budman111
Well-Known Member
I am not the one seeking the truth here.
"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I don't agree. First, I think we can make a safe reactor. Second, I think that the degradation of the environment is a real public health risk that kills thousands silently every year. Even in it's current state nuclear is a safer option.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
the whole coast line sunk about 10 feet in that area...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's your meme. you own the bullshit, not me.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Rich. I posted the link to a science-based research article discussing the question raised about why are polar bear numbers higher now than in a previous count. It didn't "side" with anybody. The answer is, it's hard to study and count polar bears and numbers vary because of errors in method and the harshness of the region. That 5000 polar bears in 1970 number, if it actually made it into a science journal, was most likely way off. Unlike science deniers, there is no need to make shit up.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Isn't this exactly the point of why we should only use nuclear when there are no other options? People underestimated the risk. This is common. Not because people are bad, but because we aren't good at understanding the risks over decades of time. Some call the disaster a "black swan event" because as in the analogy, like a black swan, nobody thought the cascade of disaster could happen and so didn't plan for it.
Fukushima is a valid example of what happens when we get this kind of risk assessment wrong. It's also why that Gen 4 nuclear reactor will take so long to develop and implement. Especially when it's not needed.
I'd like to see a link to an article that says the coast of japan in the area of the reactor sunk ten feet.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Dude
Hot, high pressure, molten nuclear material. There are a lot of technical issues to solve in this design. You are pipe-dreaming and I'm sorry to interrupt that dream to tell you that building that reactor is not just a matter of finance.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Actually I think you were by posting a stupid meme that you cannot even back up. I think it said something about "another liberal lie debunked". But it isn't. It just proved that another liberal maxim is true: the right is fucking dumb.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
If your margin of error is 10', you are already fucked. I recall seeing ancient markers on the hillside a couple hundred feet above Fukishima. They marked the high point of tsunamis a few hundred years ago. I would have built above those. But of course, that would have made it less profitable.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're the one trying to convince others what it is. Either provide some evidence to support your claims or don't whine when people tell you you're full of shit.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The installed cost of Solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels. No radiation, no pollution, no mining, no costly ongoing inputs. How is this not a better solution?
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
It is not on demand.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
They should invent something to store electrical power...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There isn't a simple answer. I know that's not news to you. You are right in that safer reactors can be built. Then again, dealing with waste from uranium-based reactors hasn't been dealt with. Not that it can't, just that it hasn't. What I'd like to see is an open and fair analysis of options and an explanation why one was chosen over another. A small footprint of nuclear power combined with renewables might be the most reasonable choice. Then again, do we really have to go down that expensive path? Not that I think answering that question is simple.
Hurdles exist to building a grid based upon renewables but they aren't technical. Why not start building that grid while we keep nuclear in research, at least for a little while.
Last edited:
budman111
Well-Known Member
The Climategate scandal.
1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.
One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the "father" or "grandfather" of the climate change myth, as it was his "Model Zero" that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying "to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming," according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the "background data on which their findings and temperature records were based," even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear "any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work."
2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails. The new round of leaked emails at the time provided more teeth to the revelations of 2009. Here are a couple of egregious emails from Jones found, via Forbes:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
An email written by Mann showed that he tried to get "an investigative journalist to investigate and expose" a climate skeptic scientist named Steven McIntyre.
3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."
Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.
A 2015 Washington Times editorial also highlighted another example of NASA cooking the books:
Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.
4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Postattempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.
5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the "the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific" that "occur on average every two to seven years," according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.
6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.
7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the "average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade," according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.
8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry.All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.National Review reports:
budman111
Well-Known Member
And that is exactly what it is, a meme, means fuck all, they are all bluster
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, you post some cute little science denial alternative facts -- more accurately called fakery -- and can't take the heat when you are called a bullshitter for it.
"they are all bluster" more correctly stated "you are all bluster". And a baby when called out for it.
With that level of fact checking, I'm really looking forward to shredding your next post.
budman111
Well-Known Member
Please prove me wrong...waiting....
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That was done earlier.Please prove me wrong...waiting....
budman111
Well-Known Member
LOL, you are like that dog in the avatar...tail between the legs.