Why do you oppose cutting co2 emissions?

[mamooth]

Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational

And they all share a critical flaw.

Security.

Big or small, a reactor still needs a full sized security team guarding it. It doesn't matter if it's sealed. It's still not bombproof.

Big reactors, economies of scale make security a minor cost.

Small reactors, security costs will make them economically unworkable.

Did your keen economic analysis take that into account?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational

And they all share a critical flaw.

Security.

Big or small, a reactor still needs a full sized security team guarding it. It doesn't matter if it's sealed. It's still not bombproof.

Big reactors, economies of scale make security a minor cost.

Small reactors, security costs will make them economically unworkable.

Did your keen economic analysis take that into account?

small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons

very little security needed

 

[Skull Pilot]

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?

Same place you buy "grid scale storage" I guess. Check ETSY on the web.. LOL..

List of small nuclear reactor designs - Wikipedia

List of designs. Not working reactors. Not units for sale.

Tesla’s Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass

Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that’s been used to help justify the company’s $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.

That changes this week.

Three massive battery storage plants—built by Tesla, AES Corp., and Altagas Ltd.—are all officially going live in southern California at about the same time. Any one of these projects would have been the largest battery storage facility ever built. Combined, they amount to 15 percent of the battery storage installed planet-wide last year.

Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that’s just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. “It’s sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at,” he said. “Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it.”

Tesla built the world's biggest battery power plant in just three months.

Grid scale storage being built, sold, and installed as we speak. And you can buy those small reactors, where?

Like usual, an old millwright has to educate an engineer. Same ol', same ol'. LOL

Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational.

From the article..

But for the most part, according to a BNEF analysis, the costs of new projects would need to drop by half in order to be profitable on a wider scale in California, and that’s not likely to happen for another decade. The total installed cost of a battery plant would need to fall to about $275 per kilowatt hour. While Tesla declined to provide its pricing data, the similarly sized Altagas project was expected to cost at least $40 million, or $500 per kilowatt hour. It's possible that with the remarkable scope of Tesla's Reno operations, the company will be able to establish new floors for pricing, forcing the industry to follow, BNEF's Sekine said.

$500/Kw-hr is enough for one HOME for one hour.. Dream on. To smooth the production of solar during GOOD days, you'd need 12 to 15 times that much for one home. 100 times that for a supermarket or small hospital.. That's a HELL of a LIMITED LIFETIME wastestream..

we're currently giving money to China so they can develop small nuclear MSR reactors and they will corner the market and we'll have to buy them from China after we waste trillions of dollars on wind power and it fails to produce like it has in Europe

 

[mamooth]

small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons

very little security needed

So the plan is to make small reactors too inaccessible to be bombed by people who have physical access to the reactor site, yet it will still be possible to get power out of these totally inaccessible reactors?

The specs of the vaporware reactors keep getting more interesting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And for anyone who tells you wind is cheaper than a new MSR reactor let's do a little math

Your average 2 MW turbine costs 4.4 million installed and it produces on average .5 KW of power so to actually get 2 MW of power you need to install 4 2MW turbines at a cost of 17.6 million

to get 500 MW of power you have to install 1000 2 MW turbines at a cost of
4.4 billion

now it has been estimated that one 500MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion and even if it costs another 500 million to install it it is still cheaper than wind

and let's not forget that the life of a wind turbine is about 20 years with some pretty hefty maintenance costs

and MSR can be fueled once and run for up to 30 years

 

[Skull Pilot]

small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons

very little security needed

So the plan is to make small reactors too inaccessible to be bombed by people who have physical access to the reactor site, yet it will still be possible to get power out of these totally inaccessible reactors?

The specs of the vaporware reactors keep getting more interesting.

far from vapor ware

MSR reactors have been built and run already

and only the core and its vessel need to be buried since it it will be 30 years or so before it needs to be refueled

 

[mamooth]

Big talk, big words, means nothing

Describes all of your posts on every topic, which are always just you repeating "Because I say so!" over and over.

Since the Milankovitch cycles are so incredibly long, we have no way of knowing what is "normal" for one,

We know ice ages always end with a fast warmup, and then go into a slow cooldown into the next ice age. That's always the pattern. That fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. It's been slow cooling ever since, and the slow cooling should have continued into the next ice age. There is no natural explanation for the current fast warming.

Moreover, we directly measure things that prove the warming is human-caused. Increases in backradiation, decreases in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, stratospheric cooling. There are no natural explanations for these things, and they are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

we don't even really know accurate CO2 levels in the past for more than about 100 years. We have estimates based on ice core samples but that is limited data and not representative of the entire atmosphere at any given point

Just stop. We have very accurate measurements. You're doing a Lysenkoist thing where you auto-declare that any science which TheParty doesn't like is invalid.

The isotope analysis argument is bogus because CO2 is CO2.... it's carbon and oxygen which are fundamental elements. Plants don't discriminate in the CO2 they process.

Plants, once buried, aren't exposed to cosmic radiation any more, so they stop making C14. The C14 they have decays away, so fossil fuels have no C14. Burn it, the C14-free CO2 goes into the atmosphere, and the C12/C14 ratio changes. That change has been measured.

Again, just stop. You're not qualified to be discussing this with the grownups.

 

[mamooth]

far from vapor ware

And yet nobody is building them anywhere. Your miracle stats and cost figures aren't impressing anyone who is willing to lay out the cash. They all seem to recognize the vaporware thing.

If you disagree, feel free to invest your own money. Nobody is stopping you.

 

[Boss]

Big talk, big words, means nothing

Describes all of your posts on every topic, which are always just you repeating "Because I say so!" over and over.

No, that describes what YOU'RE doing.

Since the Milankovitch cycles are so incredibly long, we have no way of knowing what is "normal" for one,

We know ice ages always end with a fast warmup, and then go into a slow cooldown into the next ice age. That's always the pattern. That fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. It's been slow cooling ever since, and the slow cooling should have continued into the next ice age. There is no natural explanation for the current fast warming.

There is no "fast warming" we've not had warming in 17 years. Over the last century we've had a whopping one degree of warming. That's not fast by any measure.

We're currently about half way through a Milankovitch cycle. On the second half of the cycle is when we can expect to begin experiencing gradual cooling. We're probably around 2,000 years away from that... but again, I stress the point, the last Milankovitch cycle happened when humans were in their infancy or before. We didn't exactly have sophisticated science measuring things. You speak as if we've observed these cycles for years and that's just not true. Most of what you'll claim we know is sheer speculation.

Moreover, we directly measure things that prove the warming is human-caused. Increases in backradiation, decreases in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, stratospheric cooling. There are no natural explanations for these things, and they are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

Absolute Bullshit. You cobble together a bunch of egghead words and try to sound like you know what you're talking about and you think dumb people will read it and believe you do. This is a sham.

What you are attempting to describe here is the way we understand that CO2 acts as an amplifier for greenhouse warming. It is in of itself a natural explanation for why CO2 increases cause more warming. That is not what I have challenged. You do not know for certain how much CO2 is the result of man or nature. CO2 is constantly being processed by nature, and you have no way of measuring that. It is also being massively produced by natural phenomenon and you have no way of measuring that accurately either. Furthermore, you can't even accurately define the amount humans produce or what part of that is incidental to simply existing.

we don't even really know accurate CO2 levels in the past for more than about 100 years. We have estimates based on ice core samples but that is limited data and not representative of the entire atmosphere at any given point

Just stop. We have very accurate measurements. You're doing a Lysenkoist thing where you auto-declare that any science which TheParty doesn't like is invalid.

No, I am simply recognizing a scientific fact. You can't refute it so you dismiss it.

The isotope analysis argument is bogus because CO2 is CO2.... it's carbon and oxygen which are fundamental elements. Plants don't discriminate in the CO2 they process.

Plants, once buried, aren't exposed to cosmic radiation any more, so they stop making C14. The C14 they have decays away, so fossil fuels have no C14. Burn it, the C14-free CO2 goes into the atmosphere, and the C12/C14 ratio changes. That change has been measured.

Again, you are missing my point. LIVING plants don't care where their CO2 comes from. You don't know how many living plants are on the planet or how much photosynthesis is taking place at any given time. Therefore, you can't know how much CO2 they're using or how much they could use if it were available.

What we DO know is that pretty much all plant life thrives optimally at around 600 ppm. So if that is the optimal range for plant life, it seems to contradict your "ideal" level of 280 ppm. Is Mother Nature a Science Denier?

Again, just stop. You're not qualified to be discussing this with the grownups.

At this point, I think I am more qualified than you are. I am actually presenting valid scientific arguments and you are playing tricks with words.

 

[Skull Pilot]

far from vapor ware

And yet nobody is building them anywhere. Your miracle stats and cost figures aren't impressing anyone who is willing to lay out the cash. They all seem to recognize the vaporware thing.

If you disagree, feel free to invest your own money. Nobody is stopping you.

it's not vapor ware if it was already built

and the reason it's not being built is because the ******* federal government won't permit it

 

[mamooth]

There is no "fast warming" we've not had warming in 17 years.

Repeating phony and long-debunked denier cult memes may work with your fellow brainwashed party apparatchiks, but the honest and independent people know it's nonsense.

Over the last century we've had a whopping one degree of warming. That's not fast by any measure.

More like 1C degree in 50 years, and that's very fast, ten times as fast as anything we've ever seen historically. As is always the case, you have no idea of what you're talking about.

We're currently about half way through a Milankovitch cycle. On the second half of the cycle is when we can expect to begin experiencing gradual cooling

That's totally wrong, as is all of your science. Fast warmup, slow cooldown. Halfway through is 8000 years into the cooling phase. The earth should be cooling. This isn't a discussion. You're just wrong, period.

Absolute Bullshit. You cobble together a bunch of egghead words and try to sound like you know what you're talking about and you think dumb people will read it and believe you do. This is a sham.

Crying about how you don't understand the facts won't make the facts go away. If you were ethical, you'd thank us for at least attempting to educate you, and then you'd try to educate yourself further. However, you're a political hack, so instead you're going to curse us for educating you, and then revel in your ignorance.

What you are attempting to describe here is the way we understand that CO2 acts as an amplifier for greenhouse warming.

That makes no sense. Greenhouse warming is, by definition, caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. Hence, you're saying CO2 is both the cause and amplifier of greenhouse warming. Your logic is not like our mere earth logic.

Furthermore, you can't even accurately define the amount humans produce or what part of that is incidental to simply existing

Of course we can, and have done so. You putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change that fact.

Again, you are missing my point. LIVING plants don't care where their CO2 comes from. You don't know how many living plants are on the planet or how much photosynthesis is taking place at any given time. Therefore, you can't know how much CO2 they're using or how much they could use if it were available

If you were capable of critical thinking, you'd understand that doesn't change isotope ratios at all, so it can't explain the changing isotope ratios that prove the increase in CO2 is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, you're not capable. You're not smart enough to ever understand the basics here, no matter how much we try to dumb the topic down for you.

Remember, it's no sin to be dull. After all, half the population is below average. I'm sure you're handsome, and a very nice boy, and have other things going for you. It's only a sin to be belligerent with your ignorance, as you are. Learn to live with your intellectual limitations.

 

[westwall]

Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.

Nah, I actually know things, you are merely hyperventilating about figments of your imagination:

So, if you look closely you find the most influential broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox, devoting 50 hours of broadcast on climate change, all of them combined, in all of 2016. 50 hours, and that's "BLACKED-OUT" all the other oh-so-valid environmental concerns, according to flacaltenn.

How about posting up how much time they devoted to the OTHER pollution issues. All you have done with this graph is reinforce what flac stated. Or are you not smart enough to figure that one out?

 

[Boss]

Repeating phony and long-debunked denier cult memes may work with your fellow brainwashed party apparatchiks, but the honest and independent people know it's nonsense.

Google "AGW The Pause" see what comes up.

There's a reason they stopped calling it "Global Warming" and went to "Climate Change" instead. You're not honest or independent.

More like 1C degree in 50 years, and that's very fast, ten times as fast as anything we've ever seen historically. As is always the case, you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Well we've only been studying it for about 50 years. So there's that.

That's totally wrong, as is all of your science. Fast warmup, slow cooldown. Halfway through is 8000 years into the cooling phase. The earth should be cooling. This isn't a discussion. You're just wrong, period.

And that's always how you want to approach these arguments.. The debate is over... the science is settled... sit down and shut up you idiot denier! That's the crux of your argument on this.

That makes no sense. Greenhouse warming is, by definition, caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. Hence, you're saying CO2 is both the cause and amplifier of greenhouse warming. Your logic is not like our mere earth logic.

The most common GHG is water vapor. CO2 is a GHG which creates an amplification of warming caused by the greenhouse effect. When you are spewing jargon like "Increases in backradiation, decreases in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, stratospheric cooling." you are explaining the science behind CO2 as an amplifier. I haven't disputed that. Apparently, you're not even familiar with the science you are presenting.

Of course we can, and have done so. You putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change that fact.

Well... No, you HAVEN'T done so, and furthermore, you CAN'T do so.

If you were capable of critical thinking, you'd understand that doesn't change isotope ratios at all, so it can't explain the changing isotope ratios that prove the increase in CO2 is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, you're not capable. You're not smart enough to ever understand the basics here, no matter how much we try to dumb the topic down for you.

You've failed to prove anything. Humans burning fossil fuels is one source of CO2 but there are many sources and there are also many sources of processing CO2 in nature. Some people have made some estimates and posited theories and you believe they are correct. That's the extent of your evidence.

IF you came here and said, here is what some scientists think and I believe they are right... that would be honest and I could respect your opinion. But that's not what you're saying at all... You are claiming this is what science has proven and it's a fact and those who don't believe it are stupid and dumb.

The way that we can tell you have lost this debate is the fact that you end up resorting to personal attacks and denigration. When you've lost the factual debate, that's what happens. You're left with nothing but resorting to personal attacks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.

Nah, I actually know things, you are merely hyperventilating about figments of your imagination:

So, if you look closely you find the most influential broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox, devoting 50 hours of broadcast on climate change, all of them combined, in all of 2016. 50 hours, and that's "BLACKED-OUT" all the other oh-so-valid environmental concerns, according to flacaltenn.

That's actually more damning than you think it is -- since any TV coverage of "important" issues is limited to a couple minutes of time. Doesn't count the number of times every politico added CC/GW to the TOP of National priorities or mentioned it as "settled science" or in passing in regards to OTHER issues. In fact, it not only dominated and SQUASHED other enviro concerns, but it dominated and SQUASHED even the top 10 NATIONAL policy concerns. Try THIS -- from just the top FIVE PRINT newspapers in the country..

Compare that for me to the coverage on the bees, whales, toads or the MILLIONS of barrels of LEAKING barrels of nuclear waste at the Govt weapons facilities.

 

[flacaltenn]

small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons

very little security needed

So the plan is to make small reactors too inaccessible to be bombed by people who have physical access to the reactor site, yet it will still be possible to get power out of these totally inaccessible reactors?

The specs of the vaporware reactors keep getting more interesting.

You're really stretching here. Compact reactor designs flew in deep space and long life orbital missions since the 60s.

DOE announces new investment in small modular reactors

The U.S. Department of Energy last week announced a second round of funding for small modular reactors.

The first award, announced earlier this year, provided support to Babcock and Wilcox Co. through a program that could result in small modular reactors at the former Clinch River Breeder Reactor site in west Oak Ridge. In November, B&W announced it had already invested more than $360 million in that project, and the North Carolina company was looking for investors and possibly majority owners.

DOE said the new award was given to Oregon-based NuScale Power LLC to support a new project to design, certify, and help commercialize innovative small modular reactors in the United States.

In Oak Ridge, the mPower small modular reactor, or SMR, program is expected to have a nuclear power plant operating at the former Clinch River Breeder Reactor Site by 2022. Initially, it could have two small reactors, a “twin pack,” and produce 360 megawatts.

If we DO NOT accelerate these programs, Russia and China certainly WILL. And I'm waiting on NuScale to go public or Hyperion -- to dump a BUNDLE of money into them..

DOE announces new investment in small modular reactors

The U.S. Department of Energy last week announced a second round of funding for small modular reactors.

The first award, announced earlier this year, provided support to Babcock and Wilcox Co. through a program that could result in small modular reactors at the former Clinch River Breeder Reactor site in west Oak Ridge. In November, B&W announced it had already invested more than $360 million in that project, and the North Carolina company was looking for investors and possibly majority owners.

DOE said the new award was given to Oregon-based NuScale Power LLC to support a new project to design, certify, and help commercialize innovative small modular reactors in the United States.

In Oak Ridge, the mPower small modular reactor, or SMR, program is expected to have a nuclear power plant operating at the former Clinch River Breeder Reactor Site by 2022. Initially, it could have two small reactors, a “twin pack,” and produce 360 megawatts.

MIT has an unconventional plan to accelerate next-generation nuclear reactors

Southern Nuclear Eyes Tests of its Advanced Reactors by 2025 - The Energy Collective

Southern Nuclear believes the nuclear industry could bring online demonstration advanced reactors by 2025 followed by commercial units shipped to customers in 2030-2035, Jessica Nissenbaum, company spokeswoman, told Nuclear Energy Insider this week.

Southern Nuclear is developing a multi-technology advanced reactor research and development (R&D) program, forging separate partnerships with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), X-energy and TerraPower.

Southern Nuclear’s advanced reactor funding spans several technology types and U.S. public-private partnerships are supporting the development of new testing facilities and conceptual design phases.

In October, Southern Nuclear and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) announced a joint project to develop and license advanced reactors, including GEH’s PRISM sodium-cooled fast reactor design.

KEPCO eyes Toshiba-led nuclear project in Britain

(Yonhap) The CEO of South Korea’s top power utility firm Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEPCO) said this week the firm is interested in participating in a British nuclear plant project.

KEPCO is rumored to have been in talks with Japan’s Toshiba and French utility company Engie on buying a stake in their multi-billion dollar British nuclear joint venture NuGen. Toshina and Engie have been on the lookout for partners in the nuclear venture to reduce their respective burdens.

NuGen is planning to build three nuclear reactors at the Moorside site on the coast of Cumbria.

“Regarding (participation in) NuGen, we will jump into the race after its sales plan is determined,” KEPCO president Cho Hwan-eik said in a meida event in Seoul, South Korea.

Should KEPCO buy into the NuGen project, it would mark its second overseas nuclear plant project since its 2009 deal to build nuclear plants in the United Arab Emirates.

Turkey’s Sinop nuke project’s site review to be ready by end of 2017

(English language wire services in Turkey) Mitsubishi Heavy Industry’s Sinop Nuclear Energy President Makoto Kanda said the target date is to finish all technical and commercial feasibility studies for Sinop NPP is March 2018.

Technical feasibility studies that determine the site suitability of Turkey’s Sinop Nuclear Plant will be completed by the end of this year, Mitsubishi Heavy Industry’s Sinop Nuclear Energy President said in a recent interview.

The construction of Turkey’s second nuclear plant, after the first in Akkuyu in Turkey’s southern province of Mersin, plans to be located in the country’s northern region.

In May 2013, the Turkish government accepted the Japanese government’s proposal to install four ATMEA1 reactors with a total capacity of about 4,800 MW for the Sinop project.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ooow. OOWww. Olde Europe --- Here's a NEWER version of print newspaper coverage of CC/GW. It shows the "crash and burn" phase of your favorite fictional fable. Will try to find the 2016 update for this chart. Could be fun.. The "campaign" is slowly rolling off into the sunset.

 

[flacaltenn]

Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational

And they all share a critical flaw.

Security.

Big or small, a reactor still needs a full sized security team guarding it. It doesn't matter if it's sealed. It's still not bombproof.

Big reactors, economies of scale make security a minor cost.

Small reactors, security costs will make them economically unworkable.

Did your keen economic analysis take that into account?

Yeah. Much less than the security required for a chemical plant, refinery or major gas pipeline station..

 

[Olde Europe]

That's actually more damning than you think it is -- since any TV coverage of "important" issues is limited to a couple minutes of time.

So, we have four networks, 365 days per year each, and 50 hours of climate change coverage between them, that makes about two minutes of climate change coverage per day on average. And is so big, huge, wall-to-wall that no other environmental concern was able to sneak in.

In fact, it not only dominated and SQUASHED other enviro concerns, but it dominated and SQUASHED even the top 10 NATIONAL policy concerns.

Laughable.

Compare that for me to the coverage on the bees, whales, toads or the MILLIONS of barrels of LEAKING barrels of nuclear waste at the Govt weapons facilities.

Yeah, nice try at shifting the burden of proof. What else is new...

From the article where you found the picture:

The relative volume of newspaper coverage at the end of the decade was approximately five times the amount paid the issue at the turn of the millennium. But the percentage of news coverage of the environment (of which climate change is a subset) across the U.S. media spectrum remained at just 1.5 percent at the end of this decade, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism (12/9/09); on network TV and radio it has actually declined each year since 2007.​

So, climate change coverage being a part of environmental coverage, which ranges at about 1.5% of reporting throughout the U.S. media, topped all other top 10 national policy concerns. And a subset of these 1.5% was so big, it buried all other environmental reporting.

Your burden of proof is twofold: First, prove there is a mere "hype" about AGW, second, prove this hype is really responsible for edging out other environmental reporting.

When, in fact, the corporate media adjust their reporting in order to garner the viewers' or readers' attention by peddling towards the baser instincts of their audience. And that shitty media landscape knows exactly that Paris Hilton tops every environmental concern in terms of sales. "Hype" has nothing to do with whatever you think hyperventilating about is appropriate. The plutocrats sure see to it that news about the dying bees won't bother Americans all that much - ignoramuses make for better consumers - and also that reporting on AGW is nowhere near the wall-to-wall coverage the issue deserved. AGW should dominate reporting, including all policy issues, for it's the single-most important issue facing humankind, the screeching by the denialist crowd, apparently concerned that even the paltry reporting the issue gets might eventually change all but the completely closed minds, notwithstanding.

 

[westwall]

That's actually more damning than you think it is -- since any TV coverage of "important" issues is limited to a couple minutes of time.

So, we have four networks, 365 days per year each, and 50 hours of climate change coverage between them, that makes about two minutes of climate change coverage per day on average. And is so big, huge, wall-to-wall that no other environmental concern was able to sneak in.

In fact, it not only dominated and SQUASHED other enviro concerns, but it dominated and SQUASHED even the top 10 NATIONAL policy concerns.

Laughable.

Compare that for me to the coverage on the bees, whales, toads or the MILLIONS of barrels of LEAKING barrels of nuclear waste at the Govt weapons facilities.

Yeah, nice try at shifting the burden of proof. What else is new...

From the article where you found the picture:

The relative volume of newspaper coverage at the end of the decade was approximately five times the amount paid the issue at the turn of the millennium. But the percentage of news coverage of the environment (of which climate change is a subset) across the U.S. media spectrum remained at just 1.5 percent at the end of this decade, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism (12/9/09); on network TV and radio it has actually declined each year since 2007.​

So, climate change coverage being a part of environmental coverage, which ranges at about 1.5% of reporting throughout the U.S. media, topped all other top 10 national policy concerns. And a subset of these 1.5% was so big, it buried all other environmental reporting.

Your burden of proof is twofold: First, prove there is a mere "hype" about AGW, second, prove this hype is really responsible for edging out other environmental reporting.

When, in fact, the corporate media adjust their reporting in order to garner the viewers' or readers' attention by peddling towards the baser instincts of their audience. And that shitty media landscape knows exactly that Paris Hilton tops every environmental concern in terms of sales. "Hype" has nothing to do with whatever you think hyperventilating about is appropriate. The plutocrats sure see to it that news about the dying bees won't bother Americans all that much - ignoramuses make for better consumers - and also that reporting on AGW is nowhere near the wall-to-wall coverage the issue deserved. AGW should dominate reporting, including all policy issues, for it's the single-most important issue facing humankind, the screeching by the denialist crowd, apparently concerned that even the paltry reporting the issue gets might eventually change all but the completely closed minds, notwithstanding.

And you have yet to show how much time was devoted to other pollution issues. Our point stands.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Olde Europe -- Go find me the amount of coverage on honeybees. Or the raptor kills at wind farms, or the decline of the Salmon population. Or the MASSIVE USA problem of 60 year old nuclear waste rotting into the soil and the water tables at Savannah River or Hanford or Oak Ridge nuclear weapons labs. Or the effects of massive garbage pools in the oceans.

OR -- THE REAL ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS for bark beetles, oyster farming decline, or coral loss.. They've been BURIED if any of those problems could be assigned to a 1.0degC GMAST change in your lifetime.

Or cancer clusters related to herbicides. Or ANY of the OLD enviro causes. Where did the Ozone panic go to and how did it resolve? No ONE GIVES A **** -- if it cannot be related to GW/CC..