How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

Agreed that diversifying makes total sense.
But should we totally abandon our substantial coal deposits for nuclear?
If CO2 is not really substantially effecting the climate,cant we just clean the soot from coal plants and get a cheaper cleaner method to power EVs?
Electricity thats cheaper and cleaner and safer than nukes,and also domestically produced.
Unfortunately we are moving to nukes before science has any actual proof of any impending catastrophic global warming.
AGW scientists have hypothesis only,and those hypothesis are weak.
Shunichi Akasofu , founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre,
calls computer climate models as accurate as using "Ancient Astrology"
But then, hes also anti- nuclear industry.
I as well,dont trust any science whos funding was lobbied for by Enron ,Goldman Sachs,and the nuclear energy industry.

 

Reiterating your opinion over and over in this thread, does not make your opinions fact. I still question your sources if you think that Enron was the instigator of AGW research As for Shunichi Akasofu, please direct us to a peer reviewed paper which he does say computer climate models are as accurate as using "ancient astrology". When I google, I find a similar article on 5 polled Japanese scientists as you've already linked before (when you were claiming that 90% of all Japanese "scientists" were questioning AGW). I'd rather side with the 100% peer reviewed scientific papers vs some opinion driven articles....

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made ? The Register

 

Who said anything about nuclear? The answer to this crisis is not nuclear. It would take twenty years to nuclearize the country, and in another 40 years, when those plants are ready to be decommissioned, we'd have enough radioactive waste for every backyard terrorist in the country to build a dirty bomb. The answer is renewables, principally solar and wind, but also some niche renewables like micro-hydro, tidal, etc.

Of course, there are some folks who figure "After me, the flood," who just don't give a rat's nice person what happens after they're gone. "Why should I have to pay taxes just so the next generation can have a life?" It's the environmental side of our monetary policy of mortgaging the country up to its eyeballs and letting the next generation deal with the debt.

 

Obama.
The whole effect of Cap and Trade is to bankrupt the coal industry and enrich the nuclear industry.

 

Perhaps Chu (who is a big Nuclear fan), but Obama in the past has been a big fan of "clean coal".

See above.

Personally - I wouldn't be upset if the coal industry shrunk dramatically, but it's not going to happen until something comes along that is economical enough to replace it.

Right now, natural gas is doing that - and at least natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal.

In the short term natural gas is so cheap that it has basically put any plans for new nuclear plants on hold.

In the medium term current natural gas prices aren't sustainable at current prices and renewables aren't yet ramping up fast enough to make a large dent in fossil fuel generation. But it takes so long to build a nuclear plant they won't producing electricity any time soon, either.

In the long term, a mix of nuclear and renewables with a much lower concentration of fossil fuels have to be the solution. But we won't get there through the free market until it's too late.

 

Loosely translated from Japanese, the title of this study ...
"Nuke industry whore Western Scientists use Ancient Astrology to divine AGW"

Seriously, this study of recovery from the Little Ice Age and natural decade cycles shows recent warming is natural.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

 

While that report claims that it's "natural", since it follows an earlier trend, it does not seem to offer any hypothesis on what is driving the recent warming.

The LIA was caused by decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity - however, the last half-century has not seen a increase of solar activity or a decrease of volcanic activity.

In fact, solar activity was recently at an all time low - yet nearly all of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade.

 

I don't understand.....in nowhere in this paper does Akasofu say anything about ancient astrology. So you're deriving this "loosely" translated title from a translation of a translation of a translation??

The title of this paper is 'Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change:' Your title seems way more appropriate for a tabloid article vs a scientific paper.

 

That's very clever.

So topsoil, wood, petroleum, water, fish, morons ...

what else haven't we run out of?

.

 

The supply of morons is increasing exponentially. Everything else on your list is rapidly approaching exhaustion.

 

equally as clever, nice work.

 

Seriously? You're going to keep posting in this thread without answering the pertinent question that has been asked of you countless times now? (Most recently in post 216, and also in 217. Several times before that as well. All completely ignored.

By everybody's definition but yours, some resources have been depleted. They're gone. They don't exist today, after having existed yesterday. But since you've never told us what a resource is (nor what "depleted" means by your definition, you keep claiming that we're wrong. Obviously you're enjoying yourself, so I don't mean to harsh your mellow here, but damn. What is it that you're trying to achieve here if NOT just stirring the pot?(what I accused you of after you first chimed into the thread)

 

Never argue with a troll fool. Onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.

 

Aw heck. That's my whole point. There is nothing to argue about! I look at it more as "exposing" than "arguing."

 

You'll have to pardon me, I find the name-calling distracting.

I think I've been clear, but maybe not.

Are we without essentials?

Have the materials we use to power our lives, from homes to cars, including the requisite building materials been exhausted?

Are we without food and water ... has Earth run dry of our essential resources for life?

Any of them?

A list of flowers and exotic woods just simply doesn't qualify.

Wood has not been depleted, it is not exhausted, it is not in short supply, and we are not at risk of running out of it.

These are facts.

Nothing I posted has endorsed poor environmental stewardship or exploitation,

but on the other hand, we are not out of petroleum, we are not running out of petroleum, and anyone who claims that worldwide demand will outstrip supply is without the requisite facts to support this assertion.

I'm not denying the Dust Bowl. Tragedy. No question.
I'm not denying the Irish Potato Famine either. Another tragedy.

We have learned from both. Both were localized.

And we are not without topsoil or potatoes.

So labels of troll and moron aside,

there is no historical evidence that we've exhausted natural resources in our past that we are without today.

Further, technology has made us more efficient, we do more with less, and will continue to do so, and necessity is the mother of invention ... and as such we develop and continue to develop new and better ways to do more ... with less.

I oppose arbitrary legislation that mandates behavior based upon further arbitrary assumptions ...

for example that using oil enriches terrorists, or that we've depleted or are depleting supplies to the point of exhaustion.

Neither of these two assertions are factually accurate.

And to be called a troll, fool, or moron for having an alternative perspective than some other Prius owners reflects poorly upon them.

Suppressing alternative viewpoints and dissent through ad hominem attacks is juvenile, unprofessional and downright embarrassing.

So if fellas want to have a pissing match, then simply identify this elusive resource which we've exploited and depleted to the point of exhaustion.

 

Well the last post I had with you, I thought it might start a true discussion: if you are truely interested in that.

So the "we" in this case is the United States. We're blessed with cheaper fuel prices, we can import resources, and many of us even pay a bit for drinking water! Both the potato famine and the dust bowl are events that effected the US in the past...but we aren't in any dire turmoil since we are industrialized enough to find any alternatives in resources.

Other people in the world are without essentials: there's an estimated 668 million people without drinking wate for example. They've either exhausted their drinking supply by poluting local water, or they can't afford to import water.

Where are your facts that worldwide demand won't outstrip supply? I would think the depletion of oil wells in Texas and the higher demand for offshore drilling are indicators that oil supply is not limitless. World demand is also increasing as more countries become industrialized and require more oil.

 

Folks in Bangladesh have died from arsenic poisoned water since fresh water that is not contaminated was not available. It matters little to them that there are vast supplies elsewhere. It turns out that the money needed is also in short supply.

 

No, I am not referring to the United States, and I am endeavoring to have a genuine honest conversation.

I'm acknowledging per previous posts that the Dust Bowl and Potato Famine occurred, and were tragic, albeit localized, and that neither the worldwide supply of top soil, nor the worldwide supply of potatoes, have been depleted to exhaustion, then or now.

Regarding the estimate of the 668 million without potable water ...
you have to see that suggesting 668 million are without potable water is tantamount to saying that 668 million people will be dead in three days for lack of water.

It's simply not the case.

I don't know if its hyperbole, but to me it just does not make sense.
Thus, it does become difficult to try to parse the truth from simple exaggeration to outright lies.

Going with the assertion for just a moment, that 668 million are without potable water, it cannot be simply because it is too expensive.

Expenses can be covered by the market finding a way to profit from delivering potable water to such a large marketplace, or by charitable means ranging from foreign governments to NGO, private agencies and charities as well as religious organizations.

Nevertheless, I would dare to say that regions lacking in potable water are probably more a result of tyranny than any other single factor.

I think I addressed the distribution earlier, but it is my contention that there more than adequate resources to provide healthy fresh food and water to everyone on earth, and that other factors intervene to prevent such a thing.

I am going to look into the estimate you referenced regarding the 668 million without potable water and will try educate myself on the matter.

And where are your facts that worldwide demand will strip supply?
Historically, it has never happened, and there are no current facts available to presume it will.

There is nothing but for one theory that demand will "outstrip" supply to use your terminology. Suffice it to say, I'm suggesting depleted to the point of exhaustion.

 

Progressives have a unique fealty to tragedy, and it has worked its way into the vernacular.

Were I to tell a story of how I was razzed by a cop, I'd have to begin by clearly stating that "most cops are good," or "not all cops are bad," before beginning my narrative in earnest.

Another example is, if one were to discuss or debate any of the 1000's of worldwide terrorist attacks of the past decade, one must begin by acknowledging that not all extremists are Muslim, and not all Muslims extreme, but for a small minority.

I feel this is the case with your post.

I acknowledge the horrible tragedy of the Bangladeshi's contaminated water, but that does not change the fact that the world is not without fresh water, nor is such a peril on the horizon.

Should more be done for the Bangladeshi? Absolutely, without question.
It appears that numerous mitigation strategies have been and are being employed. That doesn't change the fact that this is tragic.

But while it matters little to the Bangladeshi that there are vast supplies of fresh water elsewhere, it does not change the fact that there are vast supplies of fresh water elsewhere.

 

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water"]Drinking water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Oh, I'm sorry, one estimate is as high as 1.1 billion people without safe drinking water. And no, non safe drinking water isn't categorized as that what will kill you in 3 days. Potable water is that which is free from parasites and pathogens...there's an estimated 1.8 million people a year that die from unsafe water, while others get disease and malnutrition.

That's seems like a gross undersimplification to me. Sure, there are some developing areas that do have factions that are denying aid to their poor. But there are other areas that simply lack a proper infrastructure for its total population: especially countries that are only now becoming industrialized (studies show that the cost of water distribution is much cheaper in highly industrialized countries vs poorer countries).

Eh, my assertion was the Texas oil wells that have been depleted. Oil companies are spending more money going to more remote areas to drill for oil. Here is the breakdown of current estimated World oil reserves:

Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is annual energy consumption (which just as you'd expect...is going up):

World energy resources and consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So there is an estimated fossil fuel reserve, as well as an ever increasing demand for fuel. But you're stilll asserting that there's a limitless supply of fossil fuels and that world demand on fossil fuels isn't going up? I'd like to see such evidence...