So real action on climate change, if it ever happens, will be by government legislation, and this will effect you.

First, I thought they were just morons, now I realize they are morons with blood on their hands!

Its great how all this weather is natural - Victoria turning into a filthy desert, hundreds dying from heat stress.

In fact I wonder whether most deniers are secretly pleased by these deaths ?

I really think the main focus now should be on giving the deniers lots of good, grateful feedback.

So as things unfold over the next few years we make sure they get the full rich credit they so rightly deserve for stopping us from doing anything!

Reaping what you sow is a core belief of conservatives - so they can’t argue with this!

If in the meteor example the scientist knew what he was talking about, then he would have know that the idea of shooting an approach meteor would probably create more damage than not doing so.

Firstly, if the meteor was going to just miss the earth, blowing it up would ensure that earth was hit by some of the pieces.

Secondly, if I recall correctly, studies have shown that the multiple impact of all the pieces are likely to cause more damage than just one big hit.

And I would not be surprised if there were several other reasons why blowing it up is not a sensible option.

As you can tell, a glib one-liner is sometimes the easy way out of explain all this, especially if you are talking to a reporter who is going to severely edit your words.

It would have been better if he had said something else, but no-one is perfect.

I also wonder if embodied energy calculations take account of base-load power having to be generated fairly constantly from some sources like coal, requiring artificial loads when usage ebbs, so that the parts of the fabrication taking place offsite with civic power sources draw to some extent on fuel that was going to be burned anyway. I don’t know if that accounts for a significant proportion, I’m not knowledgable about these things.

Michael, re “scientists would have to stop speaking as concerned citizens and restrict themselves to the facts”, I don’t think that’s necessary, but I think it behoves experts to make the dividing line crystal clear for the rest of us where the expert advice stops and personal ideology begins.

When studies give widely variable results it just shows that we don’t yet know this answer, and further research is needed.

As far as the planet is concerned, what matters is cradle to grave calculations, so studies which don’t include mining and disposal costs will not only be wrong, but might be seriously misleading.

There have been many studies done on the topic, with hugely variable results. Like all this stuff, it depends strongly on your assumptions and criteria. Do you include mining and storage for a nuke? What about decommisioning? What about water use for coal plants? I’ve heard from 10 months to 10 years for nuclear; I’ve heard that solar never gets there. Anyway, make up your own mind:
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/energy-payback-ratios-for-electricity-generation/
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/energy-payback-times-for-nuclear.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html

It would be a very different world if the discussion was restricted to only rational, evidence based discussion.

You are right that some of the scientists would have to stop speaking as concerned citizens and restrict themselves to the facts.

Fortunately pretty much all the “deniers” viewpoints would be silenced in any debate with such restrictions, and so things would be much more simple.

But it is easy to see how nuclear is in a different league from anything else (including a coal or gas plant). One nuclear needs to be built to be (almost) safe if something goes bang inside, or if someone flies a plane into it, etc.

And this could happen in Australia even though there are no plans to do any significant cuts in emissions via other means before 2020.

Even if there was political agreement, it would take years to decide where to build what type of planet. Only then can you start to build.

Also note that a nuclear plant creates so many emissions to build that it actually needs to operate for many years (I can’t remember if this was 5 or 10 years) until it can be said to be carbon neutral.

“Dr Switkowski said the cost of nuclear power stations was coming down and the time to construct them in some countries was as short as four years. He said Australia should aim to have 50 operating by 2050, which would supply 90 per cent of energy needs and meet greenhouse targets.”

Which surely implies that reactors are timely to build and just what the greenhouse needs.

Cost wise, the earlier UMPNER Report said that they would be competitive with coal, given a modest tax on carbon.

“I’m still sceptical, but feel that assuming that it is a problem will be the lesser of 2 evils. However, I think that environmentalists need to admit that building nuclear (fission) power stations is also the lesser of 2 evils…”

Reminds me of an article a few years ago about astronomers warning of meteor hazard; when asked about shooting down an incoming meteor with missiles the astronomer said it would not be an option. Why not? “We’re opposed to that kind of macho act.”

My point? Sometimes scientists need to be reminded to quarantine their expert advice from their ideological wishes. Tempting as it may be to take advantage of the spotlight to preach, the ideology sometimes encumbers and complicates the main message. Captain Planet’s good analysis of propaganda can also serve as advice for the good guys: KISS.

Otherwise, you guys have stirred my compassion, so I seriously want to help you out. My 3 y.o. is afraid to go to sleep in the dark. I’ve reassured her there’s nothing to be afraid of, but to make her feel secure, she has a night-light (a little carbon emitting, evil thing). The night-light for you lot, is nuclear power. It won’t make a difference to the climate, but it won’t emit carbon, and it will transform the world.

It’s not just one farmer, the National Farmers Federation is now trying to pressure the Nats to stop dissembling on carbon abatement. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26233953-2702,00.html

Almost 100% of Australian’s think that Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister. And, no, I can’t name them all.

More interesting would be to name the few who don’t think that Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister, and see what they have to say.

Will Most Peculiar then become a skeptic about Rudd’s position?

There are options. It’s not the heat that’s important but the carbon. It’s just convenient that when you burn coke it renders both heat and carbon. Biochar? Who knows.

In any case, it’s not a big problem. Coking coal in Australia makes up about 3% of all coal emissions in Australia (ABARE 2007 numbers) and we’re a big steel producer.

Great question and one the renewables junkies have no answer for.

Maybe we should just build a big magnifying glass.

Another baseless and stupid statement.

“…How do you stop cows burping? NFI…”

Try eating them.

You are really on point today Evan.

LOL

Then you won’t have any problem listing them all then.

You saying it doesn’t make it so.