Interesting! I see the first article has been rebutted... http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/
...personally I am in favour of safe nuclear, assuming it is in fact safe. The problem being that when it wasn't, it was used a lot, so it's got a very bad rep. On 14 March 2014 04:16, <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/why-thorium-nuclear-isnt-featured-on-cleantechnica/ > > > http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ > > https://www.facebook.com/GreensAgainstNuclear > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20216b54-8f53-11e3-9cb0-00144feab7de.html > > http://www.earthcomms.org/pro-nuclear-greens-dare-not-speak-out/ > > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/02/06/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberals-dont-like-nuclear-energy/ > > You get the idea. There's no solar solution at hand. There is only > complaint and EPA-type ruling worldwide, that doesn't address rising oceans > which is the AGW focus. I wonder what MG Kern would say? ;-) Oh, well. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 9:36 am > Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:45 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO, >> > > You really have no reading comprehension! My whole point was that I have > NO OBJECTION to GMOs. I said "I have no patience with the view (all too > common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since > all the scientific experts I've seen say that extensive study has shown no > more health risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective > breeding", which means I DON'T think there is any elevated risk because I > TRUST SCIENTISTS IN GENERAL, regardless of which political "side" is trying > to oppose some of their research. > > > >> I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists >> > > I place confidence in climate SCIENTISTS when they themselves are > strongly confident about an issue in their field, just like I would with > any other natural scientists. But I guess in your world, "climate > scientist" is basically synonymous with "climate alarmist". > > > , yes, you concede that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose >> nuclear fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim nearly all. >> > > Of course you can present no evidence for this view, you judge things > based on cartoonish images of "leftists" in your mind (formed in bygone > days I bet--how old are you, out of curiosity?) rather than reality. > > > >> You write of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy with >> the clean. >> > > I simply said my understanding is that it would be technically and > economically feasible to replace fossil fuels with solar, which is not to > say it is "at hand" because it would still be quite expensive and the > politicians are not in agreement about the urgency of a major Apollo-like > program to get this done. > > > >> You have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' behavior, >> in not behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it as >> public policy, as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as >> due to the elites' short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who >> are employed by these people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the >> scientists, as no one else dares to. >> > > And as I said, you seem to have a double standard about scientists, > unless you are broadly skeptical about ALL scientific claims whose detailed > basis you don't understand. If you were consistent, you would be open to > the possibility that evolution-deniers, HIV/AID deniers, and other > crackpots who dispute various theories are correct that scientists are > colluding to cover up the weakness in the evidence in these theories...but > I bet you DO trust the scientists in these cases, even without > understanding the detailed evidence. If you are not broadly skeptical of > all science, that means that you trust science when it doesn't conflict > with your ideology, but spin unfalsifiable narratives of shady conspiracies > when it doesn't. > > By the way, what's with all the out-of-place commas in your writing? > "nefarious, motives"? > > > >> Simon, pure, they are not. But this is mere, observation, and you will >> dismiss this. As to physics, and chemistry, geology, and astronomy, the >> life sciences, I am ok, fine, with what they pursue. What they pursue (no >> matter political affiliation) are, at least, not funded by greedy >> politicians, >> > > Um, all sciences rely on government funding (grants etc.), physics just > as much as climate science. And I'm pretty sure professors of climate > science aren't any richer than other science professors, becoming a > university professor is not the most lucrative profession. But anyway, > thanks for confirming that you DO have exactly the double standard about > scientists that I suggested. > > > >> who are themselves funded by billionaire elites and their PAC's. Please >> invoke the Koch Brothers and I will be happy to list George Soros's >> influence in politics and his world view. >> > > I'm sure you would love it if I would invoke the Koch brothers so you > could get back to what you love, which is science-free hot air about > politics, but as I said I'm not interested in that (plus I'm afraid I don't > live up to your cartoon stereotype of a leftist who believes America would > be much different if not for the baleful influence of those villainous Koch > bros.) > > >> >> Thorium reactors, molten salt, or liquid fluoride might be safer, but I >> am not sure, I don't know. If molten salt comes in contact with water or >> air, I have read it could combust, and combust, furiously. Hence, my >> re-focus on solar, out of necessity. Yet, we are being told that there's no >> time for this development of solar, by greens. >> > > Which "greens" are saying this? Can you name any names, or is it just > another example of checking what the fantasy figures in your head would say > rather than consulting reality? Most of the mainstream environmental groups > with any real political clout seem to favor long-term plans that would > result in a gradual reduction of emissions and replacement with renewable > energies like solar over several decades, similar to the emissions > reductions goals the EU has set for itself (and they have successfully > reduced emissions by 18% since 1990 when they set these goals, as I > mentioned earlier). Proposals like a carbon tax and a carbon cap would be > included in this, since the proposals involve starting with a tax/cap that > wouldn't require any major immediate change in what fossil fuel companies > are doing, and then gradually make it a tiny bit stricter each year over a > period of decades. > > > >> What do they want us to do, a rational person may ask (assuming we can >> find one)? >> >> The great booming word from environmentalists is conservation, followed >> by the sound of chirping crickets, yes, there's a few crickets still alive >> after massive species decimation. >> > > As I said to John Clark, no scientists really claim there has been a > massive decimation of species (percentage-wise anyway) at present, the > claim is that the RATE of extinction (percent of species going extinct PER > YEAR) has shot up in recent years, and that if it continues at this rate > for another century (or a few centuries depending on the estimate of the > current rate) then we will have a true mass extinction. > > Jesse > > > >> When the discussion turns from technology to government control, and the >> necessity for it as promoted by pols who cite scientists, my spider-sense >> becomes active. Yes, there a few spiders left after environmental >> degradation. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> >> To: everything-list <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am >> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> My integrity is not the issue, >>> >> >> Yes it is, since you made an error in your reading of the Royal >> Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, and instead of admitting the >> error you simply ignore the issue even when I repeatedly question you about >> it. >> >> >> >>> for someone who states- >>> *This all falls under "gossipy political speculations about human >>> motivations", I'm not interested in dragging this stuff into a conversation >>> about natural science* >>> >> >> Not sure what connection you think there is between this statement of >> mine and "integrity". Would you respect my integrity more if I made up >> unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of >> conservatives and global warming deniers to counter your equally >> unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of liberals >> and environmentalists? >> >> >> >>> Again, its science when its on your own terms, and it suits your >>> ideology. >>> >> >> Not at all, as I said to John Clark I treat it as the default position >> that whenever scientists in a field of natural science express confidence >> about ANY technical claim in their field, and there doesn't seem to be >> substantial disagreement among them, then my starting assumption is that >> they are most likely right about this claim (an assumption I would only be >> likely to change if I acquired enough knowledge the field to understand the >> detailed basis for the claims myself and find technical reasons to doubt >> them, or if I found out that some substantial number of other scientists >> disputed the claim). This is a blanket view of all natural science claims >> that has nothing to do with political ideology, for example I have no >> patience with the view (all too common among those on the left) that GMOs >> are a dangerous health risk since all the scientific experts I've seen say >> that extensive study has shown no more health risks from GMOs than from >> crops created through selective breeding. >> >> Anyone who does NOT adopt this blanket view of scientific claims is >> almost certainly filtering their evaluations of science through their >> personal ideology, and lacking respect for the importance of detailed >> technical understanding when evaluating scientific issues. I suspect your >> understanding of the detailed evidence behind many other scientific claims, >> like estimates of the age of the universe in cosmology, is just as poor as >> your understanding of the evidence surrounding global warming, but I >> imagine you don't put forth fantasy narratives of cosmologists >> peer-pressuring each other into accepting each other's models and wildly >> exaggerating the strength of the evidence for their theories, presumably >> because you have no ideological reason to dispute the idea that the Big >> Bang happened 13.75 billion years ago. Unless you are equally skeptical >> about *all* scientific claims whose technical basis you don't understand, >> you have a clear double standard--mistrust the scientists when their claims >> conflict with your ideology, but trust them when there is no such >> ideological conflict. >> >> >> >>> Your nuclear energy remediation proposal will be violent opposed by >>> your green chums, so it becomes, effectively, no answer. >>> >> >> Certainly there are plenty of "greens" who oppose nuclear power (and >> examples like Fukushima show the risks are not to be scoffed at, although >> they are mainly risks to human health rather than environmental risks), but >> also plenty of greens who have come around to the view that nuclear power >> is a lesser evil when compared to fossil fuels, see for example this >> article that details many leading environmentalists who have become more >> nuclear-friendly (I suspect the number would be higher if we had thorium >> reactors, which should be significantly safer): >> >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303966.html >> >> Meanwhile, you completely ignored my point about it being well within >> the range of possibility to get all our energy from solar. >> >> >> >> >>> I will prove your prediction correct with pure volition. I read the >>> Nature realclimate link, article and my take away is its a struggle to try >>> to figure out where the IPCC predictions went wrong? Was it el nino, heat >>> sinks in the Pacific, etc. >>> >> >> I'm glad you at least looked at it, but as with the Royal >> Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, your understanding of what you >> read seems to be quite poor (perhaps because you read with the attitude of >> "looking for flaws" rather than just trying to understand what's being >> argued). No one says the cooling is because of El Niño, but rather >> because La Niña has replaced El Niño for a while (part of a long-term >> cycle called 'pacific-decadal oscillation'), and the La Niña stage is >> thought to be ASSOCIATED WITH more heat being stored in the pacific, not a >> separate phenomenon that could be construed as a conflicting explanation. >> From the link at >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/-- >> >> "Leading U.S. climatologist Kevin Trenberth has studied this for twenty >> years and has just published a detailed explanatory article [ >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full ]. >> Trenberth emphasizes the role of long-term variations of ENSO, called >> pacific-decadal oscillation (PDO). Put simply: phases with more El Niño and >> phases with predominant La Niña conditions (as we've had recently) may >> persist for up to two decades in the tropical Pacific. The latter brings a >> somewhat slower warming at the surface of our planet, because more heat is >> stored deeper in the ocean. A central point here: even if the surface >> temperature stagnates our planet continues to take up heat. The increasing >> greenhouse effect leads to a radiation imbalance: we absorb more heat from >> the sun than we emit back into space. 90% of this heat ends up in the ocean >> due to the high heat capacity of water." >> >> The author also specifically says that when El Niño comes back, >> replacing La Niña once again, he predicts this will end the pause in >> global warming: >> >> "How important the effect of El Niño is will be revealed at the next >> decent El Niño event. I have already predicted last year that after the >> next El Niño a new record in global temperature will be reached again - a >> forecast that probably will be confirmed or falsified soon." >> >> >> >> >>> The point is that your team is fumbling about trying to look what went >>> wrong >>> >> >> "My team"? Again you show your obsessive need to cast everything into >> us vs. them, tribalistic terms. Hint: truth about the natural world should >> not be determined by whether the people that typically take a certain >> position are on the right "team". >> >> Jesse >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
