[ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?

[Doug Aitken]

I wish we could get back to the topic of the list, rather than this
discussion (which seems to bring out the worst in some.....).

It is pretty obvious that climate does change. And we seem to be going
through some kind of an up-swing. It is also obvious that no one really
knows what is causing this.

But it is a fact that the human race is generating a lot of waste that was
not being generated prior to the industrial revolution. And fairly large
amounts of this are being disposed of in less than an ideal manner into the
eco-system....

Whether this has a significant impact on climate is open to (serious)
debate. But the damage to the overall environment (and its inhabitants!)
cannot be denied.

So as (hopefully!) sane people, can we not agree that we can do a better job
of this disposal, as a means to minimize our impact? And any talk of human
(and animal) body emissions is a bit childish. 

Regards

Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor, Schlumberger D&M Operations Support
Cell Phone: 713-562-8585
(alternate e-mail: doug.aitken at slb.com )
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:11 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?

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.

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu