uh huh, what "same dickheads" would that be precisely? every major national science org? fed you infomraiton about the climate and about thorium nuclear reactors? don't think so.
It only takes a small number of people to manipulate a few figures and if every national science org works with those figures it's easy to hoodwink people, look around every government department is at it.
Thorium remains experimental and commercially unproven, the bomb notion will no doubt appeal to the weak minded conspiracy theorists here.
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
They had a working prototype decades ago
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254692-new-molten-salt-thorium-reactor-first-time-decades
Unfortunately I can't remember the scientists name (I'll have to dig it up ) but when he made several complaints about the safety of the uranium reactors, he was told "you're obviously not the right man for the job" and they sacked him. These people had no interest in the much safer prospect of thorium, just their own agenda yet you think they would be honest about climate data, or anything else for that matter, we're constantly being fed lies and bullshit so why would they just be honest about the climate.
@ krudspar its all good conspiracy theory stuff, but thorium has never got passed the small scale experimental stage.
@ elro your 5% of the electric sector equates to 1% of the primary energy market, keep overselling the 1% and ignore the 99%.
@ krudspar its all good conspiracy theory stuff, but thorium has never got passed the small scale experimental stage.
@ elro your 5% of the electric sector equates to 1% of the primary energy market, keep overselling the 1% and ignore the 99%.
Of course it didn't, they suppressed it without giving it a chance despite its potential of clean, safe power with minimal radioactive waste. People who run this world have turned lies and deception into an art form, you might consider me a conspiracy theorist but if you open your eyes, you'll see through some of the bullshit you're being fed, you're far too trusting.
'they' the world is very much a base up place, lots of everyday individuals doing their best to run things. I've had to mention this to elro and ww throughout the thread as they also appear fond of the scapegoat mentality.
lol it only takes a small number of people!? you have no clue how science works. people check those figures, again and again. if it were all a conspiracy, how come the exxon scientists told their bosses that fossil fuel emissions cause global warming back in the 1980's? what on earth makes you think you know better than the scientists that study it?
pretzel2 wrote:
lol it only takes a small number of people!? you have no clue how science works. people check those figures, again and again. if it were all a conspiracy, how come the exxon scientists told their bosses that fossil fuel emissions cause global warming back in the 1980's? what on earth makes you think you know better than the scientists that study it?
I don't know better than the scientist but very many scientist disagree with the official line and are vilified for it, that's a joke, so much for discussion. Even the climate is begining to disagree with the official line so they just keep manipulating the figures, the "hocky stick" graph is just one of their manipulations. I've no doubt man has had an influence on the climate but to what extent is far from proven.
no they don't, that's just bullshit you copied from some anti science blog. for example, the hockey stick has been replicated many times, and the few bought scientists spouting the oil company propaganda don't publish anymore. man has caused all of the global warming the last few decades, there is no question of that.
@ krudspar its all good conspiracy theory stuff, but thorium has never got passed the small scale experimental stage.
@ elro your 5% of the electric sector equates to 1% of the primary energy market, keep overselling the 1% and ignore the 99%.
Only if you mistakenly equate a kilowatt-hour of electricity to a kilowatt hour of heat.
A competent building services engineer would explain to you that you can get up to 5 times as much heat (or cooling, even from the same device!) out of a kilowatt-hour of electricity (using a heat pump such as this one) because it is "higher grade energy". The science of thermodynamics explains it.
By the way, have you already forgotten that a good indication of the future (by contrast with your obsession with the amount of existing stock, some of which is several decades old) is that over half of global new generating capacity is now renewable, and this fraction is going to increase over time?
"Man has caused all of the global warming the last few decades, there is no question of that"
lol, how can anyone possibly know that, contributed some, sure that's reasonable, caused it all, no doubt... lol, if that's the case, it would mean the climate has stayed absolutely stable (excepting man's influence ) but the climate has never stayed still, ever,...utter nonesense, there's too many variables and unknowns to be that certain.
1.because scientists do attribution studies
2.no, it wouldn't mean the climate has stayed absolutely stable
3.of course the climate has stayed stable for long periods, till something changes it.
4.the scientists are as certain as they can be given the nature of science, which is good enough for most people to accept it. if one of these legion of contrarian scientists, of which there are so few, ever publishes a paper proposing an alternate theory, have at it. but the oil companies don't seem to finance that kind of study, for the most part. and when they did, the skeptical scientists found, to their surprise, that the science is solid.
4 feet of snow expected to fall in the Sierra Nevadas this week/weekend, alomg with 2 inches of rain in the lower valley.
That darn global warming...
The problem with debates is each side can only see their thing, ( especially when there's funding ) so it's time to let the climate have the last word, no doubt you guys will be telling the climate that it has got it wrong when/if it starts cooling back down. ⛄⛄⛄
'they' the world is very much a base up place, lots of everyday individuals doing their best to run things. I've had to mention this to elro and ww throughout the thread as they also appear fond of the scapegoat mentality.
Its not scapegoating fossil fuel companies to say they have emitted co2 and that pollution has caused warming - unless of course you deny the science.
So perhaps it is you that it is the conspiracy theorist -?
But even if you accept the science it is a matter of record that fossil fuel companies knew about the effects of co2 back in the 80's and have since have funded denialism and sought to produce counter arguments in order to protect their interests.
If you think that a wealthy company is not going to protect its interests and future profitability then you must be very naive indeed. In fact, if I were you, I wouldn't open any emails from Nigerian 'royalty' wishing to deposit money into your account.
Read this for starters
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
"Man has caused all of the global warming the last few decades, there is no question of that"
lol, how can anyone possibly know that,
That's an interesting question.
The answer is that scientists in various disciplines have observed pretty much everything that is conceivably relevant and climate scientists have calculated the effects of these factors based on detailed physical simulations that require supercomputers to give the most accurate simulations. They reach the rather unsurprising conclusion that everything else has contributed very close to zero. [I say unsurprising because we known that global annual mean surface temperatures have varied no more in the last 9000 years or so than they have in the last century, which clearly indicates that nothing much else has been driving them].
A good example is variation in the solar constant, which has been observed from space for several decades now (and can be inferred from earlier ground-based observations by calculations of the effect of the atmosphere). This would be a plausible explanation for warming, except that is has changed so little it explains nothing.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Wind and solar now comprise 5% of global electricity production. In a few years time, it will be 10%, then 20% and well, you know ...