Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Three Mile Island showed that the operators could do everything wrong and still not release radiation.

Chernobyl:

1. was built without a containment facility, only a warehouse type building
2. was a design which was statically unstable - as it heated up, the chance of runaway was possible
3. was a situation of un-authorized experimentation by untrained people who should have known better
4. was releatively easily explained in my first Nuclear Engineering Graduate class

Nuclear power in the world has produce more power with the least accidents and problems of any source. More people were killed in the BP refinery explosion in Houston than have been killed in Nuclear Accidents worldwide combined. It's safety record surpasses that of even the airlines, even including Chernobyl.

NY State refuse to give a license to Shorham Nuclear plant in Long Island, prevent 600 MW of safe clean power from being produced. Why? Scare tactics from movies such as "The China Syndrome".

I wrote term papers in High focusing on Nuclear Power plant safety and debunking the myths. I provided facts on the power produced, the accidents, and compared them to those in similar industries. I reviewed the most widely known accidents to date (TMI and Brownsferry - Chernobyl happened later). Quite interesting paper from a 16 year old. I convinced a liberal 11th grade English teacher that nuclear power was a good thing. An "A" for a struggling student was my reward.

So, calling me an ostritch or a flat earther can't be farther from the truth. I use the scientific method in my daily life. I use the tools of science, converted and honed for business. And I do them in a non-BS way, and make my companies lots of money.

The information presented on Global Warming may be true. The conclusion that it is CAUSED BY CO2 produced by Human activity is not proven. I have an open mind and will listen to factual information. But I will not be swayed with anecdotes. I am innundated by anecdotes on a daily basis. DATA drives me, not stories.

Very true and well said, Red-beard.

redbeard, why and how do you discount the recent IIPC data as described in the media ?

Looks like even the administration is starting to believe the science.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a news conference that the report was "sound science," and "As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is attributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."

ALSO FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I, "assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change". The report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[2], which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007.
The key conclusions were that[3]:
• It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
• The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%
As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century:
• Surface air warming in the 21st century:
• Best estimate for a "low scenario"[4] is 1.8_°C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9_°C (3.2_°F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2_°F)
• Best estimate for a "high scenario"[5] is 4.0_°C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4_°C (7.2_°F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5_°F)
• Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
• in a low scenario[4] 18 to 38_cm (7 to 15 inches)
• in a high scenario[5] 26 to 59_cm (10 to 23 inches)
• It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
• It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, intensity of tropical cyclones (which include hurricanes and typhoons) and extreme high tides. Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."

I'm not sure why and how redbeard discounts the data, but I know I do because it is mostly junk science.

But then it is no use trying to explain how to use the scientific method to debunk junk science because "The Gospol According to Wikipedia" has already told you that you must not go here:
http://www.junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/7.html

What data? All that was released was a political summary, before the real report is finished.

link to the leaked beta report

http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/

I've already been there and as I pointed out earlier - Steven Milloy is a shill.

He is a paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the tobacco companies. Not that there is anything wrong with that. As long as we are open about our benefactors. But it is misleading to quote a publicist and website that is bought by, paid for, and edited by ExxonMobil as hard science.

Why you persist in believing their self interest is your business. But what you insist is "science" - at least from that source - is not science - it is mere publicity.

Do you think you've refuted the arguments posted online by Steven Milloy because you post some link to comments in Wikipedia attacking Milloy? (It looks like you've expanded upon the Wiki comments with you own assertions about Milloy too. The ad hominem attack speaks volumes about your position.)

Why won't you discuss the actual science?

I tried to discuss the actually science earlier in response to your post from Wikipedia, but you just ignored the issue:

What's this got to do with Milloy? He just has a link to a scientific study done by a Danish team and presented by the Royal Society as hard science. In case you don't know the significance of the Royal Society, Wikipedia is here to help (again):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society

My own assertions? What assertions? That he is a paid lobbyist? That he provides publicity for the interests that pay him? You don't want to believe that CO2 created by industrialization is not a contributor to global warming and your basis of scientific support is an ExxonMobil lobbyist ? That's cool - (no pun intended). I just tend to view statements from shill's with a degree of healthy skepticism. You don't have to.

BTW, as you know, it is not Wikipedia's stated conclusion about CO2 nor did they perform any experiments. Wikipedia is a data source not a scientific institution. Their reporting comes from many different sources and is an accumulation of agreed upon data. As an open source platform you are free to post and debate your opinions, facts, and data on that very same platform. Why don't you try?

How many atmospheric scientists deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, anyway ?

okay, Mr informed . .. what is the #1 greenhouse gas?

Quickly now. You have the internet, lets see how long it takes you to get this easy answer.

No, Milloy is an environmental scientist that has vested interests other than the vested interests of those supporting Luddite positions on the environment. The worst case view of him is "just as bad", certainly no worse. Much of the science he uses wouldn't be published otherwise, so he's an important source.

The reality is that if Global Warming is happening, it is due to natural causes just like it's always been and we, as individuals only please, need to think about what we need to do, if anything, about that change.

Personally, a 2 degree warmer local climate won't affect much. 6 degrees, now we're talking, better to grow vitis vinifera grapes. The change would have to be more than 10 degrees for me to grow citrus outdoors and that's well beyond even the most dishonest government shills position.

None, I should hope, since we all know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

You should be asking how many atmospheric scientists believe that human activity, ie increasing CO2, is the main contributer to the 1 degree rise in temps over the last 100 years. I've read earlier, and can't find a link now, that of the thousands of papers on global warming, a significant majority are skeptical about the role of humans.

A little more on atmospheric methane.

Well, I'll try to answer this tag team of terrifying talkers :D

1) I pick water vapor.
2) Milloy is not a scientist. Never created any studies or published anything for "peer" review. (Tho, I'm sure he has no peer in your eyes)
3) I'm skeptical about the "main contributor" part, as well. OTOH, IIPC data points to mankind's expanding industrialization as a contributor. I think man's activities have an amplifying effect upon natural cycles. I'm not willing, personally, to experiment any further with the climate and prefer some kind of proactive, democratically constructed, response. In the long run - we will be better off by changing our technologies now.

it took ya long enough. :D

My point being, CO2 is the current evil darling of those wanting to "change our technologies now."

Water vapor makes up to nearly 2% of our atmosphere, compared to 0.037% for CO2. Water vapor is the biggest player for the needed greenhouse effect. Then you have the smaller players like cow farts and ozone. ....Ozone!? but wait, I thought that we Wanted ozone. . .yet it's a greenhouse gas. . . greenhouse gas = BAD bad bad --I'm so confused. :cool:

How many of you have actually read a peer-reviewed article in a scientic journal like Science, Nature, or Journal of Geophysical Research? Rather than quote a secondary source with an alternative agenda? Try it sometime.

How many of you can explain what a non-linear system is? If you can't, you have no hope of understanding a climate model. (edit: I'm reasonably sure that most people on this board have never laid eyes on the mathematics behind a climate model. Yet they are ready to pass judgement like an expert. Do you really think all this hoopla is about a hockey stick? Please, get a clue.)

Steven Milloy quotes many studies out of context. He also quotes crap that won't pass peer review in a decent journal. He is a shill, and is not respected.

If I could prove that global warming was false, I would be a scientific superstar overnight. Same thing with evolution. We scientists live for that *****.

There is far more money to be made by denying global warming, from a research point of view.

Most "government scientists" actually work for universities, funded by NOAA or NSF. Of course, the head of our government actually denied global warming until recently. Isn't that ironic?

Just for perspective about "who believes what", I work in a place with 2000+ PhD scientists, few of whom do climate research. I've yet to meet one that didn't accept global warming, even with nothing to gain by doing so.

BTW, all the solutions I've seen to combat global warming will increase industrialization and (probably) wealth in the US. Our solutions will involve the construction of new infrastructure (jobs) and new technology. NOBODY wants to go live in a mud hut and farm the backyard.

Frankly, I don't believe that we can do anything to stop climate change. It's who and how we are.

Sorry to be rude.:mad:

I suppose this topic is in large part about "becoming a scientific superstar overnight. "

Of course, one can't achieve scientific superstar status by contending that "yep, all is cool..."

btw R, how many of those 2000+ PhD scientists, have a full understanding of current climate models? . ..and the limitations of those models.

Or, are they more "right" in agreeing with the global warming conclusions because they are better non-linear critical thinkers?

Furthermore, what part of global warming do they agree with? . .. that since the last ice age, temps have risen?

1. Of course. But if there was nothing to it, it would have died a timely death. Happens all the time.

2. Let me emphasize "for perspective". But since you asked, the vast majority can understand the basic mathematics and climate science, well enough to read and appreciate a peer-reviewed manuscript, on a level that the average john-q-public cannot. I suspect that many can fully appreciate the subleties of the mathematics, because we tend to focus on physical sciences and we have many theoreticians on staff.

There's no such thing as a scientific yes-man. We don't agree because it's expected or expedient. The system is far more adversarial, and we look for reasons to disagree because that's what sets us apart from our peers. In science, change is progress.

One more thing: when scientists disagree on things we don't quote steven milloy, some unreviewed book, wikipedia or any other internet site. We hold up the disputed paper, point at what's wrong, and explain why it's wrong. I've yet to see this done in this thread.

3. That it's a threat we should be concerned about.