Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24   Go Down

Author Topic: The Climate Change Hoax  (Read 116141 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2017, 10:50:17 pm »

Small reactors are still being designed and built.  the trouble with large light water reactors is that utilities won't build new ones these days.  It's not just the permitting issue but also the potential liability to the power company post Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; and Fukishima.  No locality wants them around any longer even though new reactor designs are far safer than the older ones.  Toshiba just took a $6B write-down on its US nuclear power business (they bought Westinghouse some years ago).

The safety of nuclear power plants is dependent upon the competence of the people involved in the design, construction and maintenance of such plants. When economic issues are involved, the competence of those involved can be compromised. People to tend to take risks in the interests of an economic gain.

For example, the Fukushima disaster is obviously a very tragic event caused by an unpredictable but natural geological event; a tsunami resulting from an earthquake, a once-in-a-hundred-years event in terms of severity, or perhaps even the worst tsunami in a thousand years in that location.

But the facts remain, that the east coast of Japan has been subject to many tsunamis during the past millenium. There are even stone monuments on that east coast, with inscriptions advising future generations not to build their homes below the level of the monument.

The people who made the decision the build the Fukushima reactor close to sea level, surely must have been aware of the historical record of those past tsunami events, but because there was no such event in living memory, they took the risk, presumably assuming that it might be another hundred or 2 hundred years before another tsunami hit.

Those who are alarmed about tiny increases in a clear and odourless gas called CO2, which is essential for all life, would naturally be alarmed at the prospect of future nuclear catastrophes, so the option of efficient nuclear plants as an alternative energy source is not on the table.

Climate change alarmists might be a bit dumb, but they are not that dumb.  ;D
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2017, 10:58:08 pm »

Let's assume for a moment that anthropomorphic climate change is in fact a "hoax".

Who started this hoax?
Why would such a hoax be initiated? 
What possible advantage would the hoaxers gain by promoting it?


Al Gore was one of those who was very instrumental.  His "An Inconvenient Truth" headlined global warming.  His push for carbon credits as the main way of reducing the use of carbon fuels created a market for the purchase and sale of these credits.  He benefitted from this and is now a $100 millionaire.  I think it started an industry and movement much the way Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. 

In both cases, the public media picked it up and ran with it.  It became popularized as more and more people jumped on the bandwagon.  It became and is a crusade that has become almost religious in its fervor to it supporters.  There's a huge market in the sales of documentaries that support it, researchers getting grants affirming it, and products like electric cars, solar panels and alternative "clean" fuel products where new entrepreneurs make millions.  With money to be made, people play fast and loose with the whole truth.  And that's the real inconvenient truth.

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2017, 11:24:02 pm »

So Ms Thatcher for short-term political advantage and Al Gore so he could make a lot of money.

That's it?  That's where all this carbon scare came from?  Just those two?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2017, 11:44:35 pm »

So Ms Thatcher for short-term political advantage and Al Gore so he could make a lot of money.

That's it?  That's where all this carbon scare came from?  Just those two?
Well, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came originally from one man - Abraham.  I'm sure Thatcher and Gore would accept the comparison. 

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2017, 04:20:12 am »

Pretty much nobody here will be alive in 50 years when what we're doing today will really matter.

We should be asking high-school kids what they want since our actions today will shape the world that they inherit.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2017, 04:38:04 am »

So Ms Thatcher for short-term political advantage and Al Gore so he could make a lot of money.

That's it?  That's where all this carbon scare came from?  Just those two?

You've gotta hand it to them, they did a helluva job. They got the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment on board with the hoax. Luckily we have Alan and Ray to keep us from falling for it.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2017, 08:40:21 am »

Pretty much nobody here will be alive in 50 years when what we're doing today will really matter.

We should be asking high-school kids what they want since our actions today will shape the world that they inherit.

Our actions in the present have always shaped the world and influenced future generations, regardless of CO2 levels. We fight a war and that has serious consequences for generations. There's always a principle of cause and effect at play, in all matters.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2017, 08:44:17 am »

You've gotta hand it to them, they did a helluva job. They got the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment on board with the hoax. Luckily we have Alan and Ray to keep us from falling for it.

Not the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment. Only those on the gravy train of government funded climate research which is biased towards maintaining the scare about CO2 levels rather than doing completely impartial research on general climate matters. The leaked emails known as 'climategate' provide some insight into the biases that have existed.

Such government-funded establishments do not tolerate dissenting views that CO2 levels might have an insignificant or minor effect on climate, because without the scare being maintained, funding would cease or be significantly reduced.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2017, 09:45:55 am »

Not the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment. Only those on the gravy train of government funded climate research which is biased towards maintaining the scare about CO2 levels rather than doing completely impartial research on general climate matters. The leaked emails known as 'climategate' provide some insight into the biases that have existed.

Such government-funded establishments do not tolerate dissenting views that CO2 levels might have an insignificant or minor effect on climate, because without the scare being maintained, funding would cease or be significantly reduced.

It brings me close to tears to think that adults can harbor such idiotic, nonsensical views (that climate change is a hoax). It brings to mind Albert Einstein's quip that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2017, 09:46:25 am »

Not the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment. Only those on the gravy train of government funded climate research which is biased towards maintaining the scare about CO2 levels rather than doing completely impartial research on general climate matters. The leaked emails known as 'climategate' provide some insight into the biases that have existed.

Such government-funded establishments do not tolerate dissenting views that CO2 levels might have an insignificant or minor effect on climate, because without the scare being maintained, funding would cease or be significantly reduced.

Hefferdust.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WNUis6NXXuo

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2017, 09:48:21 am »

It brings me close to tears to think that adults can harbor such idiotic, nonsensical views (that climate change is a hoax). It brings to mind Albert Einstein's quip that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

As someone said on the "London" thread:

"This part of the forum might as well be called Fruitcake Corner, the place where the same handful of wackos ride their mad ideas round and round expecting a different result each time - but the outcome never changes."
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2017, 10:13:10 am »

Small reactors are still being designed and built.  the trouble with large light water reactors is that utilities won't build new ones these days.  It's not just the permitting issue but also the potential liability to the power company post Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; and Fukishima.  No locality wants them around any longer even though new reactor designs are far safer than the older ones.  Toshiba just took a $6B write-down on its US nuclear power business (they bought Westinghouse some years ago).

Hi Alan, If I remember correctly, in the Three Mile Island event containment worked exactly as designed. A small amount of radioactive gas was released after everything was brought under control but that didn't affect the background radiation level.

Chernobyl was a disaster caused by Soviet stupidity. The design of the reactor was a fiasco and the people running it were untrained.

As far as Fukushima is concerned, building a nuke that close to the ocean on the eastern side of the island was pretty dumb, but let me quote from the findings of the World Nuclear Association: "No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA in June. By December, government health checks of some 1700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/yr, 98% were below 5 mSv/yr, and ten people were exposed to more than 10 mSv." Fukushima certainly was a disaster, but the damage was caused by a major earthquake, not a nuke.

The thing that makes me ROTFL is the fact that the same people who squawk about CO2 emissions causing irreversible damage to humanity are the same people who won't countenance nuclear power, which is the obvious solution to their concern.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2017, 11:51:36 am »

Hi Alan, If I remember correctly, in the Three Mile Island event containment worked exactly as designed. A small amount of radioactive gas was released after everything was brought under control but that didn't affect the background radiation level.
Absolutely.  I was working in the thyroid branch at NIH when this happened.  Most of the senior investigators in the branch had done significant field work in the Marshall Islands tracking increases in thyroid cancer and other related diseases following the hydrogen bomb testing in the 1950s.  the day Three Mile Island went critical my boss and a couple of others were quickly summoned downtown by the Secretary of Health and Human services to provide advice about what should be done.  My boss was very caustic in his remarks and told them that if there was a breech it was too late.  Radioactive iodine is one of the gasses that gets released and one can block the thyroid by putting a couple of drops of super saturated potassium iodine solution on the tip of ones tongue.  However, this has to be done 10 minutes prior to exposure.  I think the did distribute potassium iodine to those who lived near the reactor as a preventative in case there was a further breech (didn't happen).

Quote
Chernobyl was a disaster caused by Soviet stupidity. The design of the reactor was a fiasco and the people running it were untrained.

As far as Fukushima is concerned, building a nuke that close to the ocean on the eastern side of the island was pretty dumb, but let me quote from the findings of the World Nuclear Association: "No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA in June. By December, government health checks of some 1700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/yr, 98% were below 5 mSv/yr, and ten people were exposed to more than 10 mSv." Fukushima certainly was a disaster, but the damage was caused by a major earthquake, not a nuke.
Quite right on both counts

Quote
The thing that makes me ROTFL is the fact that the same people who squawk about CO2 emissions causing irreversible damage to humanity are the same people who won't countenance nuclear power, which is the obvious solution to their concern.
I'm in complete agreement.  Newer designs of plants are far superior than the light water reactors that have been used.  they even have modular designs that can be set up quite quickly.  It's totally crazy to ignore this source of power!
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #53 on: March 24, 2017, 04:55:05 pm »

I'm in complete agreement.  Newer designs of plants are far superior than the light water reactors that have been used.  they even have modular designs that can be set up quite quickly.  It's totally crazy to ignore this source of power!

It's also true that newer designs of coal-fired power plants with relatively low emissions of particulate carbon and low levels of the real pollutants which are known to be harmful, were available many decades ago, but that didn't stop China and India building cheap coal-fired power plants that have created massive problems of smog in their cities.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #54 on: March 24, 2017, 05:07:22 pm »

Hefferdust.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WNUis6NXXuo

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Bias is not a crime, Jeremy. If it were, most companies advertising their products would be taken to court.

However, deliberate fraud is a crime. I'm surprised the Michael Mann 'Hockey Stick' fraud is still an issue in the courts. Here's the story below.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/

The reason why climatologist in Government-funded research centres can get away with their biased attitude is because the science is so utterly complex with such long time-frames involved. It does not lend itself to the usual scientific processes of falsification, so no-one, however brilliant, can prove that rising levels of CO2 have a relatively small net effect on climate, just like no-one can prove that God does not exist. Got it?  ;)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 05:15:18 pm by Ray »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #55 on: March 24, 2017, 06:18:50 pm »

So we learned of two alleged perpetrators of the climate "hoax".  Both of them from one source.

How about you, Ray?  You seem very knowledgeable about this topic. Who started this "hoax" and why?
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #56 on: March 25, 2017, 04:53:01 am »

Bias is not a crime, Jeremy. If it were, most companies advertising their products would be taken to court.

However, deliberate fraud is a crime. I'm surprised the Michael Mann 'Hockey Stick' fraud is still an issue in the courts. Here's the story below.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/

The reason why climatologist in Government-funded research centres can get away with their biased attitude is because the science is so utterly complex with such long time-frames involved. It does not lend itself to the usual scientific processes of falsification, so no-one, however brilliant, can prove that rising levels of CO2 have a relatively small net effect on climate, just like no-one can prove that God does not exist. Got it?  ;)

That's the lamest excuse I've seen in a while. Well, since Trump blamed the Democrats for his health care bill. "You can't argue with climate science because ... err ... stuff." The data is all there - if you have another way to analyse it, go ahead, make your name.

In the meantime, the evidence mounts

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/02/25/setting-the-record-straight-on-misleading-claims-against-michael-mann/

Quote
Looking at the bigger picture: The obsession among contrarians and denialists with trying to overthrow climate science by discrediting seminal early paleoclimate research by Mann and his colleagues in the 1990s is about politics, not science. Paleoclimate research has continued to advance during the past 15 years. Mann and numerous other researchers have continued to add to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and here’s where things stand as of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, issued last year:

For average annual [Northern Hemisphere] temperatures, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). This is supported by comparison of instrumental temperatures with multiple reconstructions from a variety of proxy data and statistical methods, and is consistent with AR4.

–IPCC AR5, Working Group I, Paleoclimate chapter, p. 386

The critics of the original ‘hockey stick graph’ might want to spend some time looking at the actual advance of scientific understanding in this area of research — which is just one piece of the complex mountain of research on human-caused climate change.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #57 on: March 25, 2017, 10:04:25 am »

Newer designs of plants are far superior than the light water reactors that have been used.  they even have modular designs that can be set up quite quickly.  It's totally crazy to ignore this source of power!

Where do these new designs fall in terms of producing radioactive waste?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #58 on: March 25, 2017, 12:09:16 pm »

Hi Peter, Until we can find a way to control fusion, nukes always will produce radioactive waste, but now that Republicans are in power we may finally be able to open Yucca Mountain after spending $96 billion on it. That would go a long way toward solving the active waste problem.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #59 on: March 25, 2017, 12:55:06 pm »

Meanwhile, Ray, still waiting for an answer to my question:

Who started the climate change "hoax" and why?

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24   Go Up