[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: Very Interesting Book: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (Ruth Sponsler)
Hello Brent -
Yes - I am quite well aware of the creationism debate.
I believe there's quit a bit of this going on - both
on the "right" ad on the "left."
Regarding the people who think that anthropogenic
global warming [AWG] is happening, I am
concerned about the politics of the issue. I think
that there are too many "hangers-on" in the yes-AGW
camp who are in the Sierra Club type crowd i.e. who
are anti-nuclear.
These people refuse to understand that nuclear
construction bans [such as in Germany and California]
just lead to more fossil fuel use. They aren't
realistic about the numbers concerning energy...they
think that renewables are a panacea as a carbon-free
energy source.
About the best way to generate the quantity of energy
needed to replace fossil fuels is to use nuclear. As
an example, one nuclear power plant in New Jersey
generates 3.7 times the amount of energy that NJ's
~entire~ fleet of renewable energy generates.
See
http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-about-oyster-creek_01.html
This is one of the reasons that, at my blog, I
emphasize the connection between Dr. Alvin Weinberg
and some of the original GW research during the 1970s.
I'm kind of trying to get the GW science back to its
original owner because the "environmental movement"
[anti-nuke crowd] has tried to appropriate it.
Their anti-nuclear stance is a large part of the
reason that I think the "environmental movement" is an
ideologically dominated joke.
I guess part of the problem is that I don't like to
jump on bandwagons - I like to think for myself.
However, we had a wonderful snowtorm in the mountains
today, which may calm a bit of the GW talk. :-)
~Ruth
--- "WILLIAMS Brent(B) - BRUCE POWER"
<Brent.Williams@brucepower.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> RE: Ruth's comment on the uniqueness of skepticism
> in science:
>
> Ruth, have you done an internet search on creation
> evangelism lately? I
> think we're seeing social trends where people who do
> not have the time,
> desire or ability to check the fidelity of their
> data are making
> judgments about fact, and then using political
> methods to get their
> views implemented.
>
> Brent Williams
> Canadian Affairs Chair
> North American Young Generation in Nuclear
> www.na-ygn.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
> [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]
> On Behalf Of
> cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:01 PM
> To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
> Subject: cdn-nucl-l digest, Vol 1 #2197 - 2 msgs
>
> Send cdn-nucl-l mailing list submissions to
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman.McMaster.CA
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of cdn-nucl-l digest..."
>
>
> This is a digest version of the
> Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
> _______________________________________________
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Very Interesting Book: Unstoppable Global
> Warming: Every
> 1,500 Years (Andrew Daley)
> 2. RE: Very Interesting Book: Unstoppable Global
> Warming: Every
> 1,500 Years (Ruth Sponsler)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:09:13 -0500 (EST)
> From: Andrew Daley <andrew_l_daley@yahoo.ca>
> Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Very Interesting Book:
> Unstoppable Global
> Warming: Every 1,500 Years
> To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
> <CDN-NUCL-L@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>
>
> --0-1606073324-1168290553=:44102
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> I also interpreted the previous post as Bill did
> orginally...glad to
> hear I was wrong :-)
>
> That ebing said I think skepticism in science is
> an extremely goos
> thing...after all how long did we have four elements
> (earth wind air
> fire) with no skepticism??
>
> Thge other point I like to make should someone not
> buy the GW argument
> is the ehalth argument... Is it in Toronto alone or
> in Ontario that the
> OMA esptimates around 800 deaths a year due to air
> pollution??? The
> sources of this and GHG are usually the same!!!
>
> We have double the reason to eliminate GHG!
>
> Ruth Sponsler <jk5554@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's ~not what I'm saying.
>
> I am curious why the skepticism of science regarding
> climate change
> persists on this list, though. I don't see much
> skepticism of other
> areas of science here....I wonder why there is
> climate skepticism here.
>
> I believe that enough climatological and carbon
> dioxide data has been
> gathered to show that something is going on.
>
> Do you have trouble believing what NOAA and the
> British Meteorological
> office have to say about the matter?
>
>
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/ann06.html
> [preliminary - Dec. data not available yet]
>
>
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
>
> I realize the matter is highly politicized. I think
> this is a bad thing
> - the politicization started during the 1980s.
>
> The politicization of the data started back in the
> 1980s. Fortunately,
> Dr. Alvin Weinberg took the wise road of going with
> scientific
> investigation. See
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Kfunds.htm
>
> ~Ruth
>
>
>
>
> --- Bill Garland wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I misunderstand you but it appears that
> you are suggesting
> > that we accept the CC consensus because it
> supports our nuclear cause.
>
> > Is my understanding correct?
> >
> > At 01:08 PM 08/01/2007, Ruth Sponsler wrote:
> > >Hello to all -
> > >
> > >Thanks to Mr. Dukelow for sharing the link to the
> direct rebuttal.
> > >
> > >I find it hard to understand why those of us who
> > share
> > >the scientific consensus that nuclear energy is a
> > safe
> > >way to generate electricity wouldn't also share
> the general consensus
>
> > >on climate change.
> > >
> > >Climate change is a huge argument in favor of
> > nuclear
> > >power, and Dr. Alvin Weinberg was well aware of
> > this
> > >even back in 1975. Weinberg helped fund the
> > research
> > >that led to the "Keeling curve" of rising CO2
> > levels.
> > >
> > >
> > >Ruth Sponsler
> > >
> >
>
>http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/2006/10/alvin-weinberg-and-carbon-diox
> >ide.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- "Dukelow, James S Jr"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Those wanting a counter-point to the
> suggestions
> > of
> > > > Jerry and Bill can find it at
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/paleocl
> >imate/
> > > >
> > > > This contains a direct rebuttal by climate
> > scientist
> > > > David Archer of some of the points in the
> Singer/Avery book. Also
> > > > accessible on the same
> > page
> > > > -- you will need to click on "Comments" -- are
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com