|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by ABCDiamond
(Post 8147947)
If I pay an extra $1,000 a year in the ETS tax, does the problem go away ?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by quoll
(Post 8148004)
Absolutely and Kev gets to control the global thermostat - I'm asking for 22C what do you want? He claims he can be specific to 2C!
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by quoll
(Post 8148004)
I'm asking for 22C
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 8148163)
I'd like 27C.
|
Re: Global warming
The answers simple "Nuclear power".
The greens harped on in the 70's about the dangers of nuclear so most countries ceased persuing it. So if you believe the greens that carbon is the cause the worlds ills then you need look no further for somebody to blame but them. I was in the UK recently and watched a TV show in which a panel of 3 greens, from different groups, were asked questions about how they stood about various issues. They all kept on about renewable energy solutions. If renewable energy solutions worked we would have been using them for years. We don't use them because they are much more expensive than burning CO2. When the panel were asked about nuclear energy they all agreed that it was not the answer. They did not elaborate and were not pressed on the issue. But what is wrong with nuclear energy? Keel |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 8148163)
Could be awkward, I'd like 27C. Will Kevin give me what I want or what you want?
|
Re: Global warming
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. Robert Frost Climate change is nothing new. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by keel
(Post 8148598)
The answers simple "Nuclear power".
The greens harped on in the 70's about the dangers of nuclear so most countries ceased persuing it. So if you believe the greens that carbon is the cause the worlds ills then you need look no further for somebody to blame but them. I was in the UK recently and watched a TV show in which a panel of 3 greens, from different groups, were asked questions about how they stood about various issues. They all kept on about renewable energy solutions. If renewable energy solutions worked we would have been using them for years. We don't use them because they are much more expensive than burning CO2. When the panel were asked about nuclear energy they all agreed that it was not the answer. They did not elaborate and were not pressed on the issue. But what is wrong with nuclear energy? Keel I will let you know if I think of any other problems. |
Re: Global warming
I'm sceptical by nature, but I do believe the earth's climate has warmed in recent decades and mankind is most likely the primary cause. There's no doubt that southern Australia has got hotter and drier. Many expats have only lived here for a few years, so you have nothing to compare it to.
You can look at the Bureau of Meteorology website which allows you to look at average temperatures for where you live and compare them to the long-term average. For instance, for Canberra, this URL will give you monthly averages for the last 12 months : http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/ID...1.latest.shtml The following URL will give you the long-term averages for Canberra: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averag...w_070014.shtml |
Re: Global warming
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by cranston
(Post 8149267)
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 8149304)
I know I am going to regret asking this, by why does cancelling an event make him a coward?
|
Re: Global warming
Australia is sending so many government and non-government representatives that I had to buy a mega-screen TV just so I could see them all :rofl::rofl:
WW |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8149184)
What is wrong with nuclear power? Apart from the fact that a) it is not carbon neutral b) it produces vast amounts of waste which we have now way of dealing with c) nuclear power stations take 150 years to decomission d) there are safety/health issues e.g. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Sellafield etc e) it has in the past been extremely unprofitable e.g. British Energy's government hand outs (and people have the cheek to say renewables are expensive!)
I will let you know if I think of any other problems. As far as I know it does not produce vast amounts of waste. It is all kept in Sellafield and that is the waste from 10 nuclear powerstations from 60 years of production. I've never heard of it taking 150 years to decommission that seems a made up figure. Yes there have been accidents that is common knowledge but that was all first generation technology and we are know onto the 3rd generation. 90% of France's power comes from Nuclear and I've not heard of them having problems. I just think Greens have an irrational fear of Nuclear without a proper argument against it. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by keel
(Post 8149437)
Your right it's not carbon neutral. Nothing is but it must produce a miniscule amount compared to burning fuel.
As far as I know it does not produce vast amounts of waste. It is all kept in Sellafield and that is the waste from 10 nuclear powerstations from 60 years of production. I've never heard of it taking 150 years to decommission that seems a made up figure. Yes there have been accidents that is common knowledge but that was all first generation technology and we are know onto the 3rd generation. 90% of France's power comes from Nuclear and I've not heard of them having problems. I just think Greens have an irrational fear of Nuclear without a proper argument against it. I suggest you read up on the subject of nuclear power and its implications. http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/...ear-power#cost I note you avoided my point about the cost of nuclear. |
Re: Global warming
Greenpeace? Arnt they the lobby group who chain themselves to trees?
In 1995 didn’t they chain themselves to the Brent Spar oil platform, in opposition to it being dumped at sea? Didn’t Greenpeace tell the world that there was 5500 tonnes of oil on board. Didn’t the Norwegian certification company Det Norske Veritas (DNV), find there was only about 75-100 tonnes of oil on board? Wasn’t it later found that the Grenpeace sanctioned method of disposal actually did far more ecological damage than the Shell proposed dumping at sea? Didn’t Greenpeace claim in a press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,†that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming? Didn’t Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, later admit the claim was wrong? Didn’t he say “I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,� Oppps yes he did, watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE Greenpeace, avoiding facts with the use of emotion |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:24 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.