Yes, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Moosetek13: Have you looked into the French system of reusing radioactive waste. most of the country is powered by nuclear power plants, which is weird for the froggies to be so non-liberal on the issue

iirc they reuse the waste 3 or 4 times, buy which time the isotopes are either very short or long lived and can be stuck in the ground somewhere and forgot about. This is a very viable option to increase our nuclear power usage. 

so u r sayin that if we would say, stuff it all in an uninhabited area, all would b good?

Pretty darn sure that it's an ancient greek word...such words are always k.

Boggles the mind eh...who would have thought geometry could offer so much comfort.

this.

"sceptics" ARE deniers. the whole point of being a sceptic is that you don't subscribe to an idea without a certain level of evidence with which to support it. well guess what? there is mountains of evidence to support AGW, far more than is necessary to convince any HONEST sceptic.

global warming deniers aren't sceptical, because no amount of evidence will convince them.

What are you trying to say here? Are you inferring the all science is junk science? If not, what is junk science? How do you identify it?

What you are claiming here is that the climate changed in the past due to various natural causes, which is true. It does not mean that the change that is happening now is natural. Just because it has happened naturally in the past doesn't automatically mean it can't be induced by human behavior.

Hm. So this is wrong? Point out how - educate us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Well, the CEOs of companies in canada and the US actually care about shareholder return, because they are legally required to. Many of them are 'going green' to promote their image with the general public. I've met a few of these guys: High level staff at Maxtor and NBC (long story), interestingly enough they actually did care, and were convinced that sustainable behavior was actually more profitable.

Interestingly enough, they can also make a ton of money off of oil, coal, and other 'dirty' businesses. Banks are opportunists, and will make money in any way they can. Besides, whether or not they are pushing for global warming has no real bearing on the realness of GW.

Check out cryosphere today. It's a picture of the artic for every day since the early 80's. You can watch the entire sequence from 1980 until now. In 2002 or so, it get very interesting.

It's not an unknown amount. You can calculate it. The data is available. Look up the number of barrels of oil extracted, look up the amount of carbon dioxide generated by burning the barrel. Do the same for coal. It amount to about a 1% increase in atmospheric CO2 per year. The oxygen used up isn't as significant, because CO2 is about 3% of our total atmosphere.

It seems clear cut to me that our actions are doing something. To decide, as a physics-educated person, I computed the amount carbon we were digging up and burning. It's an easy calculation to do, and the data is all over the web. It turns out that we are putting a lot up there - quite an amazing amount actually. Did you know 1 gallon of gasoline generates about 19 lbs of CO2? That doesn't include the CO2 generated in the extraction and refinement process.

IMO, our future isn't nuclear, but solar. Mostly direct solar. With a few plants in the arid areas of the world, you can easily generate all the power we'll ever need - even if we all started driving electric cars.

If you assume the average of 300 watts per square meter, and the best photovoltaics right now being about 40% efficient, you get about 120 watts per sq meter. The world uses about 16.8 trillion kw-h of electricity in 2005, and there are 8500 or so hours in a year, so that's about 2 billion watts on average - probably is a good estimate of the peak usage too because when USA is sleeping and using low power, the EU is daytime and using heavy power. At 120 W generated per sq meter, you can supply the world's demand for 2 billion watts with abour 16 million sq meters. That is a single solar power plant, 4 km square. Pretty tiny. Just for kicks, you'd build a few dozen of these around the world for redundancy and future scalability. Once they're built, no more emissions will be needed. It's sustainable - as long as there is sun there is power.

In space, it gets better, we get about 1200 w per sq meter up there. I think Japan is putting a solar power station up there now...

A good reason to eradicate religion then.

Not pride and masculinity, reckless stupidity. Bearing children you cannot feed is an obscenity. What a miserable existence these children have. Yes, let a child suffer to satisfy your own pride

I am certainly a conservative, but I hesitate to classify myself as such these days, because in the popular culture the term seems to have degenerated into little more than "Bush supporter" (never voted for him), "war supporter" (I am not), republican (I am not), or, paradoxically, a supporter of big government (I am not).  Since the term seems meaningless these days, I don't use the term, but will certainly accept it if given, if you also accept the qualifications I just made.

I say again, I am not a major party person (I consider major parties to be a large part of what is wrong with the system), nor am I neutral on anything.  If you say that I am, then you are being irrational and stating something about me when you don't have any information otherwise, and simply don't know.  So why would I want to talk with someone who is irrational?

My views on this are a little more complicated than "skeptic" and I described them.

What ends the discussion is your irrational ad hominem attack.  So discussion ended.

What "science?"  What "personal beliefs?"

LOL.  You are like every other evolutionist I've ever heard (not that I expected you to be different).  Nothing but ad hominum attacks, and declarations of pure fiat such as "evolution is supported," "claiming otherwise is foolish," and "evolution is an observable phenomenon."  Saying anything further would be a waste of my time.

(quoting Zehdon [google chrome])

I don't care if CO2 output, or the output of other gases, is causing the moderate increase in average tempretures that have been recorded, or the measured - albeit minute - increase in sea levels. As far as I'm concerned, anything that promotes a cleaner environment is a better thing. The renewable energies and cleaner living have additional benefits besides lessening the effects of 'Global Warming', and it's a massive, systemic shake down that is long over-due. Sure, it's probably 90% bullshit, but if it gets shit done, I'm all for it.

(/quote)

Exactly my sentiment! Well put.

Which would likely result in the deaths of millions and cultural exterminiation on a global scale. And even then, religion wouldn't be eradicated unless the entire concept of culture was destroyed and individual thought actually supressed. Though it would reduce the human population, which some people want. For the environment, ya' know.

I quit responding to the guy or taking him seriously.  I mean, I've studied evolution all of my life, and can recite all its tenents chapter and verse (even better than the evolutionists I debate), yet this guy refers me to some article on wikipedia, LOL.  I mean, what a joke.

I think all he know how to do is make ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and set up straw men, in addition to refering people to an article on wikipedia LOL.