Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

lack of posts

Expand Messages
  • goodnightcharles
    such silence is not a good sign..what is going on?
    Message 1 of 44 , Apr 19 2:53 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      such silence is not a good sign..what is going on?
    • Wayne
      The problem with this argument is that there are environmental reactionaries and true environmentalists. I have been associated with the latter for decades.
      Message 44 of 44 , Apr 26 11:19 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        The problem with this argument is that there are "environmental
        reactionaries" and true environmentalists. I have been associated with
        the latter for decades. I was skeptical of the massive employment of
        nuclear reactors at the time based on two factors, safety and waste
        disposal. Many of the problems of safety have been addressed and some
        of the waste disposal problems. I am cognizant that there is more
        radiation escaping from coal fired plants today than from nuclear. I
        have advocated the employment of breeder reactors to help with the waste
        problems. It was the public at large that was responsible for the
        moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants at the time, and it
        should have been so. What failed us was that the media and politicians
        failed to educate the public to the changes as things progressed. The
        ramp up of the fossil fuel industry, and the fact that they were
        cheap(Cheaper than nuclear.), led the public to grow apathetic and
        continue with increasing consumption. Responsible scientists have
        pointed out this fallacy but politicians were closely associated with
        the industry and the media did not find it important to point out and
        educate the public. Instead of educating, the press took the populist
        view because they had no courage and were more concerned with the
        bottom line than with reporting the truth. It was easier to go with the
        flow. It cannot be blamed entirely on the "environmentalists". That is
        simply rationalization because the existing policies were lacking. The
        conservatives had it all for much of the past two Presidential terms and
        did not change things. Now that things look somewhat bleak, they wish to
        blame someone else.


        On 4/26/2010 12:29 PM, Freddy Hutter wrote:
        > This has become a circular argument. The oil sector has been warning
        > since 1956 that in light of fossil fuels being a finite resource, policy
        > makers should consider whole scale conversion of power generation to
        > nuclear and hydro. Most environmentalist jumped on this and declared
        > promotion of status quo (coal, natural gas& oil). Now half a century
        > later they see the error of their strategy. We have a GHG crisis 'cuz
        > most environmentalists have made mistakes in prioritization over the
        > decades. We have discussed ad nauseum...
        >
        > Freddy H>
        >
        >
        > Wayne wrote:
        >
        >> You keep trying to pin a time event on me. I never stated a time line
        >> for anything. Problems caused by 4 cm rise per decade is not the same
        >> thing a problem caused by a 4 cm rise in one decade. Try to pay
        >> attention. A problem with many of the so called skeptics is that they
        >> try to put everyone in a box. Those who subscribe to global warming are
        >> not all "alarmists". Most understand that the world in not going to end
        >> tomorrow, but understand that the evidence supports a trend that leads
        >> toward a problem in the future. Since the process is slow and
        >> accumulative, we need to begin to correct things while there is adequate
        >> time to do so. It would be dumb to push it to the limit then attempt to
        >> make a correction. Not only that, but the change would be healthy in
        >> the long run for the security and economics of our country. Fossil fuels
        >> are not only dirty, they are finite and while there will be oil for
        >> generations, it is deeper and harder to extract. This confines the
        >> exploration and production to a few corporations that will be able to
        >> control the market. Since the independents, because of the great
        >> expense of drilling, are not there to force competition, there will be
        >> little motivation by the corporations to invest heavily in exploration
        >> and production. We have seen oil and gas profits soar a year or so ago
        >> as they sat on production. We can expect an abrupt increase in price
        >> gasoline etc. as China and India ramp up their consumption and
        >> production falls behind. We need to develop alternate energy and learn
        >> to use energy more wisely.
        >>
        >>
        >> On 4/25/2010 5:32 PM, Freddy Hutter wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >>> Wayne, read your own post. You said:
        >>>
        >>> "Even 4 cm/decade is problematic"
        >>>
        >>> So please tell us who this city is that thinks 4cm (1.6") will be a problem in 10 years (2020).
        >>>
        >>> Freddy H>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Wayne wrote:
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>> I never mentioned 2020 or any other date. And where do you get two
        >>>> inches for high tide plus storm surge? That is pure speculation. As you
        >>>> should know, the world sea level is an average. Some areas will rise
        >>>> much more and others less. While the sea level may rise a few inches,
        >>>> the encroachment of the sea will spread out much more and storm surges
        >>>> will reach further inland.
        >>>>
        >>>> On 4/25/2010 4:38 PM, Freddy Hutter wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>> Really, Wayne? Please tell us what city is distraught on the knowledge
        >>>>> that its high tide mark plus waves plus storm surge will be almost 2"
        >>>>> more in 2020.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Freddy H>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Wayne wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>> What I read is that sea level has risen at a rate of 1.7 mm/yr during
        >>>>>> the 20th century. Since the early '90s sea levels rose about 3mm/yr. If
        >>>>>> sea levels are accelerating, do we really know where this will take us?
        >>>>>> Even 4 cm/decade is problematic. It is not just that the area will be
        >>>>>> inundated, but that high seas will breach barriers. There is a point of
        >>>>>> no return for the height of barriers. The argument that warmer is
        >>>>>> better is full of problems. Our whole society is based on the current
        >>>>>> climate from agriculture to population centers. Adjustments to a
        >>>>>> changing climate, no matter whether it is cooler or warmer will be
        >>>>>> expensive. The argument that warmer is better than cooler does not make
        >>>>>> a warming climate a good thing.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>
        >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>> ------------------------------------
        >>>
        >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.