Guess who just won the Nobel Peace Prize? - Page 6

wgrimm · 10-17-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nuclear power is the only large-scale power production technology which does not produce greenhouse gases. Properly handled, the safety hazards are acceptable - many European countries produce a significant proportion of their electricity from nuclear plants (eg about 60% in France, 25% in the UK). The UK is currently planning a new generation of nuclear power plants as a major step towards reducing CO2 emissions.

There are a number of advanced designs of nuclear reactor which are more efficient, less complex, and inherently much safer than current generation plants, most notably the Pebble Bed Reactor design.

Too bad nuclear reactors produce waste that is very difficult to dispose of. How about solar power generation- orbit large solar arrays and beam the power down to earth via microwave? Studies of this technology have been positive, and you have the additional advantage of having the capability to focus that microwave beam on people around the world who are misbehaving. Instead of invading Iraq, a country could have focused the beam on Saddam's motorcade, disposing of the problem cheaply and cleanly. None of the nasty depleted uranium pollution an invasion causes......

yvanleterrible · 10-17-2007, 01:27 PM

There are ways of recycling spent nuclear fuel but they are expensive and our beloved economies won't go for them. They prefer to lock it up under the care of geologic formations for eons. Right. If we think their way, man has only got a century left so what's the use?

Goshzilla · 10-17-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgrimm

That's simply not the case. Between 12,000 and 10,000 BC, the earth went through a major "thaw." Sea levels worldwide increased up to 100 meters. Now, this change was much greater than anything that we have seen since industrialization. The eruption of the volcano Krakatoa accounted for short-term changes greater than anything seen caused by industrialization. The factors that account for climate are many and have never been accurately modeled. The climatologists can't even accurately model short-term weather; their best models are accurate out to three days or so.

There are natural warming cycles, this current time period is not part of one, and there is no scientific concensus that says it is.

JSWolf · 10-17-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goshzilla

There are natural warming cycles, this current time period is not part of one, and there is no scientific concensus that says it is.

I'd rather err on the side of caution and whilr that may be correct, it may also be wrong. I'd rather go for it's wrong and do something now.

Goshzilla · 10-17-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'd rather err on the side of caution and whilr that may be correct, it may also be wrong. I'd rather go for it's wrong and do something now.

The current global warming trend(which is not being a subject of denial, except by the extreme nut balls), is not part of the natural time cycle. So the issue is what has caused it to go out of the cycle?

HarryT · 10-18-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

i could care less about ONE museum in a country of thousands

And the poll you quoted is decieving

"It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to "thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . ." that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man's origin."

Please read my previous post again. I simply said:

Quote:

I believe that a large proportion of Americans, influenced by religious beliefs, do not accept the theory of evolution as being valid

The Gallup article completely confirms this:

Quote:

The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend.

Why do you refer to the BBC as a "liberal media outlet"? What do you mean by "liberal" in this context?

Quote:

i guess because youre from the uk you have bad teeth?

Sorry, you've completely lost me. What is the connection between being from the UK and the state of one's teeth?

Madam Broshkina · 10-18-2007, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Sorry, you've completely lost me. What is the connection between being from the UK and the state of one's teeth?

Perhaps from this BBC article:

Problems with getting an NHS dentist are leading some people to pull their own teeth out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7045263.stm

HarryT · 10-18-2007, 05:05 AM

I hadn't read that story - good point

.

jamesdmanley · 10-18-2007, 10:39 AM

youre making a gross generalization about over 400 million people based on your stereotype of religious zealots, which apparently constitutes a "large proportion of Americans."

HarryT · 10-18-2007, 11:27 AM

When asked:

Quote:

now, thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

48% of those surveyed by Gallup responded "no". I do consider that to be a large proportion, yes. Don't you?

Could you answer the question about what "liberal" means, please?

JSWolf · 10-18-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

When asked:

48% of those surveyed by Gallup responded "no". I do consider that to be a large proportion, yes. Don't you?

The best thing someone said to solve the evolution vs. creation issue....

God created the heavens and Earth and life. Life then evolved from God's creation.

HarryT · 10-18-2007, 11:38 AM

That's basically a statement of Deism, Jon.

JSWolf · 10-18-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's basically a statement of Deism, Jon.

Well we do have PROOF that man was not the first lifeform on Earth. So we know 100% that the story of creation as told in the Bible is a fairy tale.

HarryT · 10-18-2007, 11:48 AM

But the problem is, Jon, that advocates of Creationism do not believe the proof. They (as I understand the position, anyway) claim that the Earth was created approximately 10,000 years ago complete with all the fossil remains, etc, already there in the rocks, just to make it look like it's 4.6 billion years old. Why their "God" would be so perverse as to wish to do this is a question I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer to

.

JSWolf · 10-18-2007, 11:49 AM

Well, if you believe in God and that God created Earth, then I would go with evolution stemming from God's creation. That makes the most sense to me.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
China objects to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident	kennyc	Lounge	7	10-08-2010 06:16 PM
2010 Nobel Prize in Literature	Scott Nielsen	General Discussions	5	10-08-2010 06:19 AM
Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize	Nate the great	Lounge	8	03-13-2010 12:14 AM
Seriously thoughtful Nobel Peace Prize!	pshrynk	Lounge	24	11-02-2009 04:20 PM
Lessing, Doris. On not winning the Nobel Prize	Nate the great	News	4	12-10-2007 03:42 PM

10-17-2007, 01:27 PM	#77
yvanleterrible Reborn Paper User Posts: 8,616 Karma: 15446734 Join Date: May 2006 Location: Que Nada Device: iPhone8, iPad Air	There are ways of recycling spent nuclear fuel but they are expensive and our beloved economies won't go for them. They prefer to lock it up under the care of geologic formations for eons. Right. If we think their way, man has only got a century left so what's the use?

10-18-2007, 05:05 AM	#83
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,545 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I hadn't read that story - good point .

10-18-2007, 10:39 AM	#84
jamesdmanley Groupie Posts: 156 Karma: 817 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: houston Device: prs-500	youre making a gross generalization about over 400 million people based on your stereotype of religious zealots, which apparently constitutes a "large proportion of Americans."

10-18-2007, 11:38 AM	#87
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,545 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	That's basically a statement of Deism, Jon.

10-18-2007, 11:48 AM	#89
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,545 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	But the problem is, Jon, that advocates of Creationism do not believe the proof. They (as I understand the position, anyway) claim that the Earth was created approximately 10,000 years ago complete with all the fossil remains, etc, already there in the rocks, just to make it look like it's 4.6 billion years old. Why their "God" would be so perverse as to wish to do this is a question I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer to .

10-18-2007, 11:49 AM	#90
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 79,778 Karma: 145864619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	Well, if you believe in God and that God created Earth, then I would go with evolution stemming from God's creation. That makes the most sense to me.