MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[Toddsterpatriot]

"What I care for is a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

This is what conservatives fear most. Objectivity. Fact and evidence based action.

Why? They want to impose what they want on everybody. Do nothing and hope for the best.

This is the "freedom" that they prize. The freedom to impose what they want on others. Not what facts show, but what they want.

Join me in saying "fuck you". We don't need you to tell us what your media cultmeisters told you. We think for ourselves and go with the objective truth of science.

Whereas you want to spend trillions that we don't have -- and you don't even know or care what the result will be.

The standard leftist response to any problem: Throw someone else's money at it.

Oh, and you don't want anyone to have a say in it, either. You want to impose your will on others...because you KNOW what's best for them.

And the pathetic thing is, progressives can't even run their own lives. You sissies are always whining that the government should make your decisions for you.

Pathetic.

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours. Thinking that ignoring problems will make them go away is the stuff of conservative wet dreams.

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours.

Spending tens of trillions gives us what solution again?

 

[PMZ]

Whereas you want to spend trillions that we don't have -- and you don't even know or care what the result will be.

The standard leftist response to any problem: Throw someone else's money at it.

Oh, and you don't want anyone to have a say in it, either. You want to impose your will on others...because you KNOW what's best for them.

And the pathetic thing is, progressives can't even run their own lives. You sissies are always whining that the government should make your decisions for you.

Pathetic.

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours. Thinking that ignoring problems will make them go away is the stuff of conservative wet dreams.

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours.

Spending tens of trillions gives us what solution again?

The necessary transition to sustainable energy with minimum investment in adapting to whatever new climate we end up with during the process.

Tell us what your plan accomplishes.

 

[PMZ]

I didn't see anything in there that backed your claims.
Try again?

If you didn't see anything, you either didn't read it or are unable to understand it.

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Maybe you didn't read it or are unable to understand it.

I've got to tell you Toddbot that you are painfully slow on the cognitive uptake here.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates fissionable plutonium. That's the main ingredient in nuclear bombs. And, the hardest ingredient to refine.

The more there is, the harder it is to keep away from the bad guys.

Perhaps more caffeine would help you.

 

[PMZ]

Still no conservative science that explains what they wish was true about GHGs. Not a single thing.

 

[whitehall]

Dr. Lindzen is my new hero. I hope he runs for political office and exposes all those criminal frauds in the "scientific" community.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours. Thinking that ignoring problems will make them go away is the stuff of conservative wet dreams.

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours.

Spending tens of trillions gives us what solution again?

The necessary transition to sustainable energy with minimum investment in adapting to whatever new climate we end up with during the process.

Tell us what your plan accomplishes.

Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you didn't see anything, you either didn't read it or are unable to understand it.

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Maybe you didn't read it or are unable to understand it.

I've got to tell you Toddbot that you are painfully slow on the cognitive uptake here.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates fissionable plutonium. That's the main ingredient in nuclear bombs. And, the hardest ingredient to refine.

The more there is, the harder it is to keep away from the bad guys.

Perhaps more caffeine would help you.

You said, The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?

Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor, instead of leaving it sitting in pools of water at dozens of reactors around the country?

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Or do I need to use smaller words?

 

[PMZ]

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Maybe you didn't read it or are unable to understand it.

I've got to tell you Toddbot that you are painfully slow on the cognitive uptake here.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates fissionable plutonium. That's the main ingredient in nuclear bombs. And, the hardest ingredient to refine.

The more there is, the harder it is to keep away from the bad guys.

Perhaps more caffeine would help you.

You said, The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?

Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor, instead of leaving it sitting in pools of water at dozens of reactors around the country?

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Or do I need to use smaller words?

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.

 

[PMZ]

And yet my solution is less expensive than yours.

Spending tens of trillions gives us what solution again?

The necessary transition to sustainable energy with minimum investment in adapting to whatever new climate we end up with during the process.

Tell us what your plan accomplishes.

Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?

Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.

 

[PMZ]

Still no conservative science that explains what they wish was true about GHGs. Not a single thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've got to tell you Toddbot that you are painfully slow on the cognitive uptake here.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates fissionable plutonium. That's the main ingredient in nuclear bombs. And, the hardest ingredient to refine.

The more there is, the harder it is to keep away from the bad guys.

Perhaps more caffeine would help you.

You said, The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?

Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor, instead of leaving it sitting in pools of water at dozens of reactors around the country?

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Or do I need to use smaller words?

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

So when you said.....

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

You were wrong, lying or just stupid?

Plutonium is for bombs.

Maybe you should catch up on your reading?

MOX fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The necessary transition to sustainable energy with minimum investment in adapting to whatever new climate we end up with during the process.

Tell us what your plan accomplishes.

Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?

Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.

Really? Did the government have to force the transition from wood to coal?
From whale oil to petroleum?
From coal to diesel?

Typical liberal, can't imagine something will get done without government force.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?

Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.

Really? Did the government have to force the transition from wood to coal?
From whale oil to petroleum?
From coal to diesel?

Typical liberal, can't imagine something will get done without government force.

EXACTLY.. As in the news last spring that the US had cut it's CO2 emissions to about 1998 levels.. But this was accomplished WITHOUT the voices of the "doers" in PMZ's head and IN SPITE of every conceivable govt roadblock from Washington.. Imagine that..

To a leftist -- it's must be like voodoo...

 

[PMZ]

You said, The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?

Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor, instead of leaving it sitting in pools of water at dozens of reactors around the country?

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Or do I need to use smaller words?

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

So when you said.....

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

You were wrong, lying or just stupid?

Plutonium is for bombs.

Maybe you should catch up on your reading?

MOX fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stupid act just makes losing worse Toddster.

 

[PMZ]

Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.

Really? Did the government have to force the transition from wood to coal?
From whale oil to petroleum?
From coal to diesel?

Typical liberal, can't imagine something will get done without government force.

EXACTLY.. As in the news last spring that the US had cut it's CO2 emissions to about 1998 levels.. But this was accomplished WITHOUT the voices of the "doers" in PMZ's head and IN SPITE of every conceivable govt roadblock from Washington.. Imagine that..

To a leftist -- it's must be like voodoo...

Live and learn numb nuts.

What?s Behind the ?Good News? Declines in U.S. CO2 Emissions? | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

Just for the record, slowing down the rate that we are adding to GHG concentrations is what energy policy is all about. And energy policy is based on IPCC science. Evidence that common sense is winning over politics.

 

[PMZ]

Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?

Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.

Really? Did the government have to force the transition from wood to coal?
From whale oil to petroleum?
From coal to diesel?

Typical liberal, can't imagine something will get done without government force.

The government has to force us to drive at a reasonable speed! With a population containing lazy, irresponsible, anti country, gun toting, misogynistic, self centered, every man for himself, cultist, anti progress, conservatives the governments job is even more essential.

 

[PMZ]

Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?

Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.

Really? Did the government have to force the transition from wood to coal?
From whale oil to petroleum?
From coal to diesel?

Typical liberal, can't imagine something will get done without government force.

The government has to force us to drive at a reasonable speed!

With a population containing lazy, irresponsible, anti country, gun toting, misogynistic, self centered, every man for himself, cultist, anti progress, conservatives, the government's job is even more essential.

 

[PMZ]

You said, The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?

Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor, instead of leaving it sitting in pools of water at dozens of reactors around the country?

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Or do I need to use smaller words?

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.

"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

So when you said.....

The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.

You were wrong, lying or just stupid?

Plutonium is for bombs.

Maybe you should catch up on your reading?

MOX fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel does not produce materials that can be used by terrorists for bombs?

 

[kiwina]

Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism. A SICK religion.

And you are simply and ignorant ass.

Climate is defined as "the prevailing or average weather conditions" (webster's New World Dictionary ) Therefore, any one who thinks that he can change the climate thinnks that he can change the weather. any one who thinks that he can change the weather is eather a fool or is not in his right mind iecrazy.

any one who resorts to calling people who disagree with him an "ignorant ass" is simply projecting and can not hold a resonable debate.

 

[kiwina]

The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new. Bertrand Russell in The Triumph of Stupidity in the mid 1930s said that "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a fucking moron." Quote
In fairness I do not care for some of the people quoted here but I must acknowalge the truth of wht they are saying. IN many places in this world it is bad news to admitt that you don't know, How ever there is no excuse to contuine in ingerance or to check out what someone's statment. Right or left seem to make no difference.