1. Rod, I would suggest that you apply the same deconstruction method, found in the paper on the origin of the LNTH. Holdren certainly had a well known idiological motivation, thay was his opposition to nuclear power, because it provided an out to opponents of his neomalthusian ideology. Holdren has been driving the world to hel in a handbasket for the last 40, by arguing that nothing can save us, aqnd that it is too dangerous to try. His case for this is spectukative and if his facts and logic are carefullu analyzed, how strong is his case?

    Do people agree with Holdren because he makes a strong case, or because thewy agree with his idiology?

    1. @Charles Barton

      But what are the roots of the neomalthusian ideology and where did it obtain its political and financial power?

      I don’t believe Holdren is the originator of the ideology; he is a standard-bearer. That term may not have the same meaning to people without military training, but the standard-bearer is not chosen for leadership skills or original thinking. They are usually chosen because they look good in a uniform, perhaps because they march with particular precision or because they are a bit taller than the rest of their platoon.

    2. You can debate with Holdren until “the cows come home” and nothing will change. You have to convince the people who use his advice to make policy to stop listening to him, because he’s wrong, or nothing will change.

    3. I tend to agree more with mjd. One must allow the possibility prof Holdren was “not chosen” so much as “choose to” uphold the standard, and that the choice was (and remains) his own.

  2. Typo:

    In the last paragraph above the Note and PS

    “Many of them had solid financial reasons to encourage people to fear all sources of ionizing radiation, especially the low doses that members of the public could possibly receive competitive nuclear energy production – even under accident conditions.”

    Should read

    “… members opf the public could possibly receive from competitive nuclear energy production …”

  3. the sporatically-funded idealists

    I didn’t realize spores paid so well.  You learn something new every day.


      1. Feel free to snark when I make a typo.  Humor keeps the place from getting deadly dull.

    1. @Bob Applebaum

      Took you longer than usual to arrive to share your thoughts about everyone else’s credibility.

      Are you ever going to answer my question about the extent of your financial interests in denying radiobiology? Do you realize how many credible researchers in the field strongly disagree with the assumption that you were taught in the training courses you took in your health physics curriculum?

      Once again, in case you missed it during one of your drive by firings at others, here is the detailed question I’d like you to answer.

      How did Studsvik’s recent sale of US assets affect your net worth?


      Your former company –- RACE Holdings LLC -– made up most of the Memphis-based portion of the assets that were sold.


      Studsvik is acquiring RACE for USD 27,5 million plus transfer of operating credit of USD 8,5 million. The financing of the acquisition has been secured and consists of a combination of own funds and new loans raised in connection with the acquisition. The sellers are the founders, together with the private equity firm Source Capital. The founders will continue to be active in the management of RACE.

      About RACE

      RACE Holdings LLC was founded 1999 and has since then been managed by the founders Gerald Webb, President and Bob Applebaum, Co- Chairman. RACE service offering includes services and logistics. The company owns and operates a special facility on Presidents Island, Memphis, Tennessee where dry and metallic LLW is treated. The facility has a strategic position with convenient access for transportation by road, railroad and water. The company also operates a set of transportation- and logistics services with a high capacity for radwaste components. It also operates its own logistics terminal.

      RACE currently employs a workforce of 120 personell and has a strong client base. Prior to the Studsvik acquisition RACE Holdings LLC was owned by venture capital investor Source Capital and the founders.

      (Emphasis added.)

      It still amuses me that a multimillionaire radiation protection professional spends his time tracking Atomic Insights blog posts about the LNT assumption.

      1. HA! In addition to not understanding science, you don’t understand business. So I will spell it out for you:

        1. RACE owners sell company to Studsvik.

        2. Studsvik sells company to others.

        3. Since RACE owners didn’t own company when Studsvik sold it, the sale doesn’t affect the net worth of any of the previous RACE owners.

        Reality really isn’t that complicated, try it!

        1. @Bob Applebaum

          Thank you for providing the clarifying information.

          Your entry on the BusinessWeek web site indicated that you were still serving as President of StudsvikRACE.

          It was not clear if that indicated that you retained any ownership interest in your former company.

          If you were still serving as President when the most recent sale occurred, it would not be unusual for the sale to result in a cash payment often referred to as a “Golden Parachute” if you were not retained by the new owner.

          1. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

            I was NEVER the President of StudsvikRACE.

            1. @Bob Applebaum

              I don’t believe everything I read, but BusinessWeek is normally a fairly credible source about business leaders. Sorry.

  4. And I can assume no one reading this article sees any correlation between the arguments made by Rod as to why the LNT theory exists is applied, the political connections (UN, et all), the effect upon the economy, the overlap of “scientists” involved and the correlations to the AGW believers tactics with regards to blaming CO2 rather than natural causes for the majority of the warming since 1850? At least LNT has some degree of science verifying their conclusions. All the AGW Theory has is computer models that grow more unbelievable each day and the “Precautionary Principle.” – 17 years, 10 months with a 25% increase in CO2 and no increase in Global temperature (I know, it is hiding in the bottom of the ocean to come out later.) It is as if they used the success of LNT as a model for AGW.

    1. Um, no Rich. AGW is consensus science because a single molecule of CO2 traps heat, just like a single photon can damage DNA. And we measure that the Earth is warming.

      So, AGW and LNT are the consensus, just like evolutionary biology is (damaged DNA leads to species evolution).

      Adams is a health physics denier, just like there exists AGW and evolutionary biology deniers.

      1. @Bob Applebaum

        You wrote:

        AGW is consensus science because a single molecule of CO2 traps heat

        It’s bad enough when you spout nonsense about the health effects of low level radiation. People like James Hansen, Barry Brook, Ben Heard, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel, and thousands of other specialists are concerned about the effects of a growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere on global climate change because mankind is dumping about 35 billion tons per year of the long-lived gas into the atmosphere. That addition rate has overwhelmed natural use and absorption mechanisms and led to a ratcheting rise in the measured level of CO2 in both the atmosphere and in the ocean. If we do not change our course and speed, the concentrations will continue to increase and the effects will be unpredictable. If we slow the addition term using nuclear energy and work to increase the removal term using nuclear energy powered innovation, we have a fighting chance of prosperity AND sustainability.

        As we always say with regard to radiation, it’s the dose and dose rate that matters.

        In my conservative opinion, it is a bad idea to conduct large scale experiments with the only atmosphere we have. The earth will survive, mankind will probably survive. The questions I want skeptics to think about is how much will it cost to mitigate and react to whatever changes occur and how much more warning do we need before we begin taking effective action.

        By the way, I think that the marketing message of the natural gas industry and its buds in the “renewable” energy industry is flat out dangerous, probably more so than continuing on our present course and speed.

        1. Rod, are you a moron?

          I wrote that a single molecule of CO2 traps heat. More CO2 traps more heat! Eventually, there’s enough CO2 that we can say with a high level of certainty that the cause of global warming is due to CO2 and not some other cause. And we’re there!

          Likewise, a single photon can damage DNA. More photons results in more DNA damage. Eventually, there’s enough radiation that we can say with a high level of certainty that an increase in cancer is due to the radiation and not some other cause. That’s what happens above 10 rem. Below 10 rem, photons still damage DNA.

          1. Is the cumulative effect of CO2 molecules linear with respect to global warming, or is it a non-linear phenomenon. Are there means by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere?

            My point here is that you cannot simply count up the number of CO2 molecules to get an estimate of the net effect on climate. It’s a piece, but there is a lot of other physics going on that you need to adequately predict climate — for the record, climate change is almost surely happening, is almost surely caused by anthropogenic sources, and the consequences on human civilization will likely be severe.

            Radiation effects on biological systems is the same way. Yes, one gamma ray can damage one DNA molecule, but, like climate, there are other mechanisms at work. To get the net effect, you need to consider how all of these interact, which may be in non-linear and difficult to comprehend ways.

          2. Engineer-Poet, that’s for the information, learn something new everyday! I suspect that is true for the domain that we’re currently in. As a thought experiment, we could envision a level of CO2 that is so low that plant life “suffocates”. What about the presence of sources or sinks of greenhouse gas that non-linearly depend on temperature or concentration? For example, methane in tundra.

            Back to radiation, no one really doubts the linear response in the high-dose regime. That has been demonstrated empirically suggesting that other no biological mechanisms are significant compared to the damage from radiation. In the low-dose regime, this is not clear at all.

          3. Bob

            just one in 3000 DNA fractures/breaks at background radiation level is caused by that BG radiation.. That BG is al a level of about 2-3 mSievert. The repair mechanism of the cel repairs at this rate and all the breaks will do that in the in DNA by normal braks of natural causes more. Only when the repair mechanism is saturated or there are two breaks on the different DNA parts strains ( the chance of winning the main price of the lottery twice)
            Say that there is some spare capacity in repair mechanism of a factor 3 then only at 10000 times the present background radiation there is disastrous cell failure 20-30 Sievert is deadly. This is about the level that is measured in reality!!
            All radiation in de 10 to 20 times BG radiation level so until 60 mS is completely covered by the repair mechanism..

            Maximum exposure was a total dose for 20 mS in Fukoshima for civilians.

            The danger threshold is bigger than 700 mS (safe assumption) clearly measured in statistical material by radiation specialist like Calabrese.
            1 teaspoon of salt (NaCl) in a day will not kill you but 200 teaspoons per day of that ESSENTIAL salt, will kill your guts , and kidneys. But 400 teaspoons a year will have no effect on your health.
            More : the distribution of dose counts… Small dose on long duration have no influence or very low repair failure chances.

            Only “morons” do not study the latest DNA damage theory and the repair mechanisms that are found. I think that Bob A is a bit “blocked” to act in this sense . He is one of the anti radiation /anti nuke commentators, that I do remember for the latest 15 years that write the same point of view over and over.. It is Bob’s intellectual product. Parallels with repetitive autism.

            Here Bob A for self study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
            And better yourself with hormese theory in radiation…
            Hormesis – A revolution in biology, toxicology and medicine. New York, etc.: Springer-Verlag.

        2. In my conservative opinion, it is a bad idea to conduct large scale experiments with the only atmosphere we have.
          This is a point I keep trying to make to people.

          Meanwhile, a great deal of the “debate” over radiation effects seems to me misdirected. It’s not difficult to extract, from the UNSCEAR reports, the fact that fission results in less population exposure per unit-sent-out than other forms of primary energy. That would still be true if the regulatory regime were relaxed somewhat, to make atomic energy more economical & accessible. People who are afraid of radiation need to know that they should support fission, before we start telling them that they should be less afraid.

      2. Bob,

        Your concept that zero stress is best, if applied to muscle fiber, or bone cells as well as Genetic structure and processes would result in weakness and weaker structure not strength and stronger structures.

        The optimum stress is not zero as you and your life’s work is based. FWIW, no one expects you to ever come to the realization that your life’s work, while profitable due to the anti-science Foucauldian political processes, was pretty much harmful to human knowledge itself.

        You will believe that the optimum level of ionizing stresses is zero to your dying day.

      3. “Adams is a health physics denier, just like there exists AGW and evolutionary biology deniers.”

        In no way is “Adams like AGW deniers”.

        For what it’s worth, here is my laymen’s opinion:

        Rod claims that a small increase in radiation exposure at low doses does not lead to a linear increase of the risk of cancer. I agree, because it is quite a logical position which anyone can understand.

        The human body naturally experiences up to a million DNA damages per cell per day. Doubling radiation exposure as compared to background radiation exposure would not double DNA damage since almost all this high level of natural DNA damage is due to metabolism, not background radiation. Hence it is illogical to suppose that doubling radiation dose rate up from background must double cancer risk. Doubling radiation exposure up from background exposure would only increase DNA damage by a very small fraction, not double it. So how then could cancer risk possibly be doubled as LNT prescribes? It makes no sense at all!

        LNT theory based on acute doses with catastrophic dose-rates (millions of times the background dose rate) such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly cause DNA damage that is (for a short time) a very large multiple of natural DNA damage. So while it is logical as Rod does to suppose that low-dose rate damage is not linearly related to radiation exposure, it is equally logical to suppose that high damage due to extremely high dose-rates (as a result of a nuclear blast) is linearly related to subsequent cancer risk.

        To believe LNT is true down to zero dose, one needs to suppose that all cancer is caused by radiation. This is clearly nonsense.

        AGW deniers claim that all co2 emissions have little or no effect on the climate. That is extremely unscientific and incomparable to the belief in a threshold for cancer risk of radiation exposure.

        1. “AGW deniers claim that all CO2 emissions have little or no effect on the climate.”
          “Rod claims that a small increase in radiation exposure at low doses does not lead to a linear increase of the risk of cancer. I agree, because it is quite a logical position which anyone can understand.”

          Why then does a SMALL increase in the total CO2 lead to a linear increase in Global Warming?

          Humans generate less than 5% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere. A gas that is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, with a “Global Warming Effect” of 1/100 of that of average amount of H20 in the atmosphere. Thus, it looks like you are making a better argument for Bob A, than Rod A.

          Don’t know about the “deniers” but actually “Skeptics” believe that CO2 DOES have SOME effect on the climate, just that it is NOT as much as that claimed by the AGW crowd and that the REAL cause of the purported warming has not been determined.Google “9th International Conference on Climate Change”

          It amazes me that all of arguments I read here that claims LNT is wrongheaded, not proven, is used to achieve a political end or agenda also apply to all of the AGW/CO2 arguments and NO ONE HERE SEES THE COROLLARY.

          1. Why then does a SMALL increase in the total CO2 lead to a linear increase in Global Warming?

            It’s not.  The pCO2 calculated by climate scientists is the increase for a DOUBLING of CO2.  You’d get roughly the same increase for another doubling.  For the innumerate, that means it’s LOGARITHMIC, NOT LINEAR.

            We get a substantial amount of warming from a few hundred ppm of CO2 because there is already some 30°C of greenhouse effect at work keeping Earth from becoming an iceball.  If you can’t work the blackbody radiation equation, it’s time to shut up.

            Humans generate less than 5% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.

            That’s BS.  Human activity has raised atmospheric CO2 from a pre-industrial 285 ppm to roughly 400 ppm (we are now in the boreal growth season down-trend), an increase of roughly 40%.  About an equal amount of CO2 has gone into the oceans and other sinks, so the human contribution is closer to 80% over what was previously in the atmosphere.  We know it’s human because the isotope composition of the added carbon matches fossil fuels (biogenic, not volcanic) and O2 levels have decreased correspondingly as they do with combustion.

            A gas that is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, with a “Global Warming Effect” of 1/100 of that of average amount of H20 in the atmosphere.

            You’ve been reading cranks like Anthony Watts.  Or maybe you ARE Anthony Watts, moonlighting with persona-management apps for some extra cash.

            Should I win a big lottery jackpot, one of my efforts will be to fund a prize for a blog filter which finds canards used by astroturfers like you, and either blocks the posters outright or administers some type of bitchslap like auto-inserted links to refutations and a selection of appropriate insults for being stupid.

            1. @E-P

              Great comment, right up to the final paragraph. There is no need to express your frustration — legitimate as it may be — in the form of insults to another guest here at Atomic Insights.

          2. I would add that the absolute effect on the radiative balance of the earth need not be high in order to cause significant changes to the climate.

            A radiative imbalance of just 1% would increase the earth’s average radiative temperature by almost 3°C (i.e. 1% of the 287 K average global surface temperature) before the imbalance is rectified.

            That is already higher than the internationally agreed threshold of 2°C of warming, above which serious damage to the ecology and/or economy is expected.

            People who claim that: “Co2 only has a small effect on the radiative balance” seem to be unaware of the fact that a ‘small effect’ is all that is needed to push the average temperature sharply away from what it otherwise would be.

            Nuclear power – all by itself – has the potential to almost completely eradicate fossil fuels from electric power generation at no extra cost to society. Nuclear power also has the potential to power synthetic liquid fuel production which can compete with $100 crude oil.

            While a handful of advance NPP’s will not be cost-effective versus fossil fuels – as is gleefully trumpetted by anti-nuclear propagandists every chance they get – building hundreds (let alone thousands) of new NPP’s will in fact reduce the average cost of nuclear power to the historic average of only a few ct/kWh, because it will engender a vibrant nuclear sector (as opposed to the aging and underdeveloped one we have now) where costs can be very significantly reduced.

            Therefore, nuclear power is a co2 reduction technology of paramount importance to humanity in the fight against rapid climate change.

            Using LNT in order to lament that ‘no level of exposure to radiation is safe’ and subsequently that ‘nuclear power is never safe’ is a gross injustice and tragic mistake. I have no problem calling it a crime against humanity.

          3. @Rich

            You misunderstand the editorial position of Atomic Insights. I am not a catastrophic, the sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something (except nuclear) right away, kind of thinker.

            There is no doubt in my military mind that many people, often members of the same Establishment that I rail against, have tried to paint an unrealistic view of what might happen in order to serve as a forcing function to create profitable opportunities in emissions trading, solar, wind, etc.

            Keeping consistent, I give a lot of the credit for the political and financial support of the movement side of this discussion to the natural gas industry. There are many measures of effectiveness that can be applied to a fuel source – for most of them, natural gas is usually an “also ran.” It is hard to store, hard to transport, and not terribly energy dense. It has a volatile pricing history that is driven by those characteristics.

            It has some advantages for financial players. Though drilling can be expensive and capital intensive, if you strike a good reservoir, the payback periods are very short and then the money flows without much in the way of continuing labor costs for several years. In a conventional play, each well is cheaper and the flow lasts for decades, but the probability of hitting a good reservoir is falling as more and more of them have been found and exploited.

            Coal is abundant, months worth of fuel can be stored on site, it can be transported in large volume in cheap railcars or bulk cargo ships. It’s price varies slowly over time and rarely experiences the kind of sharp ups and downs that are common in natural gas.

            IMO the CO2 production advantage of natural gas has been a major part of the effort to increase gas market share. In many cases the “advantage” has been exaggerated.

            With all that said, I’m reasonably certain that adding 35 billion tons of CO2 every year, year after year, with no end in sight and with an ever increasing addition term is short-sighted. Gaia has ways to respond and various uses for additional CO2, but eventually, those natural response and repair mechanisms can be saturated.

            I don’t accept a linear, no threshold risk assumption for radiation and I do not believe in a linear risk associated with continuing to dump billions of tons of a non-reactive gas into the atmosphere.

            My prescription is a dumping fee whose proceeds are immediately distributed to the owners of the dump site. Humans are all born with the right to life and breathing air is a fundamental need. My logic is that gives each person an equal share of the atmosphere and an equal claim to their share of the dumping fee. This is not an original thought – James Hansen has been advocating a “fee and dividend” approach for several years. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?_r=0

            There is even a group working hard to promote the concept – http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/economics

            It would probably be too hard to administer this system on a global scale, but the US has the means to do it for its residents.

            That simple measure would take a step toward leveling the playing field to enable ultra-low emission nuclear to capture a growing market share, slow the growth of CO2 emissions and eventually start reducing the amount of CO2 added each year to the point where natural removal terms in the complex differential equation that governs overall CO2 concentration to balance the addition terms.

            This prescription does not ask the human population to make sacrifices. It asks them to think, work hard, build new, materially efficient infrastructure, and slow down on wasteful efforts to build massive infrastructure to allow the extraction of the remote hydrocarbon reservoirs that have not yet been depleted. As the effort continues, we will have more, not less, power at our disposal to do whatever wonderful work or play we need or want.

            We only have one atmosphere. We have a pretty good idea about how things behave in a relatively narrow range of CO2 concentrations. We do not know exactly what happens outside of that range and I don’t think we should blithely perform the experiment required to find out.

            One more thing – there are many other potential effects that “warming,” including such worrisome effects as ocean acidification.

          4. @Rod, @E-P,
            The title of this article is “Selfish motives for LNT assumption by geneticists on NAS BEAR I” Yet every one seems to completely IGNORE the “Selfish Motives” of all that claim to support the AGW THEORY NONE. (it is STILL just a theory and no definitive proof has been provided.) If it had been PROVEN the person(s) would have received a Nobel Prize. Where is it? Do NOT say Gore, et all, as that was a PEACE Prize and not scientific, i.e. Chemistry, Physics, etc. It was a BS Feel Good prize because it supports THEIR Selfish motives.

            I am welcome to read any DEFINITIVE PROOF. (Models are not proof, I have made computer models. Computer models only prove what the model maker wants. Further, the AGW models have not even been verified.)

            1. @Rich

              I have freely admitted that there are people with selfish motives pushing for the assumption that CO2 build up is a catastrophe that requires an “anything but nuclear” all out approach to “solving the problem.”

              That does not overcome the fact that there are real reasons to be concerned about continuing on our present course and speed of casually dumping 35 billion tons of additional CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion into the atmosphere every year, with that number continuing to grow each year for the foreseeable future. This rate of addition has already overwhelmed the natural processes of removal that exist in the CO2 cycle, leading to a continuing increase in the total concentration in the earth’s atmosphere.

              Fighting LNT is about fighting the assumption that every single dose of radiation from nuclear energy production carries a hazard to people. It is not about trying to say there is no danger from radiation doses that exceed the human body’s threshold ability to repair the consequences of those doses.

              In both cases, the editorial position of Atomic Insights is that moderation is important and staying within rather large boundaries of what we know is safe is a more intelligent path than blindly seeking absurd goals or conducting irreversible experiments based on your assertion that there is no definitive proof that the experiment might put us into an uncomfortable position.

          5. Yet every one seems to completely IGNORE the “Selfish Motives” of all that claim to support the AGW THEORY NONE.

            Selfish motives?  Do you attribute such motives to the Bell Labs Science Hour of 1958?  How about Dr. Plass in this “Excursions in Science” recording from 1956?  How about G. S. Callendar for his paper “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”, published in 1938?  How about Svante Arrhenius, publishing way back in 1896?

            If you don’t understand now why propaganda sound-bites like yours disgust me to the point of being physically sick, you haven’t the mental wherewithal to be considered truly human.  You’re way too coherent to be a moron, which would make you a psychopath… which ought to get you permanently removed from society as a soulless danger to the same.

          6. @Rich

            In 2009, National Academies of Science from 13 major economies had this to say about man-made climate change:


            “The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change
            science concluded that large reductions in the
            emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are
            needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric
            concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels.
            However, climate change is happening even faster than
            previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000
            have been higher than even the highest predictions,
            Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster
            than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become
            more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead
            to much more rapid climate changes.
            The need for urgent action to address climate change
            is now indisputable.

            (emphasis mine)

            Signatories of this joint statement are the National Academies of Science of:

            South Africa

            If the evidence of man-made global warming is enough to convince all these national academies of science, what reason exactly is there that anyone should agree with you that there is no problem with perpetually rising greenhouse gas emissions?

          7. @EP “Nobody goes into science to make money”

            But without money, there is no science.

            I’m curious EP, whom do you hold in high regard in your world? Who were and are your inspiration?

        2. @ E-P

          Germany’s “Energiewende” $412 billion effort did “not provide net savings to consumers, but rather a net increase in costs to consumers and other stakeholders. ”Consumer energy bills have been spiking for years to the point where electricity in the country has been called a “luxury good” by major media outlets. German households have seen electricity prices more than double in the last decade “increasing from €0.14/kilowatt hour (kWh) ($0.18) in 2000 to more than €0.29/kWh ($0.38) in 2013,” according to FAA. U.S. household prices, which have been stable at $0.13 per kilowatt hour over the last decade, primarily, due to fracking and cheap NG.

          As a result of these actions since 2008, CO2 emissions in Germany are starting to INCREASE due to use of the dirtiest of coal that is burnable (it is not burnt in any power plant in the USA). How does that reduce CO2? If Germany had spent $400 billion on New nuclear power plants, how much of a decrease in CO2 emissions would there be? What would have happened to the cost of electricity? Would manufacturing industries be leaving Germany as they are now? Is this what you want to happen to USA? They are now talking about a wind farm in Washington state covering thousands of acres. And you see no selfish motives in the people that push the expenditure of $trillions on worthless (CO2 wise) “Green Energy?”

          The USA has shut down (will shut down) more nuclear power plants than they are building. The best way to make low CO2 producing electricity is with nuclear power. The “Greens” continue to prevent building NPPs. If the cause of “Climate Change, Global Warming, Whatever” is CO2, then STOP MAKING CO2. None of the government programs in any country is doing this. More people are going to die because of the cost of energy and its effect on their economy than a 2 degree or 4 degree increase in global temperature or a 2 foot or 4 foot increase in ocean level. And if you cannot see these things then all of the attributes you heaped on me apply equally to you.

          And, paraphrasing the old lady “Where is the PROOF?”
          No where on this site or any other have I said that CO2 is not a GHG. I am quite familiar with the physical properties of CO2. My problem is with “How much of the “warming” since the end of the Little Ice Age is ACTUALLY cause by CO2 and due to the increase in CO2.” Where is the data, studies, information on the effects of H2O, in all of its various phases (solid, liquid, gas, transportation, etc.), in the atmosphere and land on “Climate Change.” Please provide me with that information. With your superior intelligence and vast knowledge of AGW information that should take no more mental effort than your demeaning rant.
          It looks like YOU are the one with the “Watson” electronic search and rebuttal engine.

          1. @ E-P

            Germany’s “Energiewende” $412 billion [blah blah blah divert rant blah blah]

            So after having had your claim that climate science is a product of self-interest demolished with historical evidence, you change the subject to attacking a political effort, in another country, that I happen to have spent plenty of time attacking also… and for the exact same reasons?  (I’d refer you to my debates with Bas Gresnigt on that very subject, but I’m having trouble digging them up and I can’t expect you to have read them if even I can’t find them again.)

            Quit being an idiot.  The science is as real as the California drought and the massive groundwater depletion in Colorado and Arizona.  Nobody goes into science to make money; ranting about self-interested scientists when the banksters are getting ready to trash the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and then probably loot everyone’s bank and brokerage accounts is lunacy.

            If you want direct measurements, infrared bolometry and spectroscopy of the downwelling atmospheric radiation proves conclusively that the greenhouse effect is getting bigger.  Spend some time with a search engine already.

            It looks like YOU are the one with the “Watson” electronic search and rebuttal engine.

            I’ve spent a lot of time creating and tagging bookmarks to have information ready to hand.  I built that info-weapon arsenal because I am So. Fucking. Tired. of dealing with cut-and-paste canards from denialist twits like you.

      1. Um, no. I already wrote that I prescribe to as low as reasonably achievable.

        1. But you also admitted that the definition of “reasonable” was a potential subject for argument.

          1. The whole implication of ALARA is that the *optimum is zero*, which clearly is far fetched for stresses on muscle, bone, atmospheric C02, Ionizing radiation, or anything else that has been in existence since the very dawn of life.

            I *do* like Applebaum’s shtick, however.

  5. @JohnGalt

    Argumentum ad hominem and appeals to authority are wastes of time.

    That may be what they teach in debate class, but both of those techniques seem to be regularly employed with useful results for the practitioners in professions that make their money by influencing people to make decisions in their favor. (Politicians regularly “go negative” and advertisers often appeal to authority.)

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts