Skip to main content

Saving the ozone layer

Image
By scooby
We have a couple of great new posts: Kennette Benedict reviews the pro-nuclear power documentary "Pandora's Promise," pointing out the problem of "solutionism" presented in the film; Donald Wuebbles explains the science of why an agreement to phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) might really help slow climate change. I hope you find them of interest.
Best,

--
Janice Sinclaire
Internet Outreach Coordinator

Comments

Anonymous said…
The article in "The Bulletin" is a perfect example of the double-standard it criticizes.

According to the article, zealotry for nuclear power is bad. But zealotry against nuclear power seems to always be allowed.

Politics is a blunt instrument, as the author certainly knows. Pretending that it can deal with all the nuances the article raises is either disingenous or stupid. The strategy is, at it has always been, to delay nuclear power at every step, while spending our tax dollars promoting technologies that simply won't help at the levels required.

Promoting nuclear power as the "silver bullet" is a LOT closer to the right answer than the "never nuclear" approach. And that makes it a good argument if you want to address poverty and global warming.
6/14/2013 11:20 AM
Anonymous said…
a good argument if you want to address poverty and global warming.

June 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Poverty will continue no matter what. Global warming stopped in 1998.
6/15/2013 8:01 AM
Anonymous said…
Just curious. Could you elaborate more on global warming stopping in 1998? I have not heard this before.
6/17/2013 11:33 AM
Anonymous said…
Look at NOAA's average global temperature data.
6/17/2013 2:55 PM
Anonymous said…
Quite interesting! Thanks for the pointer.

Here's a link for others: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png
6/17/2013 5:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more