SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RMF who wrote (790884)6/20/2014 2:01:49 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
THE WATSONYOUTH
TideGlider

  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1578199
 
Since the earth has been warming since the trough of the little ice age, how do you know warming, at least most of it, isn't natural? The warming in 1820, did mankind cause it?

Arctic ice hasn't been melting in the summer and completely refreezing in the winter in the last few decades.

Arctic ice mostly blows out into the Atlantic and melts, and yes, new ice if "completely" refreezing each winter.

If it was there wouldn't be new sea lanes there now that haven't ever existed before and there wouldn't be countries arguing about who controls the newly accessible resources that exist there.

Our ships have been getting stronger and stronger, we have ice-breakers now. In addition, we have information from satellites and airplanes about where to go in the Arctic sea. Seriously, compare what we have now with wooden sailing ships with no knowledge of what they were sailing into. We ought to be able to navigate more successfully now than then. Even so, it's still pretty chancy.

"In 2006, a cruise liner successfully traversed the Northwest Passage, aided by satellite images that showed the locations of ice. In 2008, the Canadian Coast Guard confirmed that, for the first time, a commercial ship had sailed through the Passage."

You can't substantially increase CO2 levels in a planet's atmosphere without increasing the "heat trapping" effect of that CO2.

Is 400 ppm substantial?

If you can pump all those billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and it won't make any difference then why get so upset about people wanting to cut those emissions anyway? It's not like burning coal makes any of us any healthier (especially the coal miners).

Because you're imposing costs on the economy and throwing people out of jobs. It's pretty arrogant to tell coal miners we've decided your job is too dirty to allow you to work at it. Furthermore, the same people trying to kill off the coal industry (only in the US) are trying to kill of everything else except wind and solar ... and if those ever got industrial scale, they'd go after them too. Heck, environmentalists are working to remove hydroelectric dams wherever they can and it's impossible now to ever build a new hydro dam in the US.

Why not move to natural gas and nuclear?

I'm all for it. But the same people fighting coal are fighting those too. You know they're shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants in New England.



To: RMF who wrote (790884)6/20/2014 4:18:21 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH5 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
i-node
one_less
PKRBKR
Tenchusatsu

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578199
 
Why not move to natural gas and nuclear?

.......with a reasonable licensing policy for nuclear plants as well as the recent availability of cheap natural gas, there would be a natural market driven gradual move away from coal. The government interceding with their regulatory policies and its direct aim to kill coal abruptly will cause huge energy price dislocations and cost consumers $BILLIONs while having ZERO effect on decreasing CO2 emissions world wide........Of course, it's not about saving the planet....It's all about government control of every phase of the economy. If you can't see that, you are incredibly naive and I can't help you. Virtually everything the government gets involved in ....declaring winners and losers.......where they don't belong..... goes to crap.