Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming

[EMH]

Denies? You make it sound like a religious belief? Do you deny Christ as your Lord and Savior?

At least that moron didn't claim denial of climate change.

Nobody denies climate change.


Everyone with an IQ over 10 denies Co2, because THE DATA PROVES CO2 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

[Crick]

Your alarmism is on full display.

It's not alarmism. It is the view of a near totality of mainsteam scientists expert on this topic. The resistance argued by you and your compatriots here is the danger. On my side of the argument you get tons and tons of solid science. On your side of the argument, you get pseudo science AT BEST and more typically insane claims of huge conspiracies and dangerously ridiculous claims that your opponents want to destroy the world. If you do not have an argument against the position of mainstream science you need to consider the possibility that you've gotten this one wrong and that it may be time to turn your head around.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It's not alarmism. It is the view of a near totality of mainsteam scientists expert on this topic. The resistance argued by you and your compatriots here is the danger. On my side of the argument you get tons and tons of solid science. On your side of the argument, you get pseudo science AT BEST and more typically insane claims of huge conspiracies and dangerously ridiculous claims that your opponents want to destroy the world. If you do not have an argument against the position of mainstream science you need to consider the possibility that you've gotten this one wrong and that it may be time to turn your head around.

When are you going to go after CHINA and their extreme pollution?

 

[Crick]

When are you going to go after CHINA and their extreme pollution?

I just did. Science is global. Ignorance, though, seems to be unpleasantly concentrated in the conservatives of this country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not alarmism. It is the view of a near totality of mainsteam scientists expert on this topic. The resistance argued by you and your compatriots here is the danger. On my side of the argument you get tons and tons of solid science. On your side of the argument, you get pseudo science AT BEST and more typically insane claims of huge conspiracies and dangerously ridiculous claims that your opponents want to destroy the world. If you do not have an argument against the position of mainstream science you need to consider the possibility that you've gotten this one wrong and that it may be time to turn your head around.

The resistance argued by you and your compatriots here is the danger.

Burn the heretics!!!

On my side of the argument you get tons and tons of solid science.

Your side of the argument says we only have a dozen years to act, but
fights nuclear because the waste is dangerous for thousands of years.

 

[Crick]

The resistance argued by you and your compatriots here is the danger.

Burn the heretics!!!

I didn't say that, did I.

On my side of the argument you get tons and tons of solid science.

Your side of the argument says we only have a dozen years to act, but
fights nuclear because the waste is dangerous for thousands of years.

My side is the scientists. The scientists HAVE been saying that we are approaching if have not already passed a tipping point but I don't even know what you mean by "only have a dozen years to act".

Nuclear wastes are dangerous for thousands of years. It is not something to be toyed with, but it is a way to make large amounts of power with no GHG emissions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say that, did I.

My side is the scientists. The scientists HAVE been saying that we are approaching if have not already passed a tipping point but I don't even know what you mean by "only have a dozen years to act".

Nuclear wastes are dangerous for thousands of years. It is not something to be toyed with, but it is a way to make large amounts of power with no GHG emissions.

I didn't say that, did I.

You said resistance is dangerous!

My side is the scientists.

How many new nuke plants do the scientists say we should build?
How much more fracking do they say we need? What do they say
about the dangers of too much reliance on intermittent power?

Nuclear wastes are dangerous for thousands of years.

When we're doomed in a dozen years, why do greens whine about thousands?

it is a way to make large amounts of power with no GHG emissions.

Tell the leftists and greens on your side.

 

[Crick]

I didn't say that, did I.

You said resistance is dangerous!

And it is, but to everyone, not just the resistant. If that were the case, I wouldn't be here.

My side is the scientists.

How many new nuke plants do the scientists say we should build?

12. They said 12. What the **** do you want Todd? What point are you trying to make? There are almost as many anti-nuke folks on your side of the argument as on mine. You're conflating two groups. Climate scientists are dealing with the physics of the atmosphere. Economists and the like deal with mitigation measures. There's a whole volume in the IPCC assessment reports dealing with that stuff. If that's where your interests lie, you shoudl review it. See what they DO say.

How much more fracking do they say we need?

Same answer.

What do they say about the dangers of too much reliance on intermittent power?

Not a clue. Why don't you try to find out? I wouldn't even know where to look but I bet you do.

Nuclear wastes are dangerous for thousands of years.

When we're doomed in a dozen years, why do greens whine about thousands?

Hope springs eternal in the greenie breast.

it is a way to make large amounts of power with no GHG emissions.

Tell the leftists and greens on your side.

I have but Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hanford, Idaho Falls... all make it a tough sell.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I just did. Science is global. Ignorance, though, seems to be unpleasantly concentrated in the conservatives of this country.

When you are going to punish CHINA for their pollution?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it is, but to everyone, not just the resistant. If that were the case, I wouldn't be here.

12. They said 12. What the **** do you want Todd? What point are you trying to make? There are almost as many anti-nuke folks on your side of the argument as on mine. You're conflating two groups. Climate scientists are dealing with the physics of the atmosphere. Economists and the like deal with mitigation measures. There's a whole volume in the IPCC assessment reports dealing with that stuff. If that's where your interests lie, you shoudl review it. See what they DO say.

Same answer.

Not a clue. Why don't you try to find out? I wouldn't even know where to look but I bet you do.

Hope springs eternal in the greenie breast.

I have but Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hanford, Idaho Falls... all make it a tough sell.

And it is, but to everyone, not just the resistant.

Exactly, burn the heretics before they bring the god's wrath down on us.

12. They said 12. What the **** do you want Todd?

I want you to whine as much at the anti-nukes as you do at the pro-fossil fuelers.

There are almost as many anti-nuke folks on your side of the argument as on mine.

I've seen zero here. Or anywhere else. Any examples you could name?

I have but Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hanford, Idaho Falls...

Fukushima.....don't put your emergency generators where they can get flooded.
Chernobyl.....it's not just commies in the US who can't do anything right.

all make it a tough sell.

Sell the new self-scramming reactors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ignorance, though, seems to be unpleasantly concentrated in the conservatives of this country.

AOC is a conservative? I'd have never guessed.

 

[Crick]

And it is, but to everyone, not just the resistant.

Exactly, burn the heretics before they bring the god's wrath down on us.

Is that not precisely YOUR position?

12. They said 12. What the **** do you want Todd?

I want you to whine as much at the anti-nukes as you do at the pro-fossil fuelers.

I can't because their position is emormously more justifiable.

There are almost as many anti-nuke folks on your side of the argument as on mine.

I've seen zero here. Or anywhere else. Any examples you could name?

Take a poll

I have but Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hanford, Idaho Falls...

Fukushima.....don't put your emergency generators where they can get flooded.
Chernobyl.....it's not just commies in the US who can't do anything right.

all make it a tough sell.

Sell the new self-scramming reactors.

Tell me about them. I just read the Wikepedia article on SCRAM. When I was in the service, it was supposed to stand for "Super Critical Reactor Axe Man" but Wiki didn't have that alternative

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that not precisely YOUR position?

I can't because their position is emormously more justifiable.

Take a poll

Tell me about them. I just read the Wikepedia article on SCRAM. When I was in the service, it was supposed to stand for "Super Critical Reactor Axe Man" but Wiki didn't have that alternative

Is that not precisely YOUR position?

No, I don't want to burn anyone who doesn't worship the green gods.

I can't because their position is emormously more justifiable

They're against reliable fossil fuel and reliable nuclear.
How is that "more justifiable"?

Take a poll

You said "almost as many" and you have zero examples. LOL!

Tell me about them.

New reactors are designed so they can't melt down.

Failsafe measures. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A fusible plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[31

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It just shuts down and cools off.

The brain-child of Dr. Jose Reyes, NuScale’s Chief Technology Officer and nuclear engineering professor emeritus at Oregon State University, this modular reactor takes advantage of the small in small modular. The small size and large surface area-to-volume ratio of NuScale’s reactor core, that sits below ground in a super seismic-resistant heat sink, allows natural processes to cool it indefinitely in the case of complete power blackout. No humans or computers are needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling (see figure).

Can We Make A Nuclear Reactor That Won't Melt Down?

Yes we can. NuScale Power is on track to build the first small modular nuclear reactor in America, having their first-ever SMR Design Certification Application accepted for full review by the NRC and now getting approval for their walk-away-safe concept. Their reactor just won’t melt down.

www.forbes.com

Paul Demkowicz is the director of the Advanced Gas Reactor Field Development and Qualification Program at Idaho National Laboratory, and a large part of his job is simulating worst-case scenarios for next-generation nuclear reactors. For the past few years, Demkowicz and his colleagues have been running qualification tests on triso fuel that involve putting them in a reactor and cranking the temperature. Most nuclear reactors today operate well below 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and even the next generation high-temperature reactors will top out at about 2,000 degrees. But during the INL tests, Demkowicz demonstrated that triso could withstand reactor temperatures over 3,200 degrees Fahrenheit. Out of 300,000 particles, not a single triso coating failed during the two-week long test.

“In the new reactor designs, it’s basically impossible to exceed these temperatures, because the reactor kind of shuts down as it reaches these high temperatures,” says Demkowicz. “So if you take these reactor designs and combine them with a fuel that can handle the heat, you essentially have an accident-proof reactor.”

Nuclear "power balls" may make meltdowns a thing of the past.

This alien-looking fuel with built-in safety features will power a new generation of high-temperature reactors.

www.motherjones.com

 

[francoHFW]

How do you suppose farmers will grow and harvest crops without using "fossil fuels"?

How will the Internet work without "fossil fuels"?

Why are AGW Cult members so dumb? There are a few getting paid and have an escape plan, but most of the rank and file are just cannon fodder

plenty of other ways to produce power besides those that kill the atmosphere

 

[CrusaderFrank]

plenty of other ways to produce power besides those that kill the atmosphere

CO2 "kills the atmosphere"?

Wow

 

[BackAgain]

the big oil big money GOP is the is the only political party in the world that denies global warming.

Untrue. Everyone says the Earth’s average temperature has been rising. Nobody denies “global warming.”

Have you noticed the tornadoes lately And it's not even tornado season??

Did you notice that spring is warmer than winter?? ??? Also, word has it that summer will be hotter this year than this spring has been.

rising waters

In some places.

droughts

In some places.

terrible storms are, all the wild erratic weather and it just keeps getting warmer. only Fox ignores and denies it. You people are just pathetic.

Your fundamental point of severe mental retardation boils down to your confusion of the climate getting warmer with humans causing it (or even having much control over it). See, nobody denies global warmering. What you are unable to grunt out properly is AGW.

Must suck to be as stupid as you are.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not alarmism. It is the view of a near totality of mainsteam scientists expert on this topic. The resistance argued by you and your compatriots here is the danger. On my side of the argument you get tons and tons of solid science. On your side of the argument, you get pseudo science AT BEST and more typically insane claims of huge conspiracies and dangerously ridiculous claims that your opponents want to destroy the world. If you do not have an argument against the position of mainstream science you need to consider the possibility that you've gotten this one wrong and that it may be time to turn your head around.

No no. It is alarmism bordering on flat out dishonesty.

 

[TNHarley]

The whole section is basically about "Talking shit about global warming"
and even when a topic is Narrower, 80% of the RW MAGAt deniers "Talk shit about global warming."
Baffling 'topic.'
`

Nice off topic post, dumbfuck

 

[TNHarley]

 

[Crick]

No no. It is alarmism bordering on flat out dishonesty.

What point(s) have I put out that regard as alarmist? What statements of mine do you believe "border on dishonesty"?