Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The downside to thorium though is that there's an inverse correlation between half-life and intensity. Things with impossibly long half-lives are almost always emitting very very low amount of radiation over time while materials with short half-lives are always more dangerous.

Give me a long half-life byproduct any day. Bury it in the correct geological area and there's no problem.

People freak out about how we just bury the stuff and forget about it, but what's the problem, were you planning on living down there?

Also, we usually don't forget about them...

Phanatik wrote:Oh, you called me silly. I guess you win the argument.

No, I said you were made to look silly, because you repeated an argument that was obviously wrong.

I have no idea if you are silly. I don't know if you spend your lunch breaks from work running through garden sprinklers, or if you always ask for the kid's menu at restaraunts so you can colour in the picture. But I do know that you've repeated obviously false arguments that you could see are false with a few minutes research. And that's made you look silly in this thread.

But, there's just that little matter that enviromentalists change the data to support their position.

No, they don't. You're attempting to reference the poorly reported storm in a teacup that was ClimateGate. Go read about it, you'll find there was no such alteration of data.

And you do have the video of icebergs and glaciers melting, that will raise sea levels destroying coastal cities. (Icebergs and glaciers and polar bears, oh my!)

The evidence for climate change isn't based on a video of a glacier melting. Seriously, that's just, well, silly.

We have tracked the growth and decline of total ice coverage as the planet has heated. It's getting smaller. Go look it up.

Well, you DO have that great enviromental champion Al Gore, who will at the drop of a hat leave one of his many homes (burning more electricity than Thor) and hop on his private plane (burning fossil fuels) to bring the message to the masses around the world. What a guy!

Climate change isn't an idea that Al Gore just came up with. There's an immense body of research into climate patterns and trends. Seriously, go read about them.

But, you called me silly, so you win the argument.

No, I haven't won anything. I could sit here being very witty, and making fun of your arguments with turns of phrase and maybe even make you cry, but I won't have won anything. When you go off and read the science, learn about the consensus in the scientific community on global warming, then we'll both have won something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.

You think the UN intervened in the Balkans because of oil?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:Solar is way below break even still and will need some creative applications to even BEGIN to replace things. Wind though, has some REALLY interesting innovations coming up.

The dreams of vast fields of solar panels powering a city are certainly looking more and more like an impossibility, but solar is already proving it's worth in local power generation.

The great strength of solar panels is that they can be built at any scale with little change in the cost/unit, and this allows us to build micro sites at the point of energy consumption. So rather than built a large energy generator and then ship that energy off to each house and factory and lose much of the energy in transfer, your can produce it on site. Roof panels on houses basically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Solar cycles are just now being explored as a cause for temprature changes on Earth and Mars (it was noticed Mars is heating up at the same rate as greanhouse gas guzzling Earth).

No, there has been an observed shrinking of the southern polar ice cap over a three year period, and no other evidence of heating anywhere on the planet.

Your claim that this is just now being explored is also wrong, the observation was made early last decade, and follow up work has failed not only to find any other evidence of heating on the planet, but has actually managed to identify factors that would explain how the southern pole could change considerably over a three year period without any additional heat (exposed basalt rock that heats up tremendously during the day).

Meanwhile, we've observed the Sun, and we've observed the other planets, and they're not heating up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?

It hasn't. Mars hasn't shown overall evidence of warming. You're believing the liars again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:People freak out about how we just bury the stuff and forget about it, but what's the problem, were you planning on living down there?

Yeah, people in Australia worry and fuss over the idea that we would take large amounts of nuclear waste and bury it in the middle of the desert. We're geologically and politically stable, and have really big deserts no-one wants to go into. Why wouldn't we want to make pots of money taking people's nuclear waste?

If Global Warming was real Jesus would have told us about it when he wrote the bible.

sebster wrote:
You think the UN intervened in the Balkans because of oil?

There's an argument to be made that AMBO dictated the Yugoslavian intervention.

It's hard to know which side to root for when it comes to global warming is it natural or caused by humans? I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.

Cheesecat wrote:It's hard to know which side to root for when it comes to global warming is it natural or caused by humans? I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.

97% of scientists actve in the field of climate change believe that it is real and that man has a real, material impact on climate. I'm gonna go with those guys.

sebster wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:It's hard to know which side to root for when it comes to global warming is it natural or caused by humans? I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.

97% of scientists actve in the field of climate change believe that it is real and that man has a real, material impact on climate. I'm gonna go with those guys.

I have to agree with this comment.

One of the things I do with my clients is to plant crops at a local community garden. Every year I have been seeing the changes to the seasons that have been affecting the crop yields. We really had no summer in my region as it appears to shift into late winter into a fall like manner. This meant that many of my crops planted were harvested later in the year. Definitely a unusual situation as I am now getting strawberries that normally would be harvested in late June to be harvest now in October. Tomatoes the same way as well. In order to save my small strawberry plot I'm going to have to the Plastic garden tent it up soon to keep the temperature and moisture correct for another month to complete the harvest before getting them ready for the winter.

To me Global Warming is a fact. I have seen the changes to the growing seasons in my gardens and I believe that we humans are part of the problem.

Chongara wrote:If Global Warming was real Jesus would have told us about it when he wrote the bible.

LOL!!!

as far as "humans are to blame/humans are not to blame"

I don't think humans are completely to blame, but I believe they have had a good impact on it...

bombboy1252 wrote:

Chongara wrote:If Global Warming was real Jesus would have told us about it when he wrote the bible.

LOL!!!

as far as "humans are to blame/humans are not to blame"

I don't think humans are completely to blame, but I believe they have had a good impact on it...

I think I'll go with that.

And once you've wrangled with the question of how much of global warming is caused by man, you've almost uncovered the whole tip of the iceberg; then you have to start getting into the hard questions. Can we do anything about it? If so, what? Can that be done without destroying modern life? Can we get China to sign on, or are they just going to gobble everyone up once we've hamstrung Western society? Would that be bad? Aaaand so on, ad infinitum.

Then you start drinking.

Bromsy wrote:And once you've wrangled with the question of how much of global warming is caused by man, you've almost uncovered the whole tip of the iceberg; then you have to start getting into the hard questions. Can we do anything about it? If so, what? Can that be done without destroying modern life? Can we get China to sign on, or are they just going to gobble everyone up once we've hamstrung Western society? Would that be bad? Aaaand so on, ad infinitum.

Then you start drinking.

What can we do about it? We can reduce emissions. It's really that simple. There's this idea that's gotten stuck into people's heads somehow that moving to reduce emissions somehow means destroying all industry on the planet or something, and it's just not true. The estimate for stabilising emissions by 2020 is 1% of worldwide GDP. It's a fair cost, no doubt, but it's hardly economy destroying.

Getting everyone to agree to measures to do this is the hard bit, I agree, but China isn't the stopping block you make them out to be. In fact, they're champions for certain kinds of measures, like subsidising the deployment of green energy sources, they're just opposed to putting a cap on future emissions based on present standards, and as a rapidly industrialising economy that makes perfect sense. They're certainly not as difficult as the US, who have developed a kind of ideological freak out over the idea of entering any international treaty.

The opposition to climate change is idealogical. It's like people who refute evolution, they do it not on the basis of evidence but because they scratch around for means to justify, or maybe genuinely convince themselves, that reality fits their world view.

Why else dismiss the years and years of detailed and published evidence because Al Gore got something wrong in a popularist film, or because of 'Climategate' in which the scientists have been clearer of wrongdoing, it was entirely blown out of proportion by the right wing. It's pathetic, these two events are nothing against the overwhelming evidence in favour of anthropogenic global warming. Any field of research this massive will have a few oddities but it's a conservative's wet dream to find something, anything to massively publicise and distort in order to attack and dismiss decades of research and thousands of scientists.

And the reason is that it suits them for global warming not to be happening. They aren't looking for genuine scientific enquiry, they just want the oil to keep flowing and maintain their lifestyle.

If the public accept the gravity of the situation regarding climate change it means they'll have to face the real issues of flying and driving everywhere, spend more money on alternative energies, change their lifestyle. In a country like America in which some of the largest streams of cast going to politicians and lobbyists are hugely backed by oil money there's no reason to change. Also the idea of public spending on alternative energies is abhorrent, because that's socialism or something.

It's amusing to watch socialists try to run the planet and our lives for us.

Phanatik wrote:It's amusing to watch socialists try to run the planet and our lives for us.

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you is a socialist.

*ponders hitting the ignore user button*

LOL

'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Phanatik wrote:It's amusing to watch socialists try to run the planet and our lives for us.

Its just as amusing watching conservatives, libertarians, fascists, communists, liberals, authoritarians, monarchists, and plutocrats (among others) do the same.

Realizing that there are other people, and that they will control your life in some fashion is a sign of maturity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:
'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

So, you're saying that you're following Mr. Alinsky's methodology by labeling any opinion you dislike as socialist?

In any case, I'll never understand why the Right hates Alinsky so much, nothing in Rule for Radicals is particularly novel. The books is basically an introduction to general political strategy. Hell, this Karl Rove quote:

Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals," is a favorite of the Obamas. Michele Obama quoted it at the Democratic Convention. One Alinsky tactic is to "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That's what the White House did in targeting Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer.

Is an example of picking a target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it.

Hmmm...as far as controlling someone else's life goes, I really doubt that conservatives can be lumped in with the usual autocrats.

Conservatives believe in the constitution, and so will tolerate/advocate just the bare miniumum of outside control.

I don't see what maturity has to do with recognizing that other people want to control your life, or have some influence on it. You might want to check the definition on that one.

Regards,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"So, you're saying that you're following Mr. Alinsky's methodology by labeling any opinion you dislike as socialist?"

Forget "maturity." Look up the definition for "transparent" instead.

Have a nice day!

Phanatik wrote:Hmmm...as far as controlling someone else's life goes, I really doubt that conservatives can be lumped in with the usual autocrats.

Conservatives believe in the constitution, and so will tolerate/advocate just the bare miniumum of outside control.

The Constitution isn't the bare minimum of formal outside control (the bare minimum is lawlessness), nor is it relevant outside the United States, which wasn't a limiting factor in your initial comment.

Phanatik wrote:
I don't see what maturity has to do with recognizing that other people want to control your life, or have some influence on it. You might want to check the definition on that one.

I didn't say want, I said will. You have no choice in the matter.

In any case, psychological maturity is essentially defined by the manner in which one reacts to the environment (as inclusive of others), and the recognition that the environment will control your behavior is central to that process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:
"So, you're saying that you're following Mr. Alinsky's methodology by labeling any opinion you dislike as socialist?"

Forget "maturity." Look up the definition for "transparent" instead.

I'll take that as a yes.

Phanatik wrote:Hmmm...as far as controlling someone else's life goes, I really doubt that conservatives can be lumped in with the usual autocrats.

Conservatives want to control your life too. They want to force you to pray in school (and re-write curriculum to remove science from it), they want to block homosexuals from marrying (and they even try to make it socially if not legally acceptable to assault them), they want to force women to not be able to choose abortion (and the hate they spew on this subject is vitriolic enough to eat through non-reactive glass), they want to block immigrants from coming into the country (and I'm not even talking about the illegal ones, whom they almost want to punish by execution at times), and so on and so forth.

Social conservatives are essentially defined by their desire to control your life, contrasting against libertarianism.

dogma wrote:
The Constitution isn't the bare minimum of formal outside control (the bare minimum is lawlessness), nor is it relevant outside the United States, which wasn't a limiting factor in your initial comment.

You seem to have a problem with definitions, but liberals do want to control the language, in order to control the argument.

Lawlessness would be the absolute minimum.

If this digresses into you merely parsing whether or not I cross my T's, etc, then it's pointless to respond to you. Snarkiness isn't an argument, and it doesn't prove/disprove the original topic.

Phanatik wrote:
You seem to have a problem with definitions, but liberals do want to control the language, in order to control the argument.

Its interesting that you think I'm on one side or the other. I'm probably more liberal than you, but I'm also less liberal than either Melissia or Sebster (to pull two examples from this thread) and I make my living by thinking about politics dispassionately.

In any case, appealing to definitions is an attempt to control language. So is crying wolf (read: socialist).

Phanatik wrote:
Lawlessness would be the absolute minimum.

Yes it would, and another phrase which carries the meaning of "absolute minimum" is "bare minimum".

Phanatik wrote:
If this digresses into you merely parsing whether or not I cross my T's, etc, then it's pointless to respond to you. Snarkiness isn't an argument, and it doesn't prove/disprove the original topic.

In any case, I'm not being particularly pedantic here as I'm actually engaging the substance of your argument, while you appear to be trying to attack my word choice.

If you want me to be pedantic I certainly can be, there's plenty of evidence to that effect in my posting history.

Bromsy wrote:And once you've wrangled with the question of how much of global warming is caused by man, you've almost uncovered the whole tip of the iceberg; then you have to start getting into the hard questions. Can we do anything about it? If so, what? Can that be done without destroying modern life? Can we get China to sign on, or are they just going to gobble everyone up once we've hamstrung Western society? Would that be bad? Aaaand so on, ad infinitum.

Then you start drinking.

I like this guy...

He knows whats up

Phanatik wrote:It's amusing to watch socialists try to run the planet and our lives for us.

So, lacking any means of rebuttal against the points already made against you, you instead decide the charge back into the thread with a generalised criticism of 'socialists'.

Once it became obvious you were out of your depth you could have continued to enquire about the state of climate change research, and likely would have learned a whole lot that challenged the nonsense that scientifically illiterate but politically powerful people had told you. Instead you just decide to put a metal bucket on your head, bang a wooden spoon against it and start yelling 'people who follow the advice of scientific experts are socialist poopyheads'.

Pathetic.

Mr. Phanatik, just go back to your Rush Limbaugh.


No one wants to take your lovely grill.

Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?

As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.

I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.

<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.

Regards,

I spit my root beer all over my desk, foam thru the nose and everything. ManBearPig is real.

Sebster - you refuted me so thoroughly, I think I will let my hair grow long, wear tie-dyed shirts, stop bathing, join ELF to destroy SUVs the world over, and rally with my well-informed brothers and sisters on Wall Street. Thank you.

Rubiks - Isn't one of the three main industries of Spitsbergen coal mining? Also, don't socialists hold the majority of seats in your parliment?

Hi, I'm Phanatik, TNSPOTB
(The Newest Socialist Poopyhead on the Block)

Phanatik wrote:Sebster

Pick the Target.

Phanatik wrote:
- you refuted me so thoroughly,

Freeze it.

Phanatik wrote:
I think I will let my hair grow long, wear tie-dyed shirts, stop bathing, join ELF to destroy SUVs the world over, and rally with my well-informed brothers and sisters on Wall Street.

Personalize it.

Phanatik wrote:
Thank you.

And Polarize It

Dogma - A dispassionate (must be a Vulcan?) political expert (cause he said so) paid (by George Soros?) to follow me around (no photos please!).

I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
As it is, it's not exactly a bad idea anyway... so go figure...