How green are the Emperors new clothes

[catgate]

I was cogitating on matters of global warming the other day. Wondering just how much of the fuss is reality and how much of it is in actual fact politically inspired and financed, bovine excremental peasant control material.

At the end of my wonderings I was not moved a great deal from my original standpoint of a probable ratio of about 30:70, but I did get round to trying to understand the nuclear aspect of the proposals.

I am posting this because I feel there are a number of members on here who may have something to offer in the way of comments on my thoughts and I would welcome their views.

It seems to me that since we are in the present situation, due in the main to an increase in cyclic sunspot activity exacerbating the underlying situation, the nuclear side of things need careful study.

The energy thrown at us from the sun is due to nuclear energy being released into the universe and we are in receipt of our allotted portion. This heats up the planet and gives us life and food. It has given us materials which have been covered over and which we now use as energy sources and call them fossil fuels. It is claimed the waste products from our use of these materials cause a greenhouse effect and prevent waste heat from all sources, including sunspot generated energy heat, from disappearing into the xxxosphere.

As a substitute for the fossil fuels "those who know best" are offering nuclear energy as the alternative for the generation of electricity., because it produces no greenhouse gas.

Nuclear energy, as its name implies, is the release of energy stored in the atomic nucleus. That energy is there now, stored in every atom on the earth of every substance, to some degree or other. Yet because it is in equilibrium it is safe and benign. On the sun it is running amok.

Now if we start releasing this energy here on earth, by what ever means, we still have a wall of greenhouse gas preventing any heat from escaping into the xxxosphere..So we exacerbate the heating up process.

Granted the use of fossil fuels could be halted, at the cost of an enormous upheaval, but the natural carbon cycle, through vegetation and animal life, would continue unabated. This would inevitably lead to the production of more methane and more greenhouse gas.

I can not see how any enormous upheaval can be avoided, whatever the strategy, unless the sunspot activity reduces.

I wondered, in my cynical way, if the nuclear option is being touted as an armament cloak.

edit:- bloody keyboard!!!!

[AlanHo]

I believe it is going to be a few years yet before an answer to your central question becomes clear and generally accepted. I fear that things will need to get much worse before there is general acceptance that it is indeed mankind that is responsible for tipping the climate balance.

My own view is that nuclear energy is the way forward plus rigid controls of population growth, deforestation and sea pollution. Nuclear can provide our energy needs without adding to greenhouse gases and will give nature a chance to regain control of the carbon dioxide balance.

The reduction in overall energy requirements is just as important as cheap and non polluting energy generation. Allowing the forests to re-grow and giving the sea a chance to do its job are vital elements in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Further population growth will make the problem much worse - indeed it is vital that we reduce the population of the earth by every means possible.

I do not have a clue how we will ever get a consensus worldwide on these issues - indeed it is a likely trigger for the next World war. Throughout the history of the earth, nature has a habit of pruning populations when the habitat is threatened and it may well be that our turn is coming.

[Tankus]

nukes are not the way to go ....

They are inherently unsafe,and when they do pollute the reach is global....... we still haven't yet decided a permanent solution to our current magnoxes , on site pooling is a very iffy way of dealing with the problem , this issue will become more critical in another decade as they all come to an end of safe (ish )running lifespan ...

Don't get sold the dream by the men in the white coats

The reduction in overall energy requirements is just as important as cheap and non polluting energy generation.

Yellowcake opencast mining and uranium extraction is a very nasty messy business , we are just letting the 3rd world do our polluting and dying for us ... so that we can just press that button that goes ding

Its like using a military fame thrower to boil a cup of water ....

And seriously expensive if you honestly factor in the cost of design, build, running and decommissioning and not fudge or write off startup .

And why do you think that France built most of her fast breeders near to its boarders ...? 50/50 chance innit ..!

Climate temps always fluctuate due to many factors , we've just become another one

[deuces wild]

A thoughtful presentation on global warming:

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

[andsome]

The temperature of the earth has gone through cycles for millions of years, but I don't in all honesty think that there can be any doubt that we are now making a major contribution to a rise in temperature. We are also reducing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere by deforestation and by pollution of the air and the seas. Corals are dying all over the world. I'm afraid that religion yet again does rear its ugly head and have a part in the problem. It stands to reason that we cannot sustain an indefinite growth in population. We will reach the time when we are knee deep in our own excrement., and there will be nowhere near enough food for all. The population is increasing at an exponential rate. The Chinese at least have the right idea here in attempting to limit population growth. Whether those religions who do not allow birth control like it or not, SOMETHING has to be done to keep population growth VERY MUCH DOWN. I know that some will not like this view, but can they offer an alternative?

[edbanger]

The Chinese at least have the right idea here in attempting to limit population growth.

Yes, by leaving unwanted children to starve to death. I suggest you do some research before coming out with such a bold statement.

[andsome]

The Chinese at least have the right idea here in attempting to limit population growth.

Yes, by leaving unwanted children to starve to death. I suggest you do some research before coming out with such a bold statement.

This unfortunately happens all over the world. You know full well that I did not mean that. (starving children to death), and was a completely ridiculous statement to make. China has for many years now attempted to ensure that people limit the sizes of their families. This is more than a lot of countries have done or are prepared to do. Many churches will only be happy when the population is such that there is not enough food to go round, and not enough space to bury all the dead. A concerted world wide effort is needed to keep the population to a sustainable level, and pollution needs to be drastically reduced.

[Tankus]

how about compulsory euthanasia for the over 65's ?

Its like ...all they do is consume !

hmmmm........... there's tasty for you !

[AlanHo]

how about compulsory euthanasia for the over 65's ?

Its like ...all they do is consume !

At least we would at last get something out of the NHS...... :lol:

I think I remember the film you have posted an image from - was it not set in the future and the waste company recycled bodies into food pills - or summat like that......arf.

[Tankus]

one way for andsome to feed the starving children ... once !

my bet is their faces will turn green and choke !

edit ..........................................

or summat ! .......... arf

[andsome]

:lol: