SA Footy

Psyber wrote:I'm pleased to see these guys coming out for rationality over emotion: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world ... index.html

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Agreed, Psyber. However, as the article states, we need the nuclear power systems to be safer than what they currently are. This is the key. With technology at the moment, nuclear power is still unsafe, as witnessed in Fukushima and Chernobyl. If that can be overcome (a big if), then, yes, nuclear could be the way to go.
Cheers

Hi Bully,

Safe nuclear technology now exists, but its use is held back by past problems and plain fear.
http://decarbonisesa.com/2011/12/22/nuc ... fe-option/
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nucl ... e-1.121952

According to the Chairman of the Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, the only reason the 40 year old and well out of date Fukushima plants melted down was that not one of their three back up diesel generators would start due to poor maintenance. Japan is corrupt with the big business families closely related to politics and administration. How else would a nuclear plant get built on a fault line, on the Tsunami prone side of the island, and then get away with skipping the safety maintenance.

Contrast that with the French record and their use of nuclear power for over 20 years with few problems.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... -F/France/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

There are several current forms of fission plant that are totally melt down proof, but my favourite is the Thorium reactor as is waste is also only radioactive for 70 years. http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=342

However we don't have to even use fission. Laser stimulation of Thorium acheives energy amplification via generating heat which can run, for example, a steam turbine and hence electric motors. Turn off the laser and it stops - it is not self sustaining.

One company even intends to have a prototype car running on this next year: http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811

Hi Psyber my friend,

Well, I have no problem with nuclear energy if it can be produced and delivered safely.

Cheers

http://www.news.com.au/national/confusion-should-give-alarmists-pause-for-thought/story-fncynjr2-1226825036298

I wont put a LOL in case Bolt is off the mark, BUT, if he's right about England

Jimmy_041 wrote:http://www.news.com.au/national/confusion-should-give-alarmists-pause-for-thought/story-fncynjr2-1226825036298

I wont put a LOL in case Bolt is off the mark, BUT, if he's right about England

Bolt fails to mention that the unexpected ice is due to a glacial collision.

He's way off the mark as usual. The only people destroying the credibility of scientists are 'journalists' like himself.

Jimmy_041 wrote:http://www.news.com.au/national/confusion-should-give-alarmists-pause-for-thought/story-fncynjr2-1226825036298

I wont put a LOL in case Bolt is off the mark, BUT, if he's right about England

Climate scientist Andrew Bolt?

This is the same flat-earther extremist that has been done for defamation, racial discrimination & initially tried to say the 2011 Norway terrorist attack was by Islamists rather than the white, far-right Christian it turned out to be.

Is it true what he says England has said though?

England admitted last week there had been a “hiatus” and “plateau in global average temperatures” after all. Startled readers asked England to explain how he could call sceptics liars two years ago for mentioning a “plateau” he now agreed was real.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Is it true what he says England has said though?

England admitted last week there had been a “hiatus” and “plateau in global average temperatures” after all. Startled readers asked England to explain how he could call sceptics liars two years ago for mentioning a “plateau” he now agreed was real.

He has been selectively quoted.

His study shows that trade winds have been allowing the thermocline to absorb the heat in recent years, however, once the winds decline (in the space of a few years), average surface temperatures will again sharply rise.

Blot obviously didn't read England's study at all.

or just selective like both sides of the argument

Peer reviewed science is not selective.

Depends whether the peers are of the same ilk

Peer review ensures adherence to scientific method and principle, not adherence to a desired outcome.

Science is not exact and subject to mind altering substances

Many are partial to an expensive drop of red wine.

Well, oenology is a science after all

Here is an interesting article on Climate Change

http://theconversation.com/facts-wont-b ... will-24074

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Here is an interesting article on Climate Change

http://theconversation.com/facts-wont-b ... will-24074

Funny, I always thought this is exactly what the lefties have been doing for years.

I think you'll find the article about climate change rather than left and right sides of politics

Maybe you should read it

I have read it