MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[PMZ]

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.

No individual can change the weather. It took all 7B of us to that. And we did it the same way that nature did it. Atmospheric greenhouse gases.

We can't bring back the climate that we built civilization around. It's gone for at least a very long time. We can, however, or at least some of us can, learn from our mistakes and not make things worse. Or, at least, very much worse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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?

You think reprocessing produces Pu-239 or U-235?

 

[PMZ]

"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?

You think reprocessing produces Pu-239 or U-235?

I hope that if I keep this up long enough some day you will actually answer a question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

You think reprocessing produces Pu-239 or U-235?

I hope that if I keep this up long enough some day you will actually answer a question.

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

No, you moron, reprocessing does not produce Pu-239 or U-235.
What traumatic brain injury did you suffer that made you think that?

 

[PMZ]

You think reprocessing produces Pu-239 or U-235?

I hope that if I keep this up long enough some day you will actually answer a question.

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

No, you moron, reprocessing does not produce Pu-239 or U-235.
What traumatic brain injury did you suffer that made you think that?

FISSILE MATERIALS

Fissile materials consist of isotopes whose nuclei fission after capturing a neutron of any energy. Fissionable isotopes fission only after the capture of neutrons with energies above some threshold value. Many heavy isotopes are fissionable, but many fewer of them are also fissile, and almost all of these are isotopes of uranium or plutonium. All fissile materials and some fissionable materials are usable in weapons. It is the odd-numbered isotopes of uranium and plutonium that are fissile: U-233,235 and Pu-239,241. U-235 and Pu-239 are the most common and are the best weapon materials.

From Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy | Loose Nukes | FRONTLINE | PBS

I swear, you are the best that I've seen at avoiding learning.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

There WAS NO "energy policy" that led investors to FRACKING and techniques that made extracting oil and gas more profitable. In FACT --- the leftist eco-nuts OPPOSED the idea of fracking and shale oil as viciously as they could. And there was no "GOVT POLICY" to ENCOURAGE the abundance of natural gas that made the CO2 reductions possible.

Seems like you want to take credit for stuff that your "annointed" opposed.. While they dumped BILLIONS into gimmicks like wind --- the market and OUR doers reduced emissions WITHOUT $Trill UN MANDATED CO2 abatement farce..

What mental midget doesn't understand how that news item just snuck up on us WITHOUT MASSIVE LEFTIST micromanagement and govt intervention ???

The kind of midget that posts an article with THIS STATEMENT in it?

U.S. carbon emissions have declined at an impressive rate given the absence of any cohesive federal climate change policy.

And in a desparate effort to understate the importance of increased nat gas production, the authors MANGLE the contribution of wind to that reduction by stating the INSTALLED wind capacity and NOT ACTUAL PRODUCTION.. Actual production is about 25% of installed capacity. Wind played NO SIGNIFICANT part in the reduction..

 

[PMZ]

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.

There WAS NO "energy policy" that led investors to FRACKING and techniques that made extracting oil and gas more profitable. In FACT --- the leftist eco-nuts OPPOSED the idea of fracking and shale oil as viciously as they could. And there was no "GOVT POLICY" to ENCOURAGE the abundance of natural gas that made the CO2 reductions possible.

Seems like you want to take credit for stuff that your "annointed" opposed.. While they dumped BILLIONS into gimmicks like wind --- the market and OUR doers reduced emissions WITHOUT $Trill UN MANDATED CO2 abatement farce..

What mental midget doesn't understand how that news item just snuck up on us WITHOUT MASSIVE LEFTIST micromanagement and govt intervention ???

The kind of midget that posts an article with THIS STATEMENT in it?

U.S. carbon emissions have declined at an impressive rate given the absence of any cohesive federal climate change policy.

And in a desparate effort to understate the importance of increased nat gas production, the authors MANGLE the contribution of wind to that reduction by stating the INSTALLED wind capacity and NOT ACTUAL PRODUCTION.. Actual production is about 25% of installed capacity. Wind played NO SIGNIFICANT part in the reduction..

This is the essence of conservative energy and climate policy. Do nothing and hope for the best. Perhaps something that we don't know about will miraculously appear and solve the problems that we do know about.

I imagine that's the way it is with lesser primates. Doing nothing might work.

What could possibly go wrong?

Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. We believe that our large brains contributed to our dominant species status. Thinking and planning and learning and working together got us here.

Can you give us some examples where doing nothing solved some critical problems?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I hope that if I keep this up long enough some day you will actually answer a question.

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

No, you moron, reprocessing does not produce Pu-239 or U-235.
What traumatic brain injury did you suffer that made you think that?

FISSILE MATERIALS

Fissile materials consist of isotopes whose nuclei fission after capturing a neutron of any energy. Fissionable isotopes fission only after the capture of neutrons with energies above some threshold value. Many heavy isotopes are fissionable, but many fewer of them are also fissile, and almost all of these are isotopes of uranium or plutonium. All fissile materials and some fissionable materials are usable in weapons. It is the odd-numbered isotopes of uranium and plutonium that are fissile: U-233,235 and Pu-239,241. U-235 and Pu-239 are the most common and are the best weapon materials.

From Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy | Loose Nukes | FRONTLINE | PBS

I swear, you are the best that I've seen at avoiding learning.

Now use that tiny brain of yours and tell me how reprocessing used fuel produces fissile materials.
I could use a laugh.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There WAS NO "energy policy" that led investors to FRACKING and techniques that made extracting oil and gas more profitable. In FACT --- the leftist eco-nuts OPPOSED the idea of fracking and shale oil as viciously as they could. And there was no "GOVT POLICY" to ENCOURAGE the abundance of natural gas that made the CO2 reductions possible.

Seems like you want to take credit for stuff that your "annointed" opposed.. While they dumped BILLIONS into gimmicks like wind --- the market and OUR doers reduced emissions WITHOUT $Trill UN MANDATED CO2 abatement farce..

What mental midget doesn't understand how that news item just snuck up on us WITHOUT MASSIVE LEFTIST micromanagement and govt intervention ???

The kind of midget that posts an article with THIS STATEMENT in it?

U.S. carbon emissions have declined at an impressive rate given the absence of any cohesive federal climate change policy.

And in a desparate effort to understate the importance of increased nat gas production, the authors MANGLE the contribution of wind to that reduction by stating the INSTALLED wind capacity and NOT ACTUAL PRODUCTION.. Actual production is about 25% of installed capacity. Wind played NO SIGNIFICANT part in the reduction..

This is the essence of conservative energy and climate policy. Do nothing and hope for the best. Perhaps something that we don't know about will miraculously appear and solve the problems that we do know about.

I imagine that's the way it is with lesser primates. Doing nothing might work.

What could possibly go wrong?

Actually, having government do nothing is always a better policy than having government do something. It's for the same reason that having an unpainted house is better than letting a chimpanzee paint your house.

Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. We believe that our large brains contributed to our dominant species status. Thinking and planning and learning and working together got us here.

Can you give us some examples where doing nothing solved some critical problems?

Having Congress do the "thinking and planning" is the same as letting a chimpanzee paint your house. Congress was elected by the bottom 51% of the population. That's hardly a good resume for the position of planning America's future.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

There WAS NO "energy policy" that led investors to FRACKING and techniques that made extracting oil and gas more profitable. In FACT --- the leftist eco-nuts OPPOSED the idea of fracking and shale oil as viciously as they could. And there was no "GOVT POLICY" to ENCOURAGE the abundance of natural gas that made the CO2 reductions possible.

Seems like you want to take credit for stuff that your "annointed" opposed.. While they dumped BILLIONS into gimmicks like wind --- the market and OUR doers reduced emissions WITHOUT $Trill UN MANDATED CO2 abatement farce..

What mental midget doesn't understand how that news item just snuck up on us WITHOUT MASSIVE LEFTIST micromanagement and govt intervention ???

The kind of midget that posts an article with THIS STATEMENT in it?

U.S. carbon emissions have declined at an impressive rate given the absence of any cohesive federal climate change policy.

And in a desparate effort to understate the importance of increased nat gas production, the authors MANGLE the contribution of wind to that reduction by stating the INSTALLED wind capacity and NOT ACTUAL PRODUCTION.. Actual production is about 25% of installed capacity. Wind played NO SIGNIFICANT part in the reduction..

This is the essence of conservative energy and climate policy. Do nothing and hope for the best. Perhaps something that we don't know about will miraculously appear and solve the problems that we do know about.

I imagine that's the way it is with lesser primates. Doing nothing might work.

What could possibly go wrong?

Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. We believe that our large brains contributed to our dominant species status. Thinking and planning and learning and working together got us here.

Can you give us some examples where doing nothing solved some critical problems?

Lemme remind you why you are constantly on ignore.. It's because WE GIVE examples and facts and backup and you simply IGNORE IT and post CRAP like you just did.

Can we give you some examples??

Toddster and I just did --- and you are IMPERVIOUS to knowledge.
In the case of lowered CO2 emissions -- not only was NOTHING DONE (by political dictate) to affect that change, but YOUR primeval minions of monkeys fought AGAINST the policies that largely EFFECTED those good changes..

Got news for you.. I don't WANT to "work with you".. Thank GOD I don't HAVE to.. I still have some freedom of action and choice that you leftist tyrants haven't been able to pry from me...

Back on ignore --- "lesser primate"....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

There WAS NO "energy policy" that led investors to FRACKING and techniques that made extracting oil and gas more profitable. In FACT --- the leftist eco-nuts OPPOSED the idea of fracking and shale oil as viciously as they could. And there was no "GOVT POLICY" to ENCOURAGE the abundance of natural gas that made the CO2 reductions possible.

Seems like you want to take credit for stuff that your "annointed" opposed.. While they dumped BILLIONS into gimmicks like wind --- the market and OUR doers reduced emissions WITHOUT $Trill UN MANDATED CO2 abatement farce..

What mental midget doesn't understand how that news item just snuck up on us WITHOUT MASSIVE LEFTIST micromanagement and govt intervention ???

The kind of midget that posts an article with THIS STATEMENT in it?

U.S. carbon emissions have declined at an impressive rate given the absence of any cohesive federal climate change policy.

And in a desparate effort to understate the importance of increased nat gas production, the authors MANGLE the contribution of wind to that reduction by stating the INSTALLED wind capacity and NOT ACTUAL PRODUCTION.. Actual production is about 25% of installed capacity. Wind played NO SIGNIFICANT part in the reduction..

This is the essence of conservative energy and climate policy. Do nothing and hope for the best. Perhaps something that we don't know about will miraculously appear and solve the problems that we do know about.

I imagine that's the way it is with lesser primates. Doing nothing might work.

What could possibly go wrong?

Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. We believe that our large brains contributed to our dominant species status. Thinking and planning and learning and working together got us here.

Can you give us some examples where doing nothing solved some critical problems?

Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals.

But you're so good at it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I hope that if I keep this up long enough some day you will actually answer a question.

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

No, you moron, reprocessing does not produce Pu-239 or U-235.
What traumatic brain injury did you suffer that made you think that?

FISSILE MATERIALS

Fissile materials consist of isotopes whose nuclei fission after capturing a neutron of any energy. Fissionable isotopes fission only after the capture of neutrons with energies above some threshold value. Many heavy isotopes are fissionable, but many fewer of them are also fissile, and almost all of these are isotopes of uranium or plutonium. All fissile materials and some fissionable materials are usable in weapons. It is the odd-numbered isotopes of uranium and plutonium that are fissile: U-233,235 and Pu-239,241. U-235 and Pu-239 are the most common and are the best weapon materials.

From Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy | Loose Nukes | FRONTLINE | PBS

I swear, you are the best that I've seen at avoiding learning.

Still claiming that reprocessing used fuel produces fissile materials? Moron.