Page 6 of 7 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2011, 5:37 pm

LKL wrote:
You are arguing from unpleasant consequences, like a creationist who won't accept evolution because they fear a lack of morals if people are not bible literalists.


What does that have to do with me? I am looking for decent science and I have not found it among the climatologists. Here is an interesting tid-bit for you. If a model has 20- parameters each estimated with 90 percent confidence the total confidence of the model is 12 percent. Are you ready to give up your comfort and health for something like that? I am not.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

25 May 2011, 5:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Here is a critique of the current climate models. You might find it interesting:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/225.pdf

ruveyn


Notice that the report you linked doesn't try to refute AGW nor claim that AGW is negligible. Climate scientists are well aware of the fact that current climate models do not do good job of simulating or predicting regional climate changes. However, the global energy budget can be determined within an error range and it can be demonsted that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases will cause statistically significant warming. The degree of warming varies greatly between individual models but none of the advanced coupled atmosphere/ocean GCM's in use today indicate that anthropogenic greenhouse forcing are small or negligible when compared to natural forcings. The anthropogenic forcing terms may be uncertain in size, but they are always significant and positive in comparison to natural forcings.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,410

25 May 2011, 7:19 pm

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
You are arguing from unpleasant consequences, like a creationist who won't accept evolution because they fear a lack of morals if people are not bible literalists.


What does that have to do with me? I am looking for decent science and I have not found it among the climatologists. Here is an interesting tid-bit for you. If a model has 20- parameters each estimated with 90 percent confidence the total confidence of the model is 12 percent. Are you ready to give up your comfort and health for something like that? I am not.

ruveyn


I'm confused, your own reference stated that the science produced by climatology was valid. Does this mean that you don't agree with your own reference?

Many don't like the Cap and Trade iniative because they don't won't higher electricity prices and are concerned with higher cost of energy driving up prices, and costing everyone. It's not going to pass, close to it's current form as long as the Republicans have control of at least the house.

If we really want energy independence, the motivation and funding has to come from somewhere; it's not going to be close to free. I would hope you wouldn't have to give up you health and comfort for it. But, is energy independence and clean air to breathe worth somekind of sacrifice? In the long run, I think it is.

You, yourself agree that we should move away from carbon based sources; it is going to cost the taxpayer. What other way is there of doing it? After Japan it's not likely the solution is going to be a Nuclear one, anytime soon.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2011, 7:58 pm

aghogday wrote:
You, yourself agree that we should move away from carbon based sources; it is going to cost the taxpayer. What other way is there of doing it? After Japan it's not likely the solution is going to be a Nuclear one, anytime soon.


I said we should get way from Oil. Our oil supply is to much in the hands of nations hostile to ours. Also from the standpoint of air cleanliness we should be burning coal only under conditions where the nasty sulfur compounds can be sequestered somewhere safe.

Fission is the way to go. No air pollution. We do not depend on what mood Saudi Arabia or OPEC is in and we can make lots of electricity. If we use breeder reactors we don't even have to worry to much about disposing of the fuel tailings.

I would say fission is the way to the future.

It is a lot better than what the ecologists want. They want us to go back to living off nuts and berries.

ruveyn



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

25 May 2011, 8:34 pm

:roll: Straw ecologist argument.
Nuts and berries are good. I certainly eat them all the time - though I eat a hell of a lot of other stuff, too, and even here in the hotbed of Earth First! I've never heard anyone advocate luddism.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,410

25 May 2011, 11:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:
You, yourself agree that we should move away from carbon based sources; it is going to cost the taxpayer. What other way is there of doing it? After Japan it's not likely the solution is going to be a Nuclear one, anytime soon.


I said we should get way from Oil. Our oil supply is to much in the hands of nations hostile to ours. Also from the standpoint of air cleanliness we should be burning coal only under conditions where the nasty sulfur compounds can be sequestered somewhere safe.

Fission is the way to go. No air pollution. We do not depend on what mood Saudi Arabia or OPEC is in and we can make lots of electricity. If we use breeder reactors we don't even have to worry to much about disposing of the fuel tailings.

I would say fission is the way to the future.

It is a lot better than what the ecologists want. They want us to go back to living off nuts and berries.

ruveyn


My understanding is Obama is still behind it as part of his overall energy plan, although there is push back from the public after Japan. If we want to continue to supply the nation with electricity and move away from oil and coal, I don't see any alternatives that will supply the nation with it's energy demands; however I think we should still do our best to use alternate energy sources in tandem with Fission; and maybe they will use thorium breeder reactors like they are doing in China.

Without the perceived threat from Climate Change, I think it is less likely that funding would be provided for new Reactors, particularly after the issue in Japan.

I really don't think you have much to be worried about, in regard to your comfort and health, with the energy policy and perceived threats from climate change. The politicians are in charge. They will take good care of you. Their job is on the line.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2011, 1:23 am

aghogday wrote:

I really don't think you have much to be worried about, in regard to your comfort and health, with the energy policy and perceived threats from climate change. The politicians are in charge. They will take good care of you. Their job is on the line.


If you saw my tax bill you would not be saying that. The job of U.S. politicians is to loot Americans and claim it is just their fair share.

ruveyn



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,410

26 May 2011, 12:10 pm

ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:

I really don't think you have much to be worried about, in regard to your comfort and health, with the energy policy and perceived threats from climate change. The politicians are in charge. They will take good care of you. Their job is on the line.


If you saw my tax bill you would not be saying that. The job of U.S. politicians is to loot Americans and claim it is just their fair share.

ruveyn


Haven't your federal income taxes gone down in the last ten years? They've never been lower in the last 50 years. If your taxes are high it is in part due to the state you live in. And just the fact that you pay high taxes must mean that you have a high investment income at your age, since not much of Social Security is taxed.

I understand it's very expensive to live in New Jersey, but if you ever get tired of paying those kind of taxes and the cost of living up there, you could always move to Sunny North Florida, a conservative haven, with no state taxes, and extremely cheap prices for nice homes. And no more snow!!

But, if you live close to family and established friends, there is no price worth the move.

If we really want to go the Breeder Reactor route in a serious way, higher taxes will be necessary to pay for the Billions of dollars in investment that the Government will have to make for it to happen. My statement about the politicians, is, I doubt they will raise your taxes significantly in the forseeable future, that would make such a move to breeder reactors a reality. Meanwhile, we will get a few, but all of the other reactors are getting old, so we face major problems with just keeping up with energy demand in the next several decades.

And with the shape our infrastructure is in, we can let that go too, but sooner or later someone is going to have to pay for stable roads and bridges to drive on.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2011, 12:52 pm

aghogday wrote:

If we really want to go the Breeder Reactor route in a serious way, higher taxes will be necessary to pay for the Billions of dollars in investment that the Government will have to make for it to happen. My statement about the politicians, is, I doubt they will raise your taxes significantly in the forseeable future, that would make such a move to breeder reactors a reality. Meanwhile, we will get a few, but all of the other reactors are getting old, so we face major problems with just keeping up with energy demand in the next several decades.



Having breeder reactors may very well cost me money but in the long run it is best for my grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren that latter, I will never live to see.

ruveyn



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,410

26 May 2011, 1:11 pm

ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:

If we really want to go the Breeder Reactor route in a serious way, higher taxes will be necessary to pay for the Billions of dollars in investment that the Government will have to make for it to happen. My statement about the politicians, is, I doubt they will raise your taxes significantly in the forseeable future, that would make such a move to breeder reactors a reality. Meanwhile, we will get a few, but all of the other reactors are getting old, so we face major problems with just keeping up with energy demand in the next several decades.



Having breeder reactors may very well cost me money but in the long run it is best for my grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren that latter, I will never live to see.

ruveyn


That's the biggest reason I have no problem paying higher taxes. I had the use of all the resources that government provides most of my life, and paid what I feel like are extremely low taxes compared to what they were in the earliest parts of my life. I don't have any children, but don't mind sharing the cost for future generations to have the same advantages of living in the US that I have had.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2011, 4:11 pm

aghogday wrote:

That's the biggest reason I have no problem paying higher taxes. I had the use of all the resources that government provides most of my life, and paid what I feel like are extremely low taxes compared to what they were in the earliest parts of my life. I don't have any children, but don't mind sharing the cost for future generations to have the same advantages of living in the US that I have had.


The government never provided you with anything but cash stolen from tax payers. All things are invented by individuals or voluntary groups of individuals.

Edison and Swan invented the resistance glow lamp, not any government.

Tesla and Marconi invented wireless transmission and reception, not any government.

The Brothers Wright developed the first motor driven controllable flyer for $1200 out of their own pocket. Unlike Langley who produced three failures with a $50,000 grant from Congress (every cent taken by force from taxpayers) In 1901 $50,000 was a vast fortune.

ruveyn



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

26 May 2011, 4:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:

If we really want to go the Breeder Reactor route in a serious way, higher taxes will be necessary to pay for the Billions of dollars in investment that the Government will have to make for it to happen. My statement about the politicians, is, I doubt they will raise your taxes significantly in the forseeable future, that would make such a move to breeder reactors a reality. Meanwhile, we will get a few, but all of the other reactors are getting old, so we face major problems with just keeping up with energy demand in the next several decades.



Having breeder reactors may very well cost me money but in the long run it is best for my grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren that latter, I will never live to see.

ruveyn

You mean you've actually managed to reproduce?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

26 May 2011, 4:19 pm

And DARPA invented the internet, NASA invented velcro and tang, etc. What's your point?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2011, 4:19 pm

LKL wrote:
You mean you've actually managed to reproduce?


I am the father of a multitude. Four children and five grand children.

I have taught thousands.

Mr. Chips did only marginally better than I have.

ruveyn



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

26 May 2011, 4:23 pm

LKL wrote:
And DARPA invented the internet, NASA invented velcro and tang, etc. What's your point?

They can keep the Tang, thank you very much.


_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS