OT: Gas Prices

[Captain Kwok]

Renegade 13 said:
...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking...

And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living.

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:

And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living.

No offense taken However, I should correct you; I'm no longer in university. I was forced to leave due to some...rather unpleasant and severe personal issues. I think I still have a slightly better than average knowledge of science though, I try to keep learning

Now for the debate! Everyone knows that data can be twisted to suit the agenda or personal beliefs of whoever is analyzing it. As the saying goes "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I would have to question these scientists who are doing the analyzing of the data. After all, preconceived notions will influence people, no matter how hard you strive to keep bias out of science, at some point with climatology personal analysis comes into it. Where one scientist may see one thing, another will see something totally different.

Just think that everyone "knew" 500 years ago that the Earth was flat, just like everyone today "knows" that global warming is a fact...even though there is a lot that we don't understand about the intricacies of the way the world works. Granted, the above analogy has deep flaws, but pervasive myths have a way of self-perpetuating themselves. If someone is raised being told that global warming is a fact, they will believe it. They will, perhaps, see it where it does not exist.

There are also groups of scientists (who aren't merely know-it-all 19 year-olds ) who do study this for a living, who do not agree with the theory of global warming. Granted they are in the minority right now, but to make another, perhaps more apt analogy.

In cosmology, string theory was first proposed about 30 years ago, if memory serves. The theory was derided by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers. Today it is one of the leading theories. Just because a theory does not have much support in the scientific community, does not mean it is invalid. The same could apply in this situation.

Whew...didn't realize I could be so long-winded. Now please, show me the error of my ways and point out the flaws in my logic. I always enjoy learning something new! BTW, not being sarcastic, I really do want to see if holes can be poked in my logic!

[Renegade 13]

Nuclear power. I was reading about a 'new' type of reactor that will actually utilize the waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors, and would also be much more efficient. The waste generated would still be radioactive and thus toxic, but the half life is something like 100 or 150 years rather than the current 10,000 or so.

But with general public opinion being extremely anti-nuclear power, any chance of the newer, better reactors being built isn't likely. Me, I'm all for nuclear reactors...just not in my backyard!

Nuclear is the way to go though. That'll cut dependence on oil by a lot, and also make coal-burning electricity plants (of which the US has a LOT) obsolete.

[Azselendor]

I read about that too, basically it takes the nuclear waste and burns off any usable material in it for energy and leaves us with concentrate nuclear waster which can be ten to a hundred times more toxic.

Thanks but No Thanks.

[Suicide Junkie]

"Burn it until it is cold enough to eat"

[ToddT]

Nuclear power is not any better long term then fossil fuels, in that, theres estimated to be around 100 years worth of usuable fuel, to meet current and future energy needs.
There is a work around but has some nasty pit falls. Breeder reactors, current designs not upto the task but researching new ones deffinitely not politically viable.
Breeder reactors readily produce weapons grade nuclear materials.
Actually highr gas prices do have an upside they make alternatives more viable economically.
SUV's where built in part because they did not have to meet mileage and emmission standards of cars, resulting in lower production costs to auto makers(its not just the higher markups they get). SUV's in part where a quick fix to bottom lines. and we all know what quick fixes often lead to.

[Renegade 13]

KlvinoHRGA said:
I read about that too, basically it takes the nuclear waste and burns off any usable material in it for energy and leaves us with concentrate nuclear waster which can be ten to a hundred times more toxic.

Thanks but No Thanks.

Nope, that's not what I was referring to. I'll see if I have some time to do some research and find some links for you to look at. This waste would be much less toxic, not more.

It's too bad space flight isn't more reliable; we could then just send nulear waste into the sun!

[capnq]

Renegade 13 said:
It's too bad space flight isn't more reliable; we could then just send nulear waste into the sun!

Someday our descendants are going to discover a use for our nuclear "waste" and will be annoyed at us for making the stuff so difficult to recover. (No smiley; not kidding.)

[shinigami]

The begining of an alternative?

Granted it is still a long way off but if it can be perfected and refined...

[Renegade 13]

capnq said:
Someday our descendants are going to discover a use for our nuclear "waste" and will be annoyed at us for making the stuff so difficult to recover. (No smiley; not kidding.)

?????