[ RadSafe ] Re: Global Warming

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Sandy makes good points, but lets separate "pollution is unhealthy for humans" from "stop 
breathing cause you're killing Gaia."  On the first issue, I think we can mostly agree that we 
want less pollution.  We can work toward that goal without bankrupting (more than it already 
is) the US.

What about the other question?  Is the world going to be destroyed by man-made global 
warming?  Well, gee, it turns out that is in fact a lie.  When I say "lie" I'm not just indulging in 
hyperbole - the IPCC climate scientists are FAKING THE DATA.  Will it really be too late to 
save the planet if we don't act NOW?  Nope, sorry, thats a lie too.  Go back and read Otto's 
excellent and concise post, for which he also included supporting references.  Here's the key 
sentence:

> Atmospheric scientists should be aware that there is too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to have a major effect
> on the Earth's temperature and there is really no meaningful correlation between carbon dioxide levels and the earth
> average temperature over past centuries

So, try to disconnect the global warming hoax from the pollution question.  There is no 
apocalyptic global warming disaster compelling us to get to zero CO2 emissions immediately.  
The earth is cooling, so maybe its too bad that all that CO2 isn't elevating the temperature a 
little bit.  Instead of rushing blindly forward to reduce CO2, which not a pollutant despite 
claims by the EPA, lets stop a minute and ask ourselves who we would want to write our 
energy policies for optimal future health and prosperity.  How about the folks who, for 
decades, have kept us from developing any of the smart and clean nuclear options I've heard 
about on this list, thereby creating a lot of the real pollution we actually do have as well as the 
imaginary threat of CO2 doom?  No, we would be stupid to pick those people.  Unfortunately, 
we already did!  The current US administration can't allow any meaningful progress on 
nuclear energy, because the core political base supporting this administration is about as 
anti-nuclear as you can get.  

My main objection to Sandy's post is that reducing CO2 will not reduce pollution, except 
maybe indirectly by destroying the economy.  Otherwise I mostly agree with Sandy that we 
should reduce pollution.  Therefore, instead of spending all our money and effort on an 
absolutely useless and wasteful political scheme, we should be focusing on real pollutants.  
The current rush to reduce CO2 is the intellectual equivalent of carting dirt from one side of 
the earth to the other, so as to save us from the dreadful day when the planet will tip over.

-Gary Isenhower



On 6 Dec 2009 at 17:33, Perle, Sandy wrote:


Ed,

All true. My point is simply that regardless of what these individuals
say, we've known for years that pollutants spewed out into the
environment is harmful. There have been efforts to reduce auto
emissions for decades in areas of CA and other states, well before it
became popular to discuss global warming. The reason that was the
case, and is still the case, is because pollutants harm individuals.
The only difference now is the these same pollutants may be
accelerating the effect on the environment, thus, global warming.
While these individuals may promote and in some cases benefit from the
global warming debate, and may not be in favor of nuclear power, that
doesn't diminish the fact that pollutants damage the environment and
people, and animals for that matter, and we should be doing something
about that, and not attack any effort because of what some politician
or other persons may say about global warming, whichever side of the
argument that are on.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/