[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel
Hi Ruth,
I believe that what you are seeing here is the Nuclear Industry doing what
it does best! Absolutely nothing! All those PhD's, (where the Ph stands
for Philosophy), get into philosophical discussions and forget what it is
that's really important. Some people call it navel gazing! It's like when
your kid has a fever and everyone knows, and you do too, that the best thing
to do is to give your kid an Aspirin, but you want to know what it is that's
causing the fever and you withhold the aspirin because you want to know what
the root cause of the fever is because you are a "scientist" and you must
make a "rational" decision and so on and so on and in the meantime your kid
dies.........
The F#$@%*() Earth is dying and these guys are looking for the logic....
Maybe they should be looking for the ILLogic!!!
The Nuclear Industry is in a Death Spiral. Their heads are buried in the
sand, and not just the Oil sands; this time it's quicksand! And they are
being sucked in.... Too bad... They are actually very intelligent
people... Not too smart, but very intelligent...
Cheers,
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Ruth
Sponsler
Sent: 20 March 2007 6:41 PM
To: Bill Garland; Pennington, Charles; Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and Nuclear
Energy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel
The communication problem stems from the extreme positions taken on the two
sides and the implications of those extremes.
I notice very little room nor patience for positions in the middle of the
extremes.
Here are the two extremes with regard to the climate change issue:
1. Greenpeace et al. All technology is bad. Climate change is a dire
emergency. Ban all technology except maybe a few windmills LOL.
2. This list. Humans have zero impact on the climate.
Fossil fuel burning is not a problem and should be
unlimited. All technology is good.
What are the implications of the extreme positions?
If society goes with position no. 1, we get to enjoy the classic freezing in
the dark. If we go with position no. 2, we'll stay with a permanent status
quo of rather unregulated coal burning. It's the cheapest,
lowest-investment thing to do. As I stated before, there will be no
*incentive* to use a cleaner, more up-to-date technology.
It's apparent that there is no room and no patience for a middle position
that might try to mitigate some of the impacts of fossil fuels by techniques
such as realistic technology substitution. (like nuclear instead of coal).
At my blog, I have repeatedly criticized Al Gore for his refusal to endorse
nuclear energy. I have repeatedly said that Al Gore is pandering to the
extreme anti-nuclear crowd.
However, I am willing to listen to what climate scientists like Kerry
Emanuel say. Kerry Emanuel believes that huge emissions of CO2 are a
problem.
In the previous email, no one acknowledged that Kerry Emanuel was
criticizing anti-nuclear extremists in this passage:
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
====
QUOTE
Especially in the United States, the political debate about global climate
change became polarized along the conservative-liberal axis some decades
ago. Although we take this for granted now, it is not entirely obvious why
the chips fell the way they did. One can easily imagine conservatives
embracing the notion of climate change in support of actions they might like
to see anyway. Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear
power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on foreign oil. The
United States is renowned for its technological innovation and should be at
an advantage in making money from any global sea change in energy-producing
technology: consider the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles
and electrical generation to China's rapidly expanding economy. But none of
this has happened.
Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A meaningful reduction in
greenhouse-gas emissions will require a shift in the means of producing
energy, as well as conservation measures. But such alternatives as nuclear
and wind power are viewed with deep ambivalence by the left. Senator
Kennedy, by most measures our most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a
project to develop wind energy near his home in Hyannis, and
environmentalists have only just begun to rethink their visceral opposition
to nuclear power.
NOTE=======>Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today
might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France;
thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for
today's most critical environmental problem. <==========
There are other obstacles to taking a sensible approach to the climate
problem. We have preciously few representatives in Congress with a
background or interest in science, and some of them display an active
contempt for the subject. As long as we continue to elect scientific
illiterates like James Inhofe, who believes global warming to be a hoax, we
will lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate.
Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but
their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking
lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the
kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this
profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists
will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.
UNQUOTE
====
The thing that bothers me is the tendency toward extremism on this issue.
A position in the middle like that of Dr. Kerry Emanuel falls on deaf ears
because it does not satisfy either of the two partisan camps: the
anti-nuclear/hysterical_about_the_climate_crowd, or the
CO2_poses_zero_problem_for_the_climate viewpoint
seen here.
~Ruth
--- Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> Ruth,
>
> I didn't hear anyone here advocate coal. Like Morgan and (everyone
> here on this list, I suspect), I advocate nuclear as a way to reduce
> our impact on this earth. I agree that the CC movement is one that
> strengthens the cause of nuclear but I cannot use CC as an argument to
> support nuclear unless I am convinced that CC is caused primarily by
> humans. As has been clearly expressed, one doesn't want to get
> associated with bad science. I think the current CC frenzy is based
> on bad science and apparently I am not alone. You may not agree with
> my statement that CC is based on bad science (and that is okay), but
> you should be able to follow the logic. What is not clear about this?
> I am curious why we are talking at cross purposes on what appears to
> me to be a simple line of discussion.
> Maybe I am using
> words that mean something else to you. If we techies can't
> communicate, it does not bode well for our communication to the rest
> of the world!
>
> Bill
>
>
> At 04:04 PM 20/03/2007, Ruth Sponsler wrote:
> >So...
> >
> >No room for thought or consideration, I guess.
> >Obviously, my reply went right in one ear and out t'other. No one
> >heard anything I said about the utility of DDT for indoor malaria
> >control nor about
> my
> >reading of the favorability of scientific lit. on adaptive response
> >(hormesis).
> >
> >So, let's stick with 100-year old coal technology, then.
> >
> >Gee...why am I driving a Prius and not a Modcel T?
> >
> >I guess the French are all wrong that nuke might be
> a
> >good technology for the climate. The Germans get
> to
> >go to their silly extremes and ban nuclear...while they promote
> >(hypocritically) their silly 5% or whatever it is of renewables...and
> >burn
> coal/Russian
> >natural gas for the other 95%.
> >
> >Lemme know when the IPO for the big coal proposal
> is
> >going to be. Maybe I'll throw a hundred bucks in
> and
> >make a hypocritical note of sorrow about 'dem coal miners.
> >
> >If we can just emit as much CO2 as we want into the atmosphere, then,
> >
> >GO FOR IT! GO COAL!
> >
> >No reason to raise the up-front capital to purchase the steel
> >forgings, expensive machining, technical skill, concrete and other
> >infrastructure for nuke.
> >Why?? What's the reason to spend all that money.
> >Shoot...why not erect some illegal coal-burners
> like
> >the Chinese are doing? Cheap as dirt...no emission controls.
> >Particulates? Bah, humbug!
> >
> >Meanwhile...
> >
> >I'll sit home and listen to my old LPs and watch
> those
> >dusty old VHS tapes.
> >
> >/sarcasm off
> >
> >Meanwhile, everyone around me will be using CDs and DVDs...
> >
> >It just might be better to tell the truth about the low percentages
> >of renewables and the very REAL potential of nuclear energy to cut
> >particulate pollution, coal mine deaths and even CO2.
> >
> >~Ruth
> >left-wing Greenpeace global warming anti-nuclear extremist LOL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > I think Charles has hit the nail on the head.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > At 01:46 PM 20/03/2007, Ruth Sponsler wrote:
> > > >Thank you for an explanation of where some
> folks
> > > >stand.
> > > ><snip>
> > > >--- "Pennington, Charles"
> <cpennington@nacintl.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > ><snip>
> > > >
> > > >The discomfort most of us nukes feel is that we
> > > look around at the
> > > >people who are supporting the global warming
> > > hysteria and we see the
> > > >same players that fear-mongered the world on
> low
> > > level ionizing
> > > >radiation, ALAR/pesticides, ozone holes,
> > > electro-mag radiation,
> > > >red-dye number take-your-pick, and all the rest
> of
> > > the falling-sky
> > > >scenarios. These folks are dominated by the
> > > anti-techs. Does the
> > > >science support getting into bed with that
> group on
> > > global
> > > >warming? To date, some of us nukes say it
> doesn't.
> > > Yes, support
> > > >for human-caused global warming may help the
> > > resurgence of nuclear
> > > >power, but, at the end of the day, nuclear
> power is
> > > a technology and
> > > >bad science is still junk. Our support could
> hurt
> > > the nuclear cause
> > > >in the long run.
> > > >
> > > > > My two cents.
> > > > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Bill Garland, Executive Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of
> > > Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB 117, McMaster University,
> > > Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel: (905)525-9140
> x24925
> > > Fax: (905)528-4339
> > > Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
> > > Web:<www.nuceng.ca> <http://canteach.candu.org> <www.unene.ca>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>_____________
> >It's here! Your new message!
> >Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
>
>http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
> >_______________________________________________
> >cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> >cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
>
>http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
>
> Bill Garland, Executive Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of
> Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB 117, McMaster University, Hamilton,
> Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel: (905)525-9140 x24925
> Fax: (905)528-4339
> Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
> Web:<www.nuceng.ca> <http://canteach.candu.org> <www.unene.ca>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie
showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 20/03/2007
08:07