Science Eurobarometer - "Science and Technology"

[Urwumpe]

Privatize gains, socialize losses.

It is neither capitalism, nor socialism, it is egoism.

 

[RisingFury]

That is wrong. Scientists did in the 1970s before the green house effect was known, and actually, Earth should be heading into a ice age again, if solar activity would be the only factor.

No. You're wrong.


The story about an ice age in the 70's comes from the Time magazine, not the scientific literature. The source it got it's story from predicts another ice age 20 000 years from now. Time magazine left that out.

A search through scientific literature in the 70's reveals 7 papers that predict global dimming (cooling) and 44 papers that predict warming, even though climate had been cooling in the 70's.

Even in 1960, the presidential advisory produces a warming about CO2 and it's warming effects. I quote:

"Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment...", noting that emissions by the year 2000 could "measurable and perhaps marked climate change".

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------

I'm actually a cautious believer in AGW

Well................ no, you're not.

There are no believers, as if the issue depends on faith, rather then a strong body of evidence.

There are no deniers, as if there is an unassailable truth to be denied.

There are proponents of the idea and skeptics. That makes you a proponent...

 

[Urwumpe]

A search through scientific literature in the 70's reveals 7 papers that predict global dimming (cooling) and 44 papers that predict warming, even though climate had been cooling in the 70's.

Oh thank you, didn't know that.

 

[Linguofreak]

Well................ no, you're not.

There are no believers, as if the issue depends on faith, rather then a strong body of evidence.

To believe something means simply to hold it to be true, regardless of how you arrived at that conclusion.

Furthermore, the issue is so politically charged that there *is* a degree of faith involved in taking up either position, unless, perhaps, you yourself are a climate scientist. For one thing, one very seldom hears what the scientists are saying, but rather what politicians say the scientists are saying. Does the whole scientific community stand behind the idea of AGW, or is it just a very vocal / politically backed portion? It's very hard to get a source you can trust in the whole debate, which does add an element of faith to the mix.

I believe AGW is happening because I have faith that the sources from which I gained the knowledge I base that belief on have not deliberately deceived me. I have good reasons to think that they haven't, but taking into account human nature and the vast amount of political BS flying around these days, I can't be entirely sure.

 

[Eccentrus]

The only thing that doesn't change is change itself - a greek philosopher whose name I forgot

 

[Moach]

how stupid of people...


that guy advocating to his "theres no such thing as gravity" theory can be told off so easily it's ridiculous...

of course gravity works with multiple bodies, the math isn't even at all that complex (i know, i have built simulators before) and if all esle fails - WE HAVE ORBITER TO PROVE IT :rofl:



ah.. the stupid... how would we geeks ever feel superior without them... :hmm::lol:


and yet, my growing lack of patience for dealing with them dummies is one of the reasons i ditched my career as a rock star a few months ago

 

[computerex]

Technologies exist to minimize the amount of waste generated, and the storage problem is solvable at a societal cost far less than the costs imposed by our hydrocarbon addiction.

As far as I know there aren't any good solutions for waste storage yet. You can reuse the waste, you can reduce the amount generated, but there will still be waste, and so far we don't know how to safely store it. Uranium simply decays too slowly. I agree with you that overall this is a better method then being stuck on hydrocarbons, but it seems to me that we will only be switching from one problematic method to another, instead of tackling the actual problem. I mean eventually we will even run out of places to bury the thing. Then it is off into space.

 

[Urwumpe]

The biggest real problem is actually that we have no experience to store the nuclear waste for the needed time - there is not a single human structure that did survive long enough yet. Thinking, that just by burying it below the surface, the problem will be solved, is also stupid: No mine did ever get deep enough to store the nuclear waste in such a care free way. Even 1500m depth is not out of this world. In such a depth, the waste can still reach the drinking water in less than 50 years.

 

[Aviator]

well it came out of the ground to begin with - and the fission took some of its potency out,

why not mix it back with its soil and bury it where we found it?

 

[T.Neo]

there is not a single human structure that did survive long enough yet.

Still, you have to give architecture some credit; there are many structures on Earth that are thousands of years old, and they were built with quite primitive technologies compared to those of current times.

why not mix it back with its soil and bury it where we found it?

Uh... :uhh:

 

[computerex]

Still, you have to give architecture some credit; there are many structures on Earth that are thousands of years old, and they were built with quite primitive technologies compared to those of current times.

Yes, there are some excellent structures around. Particularly the Roman buildings, which are still standing, and still used today. But the half life of Uranium 235 is over 700 million years.

why not mix it back with its soil and bury it where we found it?

Because the waste is still radioactive. Enriched uranium is used for nuclear power plants. It could leak into the water supply, and cause a whole bunch of problems. Radioactive waste is not something you should play around with. And some people could use it to make dirty bombs too.

 

[Urwumpe]

Still, you have to give architecture some credit; there are many structures on Earth that are thousands of years old, and they were built with quite primitive technologies compared to those of current times.

But that you can still see that this was once a pyramid does not mean it still serves its intended purpose.

 

[T.Neo]

But the half life of Uranium 235 is over 700 million years.

I think the idea is more to keep the waste from escaping until it has degraded to safe levels, rather than waiting for all the radionuclides to decay. Which can still be on the order of millions of years...

But that you can still see that this was once a pyramid does not mean it still serves its intended purpose.

As computerex said, there are old buildings that are still in use today. A pyramid is really just a chunk of limestone.

And while the pyramids have lost their cladding for example, this is mostly due to human scavengers. The same goes for the grave robbers; if it wasn't for them, the pyramids might well still contain the remains of those buried within, which was their original intended purpose.

 

[Urwumpe]

Do you want to claim that antropomorphic erosion exists?

 

[T.Neo]

Do you want to claim that antropomorphic erosion exists?

I've seen a lot of things anthropomorphosised, but never erosion... :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Damn, I meant Anthropogenic erosion :lol:

 

[Izack]

The only thing that doesn't change is change itself - a greek philosopher whose name I forgot

Then what is acceleration? :lol:

And BTW it was Heraclitus.

 

[River Crab]

I've seen a lot of things anthropomorphosised, but never erosion... :lol:

I volunteer to make this!

Also:

Changing.

 

[tblaxland]

that guy advocating to his "theres no such thing as gravity" theory can be told off so easily it's ridiculous...

of course gravity works with multiple bodies, the math isn't even at all that complex (i know, i have built simulators before) and if all esle fails - WE HAVE ORBITER TO PROVE IT :rofl:

Does centrifugal force exist? Of course not, it is just inertia (but try telling that to the observer in the rotating frame). Similarly, at the scale of classical physics, gravity is just inertia in curved space-time. Put another way, when I am in freefall (eg, in orbit) there are no forces acting on me and it can therefore be argued that gravity doesn't exist.

Damn, I meant Anthropogenic erosion :lol:

If I walk the same dirt track every day and the soil is eventually redistributed by my shoes, what is it if not anthropogenic erosion?

 

[River Crab]

Erosion!
Actually more like corrosion, but whatever, she's the same character.