then you have nothing to complain about. And you are both ignorant and a coward
Global Warming Is A Scam Pushed By Dishonest "Progressives"
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
then you have nothing to complain about. And you are both ignorant and a coward
Then you could kindly retract the accusation of hypocrisy on my part. :up:
That's not being done. There are catastrophic releases of carbon dioxide that can suffocate everything in the immediate vicinity, typically linked to volcanism. However, burning fossil fuels doesn't produce any significant risk from such exposure.
That would be from inefficient processes that send particulate matter into the sky — not CO2.
It sounds like you've bought into a particular narrative and are ignorant of the facts.
Like what?
way 2 go
Well-known member
I recommend using TuneIn and favoriting KLTT on it.
I mostly listen to podcast on my drive to & from work such as Bob Enyart , weekly world view with Doug McBurney,
the tech guy with Leo laporte
any podcast you guys like ?
Just WWV and BEL.
I do listen to Trance Athena radio though, good music (when there's no lyrics).
Kit the Coyote
New member
I generally looked at it from the viewpoint of look what it took to actually cause the event. It also a good example of why we should be moving on to Gen IV reactors.
Perhaps instead of just sharing an image that shows a "hockey stick," you could show us the actual data for the graph?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Kit the Coyote
New member
Did I? Refresh my memory and I will consider it, I'm always willing to correct an error.
That said, there is nothing inherent in a viewpoint or side that it cannot be hypocrisy.
Since I didn't say that, agreed. CO2 is being released though, massively faster than it was sequestered.
The process is still inefficient, some places have managed at increased cost and regulation to keep those particulates from going up the chimney but they are still produced. Where do you think they go? They go into a toxic waste output from the plant that has to be disposed of somehow.
In comparison, a coal plant releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant from burning the uranium ore typically found inside coal. The major complaint about nuclear is the toxic waste produced but the waste produced by a typical nuclear reactor in a year would easily sit on a kitchen table with room to spare. The toxic waste produced by a typical coal plant would bury your house several times over.
This all also ignores that it is not the global warming fears that are killing the coal industry, it is economics. Cleaner fuels, particularly natural gas is kicking its butt economically.
Right Divider
Body part
We might also note that the temperature was rising steadily long before the massive industrialization that occurred after 1940.
And that the globe COOLED from 1940 to 1980 DURING this time of massive industrialization.
Actually, the problem is almost all in the way they store spent fuel. Neither Fukushima nor the highest threats from nuclear power seen today are from creating or the power generation of nuclear material.
And the problem is very solvable for engineers, simple and inexpensive even. But impossible to solve politically.
The issue is the constant cooling required for spent fuel which is expensive and complicated. But it doesn't need to be actively cooled if it is spread out and encased in resin. This is the simple cheap way to solve the problem.
How to solve the political problem? It can't be done. Spread out spent fuel will not break down like concentrated spent fuel and politically not breaking down the spent fuel is not an allowed opinion.
Also note, shutting down all current nuclear power will not only NOT solve the problem, but will make it worse.
When given the choice of A or B, the wise man will frequently choose C.
When you said "When the side you favor does it, it is for the common good. When the other side does it, it is oppression and taking away freedom." you are claiming all sides do it. And therein lies the hypocrisy. You decry the evil done in the name of the state while justifying it based on a claim that everyone believes the state should do it (for their side).
But there is a side that doesn't do it. That's the side Stripe and I are on. Do the math, if the state would tax in the single digits based on income alone, it couldn't.
This isn't true. The state creates increased costs for coal that make it more expensive. It's a perverse incentive and that always leads to more suffering and death. But it's the kind of suffering and death you like... the kind wrought by the elites on lesser humans.
OR, he's a New Zealander living in Taiwan.
Your links don't work. If they're supposed to be youtube links, just post the links to the videos themselves, don't try to add formatting to them.
Response to Bill Whittle's "Is climate change real?" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aZ6vqCk2E
The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
fool said:
I'm glad ya'll asked.
So, they used to tell us they could Scram the reactor in a tenth of a second, and that the reaction vessel could survive a hit from a 747. All sounds good right?
What nobody said was that scramming doesn't stop it, it still makes a lot of heat and if your cooling system is out you still have a very big problem. Why advertise how fast you can scram when scramming doesn't solve the problem? It's like advertising how fast the airbags in your car can deploy while the front of the car is made out of cardboard. Why tell me the reactor vessel can take a hit from a jumbo jet if it still needs the cooling system and that certainly can't take a hit from anything? That's like telling me the engine block in my car could survive a crash just fine!
That was my understanding pre-Fukashima and after finding out the truth I was a little angry to say the least.
I didn't even know about the pools.
Once you're done with the fuel rods they keep making heat and radiation for decades. You have to keep them in cooling pools, decades worth of rods in cooling pools and the pools aren't even in the the containment building where the reactor is, they're in a shed next door. If you can't cool the pools of spent fuel they evaporate the water then catch on fire and go off like a bunch of radioactive road flares where the smoke is highly radioactive and disperse into the atmosphere to bring death to a town near you.
None of that can take a hit from a jumbo jet either.
And if you decide to shut down because you finally came to your senses you need to then SUPPLY power to this place for at least five years to keep the pools cool until you can graduate your spent rods to dry cask storage which is what I think Yorzhick is referring to.
Dry cask storage is a great idea but you still need to take care of those things for 50 years. And if someone got a hold of one with bad intentions you might wish you could have kept it in the pool and not made a nice portable barrel out of it.
THEN!
I found out about uranium leach fields.