View Poll Results: Which statement do you agree with
Global warming is caused by humans
27
19.01%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
44
30.99%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
65
45.77%
Global warming seems unlikely
6
4.23%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
Global warming
Dec 5th 2009 | 1:43 am
#274
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 972
From: Northumberland to Maida Vale Perth
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
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
Dec 5th 2009 | 8:09 am
#276
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 20,821
From: Brisbane
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.
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.
Last edited by Alfresco; Dec 5th 2009 at 8:12 am.
Dec 5th 2009 | 8:37 am
#277
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
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
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.
Dec 5th 2009 | 9:18 am
#278
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 899
From: Canberra
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
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
Dec 5th 2009 | 9:54 am
#280
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13,313
Re: Global warming
Dec 5th 2009 | 11:57 am
#282
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,808
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 
WW
WW
Dec 5th 2009 | 12:07 pm
#283
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 972
From: Northumberland to Maida Vale Perth
Re: Global warming
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.
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.
Dec 5th 2009 | 12:21 pm
#284
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
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.
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.
Last edited by Lord_Farquar; Dec 5th 2009 at 12:34 pm.
Dec 5th 2009 | 1:15 pm
#285
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
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
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
