Political Discussion

[helpmeout]

Did you even watch the PBS video?

It's not a conservative right wing video, by the way. It's "Nature" on P.B.S.


"Program: Nature
Episode: Radioactive Wolves

What happens to nature after a nuclear accident? The historic nuclear accident at Chernobyl is now 25 years old. Filmmakers and scientists set out to document the lives of the packs of wolves and other wildlife thriving in the "dead zone" that still surrounds the remains of the reactor."

I think there's a lot of unfounded hysteria about nuclear energy. Hiroshima is still inhabited by people.

I did not say that I didn't see benefits to nuculear energy. But I also see the risks, unlike you. I also recognize that what humans are putting into the atmosphere DOES have an impact on the climate. Tons of research proves that. But I don't expect you to get that. As I stated before, the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes.

Radioactive is radioactive. You aren't going to get around that.

BTW, one can watch the video and come to a different conclusion than you.

[GoingDown]

I am absolutely for energy independence but I believe that goal compliments doing our part about climate change. Lets convert buses and trucks to natural gas or biodiesel. Let's get rid of coal -- which creates 3X the CO2 of natural gas and use more natural gas, solar, wind and yes even look into nuclear (although I do have questions since the Germans have decided to get rid of Nuclear and I consider them pretty smart). Lets invest in our infrastructure - smart grids and HSR. It is sad that the "greatest" country on earth still travels by slow train and so many are fighting to keep it that way.

You're an exception, in that most people in the global warming environmentalist movement do not even want us to use natural gas, and they certainly don't like nuclear power.

The electricity has to come from somewhere. The sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Natural gas is a good alternative, but it is more expensive than coal. Coal plants are the cheapest plants to run. That's why China and India use them so much. They want the cheapest and most reliable energy source they can find.

Biodiesel is horribly expensive, and causes the cost of food to increase significantly.

We are already in the process of replacing all electrical meters with smart meters. Why? So they can turn off the power to residential customers with the click of a mouse, and leave on power to hospitals, government buildings, schools, etc. They're getting us ready from some huge blackouts in the summer, because they know once the coal plants are shut down, we won't have enough power to keep our air conditioners running in the summer.

[GoingDown]

I have to laugh, because I'm pretty sure that's what the people who lived and worked at Chernobyl said before the disaster.

Wouldn't surprise me if that is what Japan said before their nuclear disaster.

Eventually, Chernobyl may become habitable (I don't consider being radioactive habitable) and non radioactive. May take a hundred years.

You do realize that you are one natural disaster away from a catastrophe don't you? Then there's always the human factor. Errors happen. And you may find that living so close to a nuclear plant wasn't such a good idea, after all.

But, hey, we humans aren't doing anything to the environment that has a lasting impact. (Read this sentence with a heavy dose of sarcasm)

Did you even watch the PBS video?

It's not a conservative right wing video, by the way. It's "Nature" on P.B.S.


"Program: Nature
Episode: Radioactive Wolves

What happens to nature after a nuclear accident? The historic nuclear accident at Chernobyl is now 25 years old. Filmmakers and scientists set out to document the lives of the packs of wolves and other wildlife thriving in the "dead zone" that still surrounds the remains of the reactor."

I think there's a lot of unfounded hysteria about nuclear energy. Hiroshima is still inhabited by people.

[GoingDown]

Late last year, Canada wised up and withdrew themselves from the Kyoto Protocol.

Why?

Because they could see that since China and India didn't have to do anything of substance about their burning of coal, it wouldn't do anything about global warming, and all that was really happening was they were being expected to pay billions of dollars in fines to the global community-- in essence, redistribution of their money to third world countries.

They could see that it was all political and not based on sound science. In that, if China keeps on burning coal, what good would it all do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-protocol-canada-withdrawing_n_1144410.html

Canada made good Monday on speculation that surfaced two weeks ago regarding the country's intentions to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

Speaking at a news conference in Ottawa, Canada's minister for the environment, Peter Kent, said the decision would save the nation some $14 billion in penalties that would accrue for failure to meet emissions targets agreed to by a previous government in the 1997 pact -- the first international accord aimed at reducing global emissions of planet-warming gases.

"As we have said, Kyoto -- for Canada -- is in the past," Kent said, according to a wire transcript forwarded by the environment ministry. Kent had just returned from global climate talks in Durban, South Africa. "As such," he continued, "we are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto."

Canada's conservative government under Stephen Harper, who assumed the title of prime minister in 2006, has long been hostile to the Kyoto agreement, which was ratified by Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 2002.

The Harper government has charged its predecessors with never making any real attempts to comply with Kyoto's emissions limits. It has also issued concerns, shared by the U.S. and other developed countries, that Kyoto's emissions rules apply only to rich nations, leaving up-and-coming polluters like India and China off the hook.

"While our government has taken action since 2006 to make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, under Kyoto Canada is facing radical and irresponsible choices if we are to avoid punishing multi-billion dollar payments," Kent said. Meeting its commitments under Kyoto, he said, would require the equivalent of "removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads." ARE ANY OF YOU READING THIS WILLING TO GIVE UP DRIVING YOUR CARS?

But the move to quit the Kyoto Protocol, while not unexpected, was met with jeers from environmental groups, who say that Canada has abandoned a long-standing reputation for environmental stewardship in favor of industry and, among other things, development of a controversial and emissions-intensive oil patch in Alberta known as the tar sands.

[msm859]

Our coal power plants are clean. They have been greatly improved with the latest in clean burning technology and scrubbers (unlike the coal power plants in China, who by the way will continue to burn coal regardless of what we do, so in the end, if coal is causing global warming [which I doubt] then you will still have global warming). Acid rain is a thing of the past since the coal plants have been using the new technology.
That is not what I have heard/read
Most of the air pollution you see in cities is caused by cars, not by coal plants. Are you willing to give up driving, too?

Maybe switch to electric cars? But where will the electricity come from?

You don't like coal.

You don't like nuclear power.I have never said that. I have no problem looking into Nuclear

You don't like fracking for natural gas.I have never said that. I believe we should end coal use now and convert the power plants to natural gas as an interim measure until we can have more renewable energy. I do believe that fracking needs to be monitored. But I am all for taking advantage of our natural gas resources to become energy independent

Many environmentalists don't even like hydro power because it stops the fish from swimming upstream. Some dams have been demolished in Oregon so salmon can continue to swim upstream, and they would like to tear down more dams in Oregon and Arizona.

There is absolutely no proof that anything we do will actually make any significant difference in terms of global warming. It is wild guessing at best. Even if we could get China and India to go along with our plans. And let's face it. They're not going to fall for this alarmist hysteria about global warming.

And I ask again, have you found an energy source that will provide electricity 24 hours a day at a reasonable cost? Tell us all about it.

You want us to jump away from fossil fuels but you don't give us anywhere to jump to.

Just higher prices for everything.

How will your granddaughter like paying most of her discretionary income for more expensive energy and more expensive transportation which will increase the cost of everything for her?
I expect by the time my granddaughter is driving it will in fact be an electric car. My son just bought a Chevrolet Volt. He has a 40 mile round trip commute and uses zero gas. Despite a number of long distance trips he is averaging over 80 mpg. He expects in a month or so it will be over 100 mpg.
As for energy independence, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas, but you don't want us to use it.

I am absolutely for energy independence but I believe that goal compliments doing our part about climate change. Lets convert buses and trucks to natural gas or biodiesel. Let's get rid of coal -- which creates 3X the CO2 of natural gas and use more natural gas, solar, wind and yes even look into nuclear (although I do have questions since the Germans have decided to get rid of Nuclear and I consider them pretty smart). Lets invest in our infrastructure - smart grids and HSR. It is sad that the "greatest" country on earth still travels by slow train and so many are fighting to keep it that way.

[helpmeout]

Phoenix is right next to one of the largest nuclear plants in the world. We're doing fine here.

I have to laugh, because I'm pretty sure that's what the people who lived and worked at Chernobyl said before the disaster.

Wouldn't surprise me if that is what Japan said before their nuclear disaster.

Eventually, Chernobyl may become habitable (I don't consider being radioactive habitable) and non radioactive. May take a hundred years.

You do realize that you are one natural disaster away from a catastrophe don't you? Then there's always the human factor. Errors happen. And you may find that living so close to a nuclear plant wasn't such a good idea, after all.

But, hey, we humans aren't doing anything to the environment that has a lasting impact. (Read this sentence with a heavy dose of sarcasm)

[GoingDown]

Michael Crichton is a fiction writer. Not somebody who I would quote to support my argument.

As I stated before, I have been around a long time. I have done my research. I am of the opinion, based on my research, that the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. And to say that humans had nothing or little to do with the climate change is naive, imo. A poster posted about his vehicle only adds so much to the atmosphere.

The problem isn't with just one car. It's with ALL of them combined. Add to what the factories put into the atmosphere. And before you state that in the US it isn't that bad. You would be right. That's because they aren't allowed to. That's why they went to third world countries that don't have environmental protection laws.

Another example of how humans can negatively impact the environment: Chernobyl. Can you answer this question: Is it still considered uninhabitable? It's been years.

And while the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan was nature, let's not forget the damage that a manmade nuclear plant has done. We made a natural disaster worse than it would have been had we not built a
nuclear plant.

Watch this ENTIRE video from PBS, "Radioactive Wolves", about Chernobyl:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2157025070/

It will take about 50 minutes to watch the whole thing, I saw it on t.v. a year or so ago, and it was so interesting.



"Program: Nature
Episode: Radioactive Wolves

What happens to nature after a nuclear accident? The historic nuclear accident at Chernobyl is now 25 years old. Filmmakers and scientists set out to document the lives of the packs of wolves and other wildlife thriving in the "dead zone" that still surrounds the remains of the reactor."


They are not allowing humans to live there now, but the animals and plants are doing fine. They're radioactive, but they are thriving. There are huge catfish in the cooling ponds surrounding the old nuclear plant, and their radioactive levels are extremely high, but they are not only surviving, but growing to become huge fish.

I'm not saying I want to be radioactive, but what I am saying is that perhaps we make a much bigger deal about it than we need to.

Phoenix is right next to one of the largest nuclear plants in the world. We're doing fine here.

[helpmeout]

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Michael Crichton[13][14]

Michael Crichton is a fiction writer. Not somebody who I would quote to support my argument.

As I stated before, I have been around a long time. I have done my research. I am of the opinion, based on my research, that the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. And to say that humans had nothing or little to do with the climate change is naive, imo. A poster posted about his vehicle only adds so much to the atmosphere.

The problem isn't with just one car. It's with ALL of them combined. Add to what the factories put into the atmosphere. And before you state that in the US it isn't that bad. You would be right. That's because they aren't allowed to. That's why they went to third world countries that don't have environmental protection laws.

Another example of how humans can negatively impact the environment: Chernobyl. Can you answer this question: Is it still considered uninhabitable? It's been years.

And while the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan was nature, let's not forget the damage that a manmade nuclear plant has done. We made a natural disaster worse than it would have been had we not built a
nuclear plant.

[jacko]

Cheap dirty air = high medical care costs. You get whacked either way.

This is the point that really gets to me.

Even if everything they say about global warming is true, which I doubt, what good will it do to destroy our ability to produce cheap reliable energy right here in the United States if China and India, etc., are going to continue to spew out smoke from their coal fired plants?

They're going to keep on using coal (because it is the cheapest form of energy) regardless of what we do.

The environmentalists are willing to pay more for everything but in the end, it won't do a bit of good for them.

[GoingDown]

Take our factories back from China that does not give a damn about pollution. Think of Gary Indiana steel mills in the 50's and multiply that mess by a thousand when you cannot see the sun at noon for the coal smoke. Scrubbers on their stacks? Are you kidding? Get wise folks. Quit blaming the USA for the Worlds woes.



'Hub

This is the point that really gets to me.

Even if everything they say about global warming is true, which I doubt, what good will it do to destroy our ability to produce cheap reliable energy right here in the United States if China and India, etc., are going to continue to spew out smoke from their coal fired plants?

They're going to keep on using coal (because it is the cheapest form of energy) regardless of what we do.

The environmentalists are willing to pay more for everything but in the end, it won't do a bit of good for them.

[GoingDown]

I have researched my views and I stand by them.

Here's some more research for you, if you are open-minded.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

I like this quote from Tony Blair:

"The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge."

Tony Blair, Former British Prime Minister. Watching the World, Awake! magazine, July 8, 2006.

He should have said, "except the U.S.A."

"All this concern with the effects of global warming is another manifestation of being politically correct"
Lord Young of Graffham, in a letter to The Times, 28th Nov 2000.

"The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity. "
Piers Corbyn, Weather Action bulletin, December 2000.

"Global warming — at least the modern nightmare vision - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not."
David Bellamy, Daily Mail, July 2004

"Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science."
Dr Martin Keeley, Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, University College London, 2004-12-06. [BBC]

Sea levels have been rising steadily since the peak of the last Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. The total rise since then has been four hundred feet...For the last 5,000 years or so, the rate of rise has been about seven inches per century.
The Medieval and Roman warmings, with their intervening cold periods, present a huge problem for the advocates of man-made global warming. If the Medieval and Roman occurred warmer than today - without greenhouse gases, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm as well?
The temperatures at the North and South Poles are lower now than they were in 1930. The Antarctic Peninsula, the finger of land pointing north towards Argentina (and the equator) has been getting warmer...The other 97 percent of Antarctic has been cooling since the mid-1960s.
S. Fred Singer,[10] Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University, and Dennis Avery,[11] Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, co-authors Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years[12] (February 2007)

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Michael Crichton[13][14]

"Global Warming" represents the last gasp of so-called "scientific progressivism", a mass of pitifully transparent falsehoods being employed to justify reducing mankind under the absolute despotism of "experts", the obvious implication being that we can’t even breathe responsibly. Environmentalism, Gaianism, is a religion on the basis of which — illegally under the First Amendment — public policy is being generated. Exhaling carbon dioxide is Original Sin, a reliable source of unlimited power and wealth to a Parasitic Class of politicians, bureaucrats, and cops with which our civilization now finds itself infested.

[GoingDown]

Global warming is not false.

.

Global warming may or may not be happening, but proving that is actually caused by humans and not whatever caused the ice ages to melt in the past (before humans started using fossil fuels), is a huge leap of faith. And then thinking we can predict the weather 50 years from now, well, it might as well be a religion. And I am a skeptic. That's what my biology classes at Arizona State University taught me-- to be a skeptic. That's the way science used to be-- skeptical. Now everyone falls in line so they can keep getting their government funded grants to keep their research going.

I was recently at the beach in Florence, Oregon. It is the same as it was when I was a little kid. Shouldn't it be starting to go underwater by now, since global warming supposedly will flood much of Oregon and California? Isn't Phoenix supposed to become beachfront property soon? How ridiculous is the religion of global warming?

And by the way, it was one of the coolest summers in Oregon I have experienced in the recent past. I also noticed that Springerville (7000 feet above sea level), Arizona, recently had their first frost of the season. Right on time.

[GoingDown]

I am willing to pay whatever it costs to insure that we are not contributing to climate change. If I am wrong and people listen to me, we will spend more on energy however, we will still have a cleaner environment and be closer to energy independence. If you are wrong and people listen to you the consequence could be catastrophic.
I have the cutest 5 year old granddaughter and another grand baby on the way. I would be nearsighted and remiss to so casually dismiss the overwhelming evidence and scientific opinion.

Our coal power plants are clean. They have been greatly improved with the latest in clean burning technology and scrubbers (unlike the coal power plants in China, who by the way will continue to burn coal regardless of what we do, so in the end, if coal is causing global warming [which I doubt] then you will still have global warming). Acid rain is a thing of the past since the coal plants have been using the new technology.

Most of the air pollution you see in cities is caused by cars, not by coal plants. Are you willing to give up driving, too?

Maybe switch to electric cars? But where will the electricity come from?

You don't like coal.

You don't like nuclear power.

You don't like fracking for natural gas.

Many environmentalists don't even like hydro power because it stops the fish from swimming upstream. Some dams have been demolished in Oregon so salmon can continue to swim upstream, and they would like to tear down more dams in Oregon and Arizona.

There is absolutely no proof that anything we do will actually make any significant difference in terms of global warming. It is wild guessing at best. Even if we could get China and India to go along with our plans. And let's face it. They're not going to fall for this alarmist hysteria about global warming.

And I ask again, have you found an energy source that will provide electricity 24 hours a day at a reasonable cost? Tell us all about it.

You want us to jump away from fossil fuels but you don't give us anywhere to jump to.

Just higher prices for everything.

How will your granddaughter like paying most of her discretionary income for more expensive energy and more expensive transportation which will increase the cost of everything for her?

As for energy independence, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas, but you don't want us to use it.

[GoingDown]

I prefer clean air. The utility firms had all the time in the world to clean up their act. Instead, they paid out dividends to me instead of investing in cleaner energy. I hope gas goes further up so I get fatter dividends. The Euros are living with $9 gas.

Thank you for being so honest about this.

So, you don't really care if the costs of electricity and gas go sky high.

That's what I thought about the environmentalist movement.

Have you found any alternative forms of energy that will provide electricity 24 hours a day at a reasonable cost? No. And you don't care about finding them.

[helpmeout]

MSM, if you think anything of your grand children's future, quit worrying about the so called (and false) global warming and start to consider the National debt we have incurred which is real and is man made, by one main man. Put reality back into life and propaganda in it's place. Research your views then if you still believe them, by all means stick by them or if you don't, change them. 'Hub

Global warming is not false.

And the main man with the national debt? Well, that would go back to Reagonomics. The other main man? The one who started two wars (one justified, one to get back at the guy who tried to kill his daddy) and lowered taxes and thought that the wars would just pay for themselves. Did Obama contribute?" Yes, as did every other president. But the main ones to blame are Reagan and Bush.

And before you go and say something condescending like research my views. I have researched my views and I stand by them.