If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Roger Bryant:
The development of the whole climate change scenario bears a resemblance to the low level radiation risks problem.
The science was interfered with on supposedly morally defensible grounds which has had and will have long term detrimental effects.
Well, actually no.
BTW, thanks for clarifying your position on the Stott contention. I wonder why you haven't written it up and submitted it to ASL?
In the case of low level radiation the effects were accentuated with a view to stopping atmospheric nuclear testing.
Actually, no.
The cohort studied for the effects of radiation on the human body was and is the Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors. Most of what is known comes from such studies. Many of those studies are published (for free) by the National Academies Press of the US National Academy of Sciences (BTW, there is more on this subject there, for free, than anyone will ever get to read unless they specialise). I last got into that about twenty years ago. There is no trace of any political agenda. After all, the facts of what happened to those poor people are pretty accessible; you can't manipulate the data set.
The issues with low-level ionising radiation are straightforward. There are lots of confounding factors and it is exceptionally hard to factor them out. No one has yet succeeded. There are two possible conclusions you can draw. One is that the influence of ionising radiation below the level at which we can control for confounding factors is, as luck would have it, biologically negligible. The other is that the effects we see at higher levels which we can distinguish are broadly thus-and-so and it makes sense to extrapolate these to low levels also. Since the basic causal mechanism and physiology is known - particle hits cell; genome gets zapped, cell does weird things - it does seem to most people that extrapolating downwards is the better of these two alternatives.
The science was and is obviously wrong
Maybe you should write to the National Academies explaining this?
The basic premise of protect our planet by reducing our consumption of finite resources, reducing waste and sensible use of land and sea is good and defensible. Unfortunately this has been hijacked by the CO2 brigade
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
The same scaremongering techniques are used in both cases, although there are generally less anti-nuclear protests the fear instilled in people is still there. The climate change fear being generated was the reason for starting this thread.
There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.
Roger Bryant:
The development of the whole climate change scenario bears a resemblance to the low level radiation risks problem.
The science was interfered with on supposedly morally defensible grounds which has had and will have long term detrimental effects.
Well, actually no.
BTW, thanks for clarifying your position on the Stott contention. I wonder why you haven't written it up and submitted it to ASL?
In the case of low level radiation the effects were accentuated with a view to stopping atmospheric nuclear testing.
Actually, no.
The cohort studied for the effects of radiation on the human body was and is the Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors. Most of what is known comes from such studies. Many of those studies are published (for free) by the National Academies Press of the US National Academy of Sciences (BTW, there is more on this subject there, for free, than anyone will ever get to read unless they specialise). I last got into that about twenty years ago. There is no trace of any political agenda. After all, the facts of what happened to those poor people are pretty accessible; you can't manipulate the data set.
The issues with low-level ionising radiation are straightforward. There are lots of confounding factors and it is exceptionally hard to factor them out. No one has yet succeeded. There are two possible conclusions you can draw. One is that the influence of ionising radiation below the level at which we can control for confounding factors is, as luck would have it, biologically negligible. The other is that the effects we see at higher levels which we can distinguish are broadly thus-and-so and it makes sense to extrapolate these to low levels also. Since the basic causal mechanism and physiology is known - particle hits cell; genome gets zapped, cell does weird things - it does seem to most people that extrapolating downwards is the better of these two alternatives.
The science was and is obviously wrong
Maybe you should write to the National Academies explaining this?
The basic premise of protect our planet by reducing our consumption of finite resources, reducing waste and sensible use of land and sea is good and defensible. Unfortunately this has been hijacked by the CO2 brigade
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
The same scaremongering techniques are used in both cases, although there are generally less anti-nuclear protests the fear instilled in people is still there. The climate change fear being generated was the reason for starting this thread.
There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
