Politics of Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (51383)	5/14/2014 6:46:13 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) of 86355

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "But the following massive nuclear fallout and nuclear winter is another thing.": Oh give me a break. Nuclear fallout has some nasty short term consequences but the strong radioactivity has to also be short term (short half life) and what's left after it decays away is a small increase in cancers. It's not something that stops people from fighting a war. And the nuclear winter thing was crap simulations largely done by the same people who can't figure out CO2. It was always politically motivated. They had their comeuppance when they went on to predict that Saddam's threat to set Kuwait's oil wells on fire would cause a climate disaster (and therefore we should not invade Iraq). Total and complete pure politics, no science. The oil wells burned. Massive amounts of smoke was produced. The Indian Monsoon was not destroyed. If you've forgotten this, see the wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org johnstonsarchive.net No authority has a motive to tell you that nuclear weapons are less effective than fantasy would have them. What they want you to believe is that they are infinitely powerful. And yet our country has long had a policy of using nukes in a conventional war in Europe, LOL. Now what do you think the authorities really believe about nukes? Do you think they would have developed tactical nukes if a nuclear exchange was a complete suicide pact for the human race, LOL? No, if they thought blowing up 1000 nukes would destroy the human race all they'd be positioning them in our major cities and we'd be threatening to turn out citizens into globe destroying soot. Or they would have gotten rid of them. No reason to worry about what the Russians did with theirs, to use them would just destroy the Russians as well, right? -- Carl P.S. Over 500 nukes were set off above ground before the partial test ban treaty went into effect. No climate change observed yet. And the original nuclear winter paper ended up being downgraded to a "nuclear autumn" and that only if the war happened at the worst possible time, mid summer. No big deal. What's more, the military redesigned their targeting in order to reduce the production of soot (lower altitude explosions). The fact that Sagan claimed that 100 nukes could cause nuclear winter was because he was a lefty. Member of his own coauthors called him out on his (politically useful) fantasy. Where the lefties screw up is when they make predictions that can be compared against actual observation. That's why the thing to look at is the Kuwaiti oil wells. The whole global warming crap is taking years to fall apart because it was better organized. If they had any real brains they'd be telling us that the big warming doesn't happen until 1000 years from now. Then they could keep the crap going for a longer time.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next