The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

I think a big step has recently been taken on that front with new rules allowing nuclear power plants in the United States to reprocess fuel.

Previously it could only go through once and ended up highly radioactive and something like 70% of its potential engergy still contained. But under new rules they are allowed to put it through again and the results are increasinly less radioactive.

As for storage, go put it back in the uranium mines. (Yes, that is flippant)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I don't pretend to be a scientist - I'm far from it, but when I experience loads of really smart scientists saying the same thing, I tend to take their expert word on it.

Science by majority?

Those scientist who disagree with the global warming theory are not small in number either(although I wouldn't describe them as "loads")....are we to call them "ignorant" of their own field of study?

Not 30 years ago many of the very smartest scientist in the world said we were on the verge of an ice age. Publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine had article after article calling for more studies "before its too late". Those who dared to disagree were also called "ignorant". Those same publications and even some of the same scientists are now screaming the opposite....and of course those who don't panic along with them are called "ignorant".


A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Science by majority?

Those scientist who disagree with the global warming theory are not small in number either(although I wouldn't describe them as "loads")....are we to call them "ignorant" of their own field of study?

Not 30 years ago many of the very smartest scientist in the world said we were on the verge of an ice age. Publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine had article after article calling for more studies "before its too late". Those who dared to disagree were also called "ignorant". Those same publications and even some of the same scientists are now screaming the opposite....and of course those who don't panic along with them are called "ignorant".


A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.

I think anyone who doubts whether there is global warming needs to head to Alaska, where the glaciers are receding at an incredible rate. Greenland is another 'hot spot'- the fisherman can tell you how things have changed in the past few decades. I know our weather up here has totally changed since I was a kid.

I trust the views of a majority of scientists over the views of a minority, especially since so many of the nay-sayers have their heads up Bush's ass. Now, with Kempthorne in office, we're really screwed.

I realise the earth cycles out- warm periods alternating with ice ages- but usually it's catastrophic for the species that has adapted to the preceding age. We are that species this time around.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I think anyone who doubts whether there is global warming needs to head to Alaska, where the glaciers are receding at an incredible rate. Greenland is another 'hot spot'- the fisherman can tell you how things have changed in the past few decades. I know our weather up here has totally changed since I was a kid.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/21/D8H4KC1G9.html


The Harvard Glacier has been advancing since 1905, and possibly earlier. It has advanced at an average rate of nearly 20 m a-1 since 1931, while the adjacent Yale Glacier has retreated at a rate of approximately 50 m a-1 during the same time period. The striking contrast between the terminus behavior of the Yale and Harvard Glaciers, which parallel each other in the same fjord, and are derived from the same snowfield, supports the hypothesis that their terminus behavior is largely the result of dynamic controls rather than changes in climate. If climate were controlling the terminus behavior, more synchronous behavior between the two glaciers would be expected (Sturm et al., 1991).

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/21/D8H4KC1G9.html


The Harvard Glacier has been advancing since 1905, and possibly earlier. It has advanced at an average rate of nearly 20 m a-1 since 1931, while the adjacent Yale Glacier has retreated at a rate of approximately 50 m a-1 during the same time period. The striking contrast between the terminus behavior of the Yale and Harvard Glaciers, which parallel each other in the same fjord, and are derived from the same snowfield, supports the hypothesis that their terminus behavior is largely the result of dynamic controls rather than changes in climate. If climate were controlling the terminus behavior, more synchronous behavior between the two glaciers would be expected (Sturm et al., 1991).

NOOOO- Oh God...no facts that might contradict the people are destroying the world mind set!

NOOOOOOO!!!!

(by the way- great find)

[lizziebith]

Science by majority is, in fact, the rule. It's called "peer review." You can't get published without it. Are mistakes made? Hell yeah. But the diff. between science and theology is that science will admit mistakes (for example, plate tectonic theory -- originally laughed at, now taken as obvious). Thank you, first-year archaeology professor, for explaining that to the creationists taking his class just to disrupt proceedings.

Peer review is still the best way we have at our disposal to check the weird ideas. If a weird idea is spot on, though, it will eventually sway...and I happen to think the system rocks in its own funky way.

If it is shown that the globe isn't warming, I'll be surprised, but I've been surprised by more mundane things, so...*shrug* My dollar is on warming.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

Science by majority is, in fact, the rule. It's called "peer review." You can't get published without it. Are mistakes made? Hell yeah. But the diff. between science and theology is that science will admit mistakes (for example, plate tectonic theory -- originally laughed at, now taken as obvious).

....so when the majority of scientist didn't believe in plate tectonics(less than 70 years ago) the minority that did were wrong?

....when the majority of scientist believed that there could not possibly be anything smaller than the atom were the minority wrong?

....when the majority of scientist believed that the Earth could not possibly support a billion people were the ....well, my point must be obvious now.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

....so when the majority of scientist didn't believe in plate tectonics(less than 70 years ago) the minority that did were wrong?

No, but they were eventually proven right. It's a matter of whether or not you believe eventually has already passed in this case.

[sleepyjeff]

^Exactly. I still think the jury is out. This isn't a 2 plus 2 = 4 observation. There are many, many very well respected climate experts out there who are not on board yet.

---Not all of them work for Exxon, Shell, or Cheney either

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

^Exactly. I still think the jury is out. This isn't a 2 plus 2 = 4 observation. There are many, many very well respected climate experts out there who are not on board yet.

Whereas others believe eventually has come and gone.