Thursday, March 17, 2011

Real news? Worth reporting?

I am talking of silly CNN and BBC making special entries for Chavez annulling Venezuelan Nuclear plant.  Please! as Miguel pointed out and I mentioned myself in some post some day, Venezuela has neither the skill, the money, the real interest to even consider a nuclear reactor when it has all the trouble in the world to run its thermal plants and make sure its dam do not empty before time. 

Here, there is an entry from the WSJ as to the future and real threat of Nuclear Energy and the entry from the BBC as to Chavez annulling "his" nuclear program.  Which is the real serious news and information and which is the facile pamphleteer note?  Even the note of the Chigüire Bipolar is more researched than the one of the BBC!!!!  Or the CNN clip I saw yesterday fore that matter. 

I am getting sick of the massive hysteria promoted by the media while nobody talks anymore about the bodies washed by the tide....  Say yes to global warming!  No to nukes!  And wait for the next Tsunami to end all Tsunamis as Antarctica melts down!


  1. Last Anonymous9:39 PM

    Dear Daniel,

    High CO2 levels are very closely associated with Ice Ages, not global warming.

    In the past, CO2 concentrations over 300 ppm have led to an Ice Age. It has happened with regularity.

    The present concentration of CO2 is in excess of 300 ppm.

    By the way, the last Ice Age was about 130,000 years ago, and they occur about every 100,000 years.

    So forget about global warming, and buy some warm cloths instead.

    As an aside, higher CO2 levels are very beneficial for plant growth, and also reduces the plant's need for water.

  2. Anonymous9:50 PM

    Do I detect a note of resignation (tiredness) .

    Please consider that when you go to sleep, the only way you know this, is when you wake up and then remember you must have gone to sleep.
    When others do not see you wake up and you do not dream or wake up - you are dead.

    Chavez does not know this!
    His time will come.

  3. "last anonymous"

    this post is not about global warming. but now that you have brought this up...

    where is the evidence that just before an ice age all ice on the planet starts melting?

  4. Last Anonymous10:45 PM

    Dear Daniel,

    I said nothing about all the ice melting. I said higher CO2 levels are closely associated with Ice Ages.

    By the way, the polar ice caps are not melting, they expanding. Just about on schedule for the coming Ice Age.

  5. A different anon11:49 PM


    One thing is to understand the catastrophic effects that industrialization, urbanization and overpopulation have had in the world in the last 100 or so years, and a very different thing is to fall into the CO2-phobia that has befallen the "green" anti-globalization nutcases.

    Long story short, the highest increment in temperature in the US has happened in Alaska, not Los Angeles or New York. CO2 concentration has had nothing to do with that, and there's absolutely no correlation whatsoever between local CO2 production and local temperature increases anywhere in the world. The temperatures in the north pole are so low your piss freezes before it reaches the ground. If the temperature went up 50 degrees, it'd still freeze before it reached the ground. The melting of the ice there (or more exactly, the reduced amount of ice being created) has nothing to do with CO2 levels or minor temperature increases.

    You know what's causing all these weather-related problems in the world? Water. It's all about water. Water causes El Niño and La Niña. Water makes the difference between the Sahara and the rainforest. Water is the main force changing temperature, not the other way around.

    So why all the problems lately? Because too much water is polluted and polluted water doesn't behave (chemically speaking) like water should. Polluted water won't freeze at the same temperature or evaporate in the same way as normal water. And also there's too much water being kept out of its natural cycle by humans (inside water pipes and such). So why the CO2-phobia instead of focusing in the real problem? Because CO2 is mostly produced by "rich" industrialized nations, while water pollution is produced by poor, overpopulated nations that dump everything into their local rivers and the sea.

    The anti-globalization nutcases don't care about actually solving problems (that's why they invent retarded "solutions" like carbon trading), they're only interested in blaming the rich for everything that's ever gone wrong. So by touting the CO2 nonsense, you're doing the same thing a chavista does: blame the "Imperio" for everything when the whole thing is actually your fault.

  6. Aren't out there some hypothesis that say that the melting is nothing more than the end of the last ice age?
    In any case, we all know how good is Chavez at making a show and this is not different, but maybe CNN or the BBC don't know that quite yet.

  7. all anonymous

    1, there is no record in my blog of me promoting the CO2 phobia

    2, as a scientist i do not need complex studies that try to promote one side or the other to understand on my own that burning in 2 centuries what nature took at the very least a 100 million of years to stock underground is not going to have some effect.

    this being said, you can argue until you turn blue in the face the speed at which climate or global warming is taking place but you cannot deny that it is taking place.

    proponents of each side are quite often extremists and offer untested arguments just as the one from "last a." who could not reply directly to one counter argument. for the record if a CO2 phobic nutcase would have posted i would have been equally able to shoot down the argument with a single question.

    this being said, unless there is a clear novel offering to the global warming discussion, this one is closed on this thread. go back to nuclear energy which is infinitely more pertinent to the post, not to mention that global warming or not we cannot manage without it, because global warming or not, oil and coal will eventually someday terminate, or pollute us to death before.

    i for one support nuclear energy, and i am willing to pay for it. the societal problem we have is that people want electricity for all their gadgets but are not willing to pay its real cost.

  8. 1979 Boat People2:27 AM


    Chavez's buddy Admandinijad
    is underpressure

    Diplomats say new Iran weapons materials seized

    Malaysian police seize containers bound for Iran

  9. I have generally supported nuclear energy, too. But I also live about 20 km. from a nuclear reactor, so I hope you will forgive me for asking the powers-that-be to produce a serious review of the safety issues in the wake of the Japanese disaster.

    Of course we are always told that an earthquake--we had a small one right here last year--could NEVER cause a meltdown.

    My faith in these pronouncements has been shaken.

  10. jeffrey

    of course a review is necessary and of course security measures must be enhanced. but one of the reasons that these things were not done in the past is because the "welfare state" in its widest sense. people wanted their gadgets at home and be cozy in winter and fresh as a primrose in summer, without going bankrupt; and their governments were only too happy to oblige. amen of politicians preferring to cheapen nuclear energy risks in order to create mickey mouse jobs.

    no matter how high oil prices were, no matter how much you had to pay at the pump, no matter how heavy your electric bill seemed to be, it never really paid the environmental cost and the risk factor. hopefully this is going to change and we will all be the winners for that even if we must pay for it now.


Comments policy:

1) Comments are moderated after the sixth day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.

2) Your post will appear if you follow the basic polite rules of discourse. I will be ruthless in erasing, as well as those who replied to any off rule comment.