on global warming

[chesters1]

nuclear powered honda 90 cooooooolllll

[Steve Walker]

Chernobyl? Three Mile island, no where to put the waste? nuclear proliferation ............... ring any bells?! ;)

 

We may have avoided global warming, but would have very different global catastophies on our hands. Its also bl**dy expensive!

 

We are led to believe that global warming is the single biggest threat to humanity. I think that puts Chernobyl into perspective. The risks of nuclear energy have been massively exaggerated because of an ideological objection which appears to stem from the common roots of the Green movement and organisations like CND. Even setting aside the issue of global warming, the environmental damage caused by the coal and petroleum industries and the generation of power from those fuels makes nuclear look clean.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

OK my own view which is widely known is along the lines of Chesters - which is that this is cyclic and basically what we have developed in the last 50 or a 100 years is a rather scary attitude towards anything scientific (and worse, to anything scientific which isn't easy to explain), which has lead us to the conclusion that everything must have cause and effect. Lets not forget many global warming scientists will be living the high life in million pound houses with two beamers on the front drive).

 

So, what causes global warming? CO2 - highly unlikely - CO2 is generated from every living organism just about, and before any of you quote trees as recycling this air, that is complete unscientific babble they teach us at school. Algae (from what I understand) is the main reason why our planet survives, because it is responsibile for the vast majority of photosynthesis on the planet. It is a fact that somewhere between 96 and 98% of carbon emissions are from nature and cannot be stopped. Cars account for less than 1% of total carbon emissions. So we are expected to believe this extra 1% has pushed the earth over the edge into a catacalysmic chain of destruction.

 

With regards to the rate of change I refer you back to my earlier point! Find one scientist who can explain what El nino is, why it occurs, why it is cyclic and why is causes hurricanes and odd natural weather - they will struggle. However, we are expected to accept that such 'phenomena' occur in nature. I don't really think anyone can categorically prove the earth is getting warmer based on in-depth studies over a period of 20 years. It could just as easily run bloody cold again - in which case it wasn't climate change but an odd few years!

 

The truth behind global warming is it is a fad, which governments have seen as being a very clever way to control the populus to fall in line with their way of thinking. Recycling is considerably more convienient for the government (since it solves many issues with landfills) BUT isn't always green (see Skys report on them sending carrier bags to china to be recycled). Fining people for not recycling - even better (more cash). Pricing motorists out of the market (more cash) BUT more to the point the government knows in 20 years we may well be in the predicament that motoring becomes more awkward as fuel prices increase, reserves deplete and new technologies which will be incredibly expensive take time to break through.

 

Choice is simply a matter of perception created by people with power to appease those without power - we are given this 'be green or be mean' propoganda - with truly very little real scientific backing (how many times has TB addressed the nation with technical data?), however, the cynic in me suspects its more about control of the masses, than it truthfully is about the environment.

 

The argument for nuclear or not is a no brainer. It *will* happen, but again, typical labour party diversions mean it will be left to a Conservative government to put into practice AND THEN labour will criticise them for the decision, get power back in ten years, but convieniently run these power stattions 'because they are there'.

[kleinboet]

UKFT - Good posting, however we must weigh up Nuclear power with risk (however small) of an accident. The Yanks dropped two bombs in Japan, and have a look at the films of the results.

We are only human and humans make mistakes, the biggest one we are making at the moment is not to trust technology - we have the technology today that could build Nuclear power stations that would be 100% automatic, thus eliminating an "human caused accident, but we don't trust it!

But why are we not using renewable energy, The Severn estuary (Severn Bore and all), tidal generators in places like Clevedon where the tidal change is very high, The government want to do what THEY want to do and never mind common sense!

Edited February 25, 2007 by kleinboet

[Guest tigger]

I live on a hill.

 

 

Me too, the rest of um are "DOOMED"

[Steve Walker]

UKFT - Good posting, however we must weigh up Nuclear power with risk (however small) of an accident. The Yanks dropped two bombs in Japan, and have a look at the films of the results.

 

They did, and the devastation was horrific, and the survivors suffered and died from radiological illnesses for many years afterwards. However, look at Hiroshima now with Google Earth; it's a normal city. My car was built there. Look at the modern buildings in the background of the ruined dome. Even a deliberate nuclear explosion does not render a place wasteland forever.

 

[gozzer]

I live on a hill.

 

That's not Noddys, (ooops sorry), I mean Nodes Hill is it Huge?

 

 

I too live on a hill, but as the UK is tilting, with the south sinking, and the north rising, your hill will be of little use.

 

John.

[DavyR]

we have the technology today that could build Nuclear power stations that would be 100% automatic, thus eliminating an "human caused accident, but we don't trust it!

 

There's little difference between a "human caused accident" and an accident caused by a computer that's been programmed by a human.

[Guest tigger]

They did, and the devastation was horrific, and the survivors suffered and died from radiological illnesses for many years afterwards. However, look at Hiroshima now with Google Earth; it's a normal city. My car was built there. Look at the modern buildings in the background of the ruined dome. Even a deliberate nuclear explosion does not render a place wasteland forever.

 

 

 

I bet you wouldn't buy a house there !

Edited February 27, 2007 by tigger

[Vagabond]

Do we care if London and Norfolk flood ?

 

Not a lot, unless we live there .

 

Like Huge, I live on a hill.

 

Could send Peter Waller my spare pair of thigh waders though .

 

... but to be a bit more serious, a really big volcanic eruption (ie bigger than Mt St Helens and Krakatoa put together) would produce a fall-out that would acidify the oceans - and quickly - to a greater extent than all man's efforts since the industrial revolution.

 

....and as for man-made emissions, air traffic in India (just one example of many) has quadrupled over the last decade (and why shouldn't it - they have as much reason to travel as anyone else) - so that puts cycling to work to save CO2 emissions into perspective.

 

...and even cycling produces CO2.

 

...and wind farms are made of metal, metal needs energy to produce it, and so on and so on.....

 

Basic law of science, you can't get energy from nothing.