The left's fascination with junk science

[marvin martian]

According to Conservatives, Junk Science includes...

Evolution
Cigarettes cause Cancer
Manmade Global Warming
COVID is a deadly virus

No, according to conservatives, junk science includes the items I outlined in my OP, such as your belief in astrology, your belief that the nuclear power safely used by many countries is "dangerous", and your belief that vaccinated people still transmit the Covid virus.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Democrats don't have the mental capacity to fathom Science.

They think that “science” upholds the premise that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

 

[mamooth]

Then, why focus on inefficient technologies when nuclear is the clear, safe winner?

Beacause it's clearly a massive loser from a cost standpoint

People who ignore the money factor can't be taken seriously. That's all the conservatives here. They're all freakin' morons on this topic, because they all ignore the cost.

You're free to invest in nuclear power if you think it's such a winner. I suggest you don't. Nuclear power can't survive anywhere without massive government subsidies. Socialism, that is.

 

[Rigby5]

It's whether human activity is causing it (evidence is shaky at best).

Silly lie. The evidence is conclusive and overwhelming. You know, the global scientific community gets together every few years to hash this out. They call it: IPCC. You should go read up a bit before commenting on this topic again.

Ah, yes, the IPCC's "hockey stick" diagram that turned out to be fake. That was a good one, hard to believe you fell for it.

No, the hockey stick is just verification.
That facts are we increased carbon in the atmosphere by over 30%, and that greatly retains heat that would otherwise have radiated back out into space.
There is no way to avoid that.
It is just well known fact.
We also know that CO2 used to be much higher concentrations in prehistoric times, resulting in much higher planet temperatures.

 

[Rigby5]

Then, why focus on inefficient technologies when nuclear is the clear, safe winner?

Beacause it's clearly a massive loser from a cost standpoint

People who ignore the money factor can't be taken seriously. That's all the conservatives here. They're all freakin' morons on this topic, because they all ignore the cost.

You're free to invest in nuclear power if you think it's such a winner. I suggest you don't. Nuclear power can't survive anywhere without massive government subsidies. Socialism, that is.

I disagree.
Almost every country in the world has found nuclear to pay off.
The initial cost is high, but there is no continuing fuel costs.
We could also eliminate the risks with alternate designs like molten salt reactors that automatically shut down if there is a problem.

 

[NightFox]

Guess what?
Global Warming is a FACT

That's not the issue. It's whether human activity is causing it (evidence is shaky at best).

The entire world admits it
The only ones opposing the idea are Big Oil and American Conservatives

Well, when the solution is taxing the fuck out of everybody, we tend to suspect bullshit.

So, what is the solution, assuming you are correct about AGW (you're not)?

No, it doesn’t involve “taxing the fuck out of everyone”

It involves moving away from our commitment to Big Oil and relying more on alternative sources of energy.

Biden just approved the largest offshore windmill farm in the US. Are conservatives going to claim Windmill Cancer?

The sooner you accept the fact that human beings aren't capable of the level of cooperation required to alter the trajectory of Earth's Climate the happier you'll be.

Heck we can't even get the global "community" to cooperate on vaccine distribution and you think there's a more than a snowballs chance in Hell that the entire globe will get together on carbon emissions levels? Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and come back to reality, the climate's going wherever it's going to go and we're not going to do a damn thing to alter it.

I think we could if there weren't so many conflicts of inter,,,,,um, money and cheap sequestered energy. That is I'd like to think we can but we better invest some in plan B, adaptation!

Possibly, but that's not the reality and there is no indication that cooperation is improving, in fact there's every indication that it's rapidly deteriorating.

Not to mention the fact that we have a propensity for failing at big goals at the national level (let alone the global level), just look at the "war on drugs", how's the working out? why would anyone expect a "war on climate change" to work out any better?

The whole "we can do something about climate change" is just yet another ruse to manipulate voters, developing nations are not going to sacrifice economic development to go along with it and people in the developed world aren't going to tolerate it as soon as it starts hitting their pocketbooks (and it will since energy is an input into EVERYTHING).