[Luis Dias]

Captain planet? Ahah, that was funny!

But back at the OP, some of those e-mails are nasty ****. And while the common spin is to say that they should be read "in context", many of them are actually pretty worse in context.

This second wave of e-mails revealed many things. The first I took note is that even the peers of Michael Mann thought his paleontological work was pure rubbish. That was new to me. Also, that they were worried that sceptics would see the famous  "spaghetti graph", and took its complete lack of consistency between the various reconstructions to dismiss them all as invalid. And that the "cause" was apparently very very important for the scientific studies...

Many many pearls in there. You have to have some escathological taste for it . This evening I read this small piece by Matt Ridley about one specific e-mail, which has little about the science per se, and all about nastiness in various levels:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/importance-context

[Bobboau]

I have to ask, why was there a second "batch"? these were all taken by the same guy from the same source, why not drop everything in one go?

[karajorma]

Cause that way he can be a wanker every time there is an important conference or meeting on climate change.

[Bobboau]

but the idea is to get this incriminating evidence out there so that this fraud can be stopped right? so that means that this guy has had all these smoking guns and just... held onto them for a few years? but he is trying to get the truth out? but he didn't?

[QuantumDelta]

They're not actually smoking guns for actual fraud though.
They're just /enough/ out of contextual statements to make people doubt or turn them against the scientists who are trying to deal with a world they have no expertise on (The Media, and the Public in general).

If he released /everything/ I suspect you would find that if you followed the contextual thread through all of these dodgey emails, there is little-to-no malice and no evil conspiracy in them.

[karajorma]

but the idea is to get this incriminating evidence out there so that this fraud can be stopped right? so that means that this guy has had all these smoking guns and just... held onto them for a few years? but he is trying to get the truth out? but he didn't?

Don't try to understand the mind of anyone who at this stage denies climate change. It's a trip into amazing spaghetti logic.

[Mefustae]

Exactly. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that these emails have been leaked strategically to generate pretend controversy at opportune times for climate change denialists. Unfortunately, it's exactly those sub-50% brain individuals that are being targeted by this fabricated controversy, and are therefore likely to believe it.

[Kosh]

One interesting thing about nuclear power is that it can quite easily power very large earth moving equipment like this for example as well as commercial ships. Both of these kinds of machinery use vast quantities of diesel and using nuclear instead would certainly help to reduce fossil fuel usage.

There's one more thing that should be looked into. If humans really do produce most of the CO2 increase in the last years, then we should also look into things that could easily produce less CO2 than they do now. For instance, in Krakow, there's a lot of old houses with coal powered stoves. Every winter, these are a nuisance (CO2 is hardly the only thing that comes out of them, especially that people tend to also use them to burn trash...). Their users are frequently too poor to afford anything else. If electric power could be cheaper and government could, for instance, pay them to switch to electric heaters (and convince them to throw their trash into special containers for recycling), this could greatly reduce their CO2 emissions. I don't know in how many places this is the case, but people should be encouraged to abandon outdated technology that frequently produces a lot of pollution.

On the note of electricity prices, it's worth considering that the Danish who went with heavily subsidized wind power now have the highest electricity prices in Europe by far, while the nuclear powered French have the lowest. The UK also fell into this trap, and prices are going through the roof, at least according to this.

[The E]

One interesting thing about nuclear power is that it can quite easily power very large earth moving equipment like this for example as well as commercial ships. Both of these kinds of machinery use vast quantities of diesel and using nuclear instead would certainly help to reduce fossil fuel usage.

It's one thing to put nuclear reactors on military vessels, quite another to put them on civilian moving stuff. Why? Because of training. I would not want to trust a nuclear reactor in the hands of a person hired for the lowest possible wage, on a ship in the hands of a shipping company run by managers who are only interested in getting the best return on investment.

Same goes for large earth movers. By the way, the thing you linked to? That's way too small to be comfortably fitted with a nuclear power plant, and even if it were? It would still be horrifyingly unsafe. There's a reason why nuclear-powered trains haven't caught on, you know.

[Mongoose]

I wouldn't exactly want the sort of cargo ships that have been regularly falling prey to Somalian pirates getting outfitted with nuclear material, either.

[Kosh]

It's one thing to put nuclear reactors on military vessels, quite another to put them on civilian moving stuff. Why? Because of training. I would not want to trust a nuclear reactor in the hands of a person hired for the lowest possible wage, on a ship in the hands of a shipping company run by managers who are only interested in getting the best return on investment.

So why not take sensible precautions like demand regular inspections? A modern modular reactor is completely sealed and is a fully automated unit. I some how dont see a superfreighter running on sails, leaving us with little options in the post fossil fuel age.

Same goes for large earth movers. By the way, the thing you linked to? That's way too small to be comfortably fitted with a nuclear power plant, and even if it were?

Sorry but this is flat wrong, you dont need something with gigawatts of output to run it, a smaller modular reactor would do the job just fine. Nuclear has proven it can be scaled down to this level. For the optimal result it would need to be customized to a certain extent, but it can be done.

and even if it were? It would still be horrifyingly unsafe. There's a reason why nuclear-powered trains haven't caught on, you know.

So you're saying it is completely impossible to have a containment vessel sturdy enough to survive falling off a short cliff? The reason nuclear powered vehicles hasn't caught on has far more to do with fear mongering, cheap oil prices and the political effort to deligitimize nuclear power than real engineering challenges or realistic safety concerns.

I wouldn't exactly want the sort of cargo ships that have been regularly falling prey to Somalian pirates getting outfitted with nuclear material, either.

There's multiple solutions to this problem: Q-ship approach which would be mount 3 or 4 machine guns on the sides of the ship; Arm the crew; the convoy system; or just stabalize somalia. Simple stuff.

EDIT: Quote fail
 

[Klaustrophobia]

.

One interesting thing about nuclear power is that it can quite easily power very large earth moving equipment like this for example as well as commercial ships. Both of these kinds of machinery use vast quantities of diesel and using nuclear instead would certainly help to reduce fossil fuel usage.

It's one thing to put nuclear reactors on military vessels, quite another to put them on civilian moving stuff. Why? Because of training. I would not want to trust a nuclear reactor in the hands of a person hired for the lowest possible wage, on a ship in the hands of a shipping company run by managers who are only interested in getting the best return on investment.

Same goes for large earth movers. By the way, the thing you linked to? That's way too small to be comfortably fitted with a nuclear power plant, and even if it were? It would still be horrifyingly unsafe. There's a reason why nuclear-powered trains haven't caught on, you know.

having seen the way the military handles their nuclear ships, i have no fear of private companies running them worse.  it's not going to be profitable to let your reactor fall apart, and they know that.  the government on the other hand has no issues with just throwing more money at it because they didn't do it right the first time, or the crew doesn't give a damn and breaks something.

Same goes for large earth movers. By the way, the thing you linked to? That's way too small to be comfortably fitted with a nuclear power plant, and even if it were?

Sorry but this is flat wrong, you dont need something with gigawatts of output to run it, a smaller modular reactor would do the job just fine. Nuclear has proven it can be scaled down to this level. For the optimal result it would need to be customized to a certain extent, but it can be done.

i don't think nuclear power scales as well as you think it does.  it's not a question of power output, of course you can always run less.  it's a question of physical size.  there is a LOT of hardware required to make a nuclear reactor work.  you need the vessel, pumps, control elements, turbines, piping, steam generators, shielding... shall i go on?  the tiny little 1MW reactor at NCSU still takes up an entire building.   i'm sure it CAN be made on such a level, but doing so would be rather pointless as it negates the driving advantage of nuclear power; economics.  nuclear power is cheap because it generates a ****ton of energy 24/7 for a year and a half.  scaling that down to a truck throws that out the window.  even on ships the advantage dwindles. 

and even if it were? It would still be horrifyingly unsafe. There's a reason why nuclear-powered trains haven't caught on, you know.

So you're saying it is completely impossible to have a containment vessel sturdy enough to survive falling off a short cliff? The reason nuclear powered vehicles hasn't caught on has far more to do with fear mongering, cheap oil prices and the political effort to deligitimize nuclear power than real engineering challenges or realistic safety concerns.

yes, actually.  the vessel itself may be fine, but you're damn sure not going to make an entire reactor plant that could survive a train wreck.  spilling your coolant all over the place is definitely not something you want to let happen.  and then you've got the additional problem of no way to cool the core, because whatever your backup fill system was also got taken out by the crash. 

and there is also the HUGE problem of shielding.  probably the biggest problem with nuclear powered vehicles.  if you don't want to kill the driver, you need a LOT of it.  and it's heavy.  trains wouldn't be that much of a problem by having the reactor car shielded and unmanned, but the only other land vehicle you're going to get is a slow-moving, long-range mobile bunker.

I wouldn't exactly want the sort of cargo ships that have been regularly falling prey to Somalian pirates getting outfitted with nuclear material, either.[/quotes]

There's multiple solutions to this problem: Q-ship approach which would be mount 3 or 4 machine guns on the sides of the ship; Arm the crew; the convoy system; or just stabalize somalia. Simple stuff.
 

i'm with you on this.  not an obstacle.  i'm all for arming the crews, nuclear boat or not.  that and there's really not a lot a pirate could do with it even if they got it.  make some idle threats is really all i can think of.  besides, i'm pretty sure there already ARE nuclear-powered supertankers.  if not now, there at least were before.  i've seen a model of one someplace.

[NGTM-1R]

It's one thing to put nuclear reactors on military vessels, quite another to put them on civilian moving stuff. Why? Because of training. I would not want to trust a nuclear reactor in the hands of a person hired for the lowest possible wage, on a ship in the hands of a shipping company run by managers who are only interested in getting the best return on investment.

Merchant marine pay is actually fairly good. (It has to be, otherwise you'd never get anyone out there for months at a time.) Even if you include a bump and mandatory training, for something like a supertanker a nuclear reactor would almost certainly be a net savings in cost, and it would be difficult for the reactor to not be well-protected against accidents.

[The E]

<words>

1. The military has a rather good safety record when it comes to operating nuclear reactors.
2. Yes, in international shipping, corners will be cut. Oh, and convincing shipping companies to replace their fleets, or have a portion of their fleet in drydock for engine replacement, will not make them happy.
3. You said

I some how dont see a superfreighter running on sails, leaving us with little options in the post fossil fuel age.

To that I respond with this. A little supplementary sail that can help move freighters along.
4.

So you're saying it is completely impossible to have a containment vessel sturdy enough to survive falling off a short cliff? The reason nuclear powered vehicles hasn't caught on has far more to do with fear mongering, cheap oil prices and the political effort to deligitimize nuclear power than real engineering challenges or realistic safety concerns.

No, not at all. Thanks for misinterpreting my point and ranting about antinuclear conspiracies. My point is, why try to make a small nuclear plant and try to power small stuff with it, when you can build big power plants, and use the power generated in them to charge batteries, or run hydrogen extractors for fuel cells? Way I see it, small power plants just aren't as efficient as the big ones, while bringing with them an entire host of engineering problems. Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and more efficient to skip all those issues?

It's one thing to put nuclear reactors on military vessels, quite another to put them on civilian moving stuff. Why? Because of training. I would not want to trust a nuclear reactor in the hands of a person hired for the lowest possible wage, on a ship in the hands of a shipping company run by managers who are only interested in getting the best return on investment.

Merchant marine pay is actually fairly good. (It has to be, otherwise you'd never get anyone out there for months at a time.) Even if you include a bump and mandatory training, for something like a supertanker a nuclear reactor would almost certainly be a net savings in cost, and it would be difficult for the reactor to not be well-protected against accidents.

A fair point.

[Nuke]

i really dont want to trust nuclear power to operate civilian vehicles directly. though id like to see something like battery ships that charge their cells while in port off a power grid running primarily on nuclear power. things like electric trains already exist and are proven technology. you could also add induction or direct contact chargers to roadways to charge electric cars on the go. regardless we need a lot of nuclear, and not old skool light water reactors either.

[Kosh]

2. Yes, in international shipping, corners will be cut. Oh, and convincing shipping companies to replace their fleets, or have a portion of their fleet in drydock for engine replacement, will not make them happy.

I wouldn't have to do anything of the sort, soaring fossil fuel prices will do that for me.

To that I respond with this. A little supplementary sail that can help move freighters along.

That is disingenuous to the point. For one thing that is supplementary, but to suggest we should take the back to the future approach and go with wind ignores the reasons we stopped using it in the first place for anything other than recreation, namely low energy density and unreliability.

No, not at all. Thanks for misinterpreting my point and ranting about antinuclear conspiracies.

Conspiracies? There was a major anti riot action in your own country two days ago over this. You call that a conspiracy? In America there are groups like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club that go around the country scaring people with information that has been debunked over and over. Anti-nuclearism is a very real ideology, yes an ideology, because it has everything to do with an inability to seriously confront criticism and nothing to do with science. It's politics, plain and simple. To give some idea as to why exactly the evironmentalist policies are bad, read this.

My point is, why try to make a small nuclear plant and try to power small stuff with it, when you can build big power plants, and use the power generated in them to charge batteries, or run hydrogen extractors for fuel cells? Way I see it, small power plants just aren't as efficient as the big ones, while bringing with them an entire host of engineering problems. Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and more efficient to skip all those issues?

No, it would certainly not be cheaper and it would be dramatically less efficient. A vehicle like the one posted requires several megawatts of power, meaning your batteries would be huge. It is reasonable to expect battery energy density to increase ten fold in the coming decade and the slow charging problem will be elminated, there are still some very serious problems  with batteries wearing out and needing to be replaced wholesale. To power the space station for the whopping 35 minutes it is in earth's shadow it takes several tons of batteries and all of them need to be replaced every 6 years. It would be significantly less expensive to ship the reactor module back to the factory, exchange its fuel rods, and ship it back to the site than it would be to put in new batteries, by a large margin. Hydrogen has very serious, very fundemental problems that will not likely be resolved, and even if they were somehow, by that time there would still be a better alternative.

i don't think nuclear power scales as well as you think it does.  it's not a question of power output, of course you can always run less.  it's a question of physical size.  there is a LOT of hardware required to make a nuclear reactor work.  you need the vessel, pumps, control elements, turbines, piping, steam generators, shielding... shall i go on?

No need to go on, read about this suitcase sized reactor instead.

the tiny little 1MW reactor at NCSU still takes up an entire building.

Apples and oranges. You might as well be comparing a jet engine to your car engine, they have completely different requirements and applications.

nuclear power is cheap because it generates a ****ton of energy 24/7 for a year and a half.  scaling that down to a truck throws that out the window.  even on ships the advantage dwindles. 

Firstly, it would go a lot longer than that between fueling cycles. Navy ships can go a decade or so, and it is not unreasonable to assume a civilian version could do the same. Secondly, in the coming decades fossil fuel prices will skyrocket. The advantage will become even more appearent than it already is.

and there is also the HUGE problem of shielding.  probably the biggest problem with nuclear powered vehicles.  if you don't want to kill the driver, you need a LOT of it.  and it's heavy.  trains wouldn't be that much of a problem by having the reactor car shielded and unmanned, but the only other land vehicle you're going to get is a slow-moving, long-range mobile bunker.

That earthmover I linked to earlier is the size of your average suburban house, and the excavators are often as big or bigger, and the quantities of fuel they use is huge (except the Bagger which is electric, but still uses a lot). That's the scale I'm talking about, not a little compact sedan.

i'm with you on this.  not an obstacle.  i'm all for arming the crews, nuclear boat or not.  that and there's really not a lot a pirate could do with it even if they got it.  make some idle threats is really all i can think of.  besides, i'm pretty sure there already ARE nuclear-powered supertankers.  if not now, there at least were before.  i've seen a model of one someplace.

There was exactly one freighter that was nuclear powered, but it didnt work out because it was a traditional cargo vessel and back then container vessels were taking over the market. Also oil prices 50 years ago, when it was in service, were far less expensive than today.

[Nuke]

i read somewhere that an old skool pressurized water reactor needs a containment building about 400 times the volume of the reactor vessel, so it wont explode if the core breaches. while you could probably make a reactor smaller it would need to be a completely different kind of reactor, like a molten salt reactor. its ironic that the only reactors the hippies let us run are the least efficient, most polluting, most dangerous designs out there. again, the solution is killing hippies!

i thought about a power plant where people are burned alive to boil water to spin turbines, simultaneously producing power and reducing demand for power.

[karajorma]

Produces too much CO2.

[Nuke]

Produces too much CO2.

only initially. after awhile there will be smaller power demand, and the plant can be throttled back.

[watsisname]

A team of climate modellers recently set out to quantify just how much of the recent warming is/was caused by human activities, and published their results yesterday.

According to their research it's about 75%.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.

We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 °C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1 °C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 °C.

Changes in solar radiation — a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate sceptics — contributed no more than around 0.07 °C to the recent warming