Page 6 - Nuclear Power

I think humans do have some sort of effect on it. Although I think the scientists blow the effect way out of proportion there has to be something effecting it because you can't just pump that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now there are MANY factors to global warming. People try to place the entire blame on humans. What about volcanoes and grass fires? I mean think before there was a fire department. Those fires would go on for years. Also what about volcanoes? They emit large amounts of CO2.

Then there's that whole pattern in nature thing. Look at the record high temps. They all occur in patterns. The hurricane season goes in 40 years on 40 years off type of pattern from what I've heard.

Also the climate is in a natural state of warming and cooling all the time. There were ice ages and times that it was way wamrer than it is now in Earth's past.

My verdict is humans have some effect on global warming but nature is mostly to blame.

But volcanos and nature have been around a lot longer than humans. Forest fires are natural, but you cannot compare forest fires with the continuous emmission of CO2 that has been pouring into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. The two are just not on the same scale. ONe is like a marble compared to a basketball.

If it were mostly nature, then the sudden rise in temperatures would not have happened so swiftly, especially since there is less nature than ever (thanks to humans and our brilliant idea of sprawl and pollution )

Trying to blame global warming on nature is just shirking responsibility for our own actions so that no one feels compelled to take action.

If we were (as a society and a world) really smart, we would do everything in our power to convert as much as possible to alternative energy sources.

Look at all the pros:

Cleaner environment
may slow global warming
less dependance on a onrenewable substance
foreign countries won't control our main energy source (at least for the US)
Walking through a congested street in the middle of a city won't smell of pollution, and buildings won't be grimed up from exhaust fumes.
It will be cheaper as the price of oil copntinues to rise
Oil is old school and the new stuff is high(er) tech, and who doesn't love technology

Cons:

Conversion will cost money
Oil companies won't be happy
The Middle East will lose out on big profits for oil (bad for them)

IMO, the pros far outweigh the cons, as there really are no detriments to the use of oil. It served its purpose, and after 200 years, its time to change. The cost of waiting always turns out to be far greater than the cost of acting while you have a perfect opportunity

(along with cost: China and India are rapidly industrializing...at least for them, it would be far cheaper to just create infrastructure based on alternative energy than to convert later)

Look at our past. There has been way warmer times and way cooler times. We only have 100 years of accurate temperature readings. Geologic records indicates that nature has a lot to do with warming and cooling the planet. Like you said it's been 200 years since we started using fossil fuels. This planet has been around well over 10 BILLION years. I'm not ruling out human causes but I do think it's highly overplayed.

@alternative fuels. Do you not understand how business works? Business is going to go with the cheapest way to put out as much as they can. Even with $70 a barrel oil it's still cheaper than alternative fuels. Developing countries don't have the overhead to invest that extra amount of money right now and remain competitive.

Hey I agree with getting as many alternative fuels as we can out there. I highly support them and am actually thinking about some ideas that could help along with the process. I'm thinking about this device (it's been invented just supressed by the oil industry) that makes a v8 get upwards of 100mpg. If this invention could come out we wouldn't really make any radical switches. If cars coudl acheive that effeciency (which they can with this device) you could easily grow ethanol and use that for a fuel source.

that thing sounds cool, what exactly is this 100mpg device?

http://www.get113to138mpg.com

A sping off of this device.

not being against the project, but looking at it without bias the website looks pretty crappy.

so oil is the cheapest way of producing energy?

right. and when we run out in 10 years (max. they reckon we're gonna reach peak oil between now and 2010). what are we gonna do?

no transport. little or no communications (requires electricity which will be gone around the same time thanks to the depleting gas and coal reserves too...).

and most of all, the one NO ONE ever reports: no food.

seriously, if we can't fight world hunger now, with all the commodities oil brings, HOW THE HELL will we fight it when it's everywhere?

since the 70's, oil IS food.

and i just dare anyone to mention catch 22. come on, just try me!

Then someone will rise up with some sort of alternative energy and will make a ton of money. I bet you the oil industry will have some patents they covered up over the years that they'll release at the right time.

tesla... i mean the US government... has some hidden away .

but you still odn't get it. food boy FOOD!

Oil for food? Yeah I we trade food for oil. The thing is if we really wanted to get back at the middle east for ripping us off with oil we could just start jacking up the price of food or trading less food for more oil.

NO! not oil for food!

you utter dumb ass!

without oil, "modern" western farms will cease to exist. no tractors, no fertilisers or pesticides, no nothing. this, by a strange quirk of fate, tend to lead to no food.

or did you think food came from the super market, and milk from bottles?

I live in dairy country I knwo where milk comes from. As a matter a fact they use cow manure for fertlizer (it makes a mess on the road and smells bad) and they also have digestors that make methane that powers certain things. Around here most tractors run on diesel. There are big ethanol plants that make biodiesel. I think we're pretty set around here.

good.

in 1974 farms in the US produce one calory of food for ever calorie of fossil fuel energy used. now on average it's something like one calorie of food to every ten in FF (i'm not actually sure on this, but it's definitely higher).

actually, our planet has been around a mear 4 -5 billions yrs, fossil fuels were started being burnt around 150 yrs ago.

the reason why alternative fuels are way cheaper, is because the economy/people arent demanding it. also, the system of using fossil fuels has been around a long time its overall cheaper as its done in a fast proccess. right now, fossil fuels are cheaper as its easier to proccess ( from crude oil to petrol etc) but not significantly to alternative fuels.

evenutally, the world will switch to alternative fuels, but the world needs to change very soon.

also, the topic of global warming is made to sound worse by the media, as they assume to fast to make money. to be honest, scientists dont have a clue what is happening or what is going to happen, there isnt enough solid evidence of global warming.

although the theory of 'global warming' has been such a serious issue in the media and to the government(s), it shows that the government(s) is good as they are reacting to the situation even if global warming exsists or not.

I'd like to see some sort of source for that. I kind of find that hard to believe considering engine technology on tractors and vehicles has gotten way more effecient.