Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Rupert Murdock joins Climate change crusade.

  1. -1
    Section126's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2003
    Posts:
    15,815
    vCash:
    1215
    Loc:
    Miami, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Rupert Murdock joins Climate change crusade.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18746241/

    Rupert Murdoch joins climate crusade
    News Corp. chairman shows conservative can be concerned as well
    Grist Magazine

    By Amanda Griscom Little

    When Rupert Murdoch, the cantankerous and conservative owner of Fox News, enthusiastically joins the fight against climate change, you know we're past the tipping point on the issue. Think landslide.

    Last week, the media mogul pledged not only to make his News Corp. empire carbon neutral, but to persuade the hundreds of millions of people who watch his TV channels and read his newspapers to join the cause. Messages about climate change will be woven throughout News Corp.'s entertainment content, he said, from movies to books to TV sitcoms, and the issue will have an increasing presence in the company's news coverage, be it in the New York Post or on Hannity & Colmes. Yes, as Murdoch told Grist in an exclusive interview on his climate plan, even Fox News' right-wing firebrand Sean Hannity can be expected to come around on the issue.


    What never ceases to amaze me is how the global warming crowd doesn't understand WHAT we are debating. The author of the article seems to be of this crowd.

    Simply stated....the earth IS warming. Are humans contributing? YES. ARE THEY the ONLY contributor? NO. Could it be a natural occurence? YES. Can we do anything to STOP it? Barely. Are the methods of relief that are being prescribed by the global warming nuts dangerous? Absolutely.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    MDFINFAN's Avatar
    Reach for the Stars

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    21,340
    vCash:
    1299
    Loc:
    Maryland
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Section126 View Post
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18746241/





    What never ceases to amaze me is how the global warming crowd doesn't understand WHAT we are debating. The author of the article seems to be of this crowd.

    Simply stated....the earth IS warming. Are humans contributing? YES. ARE THEY the ONLY contributor? NO. Could it be a natural occurence? YES. Can we do anything to STOP it? Barely. Are the methods of relief that are being prescribed by the global warming nuts dangerous? Absolutely.
    Can we do our part to slow the warming, Yes, have we done things that may have accelerated the heating..probably YES, so until the question is probably posed, and understood, we need to find solutions before it gets out of hand, if it hasn't already..
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    ckb2001's Avatar
    scientist

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2002
    Posts:
    4,945
    vCash:
    1000
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Section126 View Post
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18746241/





    What never ceases to amaze me is how the global warming crowd doesn't understand WHAT we are debating. The author of the article seems to be of this crowd.

    Simply stated....the earth IS warming. Are humans contributing? YES. ARE THEY the ONLY contributor? NO. Could it be a natural occurence? YES. Can we do anything to STOP it? Barely. Are the methods of relief that are being prescribed by the global warming nuts dangerous? Absolutely.
    Which methods are you referring to? Ultimately, the solution lies in economically viable alternative energy technologies. That's something many environmentalists have been pushing for a long time, and I'm not sure what the problem with that is.

    In the near future, one can of course debate the merits of less pollutants being emitted. What I'm curious about is which methods of relief you consider dangerous.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Section126's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2003
    Posts:
    15,815
    vCash:
    1215
    Loc:
    Miami, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by ckb2001 View Post
    Which methods are you referring to? Ultimately, the solution lies in economically viable alternative energy technologies. That's something many environmentalists have been pushing for a long time, and I'm not sure what the problem with that is.

    In the near future, one can of course debate the merits of less pollutants being emitted. What I'm curious about is which methods of relief you consider dangerous.
    The Kyoto Protocol.

    it is to this date...the only "global" initiative proposed. The US Senate rightly buried it with a 98-2 vote.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    zach13's Avatar
    Mad Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2003
    Posts:
    8,311
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by ckb2001 View Post
    Which methods are you referring to? Ultimately, the solution lies in economically viable alternative energy technologies. That's something many environmentalists have been pushing for a long time, and I'm not sure what the problem with that is.

    In the near future, one can of course debate the merits of less pollutants being emitted. What I'm curious about is which methods of relief you consider dangerous.
    I have an enormous problem with that statement.

    The most economically viable alternative energy available is nuclear power and it is the environmentalists in the US that have successfully blocked new nuclear power plants in the US for decades.

    Try to compute how much less coal would have been emitted if the US were now 80% nuclear like France is.
    Free Tibet

    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Megatron's Avatar
    The POFO bully.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    8,563
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Cybertron
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by zach13 View Post
    I have an enormous problem with that statement.

    The most economically viable alternative energy available is nuclear power and it is the environmentalists in the US that have successfully blocked new nuclear power plants in the US for decades.

    Try to compute how much less coal would have been emitted if the US were now 80% nuclear like France is.
    Which as an aside it a bad move by France, seeing as the smartest thing you can do is diversify your energy grid so one disaster doesn't cripple your ability to make electricity. Also last I checked coal plants wouldn't have been the choice by most environmentalists as a replacement for nuclear power. I think Three Mile Island and Chernobyl probably have something to do with the negative nuclear vibe.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    zach13's Avatar
    Mad Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2003
    Posts:
    8,311
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
    Which as an aside it a bad move by France, seeing as the smartest thing you can do is diversify your energy grid so one disaster doesn't cripple your ability to make electricity. Also last I checked coal plants wouldn't have been the choice by most environmentalists as a replacement for nuclear power. I think Three Mile Island and Chernobyl probably have something to do with the negative nuclear vibe.
    How could one disaster cripple 56 separate nuclear power plants?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Megatron's Avatar
    The POFO bully.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    8,563
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Cybertron
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by zach13 View Post
    How could one disaster cripple 56 separate nuclear power plants?
    The power grid is a very delicate mechanism as we well know from the blackout across the eastern seaboard. But if there was a disaster to one reactor (by disaster I mean the most likely....a meltdown) the radiation risk to nearby reactors that are manned would be very great, that said unmanned power production or mostly automated (hydro power, wind power, open ocean turbines) would be able to pick up the slack. Most European countries are making efforts to diversify their power grids, that way no issue (extreme cost of nuclear material as an example) would cause a finacial crisis to the power supply of a nation.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    zach13's Avatar
    Mad Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2003
    Posts:
    8,311
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
    The power grid is a very delicate mechanism as we well know from the blackout across the eastern seaboard. But if there was a disaster to one reactor (by disaster I mean the most likely....a meltdown) the radiation risk to nearby reactors that are manned would be very great, that said unmanned power production or mostly automated (hydro power, wind power, open ocean turbines) would be able to pick up the slack. Most European countries are making efforts to diversify their power grids, that way no issue (extreme cost of nuclear material as an example) would cause a finacial crisis to the power supply of a nation.
    Please try to prove any part of that statement.

    There haven't been any nuclear incidents since Chernobyl. With modern nuclear power design, nuclear power is simply far safer and cleaner than coal power plants.

    Even Chernobyl directly killed only 56 people. It might lead to cancer in another 9,000.

    Meanwhile 4.6 million people are killed every year from air pollution.

    "There are many air pollution control technologies and urban planning strategies available to reduce air pollution; however, worldwide costs of addressing the issue are high.[citation needed] Enforced air quality standards, like the Clean Air Act in the United States, have reduced the presence of some pollutants.

    Many countries have programs to or are debating how to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for energy production and shift toward renewable energy technologies or nuclear power plants"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pol...Health_effects
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    Megatron's Avatar
    The POFO bully.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    8,563
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Cybertron
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by zach13 View Post
    Please try to prove any part of that statement.

    There haven't been any nuclear incidents since Chernobyl. With modern nuclear power design, nuclear power is simply far safer and cleaner than coal power plants.

    Even Chernobyl directly killed only 56 people. It might lead to cancer in another 9,000.

    Meanwhile 4.6 million people are killed every year from air pollution.

    "There are many air pollution control technologies and urban planning strategies available to reduce air pollution; however, worldwide costs of addressing the issue are high.[citation needed] Enforced air quality standards, like the Clean Air Act in the United States, have reduced the presence of some pollutants.

    Many countries have programs to or are debating how to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for energy production and shift toward renewable energy technologies or nuclear power plants"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pol...Health_effects
    The only proof I can give for my assertion that a meltdown would be the most likely cause of a nuclear power plants danger is the fact that they have happened. If it makes you feel any better we could say terror attack instead. The risk is contamination by radiological material into our environment. The safe gaurds are better than ever and security of the NPP (nuclear power plant) in most nations is higher than ever but there is still that risk if the material escapes into the biosphere. I'm not against nuclear power at all personally but I felt compelled to refute your arguement as I saw it was flawed, and casting blame on the environmental movment which I found to be overly simplistic and misleading.

    Good points on air pollution though. Clearly some sort of change has to take place but there are more alternatives to nuclear power than ever before. I invest in a company developing wind power along the Great Lakes. Now these plants don't produce what a NPP can produce but all in all it is a safer and more "green" alternative, by that I mean no waste material is generated. Which of course is the environmental impact often left out of the pro nuclear power plant arguements.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. How to live with climate change.
    By Tetragrammaton in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 10:22 PM
  2. climate change what do you believe?
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2009, 10:53 PM
  3. Combating Cows and Climate Change
    By dolphan117 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 02:49 PM
  4. Study acquits Sun of climate change
    By ckb2001 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2006, 06:12 PM
  5. Nothing to fear but the climate change alarmists
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-24-2006, 12:19 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •