Jo Stein wrote:
On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:
...
Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.
I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.
Thats because you have been brainwaahed.
And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining
Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.
Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP.
Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very
stupid.
They are not dangerous and they are not stupid.
The stupid dangerous people are the ones who take a little science,. and
distort it and market it for profit as global warming and renewable energy.
Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is
not a stable source of energy.
It is.
Now I get some money because a lot of
it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of
Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm,
I would give them the farm for free.
you mean you would welcome it, or immmediately run away?
When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read
the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature.
I hope that you will have a look at it:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/
I don't think you know who I am actually.
I havent read that book, but I agree completely with what the reviewerss
say.
How heavy are you? I am a marathon runner and my weight is only
70 kilograms. Then I know that inside my body I have about
610 000 000 ionizations per second. That does not scare me,
as I know that natural radiation is not at all dangerous.
If you ar a fat man you have 1 000 000 000 Bq inside your body.
1 Bq = 1 disintegration per sec.
Please do a google-search for
"ionizations in the body from natural radiation"
and then have a look at page 133 of that book.
Why are we so afraid of radiation? Because we are afraid of
atomic bombs and do not understand science. Why are TNP not
afraid of global warming? Because he do not understand science.
No its because he DO understand science. Very very well. Better at the
philosophical level and over a broad range than most scientists he has met.
There is a glaring hole in AGW. its well and skilfully hidden and
covered up, but if you pick - not through the mathematics but through
the LOGIC of the argument you find that it is in fact a CIRCULAR argument.
It starts by ASSSUMING that CO2 is the cause of ALL the climate change
that cannot otherwise be explained, adds an abritrary factor to MAKE the
equation fit the facts - which it does until about 2000, when things get
very out of shape and BECAUSE the arbirtrar scaling now makes the curves
the same declares that PROVES CO2 is the cause of late 20th century
global warming.
The maths I take on trust and peer reviewed but its a magicians trick -
its not relevant to what I am saying, the LOGIC is what is relevant.
Furthermore, the assumptions made by it that the earth is in fact a
black body when it comes to radiation, except when it suits the argument
(if it were a black body there would be no climate change at all) are
deeply specious.
For some far better science on climate change, which is DEEPLY
interesting study this paper:
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/M...nsmark2012.pdf
I can only reiterate the adage
The more I learn about nuclear power the less it scares me.
The more I learn about climate change the less it scares me.
The more I learn about climate change politics the more it scares me,
and most of all the ones who don't care if its true or not, as long as
they can make a massive profit out of it.
The more I learn about 'renewable energy' the more it scares me.
Currently I sit on a fence with respect to CO2 and global warming. If
pushed my best guess from the evidence is that CO2 induced warming will
be less than 0.2C and that actually something else entirely is causing
the minor rises we have seen (which appear broadly to have stopped).
My guess also is that clouds and cloud cover are involved.
The scsry thing is because all the research money is going into
'proving' that CO2 is the cuplrit no research money is going into
anything else and if we are wrong and it was something else we COULD
have done something about then we are in worse trouble as a result than
if we had no AGW theory at all.
But the one thing you can prove is that without massive hydro backup
(which may actually be the case in Norway, and in New Zealand)
renewable energy is the single worst way to generate electricity in a
low carbon or cheap or resource efficient way known to man.
And that is why on balance if I cant gave nuclear I'd rather frack gas.
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.