Are you allowed to shout 'FIRE' in a burning auditorium?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, June 25, 2005 00:15
VIEWED: 6268
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
So, maybe we need a couple more wars and a few more major bird-flu or ebola epidemic to help thin out the herd a bit.
Points well taken. I think that's being addressed as we speak. *cue for the sinister sounding music* Just not in a PUBLIC forum. I think this may be another...* music comes to a roar- then stops* conspiracy!
You think I'm kidding ( well, I might be ) Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CallMeSerenity:
I enjoy Canttakethesky's very articulate writing and applaude her use of big words.
Hey, I, myself, often employ an eclectic array of forceful and perfunctory terms in order to proliferate my mental schisms- even polynomials!
Ouch. That brained my hurt Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Happy to be of service.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anyhow, thanks for makin' this particular thread most interesting, Finn.
Quote:That’s certainly the worst case scenario.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
So, maybe we need a couple more wars and a few more major bird-flu or ebola epidemic to help thin out the herd a bit.
Quote:Something like that. I was thinking more along the lines of reducing regulation to make nuclear power more competitive with coal and gas. But explicit legal regulation is not really as big a problem as the implicit commercial and public regulation. Protracted lawsuits by environmental groups are the principle reason why nuclear power plants are so difficult to build. The NRC has done some things recently to help alleviate this problem, but clearly not enough. What we need is not so much less regulation but better defined regulation, maybe. We need regulation that provides for safe operation of nuclear reactors without hamstringing the commercial nuclear industry, and indeed forcing the industry to a complete halt.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by CallMeSerenity:
I agree with Finn that we need better, cleaner and more regulated nuclear power
I think he wanted less regulation, like in competition would naturally produce the best made and safest reactors. Don't know myself if it'd work that way, but...
Nice to have another voice here CallMeSerenity.
Fusionman Chrisisall
In a nutshell.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I recently heard on NPR that they're trying to streamline licensing and construction permits, decide on one or two designes to use all over, and take care of the NIMBY problem by giving free electricity in a certain radius around the reactor, like 10 miles or something. Also that Yucca Mountain isn't the place to store the waste, but they're workin' on where else might be ultimatly suitable. And they mentioned a time frame of getting this all goin' in like ten years.
Hell, for free electricity, I just might WANT to live near a reactor (they could let the community pick the colour for it, even let the kids graffiti it to make it more town-friendly).
I think the next generation of reactors will probably run much better than present ones, some of them are like, even older than me!
But still, as ever, FUSIONMAN Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. Again, you are confounding data and conclusions. The data monotonically shows that global temperatures are going up. Faster in some cases depending on latitude or elevation (for example), slower in others, but undeniably going up, beyond the error of the measurement. As to whether or not these measurements are representative of the global trend, the answer is yes.
I am saying the conclusions drawn from these data might be hasty. Do they really indicate overall rising temperatures?
Quote:You are displaying a serious amount of ignorance or willful deceit. If I wanted to measure how much sunlight the Earth's surface absorbs, would I measure in a cave where the sun don't shine? If I wanted to measure tropospheric heat-trapping, would I measure the stratosphere?
Obviously someone thought surface ocean temperature is a good indicator. What about stratosphere temperature, or ocean temperature 1000 ft deep, or soil temperatures 10 feet deep?
Quote:I have read the IPCC report, which contains the relevant data and statistical discussion. I suggest you read it as well.
If indeed those temperature measurements are considered representative, the next assumption to question is are they significant
Quote:Not really. One example, the past eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, and its present relatively circular and centered orbit which are both well documented by the astro-physicists. You don't seem to have a significant physics background. Suffice it to say that relativistically large and slow-moving objects can have current and past orbits calculated. Past orbits calculated by astrophysicists, and past global climate extremes documented by geologists correlate: further distance from the sun correlates with extreme cold, closer distance with extreme warmth. This is simply not a point of debate, unless you want to throw out all the physics that makes it possible to explore space, and all the geology that tells us of dinosaurs and Pangaea.
..many of the extreme climates of the past have been assigned actual causes: ...But these factors are no longer in play. To look at those past climates for comparison would be in error. /Really? There is more interpretation for ya.
Quote:Strangely, this is yet another principle (the precautionary principle) of which you seem unaware. It's basically risk analysis.
Have you considered that by the time anthropogenic global warming is 'proven' it will be too late to actually do anything about it? / That is exactly the kind of catastrophic, alarmist interpretation that I believe is unwarranted by the data.
Quote:The consensus is global. Whose funding and politics are you talking about?
The "consensus" in GW is very much an artifact of funding and political rhetoric. I believe using government coercion to enforce one point of view, when there is still a debate going on, is, to say the least, premature.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The “consensus” is more a product of political debate and journalism then science. The nature of this supposed “consensus” varies dramatically from scientist to scientist, suggesting no consensus at all. Generally “consensus” means that scientists agree on something, in this case, evidentially it means something different, because scientists do not agree, except in the braodest terms.
The “consensus” on global warming is just one of many attempts to introduce authoritative dogma into science. The data is inconclusive. There cannot be a “consensus” in science if the data is inconclusive. These are contradictory ideas. Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to indicate exactly what they believe is settled.
When it comes down to it, those who claim such a “consensus” exists are often advocates of the so-called ‘precautionary principle,’ which begs the question. The “consensus” is then a tool used to convince others to support such precautions, not in fact a product of scientific agreement. If such a consensus actually existed then there would be no reason for a precautionary principle, as the proposed catastrophic effects could presumably be scientifically demonstrated.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suggest you also read the report before you discuss it.
The data is inconclusive.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know what report you're referring to, but if by chance you mean the IPCC report, I have read several.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then you can't honestly say
Quote:since the report assigns probability ranges to each proposal. The phrase 'inconclusive' becomes meaningless in the face of detailed 'likelihood' analysis.
The data is inconclusive
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually I can honestly say that, and I did. One’s assessment of the probability of a proposal does not make the evidence in favor or against such a proposal more or less conclusive. That's politics, not science.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME