That's true. That's my argument. I'm saying that we have pretty good technologies right now that can reduce the effects, get rid of health problems people have, etc. The same argument used to be made that smoking a cigarette didn't harm anything. Really? How's that working now...

Wow. I'll rephrase "decrepit old fool" to include people that don't update their knowledge of nuclear power before making an argument against it...

My basis on the "outdated" nature of education is sound... I got my first bachelor's degree in the 90s, the second one in the late 90's, and my master's a couple of years ago. An interesting thing with my master's, I had to take a science class for a requirement so I took an astronomy class.

So, in the 90s, we really weren't entirely sure if black holes existed. Now we've taken pictures of the one at the center of the galaxy, we've mapped the entire galaxy to within a few million years of the big bang, and we have found over 2000 (growing daily) exo-planets circling other stars and recently have been able to figure out their size, the composition of their atmosphere, and their surface temperature.

What do you think the astronaut in school in the 40's or 50's would have regarding that? A tear in the eye watching sputnik go beep beep beep?

I work in advanced research topics for a government contractor. We have some old people around, very few, we let them think they are important, but they are not and we kind of let them entertain themselves. Then I write the technical solution and 99% of the proposal that gets us the next $100 million contract and we let the old guys work on labor performance metrics or something. I'd say I'll be there some day, but I figured I would take a year off in the next decade and get my PhD and avoid that staleness a little longer.

Diesel is "ok" I suppose. Makes a good (small) generator, like on a freight train, which charges the batteries and the batteries drive the electric motor which produces 100% of its maximum torque at 0 RPM, and moves the train. Exactly like the Volt does, actually, the gas engine recharges the battery after about 50 miles and it can drive indefinitely at something like 90 mpg and camaro/corvette levels of performance (when flipped to sport mode). But you can't power a city with that.

Now, on to the argument I was making. Renewable power isn't very "doable", it works fine when decentralized, like some expensive panels that power my house and still happens to be cheaper than paying the utility middleman to cover the cost of their pensions & healthcare for several hundred thousand employees, driving the cost from around $0.03 per kWh on the wholesale market, to around $0.38 per kWh at retail. The panels run around $0.17 per kWh, so is technically cheaper. Putting a bunch in the desert, and then running through the middleman wouldn't be. And it doesn't matter, you can't make base-load generation with renewables, and the math isn't there for it to work at any level of efficiency.

So here's the physics of the argument. When you burn a gallon of gasoline, you convert one-billionth (that is the number) of the mass of the fuel into kinetic energy to move the car. The rest is expended as heat and friction and you counter that with a radiator to keep it from melting down on itself. That's why gas-fired electric plants are very expensive to run. It isn't "eco-nuts" driving the price of fossil fuels up, it's just the fact that all the easy-to-get stuff is gone, and now we go to the edge of the earth to find it, and we're not the only or the largest buyer at the table anymore.

I was in error at 150 rail cars a day, I looked it up, it's 110 per 30 hour period. Each is 100 tons these days, I was thinking they were smaller for some reason.

Modern nuclear reactors don't use the hot fuel of the ones of old... again, it's that updated education thingy. You can handle modern fuel rods with a pair of plastic gloves, and we don't burn them or anything. They are placed in a pool of water, for about 5 years, and when in close proximity to other fuel rods, the electrons jump about and creates heat which drives steam turbines. Every 18 months, you are left with something like 6 ounces of spent waste.

What do we do with it? Well, actually, they are reprocessed into armaments... C130 specter gunships carry depleted-uranium armor piercing rounds. The "waste" from a modern reactor is perfect for munitions, its relatively harmless in terms of radioactivity, but is about 2 ½ times heavier than lead, much "harder" and pierces carbon steel quite easily. That's the atomic weight of 235/236 doing the talking...

So how exactly is Pinatubo responsible for Glacier National Park not really having any glaciers anymore? Or Yosemite having a fraction of the water volume it once did, or the Arctic ice cap basically being open to water navigation?

The earth has "cycles", that argument is true, but geologic cycles are in tens of thousands of years, not ten or 100 years.

If you read my post, you would see that the argument I'm making is that the lack of resources is going to create a lot more instability in the world.

An interesting note about diesel... gasoline is made from light-sweet crude, like West Texas and "easy to get" oil in the US. You can make diesel from that too, but its easier to make it from the high-sulfur sludgy stuff from the mid-east, and is why there are a lot more diesel engines in Europe - as it gets its oil from the Mid East.

Buying the diesel, kind of puts more money into the pockets of jihadi's... just saying. :)

I love Asimov and Trek, also Arthur C Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson.

AJ from this board wrote a sci-fi story; parts of it feel very real. Parts of it are a little boring, I think on purpose like 2001 was boring on purpose, to show you the boring aspects of space travel.

I want people to go to space and build Gulches, just far enough to be left alone but not so far to be completely hidden. It's more likely to build them in the sea or remote regions but I still like the notion.

It was the dream of my childhood to be among them. To be able to go into space and see not just different countries, but different worlds. The dreams of a young boy, rockets and spacecraft. Fueled by Heinlein and Asimov and certainly Star Tek.

You think when a practice is associated with tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity, it's hard (not impossible) to make rational assessments about it. There's just so much profit there clouding everyone's judgment. I agree completely.

Argument from authority can be a logical fallacy if the premise that the authority is a reliable expert about the matter. If we cannot use any authority, that means we cannot look up things like materials properties in trusted reference source or we cannot trust the scientific consensus on the treatment of a disease.

"Do his credentials qualify him to form a reliable opinion about this particular field of science?"
It's like taking advice on megadoses of Vitamin C from Linus Pauling. It's like those arguments that say Albert Einstein or some other esteemed person said XYZ outside his field.

"I'm an advocate of "sustainability", but defining that as probably something like an "all of the above" strategy to start fixing the effects of global warming (which I really call the over-extraction of natural resources). "
Just because burning stuff causes global warming, at least according the preponderance of the scientific evidence, it does not mean that it's impossible to extract and use the resources in way that doesn't cause environmental damage.

Science is never settled. It's always open to new evidence.

This does mean we have to investigate homeopathy or ESP over and over again in subtly different ways. But if something completely new is observed, even something that's similar to things like homeopathy, which scientific observations show has no effect, we'd love to learn about it.

Antibiotics were an easy cure for bacterial infections. It would be great to find easy or hard solutions to all human problems. Scientific models aren't like old wisdom passed down through the ages; they change all the time with new evidence.

When you talk about things becoming more "toxic" it sounds scary but doesn't provide info. We need to identify specific toxins and do something about them.

The relevance is rationalization. You start with with conclusion and then look for anything in the world that supports it. There's a whole method of scientific rational thought in which you collect facts before drawing conclusions, but it's hard to maintain when the facts show something you really don't like. I see this in people diagnosed with a terrible disease. You can think, "maybe this is a conspiracy of the medical establishment to milk money from me." and then start searching for any evidence that supports that.

I'm still optimistic that climate change be managed. It's not like an incurable disease. It's just something expensive and inconvenient that we all wish weren't true.

scojohnson - If I understood your assertion concerning "The Astronaut's" ability to correctly derive correct assumption's concerning climate change, you seem to access his ability based on the age of his degree from the 40's and his period of active work in the engineering and scientific community from the 50's to the 70's. It seems to me that after devaluating his education and life experience by his advanced age, you pause just long enough to sum the results as "decrepit old fool".

Following this withering piece of scientific analysis you then take the scientific data, analysis, and life experience, evaluate it with the foregone conclusion "has been", and substitute it with a few Science 101 class demonstrations which are supposed to dazzle us. You missed the mark.

You next make the pronouncement that EVERY single eco-wank makes - the effects of climate change are pretty undeniable. Really?? I'll deny them. Pretty much the math works like this - I deny them, you proclaim them, cross yourself as you fall prostrate and the result is that we pretty much cancel one another out. You are left with a zero. But. lets move on, just for the fun of it, shall we?

Next you make a truly astonishing conclusion that in a coal fired plant that burns 150-200 boxcars of coal a day and as it consumes this proposed 150 boxcars a day, then 150 boxcars a day migrate up it's exhaust stack. In reality nowhere near that amount WASTE byproducts escape the plant due to a large number of scrubber and exhaust filters similar to the catalytic converter on most folks car. Also, don't forget that the coal is burned, it changes mass for energy. The resultant is much, much smaller. And just as the exhaust on most cars is much cleaner than in years past, coal fired power plants exhaust byproducts are a fraction of what they once were. While this is still a certain amount, it is small compared to that found in most of the world and much better than that found in China and other countries that refuse to reach our standards - they prefer to be profitable. No matter how much cleaner we try to make our plants, we will never be able to make up for the excesses of China and all the third world.

I was truly surprised with the jump to the melt that is ongoing in the Antarctica, few on your side will. I'm certain you are wondering why and the answer is thankfully short and plainly oblivious to anyone who will accept the data.

In 1991 Mt Pinatubo erupted with what is commonly recognized as the second most powerful eruption in the 1900's. The ejecta was so massive that the total amount cannot be accurately estimated, but land around the volcano was buried as much as 18-20 feet fro twenty miles. There were 15-30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas ejected as the plume rose to 31Km (21 miles). Over 90% of the material released from the volcano was ejected during the 9hr eruption of June 15th.

The result of this eruption and huge ejection of "Greenhouse Gases" over such a short period resulted in "unprecedented growth in the Antarctica Ozone hole. It grew to a size never seen before.

Now, all this seems to be ligning up with everything the Eco-ologists are telling us will happen as "Greenhouse Gases" grow due to man caused global warming. BUT, that's not what happened.

The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi river and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992.

Overall, the cooling effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption were greater than those of the El Niño that was taking place at the time or of the greenhouse gas warming of the planet. Remarkable sunrises and sunsets were visible around the globe in the years following the Mount Pinatubo eruption. http://geography.about.com/od/globalprob...

I frankly do not have a clue about the number of boxcars of ash Mt. Pinatubo left behind, but it was a lot. So much so that the southern hemisphere is STILL recovering from it's effects. The deposit of ash on the ice of Antarctica has resulted in increased ice temps and more aggressive melts, but they are due to one nine hour period in June 15th 1991, not due to the power plant that supplies my electricity.

I'm very happy you like your volt, have fun with it. Save all the diesel fuel for me you can. When I fire up my 2013 9800lb 1 ton dually truck with a turbo charged diesel motor that makes 650 horse power and STILL gets 18-22mpg I like having a full tank, just in case I decide to drive to a land far away. This truck is my idea of alternative energy. My 2011 Van runs on gasoline, gets 14mpg, I paid cash for both, no interest for me either.

When you figure out how to deal with the waste products from making fuel rods, disposing of "spent rods" either by recycling them or "recharging" them (a bad use of language that appeared in a recent trade journal) I'll get excited by nuclear power plants. It's not commercialy viable until you can get rid of it. The Navy can't even get rid of their waste for a half dozen carriers and 24 or 25 subs - there is still the original pile out of the Nautilus sitting in a warehouse in Norfolk. It's been there about 40 years. I guess that could be called sustainability too.


.

star, really? there are other heroes...but I know what you mean...

This world has been hotter. This world has been colder. There has always been climate change. Change has always been climate's constant. An old dino like me would know..

I'll accept his credentials anytime. Of all the men alive on planet Earth, there are just a couple handful whom I'm truly jealous of - they all walked on the moon. Other than those few, I'd not trade lives with (or even segments of lives with) anybody here.

But, I thought the "science" was "settled"?

Liberals...usually wrong, but never in doubt.

I gave up figuring out climate and weather and all that and built my very own weather rope. It's a rope hanging from a fence post.

If it's dry, you can be certain it's not raining.
If the rope is wet, you can be certain it's raining
If it's cold out and the rope is hard, it might snow.
If the rope is swinging, you can be certain the wind is blowing.

With all the things the "weather rope" allows me to be certain about, why would I waste my time watching the Weather Channel? Or listening to somebody who tells me cow farts are destroying the planet. Hey pinhead Eco-Nazis, I will KNOW that you are right when my weather rope is pointing straight up. So far it's hanging straight down and that tells me just how right you aren't.

A person with an ideal can never defeat a person with an experience.

Can you say "windmill farms"??? If you only had a glimmer of what I know about it. I don't have time to lay it all out, but a friend headed a construction crew doing part of the installation of these across country. All purchased through GE, and who ran GE - right up to being tapped by BO as one of his czars??? Follow that by checking on the contracts that were let out as $2 trillion in stimulus money was given to shovel ready projects - GE again??? And after tens of millions were spent on each wind farm (that can only "run" 35% of the time) how many of these are "hooked" to the grid and pumping out KW??? Hint, very, very few. The problem is that the grid lacks the capacity to add the farms to it, for the most part. The actual payback from a wind farm is 15 years! IF they ran 100% of the time which they can't.

I could drive 1 hour in any direction and show you a number of wind farms that were granted accelerated construction permits based on essential need, a process that takes 5 years to reach the point of beginning construction was accelerated to 1 year - in one nearby case 6 months. But of the 6 nearest "farms", only 1 is hooked into the grid. The rest are in idle mode and are turning just to keep things operational.

Check the ones near yourself. The large switching station where the farm hooks to the grid is very noticeable. Look for a set of high tension lines, high voltage bars, insulators all fenced to keep people out. You'll see them "If" they are there. But don't be surprised if you don't find any - it seems that the stimulus money paid for the "farm" but NOT the grid you need to make it useful.

So you might ask, why can't we get these tied in where they might do some good? In the case of the farms around Illinois, the expansion is tied up trying to get the required Environmental Impact studies passed.

In the meantime the windmills go around and around - and the eco-nuts tell us we are the ones "killing the planet". I wonder how much pollution was generated to make and erect each of those windmill farms where nothing green grows anymore?

Climate is changing and not for the better. Whether "man" is responsible or not is moot. Every day our environment is becoming more toxic (thanks to "man") and more radioactive (ref: Fukushima). Human population growth is putting an extreme strain on the food and energy sources and terrorism is proliferating. So, STOP wasting time talking about CO2 levels and think more about the real dangers we are facing. OY!

THIS is so very, very true. Look at the language, the furor, the mindless devotion that mimics the absolute worse attitudes leftover from the communes from the 60's. Praise the skygod and pass the dubee bro.

Now it's man caused global warming (or climate change now) that's the current excerpt from the "Earth as god" mindset where the Earth's warrior in politics - the EPA - takes on all who would violate "mother earth" while destroying any business or human effort as being a slight against their god.

"Never argue with a fool. A fool will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Oh I agree. I was pointing out that one need not be a PhD or otherwise expert to qualify them to make a valid argument.
Al Gore's argument is fallacious because correlation is not causality.