The Failure Of Climate Change Denial

[Dot Com]

Maybe in a handful of places Ray, but renewables still cant come close to competing with coal. Ive posted about a billion factoids on this. Even Obama agree's with me!! Even in 30 years, the US will still only be at about 10%-11% renewables. Too damn expensive..........although funny, there are enough suckers out there getting fleeced to keep the industry moving somehow. And a few people getting mega-rich pushing renewables.

All you have to look at is, Cap and Trade died 6 years ago............nobody wanted to pay double for their electricity!!

Because we should be solving the energy problems of the 21st century with 19th century technology.

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

 

[westwall]

Because we should be solving the energy problems of the 21st century with 19th century technology.

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many died? Oh yeah. None. How about TMI? Oh yeah, none there either. Chernobyl? under 100 even though the fear mongers of the anti nuke crowd spout off a number near one million the official WHO report is far more accurate and sensible. No wonder you ignore those reports.



WHO Chernobyl the true scale of the accident

 

[Dot Com]

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many died? Oh yeah. None. How about TMI? Oh yeah, none there either. Chernobyl? under 100 even though the fear mongers of the anti nuke crowd spout off a number near one million the official WHO report is far more accurate and sensible. No wonder you ignore those reports.



WHO Chernobyl the true scale of the accident

oh beejeezus!!! How many people live anywhere near either site now Walleyes and how long is it going to be contaminated? You deniers put down the glass of denier kool aid & drank the whole barrel

 

[RKMBrown]

What they really want is for mankind to go back to cave dwelling. Fire is the devil... ROFL

 

[Old Rocks]

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many died? Oh yeah. None. How about TMI? Oh yeah, none there either. Chernobyl? under 100 even though the fear mongers of the anti nuke crowd spout off a number near one million the official WHO report is far more accurate and sensible. No wonder you ignore those reports.



WHO Chernobyl the true scale of the accident

Really?

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

 

[Dot Com]

yep birth defects and all but its better than R & D into clean fuels, no matter the cost, because it goes against the prevailing conservative dogma of- give it all to me and screw everyone down the line

Chernobyl is a wasteland and will be for the foreseeable future. Same thing for Fukushima no doubt.

 

[Old Rocks]

You see, nukes concentrate the money into just a few pockets of very rich people. However, solar and wind spread the money around to farmers, land owners, ranchers, warehouse owners. In other words, middle and upper middle class people. And small entrepreneurs. What a radical idea.

 

[Liminal]

Maybe in a handful of places Ray, but renewables still cant come close to competing with coal. Ive posted about a billion factoids on this. Even Obama agree's with me!! Even in 30 years, the US will still only be at about 10%-11% renewables. Too damn expensive..........although funny, there are enough suckers out there getting fleeced to keep the industry moving somehow. And a few people getting mega-rich pushing renewables.

All you have to look at is, Cap and Trade died 6 years ago............nobody wanted to pay double for their electricity!!

Because we should be solving the energy problems of the 21st century with 19th century technology.

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

 

[RKMBrown]

Because we should be solving the energy problems of the 21st century with 19th century technology.

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

 

[Dot Com]

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

duplicate post...

 

[Dot Com]

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

where is your degree in nuclear engineering from son? Never mind. Go away, you bother me/you're wasting both of our time.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

where is your degree in nuclear engineering from son? Never mind. Go away, you bother me/you're wasting both of our time.

I don't have a degree in nuclear engineering. And I'm not your son. Why don't you make me go away. You're wasting your own time.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know placing a power plant next to a shore line is as dumb as a sack of rocks. Sort of like building a city below sea level next to the shore line.... Does not take a rocket scientist to predict it will get flooded.

 

[Dot Com]

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

where is your degree in nuclear engineering from son? Never mind. Go away, you bother me/you're wasting both of our time.

I don't have a degree in nuclear engineering. And I'm not your son. Why don't you make me go away. You're wasting your own time.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know placing a power plant next to a shore line is as dumb as a sack of rocks. Sort of like building a city below sea level next to the shore line.... Does not take a rocket scientist to predict it will get flooded.

yeah its not like they're going to need a plentiful supply of water to cool down spent rods & such. OH WAIT!!! Stop while you're behind

 

[Dot Com]

Nuclear Waste Hard To Handle For GOP Candidates - NationalJournal.com

 

[RKMBrown]

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

where is your degree in nuclear engineering from son? Never mind. Go away, you bother me/you're wasting both of our time.

I don't have a degree in nuclear engineering. And I'm not your son. Why don't you make me go away. You're wasting your own time.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know placing a power plant next to a shore line is as dumb as a sack of rocks. Sort of like building a city below sea level next to the shore line.... Does not take a rocket scientist to predict it will get flooded.

yeah its not like they're going to need a plentiful supply of water to cool down spent rods & such. OH WAIT!!! Stop while you're behind

^moron thinks the only way to cool down a nuclear power plant is to place it in a FLOOD ZONE. Yes, some people really are that dumb.

 

[bripat9643]

Because we should be solving the energy problems of the 21st century with 19th century technology.

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

 

[skookerasbil]

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

All that shows is putting a nuclear power plant next to a shoreline is as dumb as a sack of rocks.

where is your degree in nuclear engineering from son? Never mind. Go away, you bother me/you're wasting both of our time.

So s0n.......kindly display for us how and where the "consensus" science is mattering in the real world?

Links please??!!

 

[Liminal]

Thats deniers for you. If a cleaner AND CHEAPER alternative to coal were found, they'd no doubt boycott it

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

 

[PredFan]

Hey all you AGW believing morons:

No one is denying climate change. The climate changes all the time. We are denying that man is even part of the cause.

You morons never ever learn anything.

 

[bripat9643]

There are alternatives to coal, natural gas etc. For example, nuclear. But then you libtards are boycotting nuclear, go figure.

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.