Who believes in Global Warming?

“When the hell did I get "personal"? I have never insulted you or made personal jabs.

I only had to go back 1 post. ... Every time you are presented with hard evidence to refute the "postives" of nuclear energy (by me and others) you say something dismissive and/or change the subject. How convenient for you! Ha, it seems you are no better than "us".

I looked back over this thread a bit and realized why I stopped responded to your "cost" arguments. We had concluded that already. You are believing what you want, I was believing what I want. I even said as much. If you want to keep arguing with yourself, go ahead. I see no point in continuing with you since you will only look at and respond to what is convenient for you. Ironic, since you just accused me of that. I have plenty of "cost" posts in here that you skipped over.

My posts in response to your links to your sources makes it clear that I do read your posts and sources.

Exactly, so don't tell me I didn't respond to you.

With a 30-year timeline to dismantle one - and only one - reactor, just how is nuclear energy cheap?

You're asking me how getting rid of nuclear energy is cheap. I said the use of it is cheap. You're making my point that we shouldn't get rid of it. Thanks!
last edited: 5/23/06 10:10:34 AM”

“Tech - wouldn't even bother responding to the 'personal' comments. He accuses absolutely everyone of that.”

“This continent hasn't been attacked by a foreign military since THE WAR OF 1812. Japan attacked a US TERRITORY that was taken from its indigenous inhabitants, not a state. (Unless you count balloons being launched to California!)

Like I said, I feel pretty secure.”
karma police
3:38:21 PM
5/22/06

Actually, I think the Japs also shelled the coast of Oregon from a sub, but it doesn't take away from your point.”

“TechnTrek, you gotta work on your jab.

You wouldn't knock over a kitten with stuff like that.”

“You know Sarge, making an observation of your debating style is certainly "personal", but not an insult or degrading. If you want to take it that way, its all you buddy. It would be like me being insulted if you tell me my hair is turning gray. Its an observation, not an insult. BIG difference. And this is an excellent example of how you try to change the subject.

There is no reason I would need to address that specific post to you. We've been discussing nukes for the last week. Me posting something about nukes was obviously for you. To quote you: "You have selective reading syndrome."

"I said the use of it is cheap." Getting rid of a reactor end-of-life is part of "using" it. Accounting 101 - the costs of shutting a business down are just another operating cost of that business. So you can't try to slice it off the end as a non-cost just because they aren't selling electricity anymore. All that dismantling is an operating cost, no different than the cost of buying more fuel rods when it was in production mode.

"You're making my point that we shouldn't get rid of it." Oh, I didn't know they had created reactors with no end-of-life. Ones they would never have to dismantle even after hundreds of years. Good to know. C'mon, you know very well that all plants have finite lives and must be dismantled at the end.”

“Oh, and let's not forget about the Free Mexican Air Force, Karma!”

“Y2/MarkO, yeah, I know, I'm just SO offensive. LOL.”

“Your kids must be terrified of you!!”

“Now that it's cooler at my house, thanks, it's time for you all to solve the problem of ,'Global Swarming'.”

“techntrek - Here are two posts I made BEFORE your last argument about costs. Read them again. Feel free to post your opinion on here as much as you want. That's what it's for. Just don't cry to me just because I don't respond to your every post. You didn't respond to my every point, so you shouldn't expect me to respond to your every post. I have no interest in it. You are set in your ways. Fine. I don't care. It doesn't keep me up at night. Find somebody else to debate you if you want a debate. I'm sure there are other people here willing to do so. I don't agree with your selective reasoning. That's my perogative. Live with it. Here are those quotes I promised your from BEFORE the post you're crying about:

I've said my peace.

Ok techntrek. You win. You gave me *cough*facts*cough* which are irrefutable.

After that you just kept pestering me like I'm supposed to be your trailtalk beotch. Find another beotch.
last edited: 5/23/06 10:50:09 AM”

“Sarge, the problem is you want to slice off the building costs and the decommissioning costs and only look at the costs incurred during the actual production of electricity from a plant (and then ignore the tax incentives given to help run the plant during that phase). Here's an excellent write-up on decommissioning costs from a company that contracts to power companies to dismantle their plants. Hardly any bias from any environmental whackos here... http://www.tlgservices.com/corprate/trends.htm


Basic cost-accounting rules prohibit what you are trying to do. Those are the accepted practices deemed legal by government financial powers-that-be, and not us anti-nuke whackos. You can ignore those accounting rules if you want, but the rest of the world can not.”

“Man ,I now have an appreciation for what it would be like to be a third grade teacher.”

“Hardly any bias from any environmental whackos here...

If you ignore that they are trying to save operational costs for themselves, yeah.”

“That sentence makes no sense, please rephrase.

And you continue to gloss over basic facts when it suits you. Please respond to my 2nd paragraph above.

"Dismantling / recultivation provisions - recorded when a company knows that after end of current activities, they will be obliged to incur significant costs to e.g. dismantle buildings, clean the site, safely close exhausted mines, get rid of dangerous materials etc."

Which comes from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provision_(Accounting)

Again, its Accounting 101. You can't ignore those costs.
last edited: 5/23/06 11:55:37 AM”

“You really can't read, can you techntrek?

Also, funny how you use the same exact argument I made of you. Brilliant!

Read my post from about an hour and a half ago.

If you don't get it this time, sorry, can't help you.”

“Ooo, typical Sarge dodge when you get backed into a corner. I have proven to you that you can't just count the costs of operation, and all you can do is run away instead of admiting that maybe - just maybe - you are wrong this time. Hard for you to argue against an accounting practice used by every business in the world.”

“Tell me techntrek, what response will be acceptable to you? You haven't given any real numbers. You haven't compared long term costs between technologies. You haven't considered the environmental clean-up costs (and other associated costs) of NOT using nuclear power. Your source is a company whose purpose at the time of the writing was to get the government to help them lower their operating costs. From my vantage point, you've offered nothing. So, what is it do you want me to say that will make you go away?”

“"Your source is a company whose purpose at the time of the writing was to get the government to help them lower their operating costs."

No, my source is a company which gets hired by power companies to do cost analysis for cleanup, and then be the contractor for that cleanup. For fossile fuel plants and nuclear plants. I specifically quoted that source because they are on your side. They benefit from the existance of nuclear plants and get paid by the power companies themselves. And they said the same thing I did. If you bothered to read that specific page I linked to it lists the various costs for decommissioning a plant, just like you want.”

“Like I said (which you have ignored), the only cost is not just the cost for decommissioning. What don't you understand here?

Everything I said is correct:
1. You haven't given any real numbers.

2. You haven't compared long term costs between technologies.

3. You haven't considered the environmental clean-up costs (and other associated costs) of NOT using nuclear power.

4. Your source is a company whose purpose at the time of the writing was to get the government to help them lower their operating costs.

5. From my vantage point, you've offered nothing. So, what is it do you want me to say that will make you go away?
last edited: 5/23/06 12:31:01 PM”

“Say,'Go Away' and do the same.”

“I have addressed long-term operating costs for nuclear vs. other options, including real numbers. You have not, you only quoted an article that was so full of falsities that I can't believe it was published. Then I quoted all the tax subsidies from one of your own sources! You never addressed the costs yourself.

I have discussed the environmental benefits of using renewable energy sources vs. nukes. How things like solar panels only use the stuff found on the beach as its base ingredient, and those panels last 30+ years with no dangerous cleanup at the end. People have been using solar panels since the late 70's.

You still insist that only 56 people died because of Chernobyl.

Now you are flip-flopping on your own argument. First you argue the only cost is the cost to run the plant. "You're asking me how getting rid of nuclear energy is cheap. I said the use of it is cheap." (quote from you)

And now you make is sound like you've been arguing for those costs all this time. "Like I said (which you have ignored), the only cost is not just the cost for decommissioning." And NO you never said that. I just re-read this entire thread from the last week. Now you are making things up.

Sarge, you are priceless.”

“And now you make is sound like you've been arguing for those costs all this time. "Like I said (which you have ignored), the only cost is not just the cost for decommissioning." And NO you never said that. I just re-read this entire thread from the last week. Now you are making things up. - techntrek

"You haven't considered the environmental clean-up costs (and other associated costs) of NOT using nuclear power." - Sarge

______

Just 1 simple example from this page alone where you obviously have trouble reading.

Like I said before, I am not going to argue with you. Enjoy continuing to argue with yourself. From the beginning you've proven you only read and argue what you want to as I have demonstrated, ignoring anything that doesn't suit you. You even INSIST what I say I've said wasn't said, resulting in you looking like a complete fool. I'm frankly embarassed for you. Then you have the gall to use that same reasoning on me soon after I pointed it out to you. I am starting to wonder if you have an original thought at all. Have fun arguing with yourself techntrek. You're good at it.”

“There was an interesting special about Chernobyl on PBS some time back. Lots of interviews with families and children deformed by the disaster.

If you saw it, I don't see how you could possibly support nuclear power, despite the safety record in the U.S. It's just not worth the chance.

But that alone is not what kills nuclear. Nuclear is not an option because we don't have the manpower or the money to construct the number of plants needed to meet the growth demand over the next 25 years.”

“I saw that special. That gave no proof they were that way because of the disaster.

That said, let's not ignore how outdated of a technology Chernobyl was.”

“Vicente Fox is meeting with the mormons about ,'Global Swarming". Could I remind Dr. Splitom that this is the country that built the leeves around New Orleans.
last edited: 5/23/06 6:30:11 PM”

“I saw that special. That gave no proof they were that way because of the disaster.

I find it hard to believe you believe it wasn't caused by the disaster. Do you really believe there's no connection?”

“Statistically, yes. The imagery is what gets people. The math doesn't support it. People have handicaps all over the place. The question is the frequency as significantly higher as they claimed it would be. The answer is an emphatic "no".

It's like the breast implant thing. Get an implant, get a symptom, think they're connected. The reality: Those people were no more symptomatic than the general population.

That's why libs are libs and cons are cons. Libs think with their hearts/emotions. Cons think with their brain.”

“Convicts will believe anything that supports their bible biased views.”

“Gore's inconvenient lie

So here's what Al told Grist Magazine about global warming: "I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."”

“WOW! He admitted that? Too bad other global warming alarmists aren't that truthful. Of course, I bet you he didn't put that disclaimer IN the movie.”

“Found this 16 min. vid about a guy here in Ohio who has perfected the proccess of making hydragen to the point of creating a few 100% fuel than the energy needed to make it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800”

“Statistically, yes.

Well, you're wrong. 'Before the Chernobyl accident, there was approximately one case of thyroid cancer per year for the entire Belarus child population. As a result of irradiation by short-lived radionuclides, including radioactive iodine, there has been a steady increase in the number of new cases over time. The spatial distribution of the cumulative incidence rate over 10 years (1986-95) reached as many as 1.72 cases per 1,000 children in Bragin, 1.68 in Narovlya, and 1.28 in Hoiniki districts. These districts are the closest to Chernobyl.'

That's a massive increase. Also, internal exposure from food contaminated by radiocesium contributes to more than half of the whole radiation dose received by Belarussian people. Studies also show that by 2065, about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur.
The question is the frequency as significantly higher as they claimed it would be. The answer is an emphatic "no".


It only takes one negative example to disprove any proposition. That's why reputable researchers use the null hypothesis in the hypthetico-deductive method of theory confirmation. You've stated that the frequency of cancer as a result of the disaster is not significantly higher. I've provided an example to the contrary. Your statement is therefore false.


That's why libs are libs and cons are cons. Libs think with their hearts/emotions. Cons think with their brain.

More sweeping generalizations, lumping everyone into one of two "buckets," etc. No one thinks with their heart.

A perfect example of a "liberal" that uses his head and that has yet to be successfully refuted in debate by your psuedo-intellectual bulldogs is Noam Chomsky.”

“Good job on proving my statement false. I agree with what you said. I did forget about thyroid cancer. The reason I forgot about it is because that ISN'T the mutated people we were talking about from the program, AND, we have the technology and the knowledge in this country to do something about it with a simple pill to people exposed to a potential danger.

Hey, when I play this game can I base everything on the exceptions to the rule also? That sounds like fun!”

“We've got a pill for everything, don't we? And the great thing about nuclear disasters is they will drive business. Clean up specialists will get big contracts. Drug manufacturers benefit. And although the insurance industry takes a short term hit, in the long term, they can raise rates and win, too.

The population will be reduced due to deaths, but that helps the funeral industry and preachers who charge to preach at funerals.

Time Magazine and other publications get to do major stories that will help sell ads and increase ad revenue.

Almost everyone wins with nuclear disaster!”

“Yikes! I'm scared now! Run for your lives!!

When you get tired of running, come back to the 21st Century.”

“Make everyone who plans, works at, owns stock in, designed or built live with a 1/2 mile of the plant ,no exceptions.”

“The Democratic hypocricy thread was made before fuego, so I thought I'd pull a USA/Violin and pull a twister-post.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

The CEI video, which may be viewed at: http://streams.cei.org/, includes footage of Gore and his constant air travel with two CO2 meters running at the bottom of the page that compare Gore’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with those of an average person.

Enjoy!”

“i believe in global warming. i live up in alberta canada. usually we're up to our knees in snow but this last winter we barely got half a foot.”

“LOL! Perhaps you guys are getting taller up north?”

“This thread is a fine example of why the USA will never solve any of its' serious problems. This place and congress have way to much in common.”

“Sarge, your post above from 5/23 just proves that you never argued anything about the decommissioning costs of nukes. Your quote of yourself:

   "You haven't considered the environmental
   clean-up costs (and other associated
   costs) of NOT using nuclear power."

That isn't any kind of proof that you acknolowledged the costs of decommissioning at all, so I don't know why you quoted that. All it proves is you think there will be large costs involved if we don't use nukes. Which is true - if we don't stop using coal/gas/oil based power plants then global warming will continue unabated.”

“Sarge, your post above from 5/23 just proves that you never argued anything about the decommissioning costs of nukes.

...

All it proves is you think there will be large costs involved if we don't use nukes.

Um, that's the point. Read it again, you missed something apparently.”

“Obviously your LEADER IN CHARGE ALGORE...(AKA THE LOSER) doesn't

http://streams.cei.org/..

HYPOCRACY your name is Liberal Socialisim”

“As far as I know we have never decommissioned a plant in the US. The first one built, up near Humboldt, is still "active" (rods removed but I believe stored on site). PG&E told the commission they didn't know how to do it and didn't have the funds and asked to be able leave the contamination on site.


It is still there....waiting.

Some of this may have changed, but I havent read about it.
last edited: 5/25/06 8:25:08 AM”

“Cool vid of a nuke plant being imploded in Oregon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2TFLlA3jA”

“Yeah MTN, if it was something counter to the leftist idea of Shared pain (we have to suffer there is not way to create more energy) the media would be RACING out to show it.....”

“mtnsteve, the Trojan nuclear site in Oregon is well on its way. In fact, the main site is officially decommissioned - the license has been cancelled and the site is radiation-free. That is what allowed the demolition of the cooling tower that Nigal linked to. All the low-level stuff has been shipped up-river. The fuel rods are sitting in storage on-site (different license, different "site") and will be there for at least another 20 years or so. I talked about this over the last few days if you want to scan back.”

“Global Warming Skeptic Claims Environmental Conversion

Thursday , May 25, 2006

By Steven Milloy

Al Gore’s new global warming movie is apparently causing some to think that a major turning point in the debate is at hand.

The ranks of the so-called global warming “skeptics” were supposedly thinned this week when prominent environmental commentator Gregg Easterbrook announced his defection in a May 24 New York Times op-ed.

“As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I’m now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert,” wrote Easterbrook, a senior editor with The New Republic and a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Easterbrook a “skeptic”? With “a long record of opposing alarmism”? Are there two Gregg Easterbrooks?

Though Easterbrook is far from a household name, readers of environmental commentary are certainly familiar with his reputation as a left-of-center eco-contrarian – an image secured by his 1995 book entitled, “A Moment on Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism.”

Publicly reviled by environmentalists and hailed by their opponents, Easterbrook’s book examined human impact on the environment and concluded that the environment was getting better, not worse.

But 1995 is so over and now in 2006, Easterbrook concluded in the Times that “[Global warming] research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger.”

So what changed Easterbrook’s mind? Ironically, it was a report from the Bush administration released earlier this month. Before we get to that, consider what developments Easterbrook says in his op-ed didn’t persuade him.

Easterbrook writes that, in 2003, the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Service “both declared that signs of global warming had become compelling” and “In 2004, the American Association for the Advancement of Science said that there was no longer any ‘substantive disagreement in the scientific community’ that artificial global warming is happening.”

He also notes that in 2005 the national science academies of the U.S., U.K., China, Germany and Japan issued a joint statement announcing that “significant global warming is occurring.”

But it wasn’t “case closed,” according to Easterbrook’s op-ed, until the Bush administration’s Climate Change Science Program announced this month that research supports “a substantial human impact on global temperature.”

It’s difficult to take this alleged conversion seriously. Since at least 1998, Easterbrook has consistently regurgitated global warming alarmism.

In a 1998 New Republic article, Easterbrook wrote that “the scientific consensus on global warming has strengthened,” that projected warming could be “quite nasty” and that “coming temperature increases appear cast in stone.”

In 2000, Easterbrook criticized CBS for “trivializing the greenhouse effect” by broadcasting the 1993 miniseries “The Fire Next Time,” which depicted the U.S. as destroyed by global warming in the year 2007. Later in 2000, Easterbrook wrote, "The signs of global warming keep accumulating… realistic steps against global warming could start right away. A warming world need no longer be our destiny.”

In 2003, Easterbrook criticized Democrats for being too critical of President Bush and discouraging him from “proposing… meaningful global warming rules.”

In 2004, Easterbrook wrote that, “There are troubling problems with Bush administration attitudes toward science, especially greenhouse gases.” In 2005, Easterbrook wrote that “restraining greenhouse gases” was “our next great environmental project.”

Contrary to assertions in his Times op-ed, Easterbrook’s writings indicate that he became a global warming convert long ago – not just this month. So what’s up with the melodramatic announcement of his “conversion”?

Easterbrook may be thinking that Al Gore’s movie and attendant hoopla will finally cause sufficient public panic to catapult the global warming alarmists to rhetorical victory. If so, Easterbrook may want to atone to the environmental activist community that he previously alienated by “A Moment on Earth” and any other eco-contrarian “moments” he has had over the last decade.

Easterbrook will no doubt be welcomed and forgiven for any past sins by the environmentalists since, as a prominent eco-contrarian writer, his supposed “conversion” from skeptic to convert purports to signal the public that a major turning point in the global warming debate has been reached.

I suppose a major turning point has been reached – Al Gore and the alarmists have seemingly gone over the edge in thinking that a movie rather than scientific debate is the way to resolve the global warming controversy. There certainly has been no change in the science – there is still no persuasive evidence that humans are adversely affecting global climate or that humans can manipulate global climate by regulating greenhouse gas emission.

Moreover, it’s quote ironic that the tipping point for Easterbrook was a statement about global warming from the Bush administration whose viewpoint apparently is not credible until it coincides with his own.

It’s quite laughable that Easterbrook and the New York Times fancy his imaginary status as a new convert of any importance to the global warming debate. It’s the science that’s important, not a journalist’s self-aggrandizement for political and possible career-advancing purposes.

And if there are two Gregg Easterbrooks, will the real skeptic please stand up?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute .”

“techntrek, You're quite right. I went back and read your post. I like the line..

"So it takes over 30 years to sort-of get rid of a nuke. Solar panels produce electricity for more time than that"

The total cost for decommissioning a plant seems to be more than the cost of building it originally.”

“mtnsteve - and according to that subcontractor (that removes power plants for electric companies) the cost has been doubling year-to-year in recent years. What cost $150 per cubic foot a year ago now costs $300.

Glad you enjoyed the recent debate.”