Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

.


The report will make the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

.

The IPCC has never claimed warming is a straight line, in fact if you go back to the last IPCC report most of the individual model runs had at least one period of 15+ years with little or no warming. Warming for those model runs still ended up with similar overall trends all of which indicate significant warming.

.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

.

I'd suggest the daily mail should not be your go to source for science, otherwise your make blunders like the one your post was predicated on.

 

[lomiller]

But how accurately do we know that a severe heat wave should be a 1/1000 year event

Whether on not there is enough data to determine the probably of an event is a well understood field in statistics. I see no reason to entertain discussion about it's validity.

rather than we just got lucky for the past century or so, the length that accurate weather records have been kept? We have a good idea of how warm the earth was on average going back thousands of years, but how accurate is the data for a locality?

It's not impossible, but are you suggesting we ignore the evidence we do have because there a remote possibility that new evidence we don't currently have will change our conclusions?

If we are going to discard conclusions based on evidence where it's "possible" new evidence will come along ALL science needs to be discarded.

We have a good idea of how warm the earth was on average going back thousands of years, but how accurate is the data for a locality?

The palo-climate record is constructed from both local and global proxies.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
But how accurately do we know that a severe heat wave should be a 1/1000 year event

Insurance companies live and die on their ability to maintain a reasonable risk assessment.
Accurately is a an odd term to use in statistics and as mentioned better discussed elsewhere.

Multiple disciplines contribute to reconstructions - that said the rate at which the climate is changing and the onset of extreme weather events really gives little or no precedent to rely on for any given event.

Droughts are problematic as they are dependent on ocean circulation as well and sorting out the signal from know variables like ENSO and then the additive influence of increase moisture and heat in the atmosphere is a challenge.

What can be said is the moisture and energy in the atmosphere will produce extreme weather patterns more frequently. This is observed.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heavy-precip.html

This does not necessarily mean there are more storms but there are more of the intense variety.

Increase in Heavy Rainfalls Over Past 60 Years in Upper Midwest, US
Mar. 13, 2013 — Heavy rains have become more frequent in the upper Midwest over the past 60 years, according to a study from the University of Iowa. The trend appears to hold true even with the current drought plaguing the region, the study's main author says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130313182312.htm

This was two normal summer thunderstorms that collided over Toronto this summer..

Toronto's July storm cost insurers $850M - Business - CBC News
www.cbc.ca/news/.../toronto-s-july-storm-cost-insurers-850m-1.1363051
CBC News Posted: Aug 14, 2013 11:18 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 14, 2013 11: 01 PM ET. Close ... Toronto floods leave power system 'hanging by a thread'.

even tho the global temperature average is not up all that far yet....the evidence of change is clear in many parts of the globe especially in the Arctic where it is magnified.

The changes there are being reflected further south as the weather patterns in the Arctic are impacted by a warmer Arctic Ocean and changes in the jet stream.

Assessing impacts is critical for policy - Hurricane Sandy was a wake up call for New York to make changes to it's storm defenses.

Risk assessment is indeed a "lively" business these days.

This is a preview of the IPCC report coming out that assesses regional impacts.

2014 preview: The key to surviving climate change

27 December 2013 by Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2948. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Read more: "2014 preview: 10 ideas that will matter next year"

Be prepared – for anything. That will be the message of the next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its first attempt in seven years to forecast the impact of climate change on specific geographical regions. Due out in March, it will emphasise versatility over any fine-tuned mitigation measures.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...to-surviving-climate-change.html#.UsBUPHlIn3w

 

[Trakar]

Take a step backwards and read how I was slammed because I quoted the Toronto Sun news source. Somebody else started it , not me,

Just because someone points out that a source you provided regarding another issue is unreliable and often extremely biased, that is not an acceptable reason to then try to use an unverifiable private anecdote to support your assertions, that is going from really poor support to absolutely no support. You appear to be standing in a deep hole, and trying to dig deeper to find a way out.

My point was I do not worship at the altar of CBC because their opinions are completely biased .... you on the other hand would love them , they say what you want to hear and will make you feel good.

Scurrilous, unfounded as well as inaccurate. You are accusing me of being like yourself, as you only seem to provide demonstrably biased sources for support of your demonstrably biased and inaccurate assertions. Nothing could be further from the truth with regard to my assessments and considerations of this issue.

If the CBC was a private entity I would have no complaint.

But they could not fly on their own dime without taxpayer subsidies. (News wise) the CBC is not in my camp .... but I am forced to pay for it .

Just like I will be forced to send carbon credits to third world dictators if the warmists had their way.

I dislike it severely when people put their hands in my pockets for my hard earned money and yet hate me at the same time

Will you allow me to dip into your wallet to fund my denier regime ? ... Will you let me decide how much energy you can or cannot consume ?

I hope your answer is no , and I hope you will let me say no to the folks who wish to run my agenda.

The poor, persecuted and underappreciated genius routine is not supported by the evidences apparent in your postings. Put up or continue to whine and cry about how unfair the world is, but no one is going to take your word for anything in a science discussion (or virtually and other topic) without compelling support from an independent and generally reputable source.

 

[macdoc]

This is only loosily related to climate change science but since it seems the thing to do...

Here is the nub of the matter.

If a company knowingly pollutes the environment or harms others should it bear responsibility to remove that pollution and pay for that harm.

If miners die or are left in ill health in a mine from poor air quality control should the mining company be responsible.

If a manufacturing plant lets pollutants into a river that damages the biome ......

just follow on from there.....

If an Exxon tanker crashes in a pristine enviroment and pollutes are they responsible for the clean up and to take steps to mitigate further risk ....the courts certainly said yes as they did to the BP disaster.

The head of Exxon acknowledges his products have altered the climate and has made billions doing so......

Big Coal ....made billions doing so....should they not be held as accountable as you pissing over your neighbors fence into his swimming pool.
It's not like these fossil fuel companies are broke or anything....they have record profits and insane subsidies picked up by the taxpayers....

why the free ride....??

The fossil fuel industry world wide is $7 trillion a year....it has the cash flow to fund the transition to carbon neutral.

Methodology of that transition examined in the real world in an industrialized first world nation

A carbon tax is a form of pollution tax used to cut greenhouse emissions and promote cleaner energy. It is meant to target carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Many prefer the CO2 tax for its simplicity and impartiality.[1]

The problem with a carbon tax though is the distributional effects it has. Raising the price of energy affects the poor. Does a carbon tax work? It appears so in the case of Sweden. Not only have they reduced their carbon emissions, their economy has grown by more than 44 per cent and in 2011 they were second in the world on economic competitiveness.[2]

Sweden has been taxing carbon since 1991. The tax is believed to have encouraged innovation and the use of green heating technologies that have significantly phased out burning oil for heating. The CO2 tax has thus played a role for the country to be on target to achieve its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.[3]

not perfect but it works and Sweden leads the world in progress to carbon neutral

http://blogs.ubc.ca/realmelo/2013/03/06/a-quick-look-at-swedens-carbon-tax/

 

[Trakar]

This is only loosily related to climate change science but since it seems the thing to do...

Here is the nub of the matter.

If a company knowingly pollutes the environment or harms others should it bear responsibility to remove that pollution and pay for that harm.

If miners die or are left in ill health in a mine from poor air quality control should the mining company be responsible.

If a manufacturing plant lets pollutants into a river that damages the biome ......

just follow on from there.....

If an Exxon tanker crashes in a pristine enviroment and pollutes are they responsible for the clean up and to take steps to mitigate further risk ....the courts certainly said yes as they did to the BP disaster.

The head of Exxon acknowledges his products have altered the climate and has made billions doing so......

Big Coal ....made billions doing so....should they not be held as accountable as you pissing over your neighbors fence into his swimming pool.
It's not like these fossil fuel companies are broke or anything....they have record profits and insane subsidies picked up by the taxpayers....

why the free ride....??

The fossil fuel industry world wide is $7 trillion a year....it has the cash flow to fund the transition to carbon neutral.

Methodology of that transition examined in the real world in an industrialized first world nation



not perfect but it works and Sweden leads the world in progress to carbon neutral

http://blogs.ubc.ca/realmelo/2013/03/06/a-quick-look-at-swedens-carbon-tax/

A carbon tax is the only way to economically capture the external costs of fossil fuels to society. The problems with the cost being passed along to, and unduly burdening, the poorest segments of society can be dealt with by instituting revenue neutrality in any number of ways. Personally, I'd recommend a range of exemptions, carbon tax refunds and climate adaptation projects, grants, and bonds.

Under a better design this topic would be more appropriately discussed in the public policy/politics sections rather than the science and technology section, but when you're given lemons, make lemonade.

 

[Trakar]

Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/resources/MiningCoalMountingCosts.pdf

(...)
10 Climate Change

M: Coal generates almost half of the nation’s
electricity, but 4/5 of utility sector greenhouse
gases. Coal burning produces 1½ times more
CO2 than oil and 2 times that from natural gas.
Black carbon (soot), methane and ozone also
warm the atmosphere.

E: Composite impacts: $61.7 bn/yr (range:
$20.6 bn to $205.8 bn, depending on evolving
costs of climate change).

Q: Warming, stronger hurricanes and more
heatwaves, floods, droughts and wildfires;
food insecurity and damage to life support
systems; health, environmental and economic
impacts.
(...)
Conclusion
We estimate that the life cycle impacts of coal and the waste stream generated
are costing the U.S. public a third to over one half a trillion dollars annually.
Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of
electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms
of non-fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and
electricity conservation methods, economically competitive.
Beyond dollar evaluations, qualitative impacts include harm to air quality,
watersheds, land, plants, animals, families and communities. The proposed
technology of CCS is costly and risky, and is projected to magnify the ecological
and health footprint of coal.

 

[Trakar]

Should we follow Shell Oil's lead?

http://reports.shell.com/sustainabi...pproach/buildingasustainableenergyfuture.html

Building a sustainable energy future

(...)
The world’s population is heading for more than 9 billion by 2050, from today’s 7 billion. Global energy demand is rising, yet in many regions easy-to-reach supplies of oil and natural gas are becoming harder to find. To help meet growing demand, more renewable energy as well as more fossil fuels will be needed. According to Shell’s scenarios, energy from solar, wind, hydro-electricity and biomass could rise to around 30% by 2050, with strong government support. Nuclear power will also continue to play a part. Fossil fuels are expected to meet around 65% of energy demand by mid-century. At the same time, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must be cut significantly if the planet is to avoid the most serious effects of global warming and climate change.
(...)
At Shell we advocate publicly and to governments that a strong and stable price on CO2 emissions will help drive the right investments in low-carbon technologies. But we are not waiting for government policy to develop. We consider the potential cost of a project’s CO2 emissions, which we set at $40 a tonne, in all our major investment decisions. We are producing more natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, and we produce low-carbon biofuel. We are also helping to develop carbon capture and storage technologies, and working to improve the energy efficiency of our operations.
(...)

I encourage people to read the entire report at the lead link to Shell oil's website.

My own preference is for a revenue neutral carbon tax beginning immediately at a level of $25/tonne increasing stepwise, to $50/tonne over the next 25 years.

 

[macdoc]

The big lies about emissions and productivity

- 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

Swedens GDP has grown enormously since 1990 and it's emissions have fallen 45 %.

Growth and emissions are NOT connected.

We find that average decarbonization rates sustained from 1971-2006 range across the 26 OECD nations from a 3.6 percent per year decline in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP in Sweden to an 0.7 percent per year increase in carbon intensity of the economy in Portugal. The unweighted average rate for all 26 nations was 1.5 percent per year, only 16.5 percent faster than long-term global decarbonization rates (1.3 percent per year).

Only five nations achieve sustained decarbonization rates more than double the long-term global historic average: Sweden (at 3.6 percent per year), Ireland (at 3.2 percent), the UK and France (each at 2.8 percent), and Belgium (at 2.6 percent).

Six other nations achieved rates between 50 and 100% greater than the global average rate: Germany (2.5 percent per year), the United States, Denmark, and Poland (each at 2.3 percent), Hungary and the Netherlands (at 2.0 percent).

•••

The Drivers of Decarbonization

The decarbonization of the economy (change in CO2 per unit of GDP) is driven by two forces: change in the energy intensity of the economy (or energy use per unit of GDP) and change in the carbon intensity of the energy supply (or CO2 per unit of energy). The compound annual rate of change in CO2/GDP is the sum of the compound annual rate of change in Energy/GDP and CO2/Energy, making it possible to examine how much each nation relied on changes in energy intensity or carbon intensity of energy supply to drive overall decarbonization.

For the top five fastest decarbonizers, a split can be observed, with Sweden and France each relying predominately on decarbonizing their energy supplies, while Ireland and the United Kingdom rely principally on gains in energy intensity. Decarbonization in Belgium is driven fairly evenly on both factors. Two divergent strategies for decarbonization are immediately apparent here:

Sweden and France: State-led Shift to Zero-Carbon Energy Supplies

Sweden and France each achieved rapid rates of decarbonization of their economies via state-led transformations of their energy supplies. Following the oil shocks of the 1970s, Sweden and France each directed state-owned utilities to fully displace oil from the electricity sector, principally by scaling up new nuclear power programs. A lack of indigenous coal resources and fresh memories of conflict with coal-exporting Germany in World War II also contributed to France's push to scale-up nuclear power to displace coal as well as oil from the nation's power generation mix.

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/which_nations_have_reduced_car

It IS happening and could be happening faster with aggressive nuclear strategy as China is pursuing...26 nukes in building stages, more planned.

Fossil shill, AGW deniers no taxers on the right, treehugger no nuke head in the clouds NIMBYs on the left
...civlization needs to put them in a room till they're all gone

 

[macdoc]

This guy has it correct about business getting on with it

Mining insider: 'Leave the coal in the ground'

16 December 2013 by Michael Slezak

For similar stories, visit the Interviews , Energy and Fuels and Climate Change

Executive-turned-environmentalist Ian Dunlop says that mining corporations will have to abandon much of their coal to avoid climate and business suicide
You now champion a low-carbon economy. Why do you want a seat on the board of BHP, the world's biggest mining company?
If I got on it, I would hope to spark a much more extensive discussion on climate issues. We need emergency action if we are going to stop the worst outcomes of climate change becoming a reality.

Corporations have been waiting for government to develop the right policies. But it has become clear that governments are never going to provide that leadership, so if we want to see serious action then business is going to have to lead it.

it's a good read
http://www.newscientist.com/article...eave-the-coal-in-the-ground.html#.UsDxBnlIn3w

that's exactly the situation in Canada with the oil companies wanting a carbon tax and the government too stupid and ideology driven to even consider it....

It's not going to be the government alone that moves this process along as the political process is handcuffed from loonie tunes from both fringes....you can find prime examples of both in this forum

 

[Jules Galen]

- 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

Swedens GDP has grown enormously since 1990 and it's emissions have fallen 45 %.

Growth and emissions are NOT connected.



http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/which_nations_have_reduced_car

It IS happening and could be happening faster with aggressive nuclear strategy as China is pursuing...26 nukes in building stages, more planned.

Fossil shill, AGW deniers no taxers on the right, treehugger no nuke head in the clouds NIMBYs on the left
...civlization needs to put them in a room till they're all gone

No thanks. I'll skip the Nukes and take the Carbon Dioxide!

Just ask the people of Fukushima or Chernobyl just how beneficial Nuclear Power has been to them.

 

[lionking]

No thanks. I'll skip the Nukes and take the Carbon Dioxide!

Just ask the people of Fukushima or Chernobyl just how beneficial Nuclear Power has been to them.

You know that more people die due to fossil fuels rather than nuclear radiation, don't you? In Japan alone.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

EXTRA fossil deaths and serious ailments over 2 years:

Coal = 24 people x 57 TWh x 2 years = 2,736 deaths, plus 25,000 serious ailments
Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 deaths, plus 3,400 serious ailments
Oil = 19.2 x 9 x 2 = 342 deaths, plus 2,900 serious ailments
Total EXTRA fossil deaths = 2,736 + 348 + 342 = 3,426, plus 31,300 serious ailments

Nuclear = 0.052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 deaths, plus 54 serious ailments

Opponents of nuclear energy are completely irrational regarding the “dangers of nuclear”. Note that natural gas is 8 times less deadly than coal.

 

[Jules Galen]

You know that more people die due to fossil fuels rather than nuclear radiation, don't you? In Japan alone.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

No one believe these statistics. They are Cherry-picked.

So...why don't you go live in Fukushima...or Chernobyl?

 

[lionking]

No one believe these statistics. They are Cherry-picked.

So...why don't you go live in Fukushima...or Chernobyl?

Any chance of you providing any links to evidence at all? Anecdotes and CTs is all you provide.

There are many, many sources which prove that coal alone causes more deaths than any other energy source. I'll dig them up and post them.

You can then try to refute them with evidence rather than bluster.

 

[macdoc]

Good coverage on the choices facing Britain in the next decades...

27 December 2013 Last updated at 17:13 ET
Energy: What's the least worst option?

Powering Britain in the future is a contentious issue, with every proposal meeting strenuous, sometimes hostile, objections. BBC science editor David Shukman asks why everyone is so angry about energy.

more

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22455024

This is the costs that need to be borne by the companies that profit from polluting

The European Commission has outlined plans for new air quality laws that it says will save thousands of lives every year.

The new measures aim to reduce the levels of pollutants by around 20% from current levels by 2030.

The Commission says the new measures will prevent 58,000 premature deaths a year and save member states 40bn euros.

But by delaying action until 2030, critics believe the EU is giving in to industry and some reluctant countries.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Air pollution is still an 'invisible killer' and it prevents many people from living a full active life”

Janez Potocnik
EU Environment Commissioner
Across the EU, more than 400,000 people died prematurely in 2010 from air pollution, according to the Commission. As well as deaths, 100 million work days are lost every year through illnesses like asthma.

Widespread benefits
As well as the impacts on health, the natural environment also suffers through excess nitrogen pollution and acid rain. The direct costs to society from air pollution, including damage to crops and buildings, amounts to 23bn euros a year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25431608

Tick tock...not a good time for coal....took the courts to deal with S02...

Canadian cities join fight against dirty US coal power
JAN 12, 2010 04:01 PM
TORONTO Nov 01, 2006
Canadian municipalities representing a population of over five million people today formally petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce contaminant emissions from the 150 coal-fired power plants in seven Midwestern states. The petition focuses on emissions from the plants – among the oldest and dirtiest in the U.S. – that cause smog and climate change impacts in Canada .

Sierra Legal filed the petition on behalf of the cities of Toronto , Windsor , Laval , Halifax , Gatineau , Chateauguay , and Cornwall , the Regions of Peel and Durham , Essex County , and others. Originally filed last year on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups, the amended petition also includes new data on smog, acid rain, and climate change.

“Citizens on both sides of the border are harmed by toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants,” said Dr. David McKeown, Toronto ’s Medical Officer of Health. “The City of Toronto has been fighting on many fronts to advocate on both sides of the border for cleaner air, and this is one more action. The voice of Canadians must be heard by American decision-makers.”

Ontario government data show that about half of the 5,000 premature deaths caused by smog in the province each year are attributable to transboundary pollution. In border cities such as Windsor up to 90% of air pollution is from the U.S. side. Impacts on the U.S. side are equally severe.

Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the EPA must require emission reductions when there is evidence of harm to Canadians from American sources. The petition cites evidence from international reports documenting the flow of air pollution from the U.S. into Canada . The 150 power plants identified in the petition emit in total 4.5 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide (SO 2) and 1.6 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides (NO X) annually --- more than all major Canadian industrial sources of these contaminants combined. Available pollution-control equipment can reduce power plant emissions of these contaminants by 90% or more.

“Since power plant pollution makes people sick and can cut lives short, we understand the Canadian concern,” said Peter M. Iwanowicz, Vice President for the American Lung Association of New York State. “Whether it’s a fight against Ontario coal-fired power plants or against Midwestern U.S. plants, this is a fight that unites citizens on both sides of the border against dirty power and the lack of action by politicians.”

The 150 plants also emit approximately the same amount of greenhouse gases as all of Canada
- See more at: http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-cent...inst-dirty-us-coal-power#sthash.rZutZMtD.dpuf

 

[lionking]

Here's evidence based on WHO research:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

For coal, oil and biomass, it is carbon particulates resulting from burning that cause upper respiratory distress, kind of a second-hand black lung. Our lungs just don’t like burnt carbonaceous particulates, whether from coal or wood or manure or pellets or cigarettes. The actual numbers of deaths in China from coal use exceeded 300,000 last year since they have ramped up coal so fast in the last decade and they usually do not install exhaust scrubbers. The impact on their health care system has been significant in not just deaths, but in non-lethal health effects and lost days of work.

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)


Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Comments? Is the WHO cherry-picking?

 

[macdoc]

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear WasteBy burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

By Mara Hvistendahl

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation.

more
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

[Jules Galen]

Any chance of you providing any links to evidence at all?

Yeah...how about the Dead Cities of Fukushima and Chernobyl. So, tell us just how safe Nuke Power is Big Boy!

 

[lionking]

Yeah...how about the Dead Cities of Fukushima and Chernobyl. So, tell us just how safe Nuke Power is Big Boy!

Big Boy? No need to get personal.

There were very few deaths from Fukushima or Chernobyl, and I have posted WHO links to demonstrate this. Coal is a far, far greater killer. Just acknowledge this and we can move on.

 

[Jules Galen]

Oh Noes....Climate Scientists get stuck in Antarctic Ice during Summer and await rescue! Wow...it's so Warm now that ships are getting stuck in all the Ice!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...cue-mission-dispatches-mv-akademik-shokalskiy


Wait...lemme guess. Somehow you Global Warming Alarmists are going to tell us that the Warmer it gets, the more Ice we'll have....right?