[ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Hi Stephane,

"bad faith" means intent to decieve.  I am not sure if you really meant that, so let me put 
aside your first comment and address the rest of your post.

"quality scientists": An unfounded conclusion, especially  in light of our debate, hmm?  :)

"can't accept a fact (climate is changing": Untrue, turn it around.  AGW true believers can't 
accept that climate change is a natural and historical (and prehistorical) fact, a fact I affirm.  
In effect, you are the denier of this indisputable fact.

"we don't know if this is catastrophic or just bad":   I think this is the heart of our argument, 
just as it is for radiation.  For both radiation and CO2, we can all agree that at sufficiently high 
levels, either of these would be catastrophic.  We can all also agree (I hope) that natural 
background radiation and the CO2 we emit by breathing are nothing to be excited about.  
You wouldn't, for example, pay to have a sort of catalytic converter for your nose, haha?  No, 
that would be foolish.  So we can both accept that there exists a level of human CO2 
emission such that no harm occurs to either humans or the environment.  

Now we disagree.  You think we are now at a dangerously high level of human CO2 
emission, so much so that there could be a world wide catastrophe,  right?  My friend, 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  That is doubly true when there are 
demands for extraordinary expenditures.  Where is the extraordinary evidence?  It was 
requested for years, through FOI, but our global warming heros stonewalled.  They should be 
confident, since the evidence is so "incontrovertible".  Why weren't they eager to show us the 
proof and save us from disaster?  In fact, they hid the so-called proof, destroyed the data, 
and deleted the emails.

That is A KIND of extraordinary evidence, but unfortunately it is only evidence of a truncated 
career and impending legal action.

-Gary Isenhower


On 2 Nov 2010 at 8:09, Jean-Francois, Stephane wrote:
 
After all these comments made with all the bad faith in the World, you guys are still surprised 
when Joe Public is ignoranlty (with the same bad faith) bashing the nuclear power option !

If quality  scientists like you can't accept a fact (climate is changing, we don't know if this is 
catastrophic or just bad, but yes Mankind is responsible for emitting surplus CO2 that is 
causing the warming of the climate) why members of the public should listen to you when you 
say that Nuclear Energy is good for them and is a solution to Global Warming ? With all good 
faith, I could simply declare that all we need is to be more effective with the energy 
consumption and we can do without... I am trying to bring this discussion closer to radsafe 
topics. Because soon, we will hear that the solution for traffic jam is to increase the number 
of lanes on a highway or that digging more deep sea oil wells is a solution for the energy 
crisis...simplistics solutions to complex problems.

My only hope is that my 3 kids are already smarter then this, but sadly enough, they will also 
be the people carrying the burden of our own poor choices.