[ RadSafe ] Climate science & nuclear sciences
Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jun 26 15:47:34 CDT 2012
I assume that this discussion has occurred before and that those who follow the science have given up, because I don't see anyone else chiming in.
You refer to a petition that has 31,000 signatures, LOTS with PhDs!!!! Almost none in climatology. Or science. I see they have a letter from Frederick Seitz, who A) is dead, and B) suffered from dementia bad enough that the tobacco industry fired him many years before this petition was created.
Earth's average temperature varies with sunspots? More sunspots means a higher or lower temperature here on Earth? What is the mechanism that has heated up the Earth by 0.6°C, 1°F, in 30 years (if you take out the effects of El Nino/La Nina/volcanoes/solar cycle)? When sunspots change, Earth's temperature is going to fall again?
Crichton was a novelist, studied medicine decades and decades ago. Also dead.
Sea level rise was 7 cm between 1972 and 2008. IPCC sea level rise estimates this century do begin as low as 18 cm, assuming very low greenhouse gas emissions and ignoring all contribution from ice sheets, as ice sheets dynamics were not well understood when this report was issued (and may not be well understood for the next report either).
> Reliable data (30 pp critically vetted) is at
> Earth's average temp. varies with sun spots, not CO2 levels
> (slight rise in temp preceded CO2 rise).
> Even politically selective UN IPCC (wanting carbon tax money)
> predicts that sea levels may rise max. 7 " / century.
> Maury's reference is great to explain why the uproar,
> as is Crichton's novel, State of Fear.
> Howard Long MD MPH (VP Doctors for Disaster Preparedness)
> PS Non-doctors are welcome at the DDP meeting.
> Nearly all questions get thoughtful, data-based response.
> See www.ddponline.org meeting program
> NYC Sat Sun, July 28, 29
> howard.long at comcast.net
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Maury, I regret to say that I cannot even finish the article. It reminds me of people who argue against nuclear power because the nuclear industry favors it, and so these are people with an agenda, and so.... I personally do not establish which side of an issue I am on by monitoring the ignorant and ideological, but by reading those who know most.
>> There are lots of people with agendas involved in the discussions of nuclear power and climate change, on both/all sides of each. (Climate change deniers/skeptics come in on a number of different sides, from climate change isn't happening to it isn't anthropogenic to it isn't serious. Overwhelmingly, ahead of that, the main argument of deniers/skeptics is that scientists lack their knowledge, experience, intelligence, integrity, and morality. Coming in a distant 2nd are unsubstantiated statements about what is or isn't happening. In my experience, the most common answer in this category, from the majority of deniers/skeptics I've talked with, is that climate change isn't happening and that it is, but it's not anthropogenic. Consistency not required.)
>> In mid-1995, I began looking at nuclear power and then climate change. I began with an assumption that nuclear power and coal were equally bad, and that air pollution was more of a problem than climate change. A preference really.
>> I sat down with the arguments on nuclear power, and found that those who agreed with my preconceptions were completely clueless, and those who clearly knew what they were talking about said nuclear power is a relatively safe and absolutely necessary source of electricity, especially in light of the really big problem, climate change. Since these people so clearly knew what they are talking about, I read more. At that time, there wasn't a large skeptics/deniers community, but in reading these people in the years since, I am fascinated at how hard it is to get answers to fairly simple questions:
>> • is Earth warming, and if so, at what rate?
>> • what causes it? (Natural is not an answer, but Earth moving closer to the sun would be.)
>> Maury, what is your own belief on these?
>> And what is it about countries with major fossil fuel resources and climate change?
>>> Radiation safety is intimately dependent upon Science and is heavily related to the climate sciences because science and engineering are the most likely means for promoting the acceptability and safe applications of ionizing radiation for benefits to mankind (and probably also to armadillos). This essay (click on link below) by Paltridge affords one of the best perspectives on Science and Climate that I've ever seen.
>>> I hope many of you will find it equally so.
>>> Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com]
>>> Science held hostage in climate debate By Garth Paltridge
Friends Energy Project
More information about the RadSafe