The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Not Afraid]

MIT vs Harvard?

That's why I posted the information that is a gathering of data with some general conscientious attached.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

MIT vs Harvard?

How often do Harvard scientist do this?



I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field....Dr. Landsea; IPCC

[sleepyjeff]

^The article was written by a critic of Taylors...I thought it would be better accepted here for that reason. I can, of course link directly to his website at Oregon State if you want a biassed link((so you can say it is a biassed link)

Since we are ripping each others sources:

The IPCC is losing some of its top scientist since they disagree with the way they(IPCC) are starting with a conclusion and filling in data to support said conclusions; and data that supports anything other than the decided conclusion is silenced((((that's how science by majority works you know)))
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...s/landsea.html

[sleepyjeff]

Fossill Fuells warming up the planet?

Nuclear energy just too scary?

How about Wind Power?

Oh wait; enviromentalist, who have been calling for wind power now for some 40 odd years are starting to see those turbines may actually one day work. New designs are making it possible that one giant turbine can turn out more energy than 30 smaller 1970s desgins.

Can't have that.....might be good for those Evil American corporations...must find good reason to abandon wind as an alternative.

Senator Kennedy(one of the key proponets of the Kyoto treaty) decided that wind power may harm waterfowl and so should not be placed anywhere where it might obstruct his nice view


My family has a long history on Cape Cod. After growing up and raising my children here, I understand the enormous national treasure we have in the Cape. We have an obligation to preserve it for future generations, which requires us to know the impact of our decisions on the landscape, seascape, and environment."
~Senator Kennedy, 2003 regarding a proposed wind farm to be placed off the shore of Cape Cod

"Mr. Kennedy is not against windmill power per se but he is opposed to those projects in his immediate view and would be offended to see and smell the rotting corpses of waterfowl washing up on the beaches of Cape Cod. He would much prefer that these bird blenders be situated elsewhere, such as in your backyard."~New Republics Dan Evans

Once again the arrogance of the elite left baffles me Does Kennedy honestly think none of us have nice views we would rather not see destroyed by immense wind turbines or does he just not care?

[wendybeth]

Sen. Kennedy hardly has a monopoly on elitism. Maybe it's just less forgivable when it comes from someone purportedly on the side of the less fortunate? Or is it that a lefty who can afford to be elitist is so rare these days?

[sleepyjeff]

^^heh, heh....lol.

Well put.

[Stan4dSteph]

Please keep buying wind power; it helps pay my bills.

http://www.ecomagination.com

[sleepyjeff]

^I can't get over that guys tie..........couldn't concentrate on anything he was saying as tie was very distracting

[innerSpaceman]

Just going back to windmills in your neighborhood for a moment ... I don't see what's wrong with not wanting them to intrude on a beautiful environment that should be preserved for generations beyond one's own.

I suppose we could simply burn all the trees in National Parks if we were more concerned with energy production than nature.

Truth is, there's plenty of barren, windswept spots in this vast nation for those ugly turbine fields. It's true that seacoasts are windy, but they are also a vast natural treasure that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.


(Of course, if they learn to disguise the big turbines as quaint Dutch windmills of yore, then we may be able to plant them in picturesque locales.)

[Alex]

Yeah, but somebody things those "barren windswept spots" are vast natural treasures that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.

Also, they tend to be far away from the places where the people actually want the electricity. I'd guess Dutch windmills are also much less quaint if you have 8 of them per acre for 10,000 acres.

Tehachopi (SoCal) and Altamont Pass (NoCal) are visually interesting and don't really bother me (and I live almost within visual distance of Altamont). But I don't know that I would like them reproduced anywhere on the scale necessary to provide broad energy relief.

That's part of the reason I don't understand the fear of nuclear power. Yes, it has a small potential for significant environmental if something goes wrong. But almost every other form of power generation (that can produce the levels of energy we need) has the significant environment impact designed into it. Coal produces more polution, by design, than nuclear would produce in an anything-but-worst-case containment failure. Industrial solar and wind would require distorting and destroying the land equivelant of the Rocky Mountain states. Hydroelectric is the cleanest energy we've ever produced on a mass scale and it has resulted in the most destructive land use policies in the history of world.

In 40 years of nuclear energy in this country using mostly first generation designs we have never experienced either a radiation fatality nor a significant radiation release. Our one mechanical failure should actually have been trumpeted as a success. Three Mile Island did exactly what any nuclear reactor should do in case of failure. Many other countries get a significant source of their power from nuclear using 3rd or 4th generation designs and haven't experienced even minor failures.

Chernobyl was a ****-up but it was almost cocked-up by design. It had barely even rudimentary safety features and was misdesigned to almost make containment failure inevitable. It's kind of like abandoning cars because the Pinto tended to explode.

Storage of waste is a problem, but at least it is one that can be worked on and is mostly skewed by the inability of most people to make rational evaluations of risk. Storage of waste byproducts from our other sources of energy isn't really even a technical feasibility.

I am heartened because while nuclear is still mostly tabboo in "green politics," we are starting to see more and more prominent environmentalists saying it is at least something that needs to be put back on the table.