The Failure Of Climate Change Denial

[Liminal]

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

Good thing you checked.

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

 

[jc456]

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

Good thing you checked.

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

 

[Liminal]

Good thing you checked.

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

 

[jc456]

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

 

[Liminal]

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

I'm sure you believe you did.

 

[bripat9643]

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

If a major population center experienced an earthquake stronger than 9.0, the deaths would be in the millions. A nuclear reactor going critical would be the least of our problems.

You eco-nutburgers just have no sense of proportion.

The point I'm making is: Nuclear power plants (current technology) are never going to be safe anywhere, you can't predict where natural disasters will strike. Maybe when fusion reactors are finally developed we will get safe energy.
When you wish upon a star nuclear fusion and the promise of a brighter future Science The Guardian

The point I'm making is that nuclear reactors already are far safer than many other industrial processes. Japan had a 9.0 earthquake and a 50 foot tsunami hit the reactor building and nobody died. No one even got an excess exposure to radiation. The tsunami killed 20,000 people but you're worrying about a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone? Don't you understand how ridiculous you look?

 

[Liminal]

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

If a major population center experienced an earthquake stronger than 9.0, the deaths would be in the millions. A nuclear reactor going critical would be the least of our problems.

You eco-nutburgers just have no sense of proportion.

The point I'm making is: Nuclear power plants (current technology) are never going to be safe anywhere, you can't predict where natural disasters will strike. Maybe when fusion reactors are finally developed we will get safe energy.
When you wish upon a star nuclear fusion and the promise of a brighter future Science The Guardian

The point I'm making is that nuclear reactors already are far safer than many other industrial processes. Japan had a 9.0 earthquake and a 50 foot tsunami hit the reactor building and nobody died. No one even got an excess exposure to radiation. The tsunami killed 20,000 people but you're worrying about a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone? Don't you understand how ridiculous you look?

Because the long term effects are immediately known.

 

[Liminal]

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

 

[bripat9643]

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

If a major population center experienced an earthquake stronger than 9.0, the deaths would be in the millions. A nuclear reactor going critical would be the least of our problems.

You eco-nutburgers just have no sense of proportion.

The point I'm making is: Nuclear power plants (current technology) are never going to be safe anywhere, you can't predict where natural disasters will strike. Maybe when fusion reactors are finally developed we will get safe energy.
When you wish upon a star nuclear fusion and the promise of a brighter future Science The Guardian

The point I'm making is that nuclear reactors already are far safer than many other industrial processes. Japan had a 9.0 earthquake and a 50 foot tsunami hit the reactor building and nobody died. No one even got an excess exposure to radiation. The tsunami killed 20,000 people but you're worrying about a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone? Don't you understand how ridiculous you look?

Because the long term effects are immediately known.

They are known in both cases.

 

[jc456]

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

 

[Liminal]

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

If a major population center experienced an earthquake stronger than 9.0, the deaths would be in the millions. A nuclear reactor going critical would be the least of our problems.

You eco-nutburgers just have no sense of proportion.

The point I'm making is: Nuclear power plants (current technology) are never going to be safe anywhere, you can't predict where natural disasters will strike. Maybe when fusion reactors are finally developed we will get safe energy.
When you wish upon a star nuclear fusion and the promise of a brighter future Science The Guardian

The point I'm making is that nuclear reactors already are far safer than many other industrial processes. Japan had a 9.0 earthquake and a 50 foot tsunami hit the reactor building and nobody died. No one even got an excess exposure to radiation. The tsunami killed 20,000 people but you're worrying about a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone? Don't you understand how ridiculous you look?

Because the long term effects are immediately known.

They are known in both cases.

Let's see where we are with that idea today.

 

[Liminal]

You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between the two.

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

 

[jc456]

no, I know the difference and I know my facts I present and my opinions. I'm edumicated don't ya know.

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

how can it, you have no character.

 

[Liminal]

And yet you've never bothered to substantiate even one of your so called facts with anything but more opinions.

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

how can it, you have no character.

That must be why you need to personalize all your alleged arguments.

 

[jc456]

no I factually called you out using your own article. I needed no opinion, the article was my proof.

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

how can it, you have no character.

That must be why you need to personalize all your alleged arguments.

I merely call it as I see it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'd like to thank all of you for the thread.

It is good to see people acting so consistently.

Seven pages of comedy.

 

[jc456]

I'd like to thank all of you for the thread.

It is good to see people acting so consistently.

Seven pages of comedy.

it is. very funny, I laugh as well.

 

[Dot Com]

I'd like to thank all of you for the thread.

It is good to see people acting so consistently.

Seven pages of comedy.

thats a lot of typing to not stake out a position

 

[Liminal]

You have yet to demonstrate having even the remotest concept of proof.

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

how can it, you have no character.

That must be why you need to personalize all your alleged arguments.

I merely call it as I see it.

No junior, you still don't get it. You personalize because you lack compelling or relevant arguments to begin with. So you think you can distract from the complete absence of any substance in any of your alleged arguments, it isn't working. You'll have to come up with something better.

 

[jc456]

sure I do, it starts with the article you asked me to read.

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

how can it, you have no character.

That must be why you need to personalize all your alleged arguments.

I merely call it as I see it.

No junior, you still don't get it. You personalize because you lack compelling or relevant arguments to begin with. So you think you can distract from the complete absence of any substance in any of your alleged arguments, it isn't working. You'll have to come up with something better.

no, I state the fact and then you flop around the thread the rest of the day trying to figure something out that distracts away from the facts. Sorry pal the facts are the facts.