This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: greencmp
Way to mis quote me there.

So destroying the planet so we can continue to pump CO2 and other stuff in the atmosphere in the name of cheap energy is the best as approach?

We have alternative solutions today.

I am all for better solutions. Nuclear is at the top of the list.

Indeed, we could basically discard the list if we chose nuclear, it solves all of the problems associated with deriving energy from breaking chemical bonds.

Then let's suppose this scenario.

Nuclear power plants pump a lot, I mean a lot, of water vapor into the atmosphere. We know that water vapor is one of the major greenhouse gases.

Now imagine this, a nuclear power plant in the US melts down, all that water vapor now is irradiated and pumping radiation into the atmosphere. There goes the safety of 100,000,000 people. But melt downs in highly technological countries can't ever happen, right?

Nuclear power plants

Nuclear power plants expel hot water vapor into the atmosphere, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, by expelling a greenhouse gas that is high temperature into the atmosphere that is already supposed to be globally warmed, then that means....nuclear power plants are destructive to the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

No to nuclear.

The "smoke like gas" emitted from nuclear power stations is water vapor. And though water vapor is technically a "greenhouse gas", the amount emitted by nuclear power stations is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other sources of water vapor. However these gases are released at high temperatures, so they are injected high into the atmosphere. Nuclear power produces far less emissions than a coal-burning power plant, but it is not entirely "emissions-free", as some people claim. To dig up the uranium and extract the ore produces between 10 and 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every tonne of uranium oxide. A normal nuclear power plant producing 1000MW needs 200 tonnes of uranium oxide per year, which means between 2000 and 10 000 tonnes of Carbon dioxide per year, just mining the fuel. Not to mention the carbon from the shipping of the fuel.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why not? What makes you so sure of this? To be honest, I may have even agreed with you if you had used the word "won't" instead of "can't". Humans definitely CAN stop man-made climate change. We just won't do it. As for natural climate change, it remains to be proven if humans can or cannot stop it or alter it. Saying can't is naive in the face of science. 

Wake up dude. There is a mass movement under way operating under the guise of stopping "climate change"...they're called the GOVERNMENT, and they've gone as far as falsifying scientific data to create the illusion that humans are destroying the planet. Ever hear of carbon taxes, Copenhagen, cap and trade, the EPA? Everytime new BS figures come out about "climate change", its followed by new bureaucratic and intrusive legislation.

Because the private sector requires you to produce something that will make the private sector money. If you can't do that, then no funding for you. Most climate change research (as well as the other things that NASA does) is unlikely to translate into a profitable venture to warrant private funding. Otherwise, it would have been done already.

When the government funds an entity, it controls that entity. If you keep the government out of the private sector, then natural competition will guide the invention of new technologies. I'm all for protecting our environment, but climate change is something we should be trying to adapt to, not trying to stop or reverse. That would be impossible.

Screw NASA!!! Take their funding away and let some real scientists have a shot at inventing under the pressure of real competition. The government are the ones who profit from NASA, but the people are the private sector, so whats wrong with the people making a profit? Don't you like going home with a decent paycheck every now and then? Or do you sit at home leeching off the real workers?

Sounds to me like the government has you whipped. "Go out and preach the'Al Gore gospel', like a good little socialist. Only then will we absolve you of your Carbon Footprint."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Spend 100 times that on military personal because near 100% of military personal has been absolutely necessary and utilized the past 40 years

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: greencmp
Way to mis quote me there.

So destroying the planet so we can continue to pump CO2 and other stuff in the atmosphere in the name of cheap energy is the best as approach?

We have alternative solutions today.

I am all for better solutions. Nuclear is at the top of the list.

Indeed, we could basically discard the list if we chose nuclear, it solves all of the problems associated with deriving energy from breaking chemical bonds.

Then let's suppose this scenario.

Nuclear power plants pump a lot, I mean a lot, of water vapor into the atmosphere. We know that water vapor is one of the major greenhouse gases.

Now imagine this, a nuclear power plant in the US melts down, all that water vapor now is irradiated and pumping radiation into the atmosphere. There goes the safety of 100,000,000 people. But melt downs in highly technological countries can't ever happen, right?

Nuclear power plants

Nuclear power plants expel hot water vapor into the atmosphere, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, by expelling a greenhouse gas that is high temperature into the atmosphere that is already supposed to be globally warmed, then that means....nuclear power plants are destructive to the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

No to nuclear.

The "smoke like gas" emitted from nuclear power stations is water vapor. And though water vapor is technically a "greenhouse gas", the amount emitted by nuclear power stations is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other sources of water vapor. However these gases are released at high temperatures, so they are injected high into the atmosphere. Nuclear power produces far less emissions than a coal-burning power plant, but it is not entirely "emissions-free", as some people claim. To dig up the uranium and extract the ore produces between 10 and 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every tonne of uranium oxide. A normal nuclear power plant producing 1000MW needs 200 tonnes of uranium oxide per year, which means between 2000 and 10 000 tonnes of Carbon dioxide per year, just mining the fuel. Not to mention the carbon from the shipping of the fuel.

Nuclear is all inclusive which means that I refer to fusion (helium 3) as well as fission (my preference is for pebble bed).

It is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, more so than carbon dioxide by a long shot but, there is no more steam generated by a nuclear plant than any other steam turbine emplacement.

We are talking about efficiency improvements on the order of 50,000 over any other energy generation method. There is no argument against nuclear except fear of poor stewardship.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
I want NASA to fund space exploration not the religion of climate change.

If you want to measure Earth temperatures get the United Nations to fund it or the Europeans. Our public money shouldn't be wasted on the climate zealots. Separation of church and state works both ways.

It is insulting to call science a religion... If you are going to debate the topic then prove it wrong. Calling it a religion is just a science denialism buzzphrase, probably cooked up straight in an Oil company's board room.

You can't have it both ways. You constantly comment on how people are wrong on their religion and God and yet provide no proof that they are wrong just your opinion. Besides, I don't have anything against good, honest science, but I am not naive enough to believe all of the funded, agenda driven science that you buy into so easily.

a reply to: WarminIndy
You act like no one was taking about global warming until Gore came along and invented the internets.

This has been an issue we have been talking about since the 60's, even when a few outliers were trying to sound the alarm on global cooling

a reply to: Metallicus

Science is based on observations and evidence, religion is based on faith. They are not interchangeable.

Not sure why some of you try to mix the two up.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's a " climate change denier"? I thought the data on that had been tampered with to falsely show a warming trend for the purpose of collecting trillions in carbon taxes.

This is exactly what a climate denier believes.

You guys take an opinion piece that makes bogus claims with no evidence but makes it sound believable, and the denier crowd runs with it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

From the article:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement that the budget "guts our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate, and our ability to prepare for and respond to earthquakes, droughts, and storm events."

“NASA leads the world in the exploration of and study of planets, and none is more important than the one on which we live," Bolden said.

Other scientists agree.

"The research performed and supported by the division helps us understand the world we live in and provide a basis for knowledge and understanding of natural hazards, weather forecasting, air quality, and water availability, among other concerns," wrote Christine W. McEntee, executive director of the American Geophysical Union, which represents space and earth scientists, in a letter to the committee. "The applicability of these missions cannot be overstated given their impact on your constituents."

NASA may not be the only source, but they are a BIG source. This could seriously stunt developing science in this field for a long time. If we happen to pass a threshold point in our warming of the planet while being unable to detect it, that would be a VERY bad thing.

Would that be the "hood-winking" field of applied BS?

Sure, climate change is real, it's been going on for billions of years.

When you can put a thermostat on the Sun, climate change might just be gone and we can call it weather again, like we did in the good ole days.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WarminIndy
You act like no one was taking about global warming until Gore came along and invented the internets.

This has been an issue we have been talking about since the 60's, even when a few outliers were trying to sound the alarm on global cooling

I think you need to go further, they were talking about it since Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle.

If there have been many weather patterns since then, some reoccurring often, does not mean we are going into an ice age because of human activity.

a reply to: jrod

They are both intended to find answers, meaning and purpose. I don't understand people who feel they must be mutually exclusive.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From the article.

These stats make December 2014 to February 2015 the warmest winter since record keeping began in 1880, surpassing the previous record set in 2007 by 0.05 degrees F (0.03 degrees C).

Short sighted you say?

a reply to: ventian

Not as short sighted as it may seem to some. Sure, accurate physical records have only been kept by human hands since 1880 but we also have an excellent source of climate data from tree rings and ice core samples going back 10's of thousands of years and in some instances 100,000 years or more.

a reply to: jrod

Prior to talking about global warming in the 80's 90's we or scientist were talking about a new ice age in the 60's 70's .Thing is ,is the climate was turning colder back then and then it swung to a warmer time and now it seems to have swung towards a cooler time . All of these swings in the climate while co2 was rising . Scientist have been given the tools they needed to create their best models but the models diverge from reality .

Now you can believe that the planet has warmed and sea level has rose and the ice caps are gone but I will take reality as the gospel and consider all the money invested in this agw nonsense as a lesson learned . Just because some guy in a lab coat with letters in front of his name says something to be so ,I will crack the salt shaker and sprinkle liberally .

They may have been able to have pulled this scam off had it not been for the internet and our ability to find other scientist that disagreed . And I would also say that it was not big oil pushing back but people with integrity .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Despite your definition of religion having a set dogma there are some people that study ,learn ,and change the way they look at the world and are not stuck in a dogma .There have been plenty of scientist in the past that went to their grave believing the science of the day only to have been overturned after their parting ... Now you tell me if science didn't have it's own dogma of the day if you can .

Of course there were scientists in the past that were wrong and didn't realize it, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to just deny science just because. The reason those scientists were wrong is because evidence came forward saying they are wrong. Also, many times scientists (even today) are mostly wrong because they believe an untested assumption as true. Usually tested assumptions aren't overturned.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So you are saying that we should continue burning coal because it fuels society and there is NO other way to do things? You do know that hemp oil can be burned for energy right?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It is insulting to call science a religion... If you are going to debate the topic then prove it wrong. Calling it a religion is just a science denialism buzzphrase, probably cooked up straight in an Oil company's board room.

Even the oil companies get it right sometimes...

LOL! You can't be serious? ALL of science is wrong, EXCEPT the oil companies who conveniently profit off of the populace not believing that Climate Change is real. That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day!

How did you get that out of "oil companies get it right sometimes?"

All science isn't wrong, but all science should be both testable AND encouraged by the theorists to be tested. The AGW "science," as we have clearly seen time and again, is loudly discouraged from being tested. Asinine little barbs like "deniers" are thrown at those who dare suggest the "science" be tested before we sell the farm over it. Carefully constructed and regulated "consensus" is often thrown about, a "consensus" in which any disagreers are actively removed from the tally to ensure the numbers appear much greater than they realistically are and anyone who claims otherwise is shunned and/or shouted down. That isn't science, it's mob rule... a purely emotional response by people who see their dollar signs slipping away from them.

This is pure BS. The science is tested and retested all the time. The deniers just deny because they are told not to believe. I haven't seen a single person from your camp ever actually even go THROUGH the science and peer review it, let alone actually attempt to retest it.

You do realize that a scientist, if he could adequately disprove man made climate change, would be elevated to scientific rock star status right? He'd be as famous as Edison. The fact that no one has done it, is a testament to the legitimacy of the science.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Of course there were scientists in the past that were wrong and didn't realize it

Ohhh ... but they were ever the figure of scientific authority right up to their moment of shaming ... and then another stepped up to take his place as the latter fell back into the warm embrace of the pack.

Sorry. Had to.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Typical science denialism...

If the science will impact on American wast full lifestyles then of course it will be denied.

One thing Americans are good at and that sticking fingers in there ears and ignoring problems right in front t of them....

originally posted by: ketsuko
Yeah, our "space" agency should be preoccupied with the earth instead of worrying about how to get us off the planet and into space.

You know something that would help save the planet? Mining the asteroids. You know how to mine asteroids? Get into space.

You know something that would help save the planet? Non-fossil fuel source of energy. You how to develop that? Go somewhere that doesn't have fossil fuel sources so that such a source of energy becomes a necessity. In other words, get into space and onto Mars or other planets.

I'm not saying that we don't need science on climate, but we have plenty of scientists at plenty of academic institutions who are studying climate, and we have NOAA, and we have other such agencies.

Why does NASA need to split their mission too?

Thats what im wondering to be honest.

You have a environmental agency right? Should this not be there remit?