Kyoto-Are Americans Eco-Terrorists?

[Allegro]

Pengwuino wrote:
''I find it funny that people are against anything nuclear...''

Not funny at all,just think about the disasters that happened (Harrisburg,Tsjernobil...),and will happen again.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Much of the motivation for Kyoto comes from the psychological attitude that any climatic change is bad and if something bad is happening it must be humans fault. It is much like the attitude expressed by volcanic island residents when the volcano becomes active. They assume they must have done something bad that offended the volcano god and they must do something to appease this god.

The situation is exacerbated by the tendency of the media to hype everything and look for simple explanations that journalists and politicians can understand. The idea that the amount of CO2 can function as a global thermostat appeals to the desire for simple explanations. Besides CO2 can be portrayed as an "evil" gas because it is exhaled by the body and is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

Thus we have the theory that humans are at fault for causing a climate change that will lead to alll kinds of disasters by producing the evil gas CO2.

The idea that climate can have a simple explanation ignores the fact that climate/weather research played a major role in establishing the field of study called "chaos".

 

[antfm]

Anyway, Kyoto will be fulfilled (reducing a 15 to 20% CO2 emissions by 2050). Or perhaps Kyoto was innecessary.
According to the estimates, there will be no fossil fuels available by then (the optimistic surveys give 60 years to availability of fossil fuels, and the pessimistic just 30 years; in any case...)

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino wrote:
''I find it funny that people are against anything nuclear...''

Not funny at all,just think about the disasters that happened (Harrisburg,Tsjernobil...),and will happen again.

Judging by what you say, you know little about nuclear energy. Chernobyl was caused by bad safety practices and a bad reactor design not used in the United States. Three mile island was only a partial meltdown and not a "disaster". As we all know, nuclear energy, once mined and discounting samples and depleted material, gives off no pollutants as opposed to coal and oil which give off CO2 which according to the world, is horrible and should be fully dealth with. Look at France, 75% of their electricity is nuclear... funny, i never hear of people complaining about nuclear power that are french.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Judging by what you say, you know little about nuclear energy. Chernobyl was caused by bad safety practices and a bad reactor design not used in the United States. Three mile island was only a partial meltdown and not a "disaster". As we all know, nuclear energy, once mined and discounting samples and depleted material, gives off no pollutants as opposed to coal and oil which give off CO2 which according to the world, is horrible and should be fully dealth with. Look at France, 75% of their electricity is nuclear... funny, i never hear of people complaining about nuclear power that are french.

Coal fired plants also emit some radioactive carbon. Oil and coal plants also produce several other pollutants that may adversely affect health including mercury.

 

[Andre]

Coal fired plants also emit some radioactive carbon.

Radioactive carbon is generated in the atmosphere under cosmic bombardment:

14N + n => 14C + p The amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere is proportional with the cosmic activity. The radioactive carbon enters the carbon cycle by photosynthesis. Hence green plants are the most radioactive. 14C has a half value time of about 5700 years so the amount in the organisms and fossil remains decays with time. The carbon dating method is based on this phenomenon. Consequently very old fossils like coal get depleted of 14C in time and coal is no longer radio-active in a measuable amount due to 14C.

 

[CharlesP]

The March Scientific American has delivered a double blow to Global Warming skeptics. First they lauded Michael Mann then they published Ruddiman's claim that "Humans stopped the ice age."
Supporting Mann was Gavin Schmidt, of NASA Goddard, complaining of "unjustified attack after unjustified attack."
If Ruddiman is right then he has identified a climate effect several orders of magnitude weaker than the modern industrial emissions.

 

[Andre]

Well, since the MBH99 is countered by a multitude of other proxies the hard core of global warming doesn't know how fast to bury the hockeystick:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#1000years

Every global warmer knows that there was a big hockeystick on this page before.

As our clues about the ice ages are likely wrong Ruddiman's trial is irrevelant.

 

[reasonmclucus]

The March Scientific American has delivered a double blow to Global Warming skeptics. First they lauded Michael Mann then they published Ruddiman's claim that "Humans stopped the ice age."
Supporting Mann was Gavin Schmidt, of NASA Goddard, complaining of "unjustified attack after unjustified attack."
If Ruddiman is right then he has identified a climate effect several orders of magnitude weaker than the modern industrial emissions.

I read it and wasn't impressed by the arguments.