I am saying that the only practical solution to the issue of AGW is nuclear power. It is the only technology that can replace the base load function of fossil fuels and eliminate CO2 production from energy generation.
Anyone who advocates drastic action on the part of government to limit CO2 production and yet does not embrace the only practical solution to the problem is disingenuous at best.
You obviously misread the original post because it is clear that I was speaking of "serious" in the context of advocating government action.
So they all need to put up or shut up. If it is bad as they say, then regardless of their personal feelings on nuclear, they need to push for great deployment. They can look at it as the lessor of two evils if they want. Most others will look at it as reliable power at reasonable cost.
If all these scientists and government panels are serious and truly believe we face a crises, then they would be advocating for nuclear power.
The fact that they don't and instead embrace politically attractive, yet ineffective technology leads the casual observer to doubt the veracity of their urgency.
Tell a man there are a billion stars in the galaxy and he'll believe you; tell him the paint is wet and that he'll need to pay you $$$, plus find another way to work, stop running his air conditioner, and, BTW, if he doesn't believe you, he is the modern day equivalent of a racist, you’re damned right he’s gonna touch it to make sure. And it better be fucking wet, not just a bit tacky.
While it's not exactly a peer reviewed protest, James hansen was recently arrested protesting...you guessed it, a fossil fuel enabling device, aka the Keystone Pipeline.
Among the "scientific" things he said were, "Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts.” and "“For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we must find somebody who is working for our dream.”
I'm no scientists, but I dare say invoking "for the children" is not a part of the scientific method. Now he's no different the Babs Streisand or Meyl Streep.
Hansen is the poster child for AGW and it appears he's fully made the transition from scientist to political activist. And if you believe this isn't a common mindset throughout the AGW community, I have a Hummer that get's 100mpg to sell you. They are just too chicken shit to say it outright.
Given the potentially huge cost involved in the trend continuing (like the loss of most coastal cities in the world and lots of arable land), doesn't it make sense to do something about the one controllable factor in the equation? Even if we're not 100% sure?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this shit you should have had all figured out before you even applied to whatever company, agency, government, etc, you got the money from?
WTF is this? I can only hope you didn't get money from the feds.
"Hey, look! The feds gave me a shit load of money to get this cool super computer...what should I do with it?"
Seriously...if you got any government money for this then you are first class tool for not having all of this known before you even applied.
WTF is this even doing in a "Jobs" bill. Wait. I know. It;s not a Jobs bill. It's the annual payoff Democratic donors Bill. A grab bag of Dem pork.
Fuck you all.
I am saying that the only practical solution to the issue of AGW is nuclear power. It is the only technology that can replace the base load function of fossil fuels and eliminate CO2 production from energy generation.
Anyone who advocates drastic action on the part of government to limit CO2 production and yet does not embrace the only practical solution to the problem is disingenuous at best.
You obviously misread the original post because it is clear that I was speaking of "serious" in the context of advocating government action.
So they all need to put up or shut up. If it is bad as they say, then regardless of their personal feelings on nuclear, they need to push for great deployment. They can look at it as the lessor of two evils if they want. Most others will look at it as reliable power at reasonable cost.
"their literary value, or their impact on culture, there's not much to teach"
Considering that the impact on culture is huge, in fact the primary driver of our current civilization, I'd say there is plenty to teach.
Bitching about a situation and then rejecting the obvious solution means you either don't believe you are that bad off or you just like to bitch.
So...Climate Science is political or not political?
Climate Scientists are trying to tell us what we can and should do, or not?
A scientists can't claim to be apolitical in their work and then be political in their private life.
Haven't you guys learned anything from your statements on how a scientist can't be skeptical of evolution and a be a good scientist at the same time?
The only people making it political are politicians backed by big money interests who stand to lose money by policy changes.
Whoops
If all these scientists and government panels are serious and truly believe we face a crises, then they would be advocating for nuclear power.
The fact that they don't and instead embrace politically attractive, yet ineffective technology leads the casual observer to doubt the veracity of their urgency.
AGW, not AGE
AGW proponents have already stated that AGW will result in more hurricanes. A statement which has not been supported by empirical evidence.
But just wait. Eventually we will have more severe hurricanes as the natural cycle occurs and suddenly, then weather will be come climate.
And are the AGE advocates not the one's making the claims?
Yet all we hear are them saying that it is the skeptics show must prove AGW wrong?
Snow Skiing in CO in July? Weather.
50+ consecutive days of 100+ degrees in Texas? Global Warming!
So this is what I hear...don't belive in AGW?...prove it wrong. You think chaos theory should apply...prove it!
Somehow I'm missing where the burden of proof falls on you.
I'd be happy if they "proved" AGW. Tell me again what repeatable experiments were done on the earth?
Tell a man there are a billion stars in the galaxy and he'll believe you; tell him the paint is wet and that he'll need to pay you $$$, plus find another way to work, stop running his air conditioner, and, BTW, if he doesn't believe you, he is the modern day equivalent of a racist, you’re damned right he’s gonna touch it to make sure. And it better be fucking wet, not just a bit tacky.
While it's not exactly a peer reviewed protest, James hansen was recently arrested protesting...you guessed it, a fossil fuel enabling device, aka the Keystone Pipeline.
Among the "scientific" things he said were, "Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts.” and "“For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we must find somebody who is working for our dream.”
I'm no scientists, but I dare say invoking "for the children" is not a part of the scientific method. Now he's no different the Babs Streisand or Meyl Streep.
Hansen is the poster child for AGW and it appears he's fully made the transition from scientist to political activist. And if you believe this isn't a common mindset throughout the AGW community, I have a Hummer that get's 100mpg to sell you. They are just too chicken shit to say it outright.
Given the potentially huge cost involved in the trend continuing (like the loss of most coastal cities in the world and lots of arable land), doesn't it make sense to do something about the one controllable factor in the equation? Even if we're not 100% sure?
That is not science. That is politics.
You are a case in point.
...you don't need something is usually looking to take something away or prevent you from acquiring it.
Without information about their position, the pilots were forced to abort their mission and return to South Korea
My, what did pilots do before GPS?
Instead of being "forced to perform an emergency landing" it was probably more like they had the intel they needed and were done for the day.
Candle makers across Europe are building up their inventory.
Already H.R. reps are looking for people with at least 1 year "in depth" experience in DART
If you paid money for it, then you are allowed to complain all you want.
It was called the CB radio. And that was in the 70s.
Now I KNOW you need some seriously potent recreational drugs. :-)