Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[3rdnlng]

7 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Too expensive?  

 

What's the latest cost estimate for the Green New Deal again? 

Don't obfuscate with facts!

[DC Tom]

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

The Bee is the best, especially since they've been slapping that fool at Snopes around.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

So wrong, and yet I laughed out loud.

I denounce myself.  
 

[SoCal Deek]

I just want to know if we ever got that pesky hole in the ozone layer plugged! ?

[bdutton]

[B-Man]

?

 

Satire ?

 

 Experts Agree Restructuring World Economy Best Way to Treat Child’s Anxiety.

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by B-Man

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...AOC said we're doomed and she NEVER misses...like LaCanfora.......just ordered my tombstone.........

[billsfan89]

23 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

The Dems are against nuclear because they think it's too dangerous. That's idiotic given how clean and safe it is relative to almost every other power source, but that's the reason. 

 

It has nothing to do with "If they really believed that man-made global warming was an existential crisis they'd be tripping over their own feet to switch to nuclear energy ASAFP," which I think you know, but I don't want to give you too much credit. 

 

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has. 

 

That was you?  I was just thinking about liquid salt thorium reactors this weekend, and was asking myself "Who was that moron on PPP that thought liquid salt thorium reactors were a magic elixir?"

[billsfan89]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

That was you?  I was just thinking about liquid salt thorium reactors this weekend, and was asking myself "Who was that moron on PPP that thought liquid salt thorium reactors were a magic elixir?"

 

There are serious engineering challenges that come with LST Reactors, it isn't as close to being a proven concept as many of it's ardent proponents would lead on. I don't think I have ever promoted it as a cure all so maybe someone else was a really ardent supporter. My position on the matter is that more R&D dollars should got into developing the technology as the possible benefits of it would be tremendous. 

[Hedge]

 

 

Proving, yet again, that it means nothing.

[bbb]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has. 

 

They should probably look into it then.  

[John Adams]

On 9/24/2019 at 9:37 PM, Rob's House said:

If they honestly believed the Earth was in danger of bursting into flames and we could avert it by reducing our carbon emissions, the dangers they fear from nuclear energy wouldn't amount to a speed bump.

 

Your hyperbole aside, the climate change people see the many negative effects humans have on the planet and lump nuclear in with the rest. It's simple thinking, kind of like thinking, "If we keep burning fossil fuels, what's the big deal? I need my H3 to take the kids to soccer!" 

 

 

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, John Adams said:

 

Your hyperbole aside, the climate change people see the many negative effects humans have on the planet and lump nuclear in with the rest. It's simple thinking, kind of like thinking, "If we keep burning fossil fuels, what's the big deal? I need my H3 to take the kids to soccer!" 

 

 

So your defense of them is that they're not full of *****, they're just dumb as *****?

[John Adams]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

So your defense of them is that they're not full of *****, they're just dumb as *****?

 

My observation is not a defense. Many in the environmentalist movement are unwilling to accept any planetary "badness" even when its net benefit would be so high, in this case specifically on the topic of nuclear power. 

 

In some ways it doesn't matter. Nuclear is the way of the future barring leaps in other technology. But the bad news is we are far behind in building reactors. 

 

[Rob's House]

8 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

My observation is not a defense. Many in the environmentalist movement are unwilling to accept any planetary "badness" even when its net benefit would be so high, in this case specifically on the topic of nuclear power. 

 

In some ways it doesn't matter. Nuclear is the way of the future barring leaps in other technology. But the bad news is we are far behind in building reactors. 

 

I see. I still think if they really believed that global destruction was imminent and that reducing carbon emissions would avert it they would at the very least be open to learning more about the one and only carbon neutral energy source known to man that can produce a significant amount of energy.

 

To be clear, I don't think many of these people are consciously lying about it. I think they believe that they believe, but on a subconscious level they know it's bunk, otherwise they'd be serious about addressing the problem.

 

Everyone knows solar panels, wind mills, hybrid cars, and symbolic treaties aren't going to put a dent in global carbon emissions. Not even a small one.

[John Adams]

10 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I see. I still think if they really believed that global destruction was imminent and that reducing carbon emissions would avert it they would at the very least be open to learning more about the one and only carbon neutral energy source known to man that can produce a significant amount of energy.

 

To be clear, I don't think many of these people are consciously lying about it. I think they believe that they believe, but on a subconscious level they know it's bunk, otherwise they'd be serious about addressing the problem.

 

I disagree. Very few environmentalists think the evidence for man-made effect on global warming is bunk. 

 

 

[Rob's House]

9 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

I disagree. Very few environmentalists think the evidence for man-made effect on global warming is bunk. 

 

 

Perhaps this depends on how you define "environmentalist" and what exactly you mean by man-made global warming. 

 

If you're saying that the fringe extremists believe it to their core I may buy that.

 

Or if you're saying the average left-winger believes in an abstract sense that man's aggregate carbon emissions may have some effect on climate that might possibly have some negative implications for the planet at some undetermined point down the road, I may buy that too.

 

What I'm referring to is the mainstream left-wing doctrine that claims man-made carbon emissions are rapidly creating a global warming effect that will lead to doomsday scenarios in the coming decades (or 12 years according to some elected Dems in Congress), and to those who claim to believe it. I think their approach to the issue betrays their proclaimed conviction, and I have yet to hear a persuasive argument to the contrary.

 

To your credit, even if it was not your intent, I think you provided them as solid a defense as one could, given the fact pattern.