associated Press and printed on November 2, 1922.

1922. NINETY THREE YEARS AGO!

@UCF
I'm engaging in hyperbole because of the absolute inability of most (not pointing at anyone in particular) to see the reasonability of skepticism.

I'm trying to see the downside. Give it 5-10 years and the grouper fishing will be off the chain with all the new reefs created by the flooded buildings.

@UCF
As for the next ice age bit, I'm old enough to remember seeing the magazine covers with pictures of smokestacks asking whether we were creating the next ice age. Remember, the 70s are before the internet, so links to 40 year old Time or Newsweek aren't easy to come by. There was significant talk about it. Whether it was a majority of climate scientists, I don't know.

Part of the reason for the massive development along the coasts is that global temperatures did cool and serious hurricanes significantly decreased in number in the 60s and 70s. It used to be that frequent hurricanes discouraged it. Scientists knew the CO2 in the air was increasing and some tried to explain the decrease in temperatures by claiming CO2 was doing it.

One thing that is true is that scientists have manipulated data to support the belief that man is causing global warming (and this isn't confined to climate scientists-scientists are human too). Its also clear that scientists in the climate field can't dispute the consensus without risking their career. And the nature of academics is to argue and fight for their positions, so once they have staked a position, its about defending it, not seeking the truth.

A lot of the proponents talk about global warming and human activity creating it as one issue.

I believe the globe is warming and that there is sufficient evidence to support that. But that evidence isn't that great. They recently had a dispute over whether the globe had warmed or cooled over the last 15 years! And yet they expect us to trust them on climate change over millennia. Fact is they have no temperature readings before the last 130 years or so. They don't have broad based readings around the globe but for the last 30 years or so. They don't have really extensive readings until the last 15 years and so and can't even figure out if we are warming or cooling over that period!

Beyond the last 130 years they have very limited data in only a handful of places and are extrapolating it to the entire planet. Bogs in Germany and a few ice cores in Greenland and Anarctica and fossilized tree rings scattered around are what they have. Its the best they have, but its pretty flimsy to claim they truly understand how what has happened in the last 130 years (which again, they aren't even real sure about) compares to what happened before human historical records and even before humans existed.

The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation. For the first 25 years of the Super Bowl, if an original NFL team (including the Colts & Steelers who moved to the AFC) won the Super Bowl, the market did better than if an original AFL team won. There was only one year the market went up when an original AFL team won and that gain was the smallest gain. Every year an original NFL team won, the market went up. You could probably build a model showing how the market would do based on the Super Bowl. But, of course, it would have no validity.

Yet that is what the climate scientists are doing. They do have a theory on why it would impact warming. But its still just correlation. Their models show increased CO2 levels impacting the climate because that's how they wrote the programs. They are matching it to CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 130 years. Therefore, their models couldn't show anything else. And their egos won't allow them to admit what a small understanding they have of long term global climate cycles.

What their models also show is that nothing we do will have a significant impact over the next 50 years. Yet people get upset because others don't want massive changes that will damage the economy and have no impact in their lifetimes.

What makes it really obvious many are vapid intellectually is that there are some things that should be obvious if you really believed the scientists. Yet the true believers don't propose these things. If you really believe, you have to think there will be massive dislocations over the next 50 years. You need to be economically strong enough to deal with all the infrastructure and human relocation costs. Also, you need to stop encouraging coastal development. Yet Democrats and Republicans alike, recently passed a bill to keep subsidizing coastal flood insurance. Instead, what you get is efforts to destroy the oil and gas and coal industries in a way that would clearly have severe negative impacts on the economy. And realistically, unless you get India, China and rapidly growing Africa to make the same steps, what the US and Europe do is pretty much meaningless.

(08-29-2015 03:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm trying to see the downside. Give it 5-10 years and the grouper fishing will be off the chain with all the new reefs created by the flooded buildings.

I'm not really that enthused about Miami's architecture anyway.

(08-29-2015 03:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm trying to see the downside. Give it 5-10 years and the grouper fishing will be off the chain with all the new reefs created by the flooded buildings.

Except juvenile groupers might not live in the same reefs or habitats that the adult ones do. I know this was a tongue in cheek comment, but it outlines a poor understanding of biology as a whole.

(08-29-2015 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation.

The argument for manmade CO2 causing global warming is that CO2 is highly infrared active and increases the radiative forcing of the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). What is not fully understood are the feedbacks and the effect of aerosols and clouds, they can be positive, negative or both, but it's not a correlation/causation problem.

OK, so why isn't the world selling out to build more nuke plants? It's the best alternative to hydrocarbons out there due to the high energy density and footprint vs the current green energy sources being touted that are not much better than using 18th century technology?

(08-28-2015 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Honestly I don't get the doom and gloom. You have to look at the bright side.


In five or six years it will be the golden age of offshore fishing because of the habitat created by the flooded structures currently on the coast. Think of it as man-made reefs on a grand scale.

The Corridor of Shame along I95 in South Carolina will finally have some money as they become the new Grand Strand.

I own some property 15 miles east of Holdens Beach NC. Gonna leave it to the Grand Kids.

Quote:@UCF
I'm engaging in hyperbole because of the absolute inability of most (not pointing at anyone in particular) to see the reasonability of skepticism.

Reasonable skepticism is fine, but I honestly don't see anything in your posts that comes off as reasonable skepticism. It's important to understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable skepticism though, for instance we still don't understand the Higgs boson particle which gives all matter mass, but it's still unreasonable to be skeptical about all aspects of gravity. The same applies here, and with literally everything we understand about the universe and how it works.

Quote:As for the next ice age bit, I'm old enough to remember seeing the magazine covers with pictures of smokestacks asking whether we were creating the next ice age. Remember, the 70s are before the internet, so links to 40 year old Time or Newsweek aren't easy to come by. There was significant talk about it. Whether it was a majority of climate scientists, I don't know.

If you're willing to admit that it wasn't based on the accepted climate science of the time, then why are you using it as evidence against current climate research? That seems to be wholly unreasonable. Who cares if Newsweek had a story about it (they did, and it's right here) or if Time ran a cover on it (they didn't, but they ran three might look like it if you didn't read the stories, which were about the energy crisis and not Global Warming), if you agree that the evidence shows the science at the time wasn't pushing that narrative? What's perhaps even more telling, the Time cover most people immediately think of



Is a fake. This is the actual cover

Quote:Part of the reason for the massive development along the coasts is that global temperatures did cool and serious hurricanes significantly decreased in number in the 60s and 70s. It used to be that frequent hurricanes discouraged it. Scientists knew the CO2 in the air was increasing and some tried to explain the decrease in temperatures by claiming CO2 was doing it.

Sure, but as I showed in my last post, the overwhelming majority of them stated otherwise, so much so that by the late 70's, there was a vast majority of papers which showed that CO2 caused an increase in temperatures.

Quote:One thing that is true is that scientists have manipulated data to support the belief that man is causing global warming (and this isn't confined to climate scientists-scientists are human too). Its also clear that scientists in the climate field can't dispute the consensus without risking their career. And the nature of academics is to argue and fight for their positions, so once they have staked a position, its about defending it, not seeking the truth.

None of this is clear. Again, have you read the research itself? Did you read the methodology which was claimed to have been manipulated? Of course scientists can, and have, manipulated data to achieve goals in the past, but that doesn't just grant you the ability to call into question any research you disagree with unless you have evidence of that manipulation. And for climate denialists, any modification of past measurements, even if they're due to a better methodology and provide more accurate measurements, is evidence of data manipulation. You don't claim a person using a newer technology to analyze bones is inherently manipulating the data to support their hypothesis, but that is the standard that climate science is held to.

As for the statement that those who disagree with the consensus risking their jobs, again I can't help but look at the list of national scientific and organizations I listed which agree with the concept of anthropomorphic climate change. It's simply unbelievable that the climate scientists of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all under the same pressure to agree with the scientific consensus. These nations don't even agree that they all exist as nations, and yet you truly believe that academic pressure is so strong that it stifles all dissent across these borders? Even OPEC, Exxon, and British Petroleum agree with anthropomorphic climate change, do you really believe they are doing so because of pressure from academia? I think even you would agree that's a ludicrous concept.

Quote:A lot of the proponents talk about global warming and human activity creating it as one issue.

I don't, so again, let's talk about what I write and I'll only talk about things you write.

Quote:I believe the globe is warming and that there is sufficient evidence to support that. But that evidence isn't that great. They recently had a dispute over whether the globe had warmed or cooled over the last 15 years! And yet they expect us to trust them on climate change over millennia. Fact is they have no temperature readings before the last 130 years or so. They don't have broad based readings around the globe but for the last 30 years or so. They don't have really extensive readings until the last 15 years and so and can't even figure out if we are warming or cooling over that period!

It's hard for me to address the claim over the a dispute without you linking me an article or a topic of an academic journal to review. As for the rest of your post, that's simply not true. We've had accurate readings for decades, and the data provided by those readings has shown an increase in warming. But if you'd provide an article or journal that says otherwise, I'd love to read it. I'd assume you're referring to the temperature pause that was thoroughly debunked by addressing the fact the oceans were trapping the heat, but I don't want to assume anything.

Quote:The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation. For the first 25 years of the Super Bowl, if an original NFL team (including the Colts & Steelers who moved to the AFC) won the Super Bowl, the market did better than if an original AFL team won. There was only one year the market went up when an original AFL team won and that gain was the smallest gain. Every year an original NFL team won, the market went up. You could probably build a model showing how the market would do based on the Super Bowl. But, of course, it would have no validity.

Yet that is what the climate scientists are doing. They do have a theory on why it would impact warming. But its still just correlation. Their models show increased CO2 levels impacting the climate because that's how they wrote the programs. They are matching it to CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 130 years. Therefore, their models couldn't show anything else. And their egos won't allow them to admit what a small understanding they have of long term global climate cycles.

This is entirely untrue. Climate science is backed by a litany of other evidence which supports it, and it's somewhat telling that you're not reading my comments if you think that this is truly the case. As I've already said once, we know greenhouse gases trap heat, that is replicable science based on chemistry we can test. Also like I said above, climate scientists used evidence from other planets and their atmosphere to show how that effects their surface temperature. Quite frankly, the fact you actually think that climate scientists are simply doing simply correlational studies, without looking for other evidence and controlling for all sorts of other variables just shows how much you need to read actual climate research. Here is random scientific journal which uses climate change models, if you're going to make the criticism you just made, at least have respect to read it, because nothing you just said above is accurate in the least.

Quote:What makes it really obvious many are vapid intellectually is that there are some things that should be obvious if you really believed the scientists. Yet the true believers don't propose these things. If you really believe, you have to think there will be massive dislocations over the next 50 years. You need to be economically strong enough to deal with all the infrastructure and human relocation costs. Also, you need to stop encouraging coastal development. Yet Democrats and Republicans alike, recently passed a bill to keep subsidizing coastal flood insurance. Instead, what you get is efforts to destroy the oil and gas and coal industries in a way that would clearly have severe negative impacts on the economy. And realistically, unless you get India, China and rapidly growing Africa to make the same steps, what the US and Europe do is pretty much meaningless.

I don't even know how to begin to address this, it's all over the place and not at all related to the science of climate change, and how you are not applying reasonable skepticism to this issue.

(08-29-2015 08:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  OK, so why isn't the world selling out to build more nuke plants? It's the best alternative to hydrocarbons out there due to the high energy density and footprint vs the current green energy sources being touted that are not much better than using 18th century technology?

Because a lot of people have unfounded fears concerning nuclear disasters, including a depressing number of those on the supposedly 'science friendly' left. I agree fully though that for the foreseeable future, nuclear is the best option for power plants.

(08-29-2015 08:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  OK, so why isn't the world selling out to build more nuke plants? It's the best alternative to hydrocarbons out there due to the high energy density and footprint vs the current green energy sources being touted that are not much better than using 18th century technology?

Because a lot of people have unfounded fears concerning nuclear disasters, including a depressing number of those on the supposedly 'science friendly' left. I agree fully though that for the foreseeable future, nuclear is the best option for power plants.

I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

(08-29-2015 09:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  OK, so why isn't the world selling out to build more nuke plants? It's the best alternative to hydrocarbons out there due to the high energy density and footprint vs the current green energy sources being touted that are not much better than using 18th century technology?

Because a lot of people have unfounded fears concerning nuclear disasters, including a depressing number of those on the supposedly 'science friendly' left. I agree fully though that for the foreseeable future, nuclear is the best option for power plants.

I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

Pretty much. Very few people outside of ultra Liberal loons really give a schit about this.

(08-28-2015 09:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Sea levels worldwide rose an average of nearly 3 inches (8 cm) since 1992, the result of warming waters and melting ice, a panel of NASA scientists said on Wednesday.

In 2013, a United Nations panel predicted sea levels would rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meters) by the end of the century. The new research shows that sea level rise most likely will be at the high end of that range, said University of Colorado geophysicist Steve Nerem.

Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago and “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” Nerem said.

NASA: Sea Level Rise Likely To Get Much Worse

Calling Lord Obama. Please cause the waters to stop rising. You promised.

(08-29-2015 09:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  OK, so why isn't the world selling out to build more nuke plants? It's the best alternative to hydrocarbons out there due to the high energy density and footprint vs the current green energy sources being touted that are not much better than using 18th century technology?

Because a lot of people have unfounded fears concerning nuclear disasters, including a depressing number of those on the supposedly 'science friendly' left. I agree fully though that for the foreseeable future, nuclear is the best option for power plants.

I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

Pretty much. Very few people outside of ultra Liberal loons really give a schit about this.

That's simply untrue, and I find it odd that you'd think that. Nuclear power is a great answer, but unfortunately not a popular one due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which entrenched opposition from much of the Left in this nation and a lack of push from the Right. Neither party is pushing hard for nuclear, best I can tell, but the Republicans at least give lip service to it being needed.

But as I've pointed out elsewhere, while Mikos criticisms about the lack of support for nuclear are accurate, his position that AGW must not be a real concern because of that lack of support are unfounded. He's acting as if policy doesn't match rhetoric then those who believe the science must not be serious, which is fallacious for all sorts of reasons.

(08-31-2015 11:22 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  OK, so why isn't the world selling out to build more nuke plants? It's the best alternative to hydrocarbons out there due to the high energy density and footprint vs the current green energy sources being touted that are not much better than using 18th century technology?

Because a lot of people have unfounded fears concerning nuclear disasters, including a depressing number of those on the supposedly 'science friendly' left. I agree fully though that for the foreseeable future, nuclear is the best option for power plants.

I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

Pretty much. Very few people outside of ultra Liberal loons really give a schit about this.

That's simply untrue, and I find it odd that you'd think that. Nuclear power is a great answer, but unfortunately not a popular one due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which entrenched opposition from much of the Left in this nation and a lack of push from the Right. Neither party is pushing hard for nuclear, best I can tell, but the Republicans at least give lip service to it being needed.

But as I've pointed out elsewhere, while Mikos criticisms about the lack of support for nuclear are accurate, his position that AGW must not be a real concern because of that lack of support are unfounded. He's acting as if policy doesn't match rhetoric then those who believe the science must not be serious, which is fallacious for all sorts of reasons.

Oops...I posted that to the wrong comment.

(08-29-2015 07:34 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation.

The argument for manmade CO2 causing global warming is that CO2 is highly infrared active and increases the radiative forcing of the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). What is not fully understood are the feedbacks and the effect of aerosols and clouds, they can be positive, negative or both, but it's not a correlation/causation problem.

When temperatures were decreasing, some theorized the impact would be like a volcano and cause an ice age, the way Mt. Tambora caused the "year without summer" around the globe in 1815.

Now with temperatures rising, they are theorizing a Venus like effect.

They have a correlation and they are theorizing to find a cause. So it is. They didn't come up with the theory first and then find a correlation.