Your claim is provably false. The WattsUpWithThat site also cites publications in serious journals.
But aside from that, see my reply above to "Tenebrousedge". You are trying to say the rules are different for you than for me? It is okay for you to say that a source I use is biased, but not okay for me to do the same thing?
I call bullshit. There is a word for that: "hypocrite".
I did not say anything about "conspiracy". But biased sources are biased sources, on either "side" of the argument. One is no better than another.
In the case of RealClimate, the people behind the site are the very people who have been pushing the whole AGW theory: Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and many of the Had-CRU crowd.
You can't have it both ways: if you can call someone out for biased sources, then I can too.
"...Warmists actually publicly acknowledge the existence of hard ice core and geological data which shows a steady level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 15 million years which kinda trumps their six-month data spans - the data also shows midtide sea levels back then over a hundred feet higher than they are now"
There are several things potentially at work here. Among them are the fact that it is known that liquid saline can exist in the ice down to -70F. And while given free reign gas tends to diffuse through a material, some suggest that there are physical forces that could cause CO2 to actually move to specific areas and aggregate.
So while ice core data appears to be quite detailed (which, on the surface, leads one to believe it is accurate), there may be processes by which components migrate through the ice and actually causing them to concentrate, leading to a false impression of detail (artifacts).
I'm not trying to tell you that any of this is fact, and it certainly isn't firmly established. However, what it does say is that there are serious, scientifically legitimate questions about ice core data.
And finally, if you think CO2 levels have been "steady" over millions of years, you haven't been doing your homework.
Yes, even. Pay attention to what parent is saying. If there were any kind of convincing empirical evidence, that would not be so. But there, isn't... so it is.
Citing RealClimate gives others the impression you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Treating RealClimate as though it were some kind of unbiased source is rather like treating BP as though it were an unbiased source of oil drilling information.
While there is much debate about the actual figure, it has been firmly established that the amount spent on AGW research is vastly greater than the amount spent by industry fighting it. One estimate (by pro-AGW activists) a couple of years ago was that industry had spent as much as $29 million dollars on anti-AGW campaigns.
Yet Richard Branson alone has donated over $3 billion to the study of AGW.
As I say: you can debate the exact amounts, but which side is spending more -- a lot more -- is hardly in question.
Because some bozo has decided to call me out on that statement, allow me to clarify:
The storage pools at the reactor sites were always intended to be temporary holding facilities, until proper storage was built. It's just that the corporations and governments involved never got around to spending the money for properly-built long-term storage. However, the Daichi plant had fuel rods that had been stored there for over 20 years.
Despite earlier controversy, the Yucca Mountain facility in the U.S. was approved, and some construction even started. But when Obama got into office, magically all construction stopped. You'll have to ask him why, but the DOE has officially announced that the problems are a matter of administration's "policy", and definitely not due to any technical problems.
"This "spend rod" problem you have basically in every nuclear plant on this planet."
That has absolutely no relevance to the point I made... except to reinforce that putting spent rods in these "temporary" holding pools is a stupid thing to do and a real problem that needs to be addressed.
"Yes, they had trouble to keep the "spend rods" cooled. But far less than with the core itself. Also the spend rods 'only' where problematic regarding fires, not regarding a melt down. The melt down happend in the core(s)."
"That either is bullshit or a/. myth or a new comming internet myth."
Okay... let me amend my statement to one that is more accurate:
"The spent fuel was kept in local storage units that were obviously not properly designed for it, rather than in a properly-designed storage facility."
Does that make you happier? Only one word was changed from the meaning of what I originally wrote.
"The more important thing is: the stored fuel was not involved in the main disaster."
That's part BS, and part irrelevant. The spent rods WERE involved in the "main disaster", as it was particularly the fuel rods that they had trouble keeping cool to prevent fires and/or meltdowns.
But even more to the point: in the long run, the spent rods are the main disaster: giving off more radiation and otherwise causing more problems than the reactor cores themselves. That link is only an example: you can find references from reputable sources to how bad the spent fuel rod problem has been, all over the internet. A few minutes with Google should suffice to show you that you are wrong about that.
Further, we do know what to do with spent fuel; government just hasn't been willing to spend the money.
"When it comes to failures in complex, potentially deadly systems like nuclear plants, "human error" isn't ever a factor. If the system relies on a human to act a certain way without a failsafe then it is just bad design, pure and simple. This book explains it well."
What you mean is that human error should not be a factor. But in fact it has been, and if you read the comments above you will get two good examples: Chernobyl, where humans purposely operated the reactor in an unsafe fashion (yes, there was bad design, but human error was a direct contributor to the failure), and Fukushima and other reactors in Japan, where humans decided to store spent fuel rods in places that were never designed for that.
The latter example, especially, is an example of that corollary of Murphy's law which says, "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
"So a standard methodology with no variations wastes more money than negotiating with each contractor over each contract? Enforcing contracts wastes more money than allowing contractors to unilaterally break the terms of contracts, thus requiring additional work to complete the contract? "
You are making a generalization that I did not.
Yes, it does waste money, if the terms of the contract are stupid and wasteful, like those calling for destruction of hard drives.
"As for "Delinquent Science", you are part of the "alternative knowledge system" of the right. Where people are entitled to their own opinions AND facts. You are truly worthy of my scorn."
This comment might have some merit if it were true. But I am no more "right-wing" than you are. A good bit less, perhaps.
Not only was Fukushima old-technology, the vast majority (some estimates have been 80 to 90 percent) of damage done in Japan was due to improper storage of spent fuel near the reactors, not from the reactors themselves. They had stored the fuel right at the reactors... areas that were not designed for fuel storage... rather than at a facility that was specifically designed for that.
Why should it surprise anybody that using things -- especially potentially dangerous things like nuclear reactors -- in ways that they were not designed to be used, causes problems?
That's like saying that running your car into a telephone pole can cause injury. Duh.
"On the contrary, I would argue that the problem with nuclear power is that, as is becoming increasingly clear, people's fears about it are *justified*."
Nonsense. All significant accidents have happened in old (in some cases, 3 "generations" old) technology plants, and sometimes human error was a major component.
Newer designs are inherently safer. Chernobyl, for example, was a poorly-constructed plant using technology that was long outdated even when it was built. The majority of damage in Japan was caused by the improper storage of spent fuel right at the reactors -- areas that were neither designed nor safe for such storage.
Use newer technology (like molten-salt thorium reactors, for example), and you can virtually eliminate the problems that have plagued old nuclear plants, while protecting natural resources... we have plenty of thorium, for example. Thorium reactors are also -- or can be -- "breeder" reactors that produce more fuel than they consume. They can also be designed to eliminate the biggest causes of human error, making them that much safer still.
"1000s of scientists (true individualists), 20 years, and 1 resignation."
See what I mean? You unintentionally admit just how little you know about it.
First, it wasn't intended as "proof" of anything. It was merely an example of behavior that has been reported by many others. "Proof" is something else entirely, and I have no intention of trying to "prove" anything to you. It isn't worth my time.
Second, there have been a number of resignations, not just one. But I'm not going to post each and every one of them for you. Do your own homework. This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia or some university.
Third: "thousands" of scientists? Um, no. Of the 2,500 or so people that have been claimed to be "scientists" that have worked on the IPCC reports, the majority are reviewers, many of whom are not scientists at all. Among them are schoolteachers who have never performed a lick of scientific research in their lives, and even a janitor or two.
Tell you what. Maybe you would like to have a look at this? It contains excerpts from the book "Delinquent Science", a report on the science of the IPCC, by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist. Even better, buy the book.
Maybe it will open your eyes about how things are really done at the IPCC.
Or maybe you don't want to? That old "confirmation bias" popping up again maybe?
"Exactly. It is easier to just comply with the contract than it is to try to justify why you do not want to. The government is not going to redraft their contract to reflect the OPs untried and unproven (in the eyes of the government) methodology. They are going to stick to their guns, declare that physical destruction is what the contract specifies, and demand that the company honors the contract that they signed."
Which is a perfect illustration of how government wastes so goddamned much money.
"This is such crap. The IPCC reports are more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica, and they make very conservative estimates."
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? The letter linked to was written by a former IPCC scientist.
How is that confirmation bias? Methinks perhaps you are indulging in a little bit of it yourself.
"With the correct political motivations, you have already shown your colours."
And you have demonstrated very clearly before that you don't understand my "political motivations". Nor have you shown any real link at all between what you claim (incorrectly) to be my politics, and anything I have to say about other subjects.
I am beginning to think you just like harassing me.
Slashdot Mirror
That is also my stock answer. But "turnabout is fair play", as they say. I am tired of these people trying to have it both ways.
Your claim is provably false. The WattsUpWithThat site also cites publications in serious journals.
But aside from that, see my reply above to "Tenebrousedge". You are trying to say the rules are different for you than for me? It is okay for you to say that a source I use is biased, but not okay for me to do the same thing?
I call bullshit. There is a word for that: "hypocrite".
I did not say anything about "conspiracy". But biased sources are biased sources, on either "side" of the argument. One is no better than another.
In the case of RealClimate, the people behind the site are the very people who have been pushing the whole AGW theory: Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and many of the Had-CRU crowd.
You can't have it both ways: if you can call someone out for biased sources, then I can too.
If you can find some place where I have stated something that isn't fact-based, I'll start taking your own comments seriously.
I don't think so. But perhaps we might want to visit what is actually meant by "circular logic"?
On the contrary: you have now proven my point beyond reasonable doubt.
:o)
Thanks, and have a nice day.
By the way: that link was not intended as proof of anything; it is merely a rough discussion of just one question surrounding ice core data.
"...Warmists actually publicly acknowledge the existence of hard ice core and geological data which shows a steady level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 15 million years which kinda trumps their six-month data spans - the data also shows midtide sea levels back then over a hundred feet higher than they are now"
Except that recent studies have shown that gas can migrate in ice cores far more than previously thought... bringing the ice core data under suspicion.
There are several things potentially at work here. Among them are the fact that it is known that liquid saline can exist in the ice down to -70F. And while given free reign gas tends to diffuse through a material, some suggest that there are physical forces that could cause CO2 to actually move to specific areas and aggregate.
So while ice core data appears to be quite detailed (which, on the surface, leads one to believe it is accurate), there may be processes by which components migrate through the ice and actually causing them to concentrate, leading to a false impression of detail (artifacts).
I'm not trying to tell you that any of this is fact, and it certainly isn't firmly established. However, what it does say is that there are serious, scientifically legitimate questions about ice core data.
And finally, if you think CO2 levels have been "steady" over millions of years, you haven't been doing your homework.
Yes, even. Pay attention to what parent is saying. If there were any kind of convincing empirical evidence, that would not be so. But there, isn't... so it is.
Citing RealClimate gives others the impression you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Treating RealClimate as though it were some kind of unbiased source is rather like treating BP as though it were an unbiased source of oil drilling information.
That is 100% circular reasoning. Try again.
While there is much debate about the actual figure, it has been firmly established that the amount spent on AGW research is vastly greater than the amount spent by industry fighting it. One estimate (by pro-AGW activists) a couple of years ago was that industry had spent as much as $29 million dollars on anti-AGW campaigns.
Yet Richard Branson alone has donated over $3 billion to the study of AGW.
As I say: you can debate the exact amounts, but which side is spending more -- a lot more -- is hardly in question.
Because some bozo has decided to call me out on that statement, allow me to clarify:
The storage pools at the reactor sites were always intended to be temporary holding facilities, until proper storage was built. It's just that the corporations and governments involved never got around to spending the money for properly-built long-term storage. However, the Daichi plant had fuel rods that had been stored there for over 20 years.
Despite earlier controversy, the Yucca Mountain facility in the U.S. was approved, and some construction even started. But when Obama got into office, magically all construction stopped. You'll have to ask him why, but the DOE has officially announced that the problems are a matter of administration's "policy", and definitely not due to any technical problems.
"This "spend rod" problem you have basically in every nuclear plant on this planet."
That has absolutely no relevance to the point I made... except to reinforce that putting spent rods in these "temporary" holding pools is a stupid thing to do and a real problem that needs to be addressed.
"Yes, they had trouble to keep the "spend rods" cooled. But far less than with the core itself. Also the spend rods 'only' where problematic regarding fires, not regarding a melt down. The melt down happend in the core(s)."
Sorry. Wrong. Melting of the spent cores -- which could happen if the cores were kept wet but not cool enough -- was a very major concern. That's just one example. Again, reports of what was happening at those reactors were all over the internet. And I'm not just talking about stupid reporters, but comments by nuclear industry experts.
Why not try looking things up sometime, rather than just pulling arguments out of the air?
"That either is bullshit or a /. myth or a new comming internet myth."
Okay... let me amend my statement to one that is more accurate:
"The spent fuel was kept in local storage units that were obviously not properly designed for it, rather than in a properly-designed storage facility."
Does that make you happier? Only one word was changed from the meaning of what I originally wrote.
"The more important thing is: the stored fuel was not involved in the main disaster."
That's part BS, and part irrelevant. The spent rods WERE involved in the "main disaster", as it was particularly the fuel rods that they had trouble keeping cool to prevent fires and/or meltdowns.
But even more to the point: in the long run, the spent rods are the main disaster: giving off more radiation and otherwise causing more problems than the reactor cores themselves. That link is only an example: you can find references from reputable sources to how bad the spent fuel rod problem has been, all over the internet. A few minutes with Google should suffice to show you that you are wrong about that.
Further, we do know what to do with spent fuel; government just hasn't been willing to spend the money.
"When it comes to failures in complex, potentially deadly systems like nuclear plants, "human error" isn't ever a factor. If the system relies on a human to act a certain way without a failsafe then it is just bad design, pure and simple. This book explains it well."
What you mean is that human error should not be a factor. But in fact it has been, and if you read the comments above you will get two good examples: Chernobyl, where humans purposely operated the reactor in an unsafe fashion (yes, there was bad design, but human error was a direct contributor to the failure), and Fukushima and other reactors in Japan, where humans decided to store spent fuel rods in places that were never designed for that.
The latter example, especially, is an example of that corollary of Murphy's law which says, "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
"So a standard methodology with no variations wastes more money than negotiating with each contractor over each contract? Enforcing contracts wastes more money than allowing contractors to unilaterally break the terms of contracts, thus requiring additional work to complete the contract? "
You are making a generalization that I did not.
Yes, it does waste money, if the terms of the contract are stupid and wasteful, like those calling for destruction of hard drives.
"As for "Delinquent Science", you are part of the "alternative knowledge system" of the right. Where people are entitled to their own opinions AND facts. You are truly worthy of my scorn."
This comment might have some merit if it were true. But I am no more "right-wing" than you are. A good bit less, perhaps.
Thorium reactors have been built, and a couple are still operating. India is building a commercial thorium plant right now.
Not only was Fukushima old-technology, the vast majority (some estimates have been 80 to 90 percent) of damage done in Japan was due to improper storage of spent fuel near the reactors, not from the reactors themselves. They had stored the fuel right at the reactors... areas that were not designed for fuel storage... rather than at a facility that was specifically designed for that.
Why should it surprise anybody that using things -- especially potentially dangerous things like nuclear reactors -- in ways that they were not designed to be used, causes problems?
That's like saying that running your car into a telephone pole can cause injury. Duh.
"On the contrary, I would argue that the problem with nuclear power is that, as is becoming increasingly clear, people's fears about it are *justified*."
Nonsense. All significant accidents have happened in old (in some cases, 3 "generations" old) technology plants, and sometimes human error was a major component.
Newer designs are inherently safer. Chernobyl, for example, was a poorly-constructed plant using technology that was long outdated even when it was built. The majority of damage in Japan was caused by the improper storage of spent fuel right at the reactors -- areas that were neither designed nor safe for such storage.
Use newer technology (like molten-salt thorium reactors, for example), and you can virtually eliminate the problems that have plagued old nuclear plants, while protecting natural resources... we have plenty of thorium, for example. Thorium reactors are also -- or can be -- "breeder" reactors that produce more fuel than they consume. They can also be designed to eliminate the biggest causes of human error, making them that much safer still.
"1000s of scientists (true individualists), 20 years, and 1 resignation."
See what I mean? You unintentionally admit just how little you know about it.
First, it wasn't intended as "proof" of anything. It was merely an example of behavior that has been reported by many others. "Proof" is something else entirely, and I have no intention of trying to "prove" anything to you. It isn't worth my time.
Second, there have been a number of resignations, not just one. But I'm not going to post each and every one of them for you. Do your own homework. This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia or some university.
Third: "thousands" of scientists? Um, no. Of the 2,500 or so people that have been claimed to be "scientists" that have worked on the IPCC reports, the majority are reviewers, many of whom are not scientists at all. Among them are schoolteachers who have never performed a lick of scientific research in their lives, and even a janitor or two.
Tell you what. Maybe you would like to have a look at this? It contains excerpts from the book "Delinquent Science", a report on the science of the IPCC, by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist. Even better, buy the book.
Maybe it will open your eyes about how things are really done at the IPCC.
Or maybe you don't want to? That old "confirmation bias" popping up again maybe?
"Exactly. It is easier to just comply with the contract than it is to try to justify why you do not want to. The government is not going to redraft their contract to reflect the OPs untried and unproven (in the eyes of the government) methodology. They are going to stick to their guns, declare that physical destruction is what the contract specifies, and demand that the company honors the contract that they signed."
Which is a perfect illustration of how government wastes so goddamned much money.
"This is such crap. The IPCC reports are more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica, and they make very conservative estimates."
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? The letter linked to was written by a former IPCC scientist.
How is that confirmation bias? Methinks perhaps you are indulging in a little bit of it yourself.
"With the correct political motivations, you have already shown your colours."
And you have demonstrated very clearly before that you don't understand my "political motivations". Nor have you shown any real link at all between what you claim (incorrectly) to be my politics, and anything I have to say about other subjects.
I am beginning to think you just like harassing me.
Correction:
One link apparently contained a typo. Here it is, fixed:
Curry says: "No global warming for 13 years"