The Skeptical Science site uses data from peer-reviewed sources. See for yourself. The same goes for the NAS.
Please refer to documented sources showing your months of arguments, as well as the results. As for "pretty websites," you should refer to the NAS, which is the top scientific academy of the U.S.
All of these points are irrelevant as this forum operates on anonymity. Given that, one is better off referring to scientific reports. Try the final report from the NAS for starters.
They all have lower energy returns and quantity, as explained by Charles Hall in several science papers.
Same as other thread - Explain yourself. Returns on what? Money? Energy? Resources? 1] If you knew how to follow a thread you would know that those were part of a conversation and directed at a specific single person. Irrelevant to that person, no. Irrelevant to you, yes. 2] As it was irrelevant you, your comments about it about are also irrelevant. 3] Anonymity has nothing whatsoever to do with relevance in a conversation. That logic is incoherent. 4] Here you talk about anonymity. The post just before are asking for more information about me. You contradict yourself. 5] I don't NEED to look at reports. (I do but I don't HAVE to.) I'm trained in analyzing data. I can form my own conclusions direct from the data. If by "NAS" you mean NASA, NASA gets much funding for Global Warming research so they are hardly an unbiased source. Same with those running Skeptical Science. - And those lines can address most of the rest of your posts. I went back personally to the original ice core data vs using some report. I don't need someone else to interpret data for me. I can do it ALL by myself. The original data clearly shows CO2 following Temperature, and more so on the temperature rises. NASA's website is an abortion. (Mess) If you want me to look at some report there then give a link. In the future if you want a response don't do huge block quotes followed by one line comments. If you are going to be too lazy to be specific then I'm going to be too lazy to figure out what you are referring to.
NAS = National Academy of Sciences perhaps? Play nicely please. https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/
That might be what he meant. - Thanks. What they call reports is actually just a book store so they are making money on the GW phobia too.
DAMN! 6 years to pollute Pacific.... http://simplecapacity.com/2017/02/fukushima-radiation-damage-video/ [video=youtube_share;AF05-slHnNk]https://youtu.be/AF05-slHnNk[/video]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=So long, and thanks for all the fish @Joe C: There -IS- no fixing this. Plain and simple.
Use MJ's propur traveler as a template and scale it up to the size of Australia ? Edit to add : That would make the filter itself only about the size of New Zealand.
lol...yup. just that gorski posted as if anything could be done with that type of "pollute". My remark was intended as sarcasm Something like the Fukushima disaster goes way beyond any normal pollution that can be fixed
Once it gets into the ecosystem, we'll reach a point where it's unfixable, because it will be in the plankton and small life forms that natural fish feed on. that means that we'll have to farm fish in the same way we farm pigs or cattle. Monsanto to the rescue Anybody care to join me for genetically modified Sushi? (All the bluefin tuna you can eat. )
The Fukushima disaster is that point. There's so much radio active waste they are running out of space to keep it contained, and it's still a mess that they can not clean up. The Cali west coast will be the next victim because that is where the water currents go from Japan. Make one wonder if anybody's checking the sea life off the west right now, I know that debris washed up on our west coast shortly after the earthquake. Are we not checking for radiation?
Already was... Remember the starfish mutating a month or so after it happened ? That was about the correct time frame for the currents to get from there to here.
@Joe C: Sadly, yes http://www.globalresearch.ca/28-sig...with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280