Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    11 Jul '19 05:35
    @wildgrass said
    This post is not comprehensible. Nuclear waste can be utilized for many decades to generate power if the facilities exist to do so. We have them for recycling bombs, why not nuclear power waste?

    Wealth is currently expropriated for maintaining a carbon-emitting economy. If we can support our entire nations energy grid using existing nuclear waste, why would that equate t ...[text shortened]... least we agree on that. The expropriation piece could use some further depth. Why do you think that?
    If nuclear waste can be used to generate that much power it seems like it would have been done by now. I am skeptical of your claim.

    CO2 has benefits that you seem to be ignoring.

    YouTube
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    11 Jul '19 10:541 edit
    @metal-brain said
    If nuclear waste can be used to generate that much power it seems like it would have been done by now. I am skeptical of your claim.

    CO2 has benefits that you seem to be ignoring.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
    You seem to ignore the report I gave on the USDA paper showing the more CO2 the less nutrients are available in Rice, a staple food for hundreds of millions of people but no big deal right? More CO2 means plants grow faster no matter the effect on nutrient values so that is the important thing, right? BTW, that paper was suppressed by Trump, they don't want ANY negative publicity about global warming and climate change which he denies because he has rich buddies who don't want the truth to be spread to the public.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    11 Jul '19 12:25
    @sonhouse said
    You seem to ignore the report I gave on the USDA paper showing the more CO2 the less nutrients are available in Rice, a staple food for hundreds of millions of people but no big deal right? More CO2 means plants grow faster no matter the effect on nutrient values so that is the important thing, right? BTW, that paper was suppressed by Trump, they don't want ANY negative pu ...[text shortened]... nge which he denies because he has rich buddies who don't want the truth to be spread to the public.
    I did ignore it. I doubt the difference is much and that is why. I'll bet it is just an exaggeration in a dishonest attempt to demonize CO2.
    If you can copy and paste excerpts you think are relevant I'll look at it, but I'm not going to let you bait me into wasting my time on another one of your wild goose chases and do the work for you. You often fail to scrutinize your own links and burden me with doing it because you are lazy.

    How much mineral content difference is there and how much CO2 were the plants exposed to?
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    11 Jul '19 13:52
    @metal-brain said
    If nuclear waste can be used to generate that much power it seems like it would have been done by now. I am skeptical of your claim.

    CO2 has benefits that you seem to be ignoring.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
    Wealth is being expropriated just fine without the need for elaborate scientific conspiracies.

    Hundreds of years ago, there was a group of scientists who got together and thought "I know, let's spend the next 2 centuries faking data and misinterpreting results so that a group of politicians can use that fake data to expropriate wealth."
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    11 Jul '19 14:51
    @wildgrass said
    Wealth is being expropriated just fine without the need for elaborate scientific conspiracies.

    Hundreds of years ago, there was a group of scientists who got together and thought "I know, let's spend the next 2 centuries faking data and misinterpreting results so that a group of politicians can use that fake data to expropriate wealth."
    Then why is a tax always the proposed solution? When the corporate news media repeats lies and follows it up with a tax as a solution it is obvious that is their goal. They don't even hide it.

    Do you always give liars the benefit of the doubt and think their tax is still a good idea? You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see there is an obvious agenda. If there was not they would not have to lie.
  6. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    11 Jul '19 16:133 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Then why is a tax always the proposed solution? When the corporate news media repeats lies and follows it up with a tax as a solution it is obvious that is their goal. They don't even hide it.

    Do you always give liars the benefit of the doubt and think their tax is still a good idea? You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see there is an obvious agenda. If there was not they would not have to lie.
    No. Taxes are not the solution. The media is only reporting the things that are going to get folks riled up. Gotta get those clicks.

    In reality, effective climate policies that accept the science include what projects the gov't give permits to (i.e. more to nuclear less to coal), what farms will receive subsidies (which already exist), fuel economy standards, commitments to forest and landscape protections, reductions in carbon pollution through efficiency standards.

    None of it involves a tax. And really, none of it has to do with cost, either. That farm bill is a downright staggering sum of money but no one blinks an eye. Elsewhere the pentagon wastes more tax money in a day than most people spend in a lifetime. It's about priority, not cost.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    11 Jul '19 17:56
    @wildgrass said
    No. Taxes are not the solution. The media is only reporting the things that are going to get folks riled up. Gotta get those clicks.

    In reality, effective climate policies that accept the science include what projects the gov't give permits to (i.e. more to nuclear less to coal), what farms will receive subsidies (which already exist), fuel economy standards, commitments ...[text shortened]... wastes more tax money in a day than most people spend in a lifetime. It's about priority, not cost.
    From the link below:

    "There’s a split on carbon taxation. According to the Times, about a third of the candidates support a carbon tax (Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Delaney, Gillibrand, Williamson, and Yang). Another five (Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Ryan, Swalwell) said they are willing to consider a carbon tax. The fact that about two-thirds of the candidates were willing to at least consider a carbon tax may show that it’s not seen as quite such political poison as the conventional wisdom would have it.

    There’s another split on nuclear power. Most were apparently opposed to new nuclear plants, but six were in favor (Booker, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobuchar, Ryan, Yang). Three others (Swalwell, Castro, and Williamson) said they might be willing to consider nuclear despite reservations. Most of the others skipped the question. Energy experts and environmentalists are also somewhat divided on this issue, so it’s not surprising that there was no clear consensus among the candidates."

    https://legal-planet.org/2019/04/25/the-democratic-candidates-climate-change/

    Two-thirds of the candidates were willing to at least consider a carbon tax. The establishment is pushing a carbon tax and it is working regardless of your position on it. Your stated opinion is in the minority.
  8. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    11 Jul '19 18:43
    @metal-brain said
    From the link below:

    "There’s a split on carbon taxation. According to the Times, about a third of the candidates support a carbon tax (Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Delaney, Gillibrand, Williamson, and Yang). Another five (Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Ryan, Swalwell) said they are willing to consider a carbon tax. The fact that about two-thirds of the candidates were ...[text shortened]... bon tax and it is working regardless of your position on it. Your stated opinion is in the minority.
    How can you say it's working when there's no tax on carbon?

    They've been talking about it through multiple democratic presidents and super-majorities. I'd be willing to consider it too. Willing to consider just about anything. Despite all the willingness to consider business there doesn't seem to be a solution that's been agreed to. I think all of them would probably agree that its only a small piece of a much larger issue. Interestingly, many companies are reducing their carbon footprint on their own anyways. Although every time a nuclear plant shuts down, it's off-setting much of the carbon reductions we've seen in other areas.

    What's working at the moment is science denial and ignorance.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    11 Jul '19 23:113 edits
    @wildgrass said
    How can you say it's working when there's no tax on carbon?

    They've been talking about it through multiple democratic presidents and super-majorities. I'd be willing to consider it too. Willing to consider just about anything. Despite all the willingness to consider business there doesn't seem to be a solution that's been agreed to. I think all of them would probably agr ...[text shortened]... ductions we've seen in other areas.

    What's working at the moment is science denial and ignorance.
    Because a carbon tax is the leading solution....duh!

    Co2 increase is the best thing that ever happened to the planet. You are in denial. You either did not watch the last video with Matt Ridley in it or you dismissed every fact in it in a fit of ignorance. Open your mind!

    YouTube

    You are hopelessly dogmatic.
  10. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    12 Jul '19 04:45
    @metal-brain said
    Because a carbon tax is the leading solution....duh!

    Co2 increase is the best thing that ever happened to the planet. You are in denial. You either did not watch the last video with Matt Ridley in it or you dismissed every fact in it in a fit of ignorance. Open your mind!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE

    You are hopelessly dogmatic.
    It's not the leading solution. The Obama administration had a super majority and passed dozens of bills. They could have done the carbon tax, but they instead chose to do many other things instead that were (probably) a lot more effective.

    Here is a very detailed 21-page list of priorities on climate change action put out by the Obama administration in 2013 [1]. Not a single mention of a tax or cap-and-trade. They did lots of things to cut carbon emissions but carbon tax wasn't one of them, and wasn't even on the list of things they wanted to do.

    Note than nuclear power is on this list. They actually passed a measure to allow the permitting for several new plants that would have drastically cut carbon emissions. But unfortunately they were never built. Ironically, its the environmental activists that got in the way on this one. As if nuclear power is worse for the environment than coal? Sheeeeeeesh.

    I don't watch youtube videos. Try something else.

    [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/149809454/President-Obama-s-Climate-Action-Plan#fullscreen&from_embed
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    12 Jul '19 10:381 edit
    @wildgrass said
    It's not the leading solution. The Obama administration had a super majority and passed dozens of bills. They could have done the carbon tax, but they instead chose to do many other things instead that were (probably) a lot more effective.

    Here is a very detailed 21-page list of priorities on climate change action put out by the Obama administration in 2013 [1]. Not a s ...[text shortened]... ttps://www.scribd.com/document/149809454/President-Obama-s-Climate-Action-Plan#fullscreen&from_embed
    False! It is the leading solution. The vast majority of democrat candidates are for a carbon tax. Obama is not in political power anymore and you have not shown "how" he intended to reduce carbon emissions. If it wasn't going to increase the cost of fuel how was it supposed to work? Explain how it was supposed to be effective.

    "I don't watch youtube videos. Try something else."

    That is a lie!

    I don't read web links from people who do not watch youtube videos.
  12. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7569
    12 Jul '19 13:211 edit
    @Metal-Brain

    Your information is inaccurate. The plan outlined many ways that carbon can be reduced, some of them I outlined in a prior post. Many of them were implemented in the prior administration when science was not vilified, and they were effective. You'll need to do some digging. Somewhere you are receiving bad information.

    It's not about the money. It's about our priorities.
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80542
    12 Jul '19 14:45
    @sonhouse said
    Er, Deep did an analysis on the WHOLE PIECE not a frigging abstract and it wants me to pay ten bucks to just READ the whole thing. You have a weird idea of just what science is all about. Just to say in an abstract, I found .72 PPM bla bla bla. That has nothing to do with reality. Is THAT your big deal evidence? A fukking ABSTRACT?
    Well, actually I copy & pasted someone else's analysis, but hey!
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    12 Jul '19 14:50
    @wildgrass said
    @Metal-Brain

    Your information is inaccurate. The plan outlined many ways that carbon can be reduced, some of them I outlined in a prior post. Many of them were implemented in the prior administration when science was not vilified, and they were effective. You'll need to do some digging. Somewhere you are receiving bad information.

    It's not about the money. It's about our priorities.
    Two thirds of the presidential democrat candidates are open to carbon taxes. That is accurate.

    Obama's plan is vague and probably mostly ineffective. It was a long term plan for automobile efficiency far past his two term limit which makes little sense. Those targets were probably what the automobile manufactures were okay with in the first place and were the result of lobbying from those manufacturers.

    The democratic candidates want to get back to the Paris Accords, but they were voluntary and nonbinding agreements that would never be enforced making them essentially worthless. It is amusing how naive those candidates are. As if the Paris Accords would make any difference. It is laughable!

    Explain how Obama's plan was effective in reducing carbon emissions. Don't include those that were reducing before any plan was implemented. There was already a trend of reduction before he even got into office.
  15. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80542
    12 Jul '19 14:55
    @metal-brain said
    The source of information is not good enough for you? You could find the same article from another source not requiring a subscription. Since the journal nature is often considered the gold standard of science literature I thought you would respect the source.

    It seems your "attack the source" tactic has spilled into well respected sources of information. That is a clear indication of political bias that trumps science. How do you rationalize that double think?
    Well, that article, or at least its abstract, looks fine. However, it does not address overlapping bands in any way, so it is not obvious to me how it affects that part of the debate.

    The paper looks at the likely size of feedback of global warming on CO_2 levels from carbon sinks. It is giving the amount of carbon released from the environment due to warming as 7.7 ppmv per degree celcius, and is significantly smaller than previous estimates. However the article was published in 2010 and more recent work may have changed the estimate for gamma. Did you do a search for a more recent estimate?
Back to Top