Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-24-2018, 06:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

You're the one saying that you need those people. Those, as you say, "gullible and poorly-informed individuals", as well as the lazy people. You need them in order to make your dream come true. You want to change the status quo, but you are unable figure out a way to get your way.

If I had hired your team to sell Global Warming Toothpaste, based on the sales numbers, I would fire your team, and hire a new public relations firm. A firm that can get things done.

Seriously, you need to rethink your strategy.
So, tell us, how do you reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get to?

I can't sell toothpaste to someone who refuses to brush his teeth. And as his teeth are falling out of his head, he'll be complaining that we didn't do enough to reach out to him and CONVINCE him that he needs to brush his teeth.

That I'm not able to sell my toothpaste to people who don't believe in the benefits of oral hygiene does not mean that I should fire the people who have proven the benefits of oral hygiene.
  #102  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:44 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Are you tired of discussing how history will view the results of the climate change/global warming efforts?
I think it's pretty clear that history will view the results to have been sorely inadequate. We appear to be on a trajectory of reaching close to 670 ppm CO2 by 2100, with a consequent global temperature rise of 3 to 4°C, which is approaching the category of "catastrophic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Do you believe your side is winning the climate change/global warming battle/discussion?
If I may mix metaphors a little, you've been beating that ridiculous strawman to death for a long time now. It's not clear why you're doing this, but it appears to be because you can't debate the issue on factual scientific grounds, so you're trying to deflect it to a pointless digression. Perhaps you're not aware that every country in the world signed on the Paris climate accords (although the US, alone and ignominiously, pulled out due to the peculiar nature of the the current occupant of the White House who had declared all the accumulated science of the last 50 years to be "a Chinese hoax").

Every country in the world signed on based on the strength of the scientific evidence. So who is it, exactly, that is "not convinced"? Even in the US, whose population is probably the most swayed by raw partisanship and mercenary objectives, poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that climate change is real, that human activities are a significant contributor, and that climate action is warranted. And this despite a rather appalling ignorance not just of the science, but most don't even seem to be aware of the simple basic fact that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that the anthropogenic nature of climate change has now been incontrovertibly established.

Even if you were right about people's beliefs -- and you're not -- why the hell would it even matter? What people happen to believe doesn't change the facts of physical reality. You could have asked the fabled King Canute about that.

Your argument on these lines is both demonstrably wrong and irrelevant, and that's about as bad as any argument ever gets.
  #103  
Old 10-24-2018, 08:29 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Evolution? In a thread titled - How will history see the climate change denialists? Are you tired of discussing how history will view the results of the climate change/global warming efforts? Do you believe your side is winning the climate change/global warming battle/discussion? I don't think this thread wasn't started because the MMC02IE crowd realized that they were winning. But that's just my opinion.
Well, thanks for showing all that you skipped post #91.

Hard to take your points seriously when more people are convinced that the issue is happening as the report that is linked in post #91 tells us:

Quote:
Seven in ten Americans (70%) think global warming is happening, an increase of seven percentage points since March 2015. Only about one in seven Americans (14%) think global warming is not happening.

Americans who think global warming is happening outnumber those who think it is not by a 5 to 1
ratio.
Speaking of Evolution, you have missed that a lot of the ones peddling Creationist nonsense are also into climate change denial. So much so that even the NCSE decided to add the defense of climate change education to their usual mission against Creationism in the classroom.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2012...ge/?comments=1
Quote:
Scott said that the NCSE's work with teachers on evolution made them aware that teaching climate science was becoming controversial. "It's been a growing realization of ours that, just as teachers get hammered for teaching evolution, they also are getting hammered for teaching global warming and other climate change topics," she told Ars. "They'll start talking about global warming and a student's hand will shoot up, 'teacher, my dad says global warming is a hoax.' We've had accounts where students would get up and walk out of the room."

The NCSE also heard about school boards that enacted policies that would dictate how things would be handled in the classrooms, and noticed the legislation we mentioned above. Scott said that all these events left the NCSE staff thinking "we really should look into this."

What they found were some clear parallels between evolution and climate science. Just as the controversy over evolution takes place within the public and not among scientists, Scott said, "There's not a debate going on within the science community about whether the climate is getting warm and whether people have a great deal to do with this." There were also parallels in terms of motivation. "The basis for antievolution is ideological," Scott said, pointing to its religious nature. "There's also an idealogical basis for anti-global warming, it just happens to be a political and economic ideology."

The details of the arguments differ—"creationists don't talk a lot about sun spots," Scott joked—but the NCSE considers the structure of the arguments to be very similar. Ultimately, "Both [groups] are making a pedagogical argument, that it is somehow good pedagogy, good critical thinking, for students to learn both. That it is somehow a good pedagogy for students to learn good science and bad science."

Because of these similarities, the NCSE has decided that their past experience can be helpful. "The anti-climate change controversy is about where the antievolution controversy was 20 years ago," Scott told Ars. "We've learned a lot—we including the scientific community—dealing with the evolution controversy and, with luck, maybe we can get ahead of this." One of the things they've learned is that the "deficit model"—the idea that people don't like the science because they don't understand it—doesn't really apply. "You're not going to be effective if you are talking about only throwing more science at people who hold different views from you—you have to deal with the ideological component as well,"
  #104  
Old 10-24-2018, 11:15 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Evolution? In a thread titled - How will history see the climate change denialists? Are you tired of discussing how history will view the results of the climate change/global warming efforts? Do you believe your side is winning the climate change/global warming battle/discussion? I don't think this thread wasn't started because the MMC02IE crowd realized that they were winning. But that's just my opinion.
Evolution is a scientific theory, strongly supported by the evidence, which is doubted by much of the country. Climate change due to human actions is a scientific theory strongly supported by the evidence which is doubted by much of the country.

I'm just wondering if you support the teaching of evolution in the schools - and not the controversy, the evidence - despite the doubts of many. If so, do you support actions against climate change despite the doubts of many?

A quick search showed that in 2016 about 50% of Americans thought that climate change both is happening and is caused by humans. 40% of Americans thought that humans evolved from other animals, with 20% unsure. So the numbers are pretty comparable.

I don't want to make this an evolution debate, of course, and your reticence in answering the question makes me doubt that you are any kind of creationist. I'm just curious if you apply the same standard to both issues.
  #105  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:45 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You're the one saying that you need those people. Those, as you say, "gullible and poorly-informed individuals", as well as the lazy people. You need them in order to make your dream come true. You want to change the status quo, but you are unable figure out a way to get your way.
Sure, because a bunch of poorly-informed/lazy/gullible people have decided they don't have any responsibility to try not to be poorly-informed, lazy and/or gullible. (And because a bunch of very well-funded professional science deniers are encouraging them in that view.)

I readily admit that it's much harder to persuade poorly-informed/lazy/gullible people to educate themselves about science than to persuade them to go on complacently being poorly-informed, lazy and/or gullible. But that doesn't mean they ultimately get a pass for their ignorance, laziness and gullibility.

You are not merely a consumer being targeted by ad campaigns. You are also a citizen, with a citizen's responsibility to be informed about important issues and to make prudent decisions about what policies to support. If you refuse to do that, it's not the fault of other people for failing to CONVINCE you of the facts; it's your own fault for choosing to CONVINCE yourself that facts don't matter, and/or that you have no responsibility to learn and understand the facts.
  #106  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:18 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,234
Long run history will see them akin to how we see the Salem witch trial people or the Catholic Church fighting with Galileo over the motions of the planets. I.e., "people long ago believed stupid things."
  #107  
Old 10-25-2018, 12:52 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Long run history will see them akin to how we see the Salem witch trial people or the Catholic Church fighting with Galileo over the motions of the planets. I.e., "people long ago believed stupid things."
I think there's a significant difference---certainly in the Salem witch trials example---based on availability of reliable information. Nowadays there is a fairly widespread social consensus that mainstream science provides largely accurate models of the physical world and predictions about it that have a very high likelihood of being true. And it is pretty easy to find out, in general terms, what mainstream science says about a particular issue.

But we have a few specific areas, such as climate change, evolution and vaccines, where a surprisingly large segment of the population selectively rejects this consensus. People who have no problem believing scientists' predictions that, say, the next meteor shower will be unusually active or that DNA testing will reveal someone's heritage or that this new bridge design will be safe are refusing to believe scientific findings about climate change.
  #108  
Old 10-25-2018, 01:52 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Long run history will see them akin to how we see the Salem witch trial people or the Catholic Church fighting with Galileo over the motions of the planets.
So widely misunderstood and likely the result of political infighting among Italian noble families respectively?

Last edited by senoy; 10-25-2018 at 01:53 PM.
  #109  
Old 10-25-2018, 02:51 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
So widely misunderstood and likely the result of political infighting among Italian noble families respectively?
Probably more the result of political infighting among American political parties.

Regards,
Shodan
  #110  
Old 10-25-2018, 03:15 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Probably more the result of political infighting among American political parties.
That's a point. I think a lot of conservative science denialism, besides being encouraged by professional propagandists trying to link it to "conservative values", is fostered simply by widespread conservative determination not to agree with liberals or work together with liberals about anything, no matter how objectively valid it may be.

Last edited by Kimstu; 10-25-2018 at 03:16 PM.
  #111  
Old 10-25-2018, 04:46 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,067
And vice versa, of course - Democrats didn't do much to assist Bush with his hydrogen initiative, and don't want to repudiate the "green" loonies when it come to nuclear energy.

Regards,
Shodan
  #112  
Old 10-25-2018, 07:34 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And vice versa, of course - Democrats didn't do much to assist Bush with his hydrogen initiative, and don't want to repudiate the "green" loonies when it come to nuclear energy.
What is the point of this irrelevancy and bullshit? Both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of nuclear energy. Every liberal I know -- including American liberals who consistently vote Democrat and some are Democratic Party donors -- is in favor of nuclear energy. I am in favor of nuclear energy. The liberal province I live in gets more than half of all its electric power from nuclear. A group of top climate scientists recently wrote an open letter urging more nuclear power as an essential component of emissions mitigation. What more do you want?

Your point seems to be that some whackadoodles exist who are opposed to nuclear power. So what? I'm sick and tired of having this constantly associated with imaginary liberals.
  #113  
Old 10-25-2018, 07:55 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
What is the point of this irrelevancy and bullshit? Both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of nuclear energy. Every liberal I know -- including American liberals who consistently vote Democrat and some are Democratic Party donors -- is in favor of nuclear energy. I am in favor of nuclear energy. The liberal province I live in gets more than half of all its electric power from nuclear. A group of top climate scientists recently wrote an open letter urging more nuclear power as an essential component of emissions mitigation. What more do you want?

Your point seems to be that some whackadoodles exist who are opposed to nuclear power. So what? I'm sick and tired of having this constantly associated with imaginary liberals.
Imaginary, ehe? Let me ask you something then. Let's pretend that you are correct...and both Democrats and Republicans support nuclear energy in the US. Why are we still not building new plants? Why don't we have a nuclear wasted repository? Let me guess your answer...costs too much and it's unpopular. Why does it cost too much? Let me guess...because nuclear can't really compete with other energy types and have a huge upfront capital cost and it's hard to get investment for long term projects that might not ever get built. Not sure if you'd say that last bit, but benefit of the doubt. So, why the huge capital costs and why might they never get built, if both Democrats and Republicans support them?

The thing is, we've moved beyond the rather tepid support of the Democrats (or Republicans) at this point...the left, especially the green left has poisoned this well so completely that without vigorous support from both parties the reality is we aren't going to be building many, if any new plants. It's not going to happen. And the prime reason is the left wing...which means, the Democrats, since most of the lefties were or are Democrats, at least nominally. So, Democrats tepidly supporting this now, or paying lip service to theoretical support costs them nothing really, since it ain't gonna happen.

I get that there are green and eco types who support nuclear. Some even vigorously. But the majority don't...and they really don't need to be open about it anymore. The ship has sailed, the boat is out of the harbor and Elvis is out of the building. To do anything today we'd need both parties focused and agitating strongly for new plants and new designs. And it's not happening. So, missed opportunity wrt global warming. Bummer, really, but there you go. It is what it is. What annoys me is this attempt to push all of this on the deniers and the idiot Republicans, because it's not all on them. Your side, the Democrats get their share too. No one reined in those anti-science eco nuts, and their narrative won the day...and now we get to pay the price. And it's a two-fer...we don't, nor are we likely to ever have a central repository for our nuclear waste, so it's just going to sit there, in situ at the plants, in ponds, percolating away for a few 10's of thousands of years. Can't even recycle most of it, even though we COULD.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #114  
Old 10-25-2018, 08:21 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
You don't have to "pretend" that I'm correct, just look at the party platforms. The only parties that don't support nuclear are fringe parties that no one votes for anyway. You do have some valid points, though, and the problem isn't so much that the major parties support nuclear but "not strongly enough", the problem is that there's a lot of NIMBYism. People may support nuclear in principle but by golly they don't want something that's gonna asplode in a mushroom cloud right beside their house, or make them grow two extra heads out of their earholes -- disregarding the fact that you actually get more radiation out of a typical coal plant mostly due to concentrations of thorium in the fly ash, not to mention all the deadly cardiopulmonary diseases and other ailments from the smoke and pollution.

And if being "leftist" or liberal is somehow inherently tied to being majority anti-nuclear, how do you explain this, and this? The latter, BTW, is a private nuclear facility not owned or operated by Ontario Power Generation but which integrates with the public power grid, showing that both public and private forms of nuclear power generation work, and have been working successfully for a long time.
  #115  
Old 10-25-2018, 08:39 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
You don't have to "pretend" that I'm correct, just look at the party platforms. The only parties that don't support nuclear are fringe parties that no one votes for anyway. You do have some valid points, though, and the problem isn't so much that the major parties support nuclear but "not strongly enough", the problem is that there's a lot of NIMBYism. People may support nuclear in principle but by golly they don't want something that's gonna asplode in a mushroom cloud right beside their house, or make them grow two extra heads out of their earholes -- disregarding the fact that you actually get more radiation out of a typical coal plant mostly due to concentrations of thorium in the fly ash, not to mention all the deadly cardiopulmonary diseases and other ailments from the smoke and pollution.

And if being "leftist" or liberal is somehow inherently tied to being majority anti-nuclear, how do you explain this, and this? The latter, BTW, is a private nuclear facility not owned or operated by Ontario Power Generation but which integrates with the public power grid, showing that both public and private forms of nuclear power generation work, and have been working successfully for a long time.
Hell, look at France. They are leftist, at least wrt to the US. They get over 70% of their energy from nuclear. The US? Not so much...it's 20% and dropping as old plants are shut down and new ones aren't being made. Thing is, I'm talking about the American left (which you aren't, so not sure why you are copping to any of this in any case).

I totally agree that NIMBY-ism is the issue, but the root of NIMBY wrt nuclear power is...yep, the left wing in the US, especially the green eco left in the past. And it was the Dems who gave those guys a home. It's going to take incredible effort and sacrifice to even keep us below 2 degrees C at this point...and it ain't happening. Nuclear is only one thing, but it could have been a big one if the Dems had really pushed, oh, say 10 or 15 years ago. We could have new plants coming on stream now, replacing coal fired plants with nuclear, maybe a mix of nuclear and natural gas decommissioning those old plants at an accelerated rate. We could, equally, have a central repository for the waste, which wouldn't fix the global climate change issue but would help in other ways. Instead, we don't. Part of that was the unicorn dream that we didn't/don't need nuclear because solar and wind will do it all, instead of be a niche resource we could use to augment better, more scalable technologies that COULD really take a bite out of our CO2 footprint. Maybe if the US had gone all in on nuclear 10-20 years ago, China would have as well...instead of building a staggering number of coal fired plants. Maybe not. But we would be way ahead of where we are, had we done it that way. But we didn't. And the Dems and the left can take credit for that part. Is it as much as what the Republicans have wrt blame? Nope. But it's not nothing, either...it's actually pretty big, IMHO, though the Republicans and the deniers get the lions share.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #116  
Old 10-25-2018, 09:45 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,639
Just as people think air travel is more dangerous than car travel because plane crashes get more coverage, people think nuclear power is dangerous because the real disasters and near disasters get coverage. I propose a lot more stories on the dangers of coal. Maybe that would even the playing field.
I'm sure the Republicans would eat it right up.
  #117  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:06 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
What more do you want?
Actual data. That anyone would post something about "every X I know" in, let me check...yes, we're in GD, is boggling.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/...ar-energy.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/232007/...vironment.aspx

No poll is perfect, but it certainly beats some rando Canadian's recollection of what his aquaintances think.

Last edited by Ruken; 10-25-2018 at 10:10 PM.
  #118  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:44 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
… the root of NIMBY wrt nuclear power is...yep, the left wing in the US, especially the green eco left in the past. …
Bullshit the root of nimbyism is the tech. We could use the old MSR/MSBR style tech, with that pool setup that makes nearly failsafe, but no one has been seriously suggesting that. They want to build BWRs or PWRs, so that Homer can fuck up and spill Pepsi on the control panel. No one wants to be anywhere near one of those things, but tPtB seem to be reluctant to sign on to the safer designs, which are quite venerable. Because they cannot be quickly converted to making the 239Pu for boom-boom. The government has to fund reactor construction, because private industry will not. There is no RoI. And the government, peaceful as they may be, wants to make sure they can build weapons. Blaming the greenies for our nuclear decay is stone wrong.
  #119  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:17 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Hell, look at France. They are leftist, at least wrt to the US. They get over 70% of their energy from nuclear.
There was a discussion before where I pointed out that a lot of why there is not much nuclear power progress is because: we are not leftist enough.

No really, thanks to a lot of education and respect of science there is a lot of acceptance of nuclear power and with another factor: AFAICR in many places in France there is local investment on the nuclear power plants and people living close to the locations get lower electricity bills.

At the general level:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Quote:
Électricité de France (EDF) – the country's main electricity generation and distribution company – manages the country's nuclear power plants. EDF is substantially owned by the French government, with around 85% of EDF shares in government hands.
And that shows one very important factor why is that many conservatives fail to follow that model: it smells like socialism.

Good luck in convincing conservatives to follow that solution.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-26-2018 at 12:18 AM.
  #120  
Old 10-26-2018, 01:20 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Actual data. That anyone would post something about "every X I know" in, let me check...yes, we're in GD, is boggling.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/...ar-energy.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/232007/...vironment.aspx

No poll is perfect, but it certainly beats some rando Canadian's recollection of what his aquaintances think.
Way to spectacularly miss the point and then go off on some bizarre rant for no apparent reason. The 15 million people of Ontario are not my "acquaintances" (the word is spelled with a "c", BTW). This is a province with a long tradition of environmental stewardship and a solid liberal tradition, even among conservatives, with massive hydroelectric plants, large wind farm installations, and many solar power initiatives. There are now zero (0) coal-fired power plants. Yet nuclear provides more than half of all electricity. One of those plants is located right in the Greater Toronto Area, surrounded by the highest population density around a nuclear plant anywhere in North America. So any claim that opposition to nuclear arises from liberal or "leftist" ideology or environmentalism stoking fear of nuclear is, as already noted, not supported by the facts.

So your survey showing that there is greater opposition to nuclear among Dems than Repubs requires looking for an explanation beyond simple ideology. But don't bother looking too hard, because the spread isn't nearly as big as it is for some of the key questions on something like climate change. On the question of nuclear, Dems and Repubs have at times been just a few percentage points apart, and anyway both parties currently advocate more nuclear power, though probably for much different reasons.
  #121  
Old 10-26-2018, 09:48 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Way to spectacularly miss the point and then go off on some bizarre rant for no apparent reason. The 15 million people of Ontario are not my "acquaintances" (the word is spelled with a "c", BTW).
Let's look at your words that you chose to write in GD, bolding mine:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
What is the point of this irrelevancy and bullshit? Both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of nuclear energy. Every liberal I know -- including American liberals who consistently vote Democrat and some are Democratic Party donors -- is in favor of nuclear energy.
Step one, accuser another poster of irrelevancy and bullshit. Step two, post irrelevant anecdotes about acquaintances. Step three, deny that you posted something about acquaintances. And your acquaintances are very clearly not representative of reality. Your tepid citation's "yes" is based on one reporter's opinion on Obama and congressional Dems from 2009.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is a province with a long tradition of environmental stewardship and a solid liberal tradition, even among conservatives, with massive hydroelectric plants, large wind farm installations, and many solar power initiatives. There are now zero (0) coal-fired power plants. Yet nuclear provides more than half of all electricity. One of those plants is located right in the Greater Toronto Area, surrounded by the highest population density around a nuclear plant anywhere in North America. So any claim that opposition to nuclear arises from liberal or "leftist" ideology or environmentalism stoking fear of nuclear is, as already noted, not supported by the facts.
Canadian liberals and leftists aren't US liberals and leftists. Nobody else has chosen to be confused by this.
  #122  
Old 10-26-2018, 10:21 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Bullshit the root of nimbyism is the tech. We could use the old MSR/MSBR style tech, with that pool setup that makes nearly failsafe, but no one has been seriously suggesting that. They want to build BWRs or PWRs, so that Homer can fuck up and spill Pepsi on the control panel. No one wants to be anywhere near one of those things, but tPtB seem to be reluctant to sign on to the safer designs, which are quite venerable. Because they cannot be quickly converted to making the 239Pu for boom-boom. The government has to fund reactor construction, because private industry will not. There is no RoI. And the government, peaceful as they may be, wants to make sure they can build weapons. Blaming the greenies for our nuclear decay is stone wrong.
No, the root of NIMBY-ism is FEAR of the tech. And that fear has been cultivated, fueled, channeled and harnessed by the US left and anti-nuclear greens (though European groups have helped fan the flames of fear as well). It's funny that you use the Homer Simpson bit about spilling a Pepsi and causing a nuclear meltdown as a rational argument.

It's also funny that you trot out the 'There is no RoI' bit. I always loved this argument. Private companies can't make a profit on nuclear! Why? Because it costs too much! Why? Because of all the safety restrictions they have to build in. Ok, but that doesn't explain why they can't make a profit, just why the RoI is long. Well, the projects are always delayed a bunch and then there are all those cost overruns. Um...why are they delayed and what causes the overruns? All the protests, of course, and lawsuits, and changes in plans forced by those lawsuits and the fears of the people in the area demanding them! Ok, that seems circular, but, again, why can't they still make a profit? Nuclear power plants run for decades after all, so even if the RoI doesn't start for a decade you'll still have time to make money. Well, most of the plants don't ever get built. Ah...bingo. That explains it all.

Yeah, it's not the tech. It's the fear of the tech by the ignorant and those who have no clue how to do a risk assessment or understand relative risks...and mainly by those who play on and use that fear and ignorance for their own ends. For the good of The People, of course....
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 10-26-2018 at 10:22 AM.
  #123  
Old 10-26-2018, 11:06 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
At the general level:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France


And that shows one very important factor why is that many conservatives fail to follow that model: it smells like socialism.

Good luck in convincing conservatives to follow that solution.
If nuclear energy is socialism, why is Bernie Sanders anti-nuclear? Why isn't Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez pushing for nuclear energy instead of moonbeams?

Your argument doesn't work - conservatives don't support nuclear energy, even though they do, because it is socialism, and socialists support nuclear energy, even though they don't, because it is socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup
What more do you want?
Repudiate the green loonies, and require your candidates to push harder for nuclear energy than for wind or solar.

OK, fine, AGW is real and happening. The scientific consensus on that is clear. The scientific consensus is just as clear that the only practical solution that exists as of now is nuclear energy.

Y'all seem to spend a lot of time condemning the anti-science folks on my side, but want to drop the subject when it comes to the anti-science folks on yours. You should be spending at least as much time slapping Bernie Sanders upside the head with the science as you do anyone else.

Is AGW really as catastrophic as y'all claim? Prove you mean it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #124  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:16 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Repudiate the green loonies, and require your candidates to push harder for nuclear energy than for wind or solar.

OK, fine, AGW is real and happening. The scientific consensus on that is clear. The scientific consensus is just as clear that the only practical solution that exists as of now is nuclear energy.

Y'all seem to spend a lot of time condemning the anti-science folks on my side, but want to drop the subject when it comes to the anti-science folks on yours. You should be spending at least as much time slapping Bernie Sanders upside the head with the science as you do anyone else.
I disagree with Bernie on this, but your claim about anti-science on both sides is in this case totally bogus, a completely false equivalence. The deployment of nuclear power is not a science issue, it's a policy issue. It's exactly analogous to the policy discussions that I wish we could have about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation. But we can't have those discussions in any meaningful way, because your side stops the discussion in its tracks by questioning whether anthropogenic climate change is even real. That's anti-science.

The appropriate equivalence is the following: this artificial "debate" about climate change that's been created by conservatives is like debating whether nuclear power actually works, or whether it's all a hoax. That's a debate one might have had in 1930, but today there's no debate about the answer. Would that one could say the same about the climate change "debate". Your side is the one that needs a good kick in the ass, because the elephant in the room that drives everything else is the urgent need to stop getting our energy by burning fossil fuels.

We need to clearly see fossil fuels for what they are: permanently sequestered carbon from millions of years ago. When we return that carbon to the atmosphere and to the earth's dynamic carbon sinks, we are destroying the stable climate of the entire Late Quaternary and driving the climate -- at a dangerous breakneck pace -- to pre-Quaternary times before the Pleistocene. Yet many of your conservative pals are still wondering if CO2 has anything to do with climate, or if coal and oil have anything to do with any of it. That's not a policy issue, it's insanity.
  #125  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:20 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
OK, fine, AGW is real and happening. The scientific consensus on that is clear. The scientific consensus is just as clear that the only practical solution that exists as of now is nuclear energy.
To put it simply, this is nonsense. There is no such scientific consensus with regards to nuclear energy. And even if there were, do you realize what you just said? Last I checked, you're voting republican. If you're aware that AGW is real and is happening, how in the fucking world can you do that in good conscience?! "Sure, there's this huge ongoing catastrophe barreling towards the world within the next 50 years, but I'm going to vote for the guys who literally do not believe it is happening.



As wolfpup points out, this is ridiculous. We can have meaningful policy debates once we're, at least on some level, all in agreement about what we're talking about. It makes no fucking sense to say, "Well, the left should be in favor of building power plants because they're the most effective thing to replace coal, and until then I'm not going to bother listening to them on climate change", because how best to handle climate change remains a discussion of policy, and we still don't have a consensus on the basic fact that global warming is real due to right-wing propaganda. And meanwhile, the right is pushing to make life as easy as possible for coal producers!

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-26-2018 at 12:23 PM.
  #126  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:34 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If nuclear energy is socialism, why is Bernie Sanders anti-nuclear? Why isn't Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez pushing for nuclear energy instead of moonbeams?

Your argument doesn't work - conservatives don't support nuclear energy, even though they do, because it is socialism, and socialists support nuclear energy, even though they don't, because it is socialism.
Repudiate the green loonies, and require your candidates to push harder for nuclear energy than for wind or solar.
Well, thank you for showing all you do not check what I said before in previous discussions, I already did that. As noted before they are not in the end very important. The point I made stands, only on a place with more social or govermental solutions, (that end up being called socialist, and you know your leaders do call them that) is that nuclear power was developed significantly.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-26-2018 at 12:37 PM.
  #127  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:38 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I disagree with Bernie on this...
So if AGW is real, and as catastrophic as you claim it will be, then it is more important than health care or economic inequality. So why support him?
Quote:
It's exactly analogous to the policy discussions that I wish we could have about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation. But we can't have those discussions in any meaningful way, because your side stops the discussion in its tracks by questioning whether anthropogenic climate change is even real. That's anti-science.
This, of course, is not true. Discussions about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation are not being stopped in any significant way for Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez or Harry Reid or any Democrat or any green loony.

They are stopped, or they should be, by the scientific consensus that nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem, and that solar and wind and renewables will not scale up in anything like what we need.

Being anti-nuclear is being anti-science just as much as any other kind.

History will look back on the climate change denialists and say "what were they thinking?" It will also look back on the nuclear energy denialists and say "what were they smoking?"

As I have said in the past, we aren't going to do anything about AGW, except on an ad hoc basis and as problems arise. One side thinks we don't need to do anything, and the other thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won't work.

Eventually we will develop practical fusion (the greenies won't like it) and switch to that. We are only ten years away from practical fusion - just like we have been for the last forty years.

Regards,
Shodan
  #128  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:39 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
(Also, it makes even less sense to say, "Your policy solution is marginally worse than optimal, therefore I think we should do nothing/exacerbate the problem." Because ultimately, Shodan, that's what the republicans are doing. It is literally worse than doing nothing.)
  #129  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:43 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If nuclear energy is socialism, why is Bernie Sanders anti-nuclear? Why isn't Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez pushing for nuclear energy instead of moonbeams?

Your argument doesn't work - conservatives don't support nuclear energy, even though they do, because it is socialism, and socialists support nuclear energy, even though they don't, because it is socialism.
Repudiate the green loonies, and require your candidates to push harder for nuclear energy than for wind or solar.

OK, fine, AGW is real and happening. The scientific consensus on that is clear. The scientific consensus is just as clear that the only practical solution that exists as of now is nuclear energy.

Y'all seem to spend a lot of time condemning the anti-science folks on my side, but want to drop the subject when it comes to the anti-science folks on yours. You should be spending at least as much time slapping Bernie Sanders upside the head with the science as you do anyone else.

Is AGW really as catastrophic as y'all claim? Prove you mean it.

Regards,
Shodan
See, why do we need to police our side before you will deal with us? Do you need to police anyone on your side that disagrees before you feel that you can have a conversation? No, then why do you impose that upon your political opponent?

We have said that we are for nuclear, Ruken's cite showed that there isn't that much difference between conservative support for nuclear and democratic.

Sure, the greenpeace and other environmental groups align with the left. The left actually cares about the environment, what are they going to do, align with the part that wants to remove all restrictions and regulations about environmental damage? But at the same time, the mainstream left does not listen to them too closely. You have alt-right white nationalists, KKK members, and even Nazis on your side, are you allowed to have a discussion about relations between differing demographic groups before you police them?

So, sure, there are these people on our side that are anti-nuclear. We all get that. There are people on your side too, who are anti nuclear.

How about we stop complaining abut what is on one parties side or the other, and actually look to some solutions.

Look, your party is in complete control of the government. Can you tell me what your party's plan for nuclear development is?

Yeah, there is concern about nuclear technology, and I would prefer that we do not build any more reactors that are based on 1950's technology, as we have developed safer and more efficient designs. Designs that may even turn that "waste" into a useful commodity.

So, rather than continue to debate with people who are not here, how about you debate with the people who are actually in this thread? If a poster comes in being anti-nuke, you can give them all this. As we are pro-nuke, complaining about people who are not, who are not a part of this thread, is simply a distraction. Not just a distraction from this thread, but about global warming in general.

You complain, "Well, if liberals are worried about global warming, they should be pro-nuclear." We show that there are many liberal, including ourselves, who are pro-nuclear, and you just keep deflecting the conversation to be about people who are not part of the conversation.

Now, if we want to get into a pissing contest about which side is better for nuclear, then that is fine. You tell me what your side has done to advance nuclear.
  #130  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:57 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,450
I don't think history is going to sped much time sorting us out. I think we'll all be painted with a broad brush, left and right alike.

My wife and I both believe in climate change and are middle of the road. My sister in law makes us look right of Reagan, and yet, she and her family have 2 SUVs, fly all over the world, have the house way warm in the winter and the way cool in the summer.

There will be enough blame for all.

Not to Godwin this thing, but no one ever says that those Nazi's were bad dudes, but heh, the Schmidt's voted for the Social Democrats so they are OK in my book.

If the planet goes way south, our grand kids will be pissed at us all.
  #131  
Old 10-26-2018, 01:01 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
See, why do we need to police our side before you will deal with us?
Because your side has the anti-nuclear loonies that are standing in the way of actual progress.

Your side is the one that has to tell Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to go stick a solar panel up their noses and that AGW is too real and significant an issue to mess around with. They aren't listening to anyone else.

And I don't have the time - I am busy working my two jobs at 70 hours a week to keep the unemployment figures down, and trying to figure out what kind of deodorant to buy that will reduce child poverty. You know - things that are more important than global warming.

Regards,
Shodan
  #132  
Old 10-26-2018, 01:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This, of course, is not true. Discussions about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation are not being stopped in any significant way for Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez or Harry Reid or any Democrat or any green loony.

They are stopped, or they should be, by the scientific consensus that nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem, and that solar and wind and renewables will not scale up in anything like what we need.

Being anti-nuclear is being anti-science just as much as any other kind.

History will look back on the climate change denialists and say "what were they thinking?" It will also look back on the nuclear energy denialists and say "what were they smoking?"

As I have said in the past, we aren't going to do anything about AGW, except on an ad hoc basis and as problems arise. One side thinks we don't need to do anything, and the other thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won't work.
It is of course true. What you've posted here is a load of crap from start to finish.

Republicans as a group are almost universally hostile to climate science and its findings, and for a Republican to say otherwise is political suicide. Mitt Romney initially acknowledged AGW during his presidential campaign, then had to quickly backtrack when that blew up in his face. Did the US pull out of the Paris climate agreement, the only country in the world to do so? Yes, they did. Who did it? A Republican. QED. Just like the Republican who brought a snowball into Congress to "prove" that the world isn't warming (James Inhofe), or another Congressional Republican who used his authority to threaten and harass climate scientists (Joe Barton). Or the Republican in the Bush administration who falsified National Academy of Sciences climate reports to make them seem less definitive (Philip Cooney) and when exposed, quit and went to work for Exxon Mobil. They're virtually all like that. I've seen Rick Santorum present a complete pack of lies about the issue, just outright falsehoods and gibberish pushing denial. The rare brighter ones like Ben Sasse bring more nuanced arguments, but the bottom line is always the same: do nothing.

Don't try to tell us Republicans haven't blocked discussion of mitigating climate change -- in various coastal red states, even terms like "climate change" and "sea level rise" have literally been banned from government discourse.

In any case the only "discussion" that matters is meaningful legislative action, and that's effectively impossible when virtually every Republican knows that climate change denial is a prerequisite for getting elected, and in some states as I said you're not even allowed to mention it in Republican administrations. Your side. Not just deniers, but batshit crazy.

You're also wrong of course about nuclear power being some kind of "science" debate. It's purely a political policy issue. If you want nuclear power you need to get politicians to vote for it, build it, and decide how to run it and subsidize it.

And you're also wrong in stating as some kind of indisputable scientific fact or law of nature that "nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem". I think most of us feel it's an important part of the solution, but it's far from a scientific absolute. Wind power is remarkably reliable if broadly geographically distributed, and solar power is very efficient in some areas, while hydroelectric is feasible in others, plus other options. Again, it's a cost and policy matter. It's a also a continuum of options, where the most important priority is getting rid of coal-fired plants, a real scourge on the environment in many different ways. Even if we had gas-fired peak power plants for the medium term it would be a big improvement. But of course your side is now trying to bring back coal in a big way! It bears repeating: Your side. Batshit crazy.

And you're also wrong in the claim that one side "thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won't work". It's not even clear if you mean Democrats, or if you mean highly qualified economists and policy analysts like those of the IPCC Working Group III, which is entirely devoted to the topic of mitigation. Perhaps you believe that the entire series of assessments from experts in the WG3 is just crap that "costs a shitload and won't work". I don't. I think it's a comprehensive set of broad policy options from the world's leading experts in their fields.

As I said, your entire screed is just total nonsense from start to finish.
  #133  
Old 10-26-2018, 01:57 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because your side has the anti-nuclear loonies that are standing in the way of actual progress.
Which president signed the Paris climate accords?
Which president removed us from the Paris climate accords?
Which president presided over severe regulations on the worst offenders for climate change?
Which president presided over severe deregulation on the worst offenders?
What was the partisan split on the house vote on the 2009 carbon tax bill?
(This list could keep going for quite a ways, mind you.)

This is a truly bizarre line of argument. It makes no sense, falls apart after even the slightest consideration, and is trivially debunked.

It's also completely in character with the republican strategy on climate change.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-26-2018 at 01:58 PM.
  #134  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:04 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,538
If one fully believes the present IPCC report's predictions then solar panels and Priuses are not going to work.
We need to go back to1700s technology and massive impoverishment of the world, especially the First world. Reducing one's carbon footprint by 20% is useless.
Also, half a million people in my country still cook by burning animal shit so I'm not going to tell them anything until the US, Canada, Europe get ultra serious and also manage to convince China and India to go back to abject poverty.
Since that it's not going to happen the whole "denier" won't be relevant. Denier-free Europe has done worse than denier-full US in actual, real, non recession numbers.
  #135  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:08 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well, thanks for showing all that you skipped post #91.

Hard to take your points seriously when more people are convinced that the issue is happening as the report that is linked in post #91 tells us:

Quote:
Seven in ten Americans (70%) think global warming is happening, an increase of seven percentage points since March 2015. Only about one in seven Americans (14%) think global warming is not happening.

Americans who think global warming is happening outnumber those who think it is not by a 5 to 1
ratio.
(post shortened, bold and underline added)

Global warming is happening/occurring.

The IPCC has been promoting their view of global warming for 30 years. How's that been working out for ya?
  #136  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:13 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Hey doorhinge, if you're not going to respond to post 94, I'd appreciate it if you stopped responding, as you are not a participant in the thread, but rather the subject of the thread.
  #137  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:22 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Sure, because a bunch of poorly-informed/lazy/gullible people have decided they don't have any responsibility to try not to be poorly-informed, lazy and/or gullible. (And because a bunch of very well-funded professional science deniers are encouraging them in that view.)

I readily admit that it's much harder to persuade poorly-informed/lazy/gullible people to educate themselves about science than to persuade them to go on complacently being poorly-informed, lazy and/or gullible. But that doesn't mean they ultimately get a pass for their ignorance, laziness and gullibility.

You are not merely a consumer being targeted by ad campaigns. You are also a citizen, with a citizen's responsibility to be informed about important issues and to make prudent decisions about what policies to support. If you refuse to do that, it's not the fault of other people for failing to CONVINCE you of the facts; it's your own fault for choosing to CONVINCE yourself that facts don't matter, and/or that you have no responsibility to learn and understand the facts.
That's terrific. You want to change the status quo, and because you have failed to do so, you've decided that resorting to name-calling is going to finally CONVINCE the people you have so far been unable to CONVINCE that they should believe as you believe. Keep up the good work.
  #138  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:33 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Evolution is a scientific theory, strongly supported by the evidence, which is doubted by much of the country. Climate change due to human actions is a scientific theory strongly supported by the evidence which is doubted by much of the country.

I'm just wondering if you support the teaching of evolution in the schools - and not the controversy, the evidence - despite the doubts of many. If so, do you support actions against climate change despite the doubts of many?

A quick search showed that in 2016 about 50% of Americans thought that climate change both is happening and is caused by humans. 40% of Americans thought that humans evolved from other animals, with 20% unsure. So the numbers are pretty comparable.

I don't want to make this an evolution debate, of course, and your reticence in answering the question makes me doubt that you are any kind of creationist. I'm just curious if you apply the same standard to both issues.
(bold and underline added)

You don't want to make this an evolution debate by attempting to debate evolution. Interesting. Personally, I consider your attempt to change the topic to evolution as an attempted hijack of this thread. However, seeing as you have asked so nicely, I believe in evolution. I also believe that global warming is occurring.

p.s. I don't know why my response appears in bold. It doesn't contain any bracketed B.

Last edited by doorhinge; 10-26-2018 at 02:36 PM.
  #139  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:46 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, tell us, how do you reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get to?

(post shortened)

It's easy to preach to the choir. They are already onboard. What you need to do, and this is only my opinion, you need to convince more of the people who are walking by your pulpit. In short, you currently don't have the votes, and you need more votes.

I'm suggesting that your side change their approach. Unless they like the results that they've achieved so far.
  #140  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:54 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
If one fully believes the present IPCC report's predictions then solar panels and Priuses are not going to work.
We need to go back to1700s technology and massive impoverishment of the world, especially the First world. Reducing one's carbon footprint by 20% is useless.
Also, half a million people in my country still cook by burning animal shit so I'm not going to tell them anything until the US, Canada, Europe get ultra serious and also manage to convince China and India to go back to abject poverty.
Since that it's not going to happen the whole "denier" won't be relevant. Denier-free Europe has done worse than denier-full US in actual, real, non recession numbers.
Your information is wrong. I don't know where you get this crap but you should try reading scientifically based information on the subject of mitigation. There's also this old but still pertinent paper by Pascala and Socolow on the concept of stabilization wedges [PDF].

Incidentally, while burning things may not be a great way to get energy, burning things that are part of the active carbon cycle tends to be relatively carbon neutral. Fossil fuels are not. You need to understand the difference.
  #141  
Old 10-26-2018, 02:57 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,067
Do you know that nuclear energy doesn't emit GHG? You need to understand that.

Regards,
Shodan
  #142  
Old 10-26-2018, 03:20 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,149
I'm beginning to believe you just come here to spout nonsense and non sequiturs.
  #143  
Old 10-26-2018, 04:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened, bold and underline added)

Global warming is happening/occurring.

The IPCC has been promoting their view of global warming for 30 years. How's that been working out for ya?
Well, working fine to show others that are reading this that you miss a lot, like post #91 and #103 so thanks.
  #144  
Old 10-26-2018, 05:01 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because your side has the anti-nuclear loonies that are standing in the way of actual progress.
:sigh: already shown that the loonies do not have the support that the contrarian propaganda is telling you. Also: there is a lot of right wing propaganda to once again blame environmentalists for what is the fault or the good of the market as shown already in post #19.

It is not strange to me that the contrarian sources (that are controlling the right wing right now) also blame things like banning DDT or closing coal mines to environmentalists when it was for other reasons why those items did or are falling from grace.
  #145  
Old 10-26-2018, 05:04 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Do you know that nuclear energy doesn't emit GHG? You need to understand that.
I neither know nor understand that.
  #146  
Old 10-26-2018, 05:20 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
:sigh: already shown that the loonies do not have the support that the contrarian propaganda is telling you. Also: there is a lot of right wing propaganda to once again blame environmentalists for what is the fault or the good of the market as shown already in post #19.

It is not strange to me that the contrarian sources (that are controlling the right wing right now) also blame things like banning DDT or closing coal mines to environmentalists when it was for other reasons why those items did or are falling from grace.
So, you are saying that it's the market that is the reason why nuclear power isn't thriving but dying on the vine. That's true enough, in the same way that the failure of the efforts to substantially halt CO2 emissions is the market. Basically, the well has been so poisoned at this point that you are correct...the majority of the public isn't going to go for it, and in fact several countries are cutting their nuclear even faster than we are. And we aren't curbing CO2 emissions in any meaningful way beyond what we would naturally be doing because of market forces which are driving battery powered cars, solar, wind and other green (and a switch from coal to natural gas) at the current pace. I'm guessing that you are less forgiving of the fact that the REASON for those market forces on the CO2 side being what they are then your post #19 suggests you are concerning the reasons why nuclear is where it's at, however...right? I know you are on record as a supporter of nuclear, btw, but you still want to say it's the market wrt nuclear and just shrug that off while I know you rail about right wing deniers distorting the market wrt CO2 and climate change. To me, they are pretty similar, though I would agree that the deniers are going to be seen by history as a worse problem. The fact that, now, today, most of the really rabid green anti-nuclear stuff has died down, or faded into the background is because they won...it's over, there isn't any reason for them to be as rabid anymore. They managed to shift the narrative and the discussion so far that now it's about how quickly we'll be closing down plants from the grid, since they don't need to stop new plants from being made, as the only places making them don't give a shit about their views.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #147  
Old 10-26-2018, 07:33 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(bold and underline added)

You don't want to make this an evolution debate by attempting to debate evolution. Interesting. Personally, I consider your attempt to change the topic to evolution as an attempted hijack of this thread. However, seeing as you have asked so nicely, I believe in evolution. I also believe that global warming is occurring.

p.s. I don't know why my response appears in bold. It doesn't contain any bracketed B.
It isn't an evolution debate because I have no reason to believe that you and I disagree in any way on evolution.
My poll number, unlike the 70% one given above, includes those who don't believe climate change is caused by humans - which includes both those who don't accept climate change (apparently 30%) and those who do and don't think we're responsible - like you.
To restate, a number of scientific conclusions widely accepted by experts are not accepted by the lay public. Is this the fault of those who do accept it (it seems you think it is) and should it affect how we move forward?

To tie this in to the nuclear debate - if 40% of Americans were dumb enough to think that a malfunctioning nuclear power plant could explode like an atomic bomb, would this be a reason to hold off on nuclear power plant construction until they were convinced?
  #148  
Old 10-26-2018, 07:44 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post

Being anti-nuclear is being anti-science just as much as any other kind.

Regards,
Shodan
Being anti-nuclear because you think nuclear power plants might explode like big bombs is anti-science and also stupid.
But being anti-nuclear because you don't think there is an adequate safety margin, or that all failure modes aren't being considered, or because you think nuclear power companies are cutting corners are matters of engineering. That's a lot more debatable than the science at this point.
I think we should remove the profit motive and give plants more funding to make sure they are engineered correctly. Then I'd feel better about them.
  #149  
Old 10-26-2018, 08:20 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So, you are saying that it's the market that is the reason why nuclear power isn't thriving but dying on the vine. That's true enough, in the same way that the failure of the efforts to substantially halt CO2 emissions is the market. Basically, the well has been so poisoned at this point that you are correct...the majority of the public isn't going to go for it, and in fact several countries are cutting their nuclear even faster than we are. And we aren't curbing CO2 emissions in any meaningful way beyond what we would naturally be doing because of market forces which are driving battery powered cars, solar, wind and other green (and a switch from coal to natural gas) at the current pace. I'm guessing that you are less forgiving of the fact that the REASON for those market forces on the CO2 side being what they are then your post #19 suggests you are concerning the reasons why nuclear is where it's at, however...right? I know you are on record as a supporter of nuclear, btw, but you still want to say it's the market wrt nuclear and just shrug that off while I know you rail about right wing deniers distorting the market wrt CO2 and climate change. To me, they are pretty similar, though I would agree that the deniers are going to be seen by history as a worse problem. The fact that, now, today, most of the really rabid green anti-nuclear stuff has died down, or faded into the background is because they won...it's over, there isn't any reason for them to be as rabid anymore. They managed to shift the narrative and the discussion so far that now it's about how quickly we'll be closing down plants from the grid, since they don't need to stop new plants from being made, as the only places making them don't give a shit about their views.
That is missing the point, and I have to notice that you have to ignore what even the nuclear guys are telling us about what is going on in the industry right now.

So, Nuclear is still a part of a complete breakfast way to deal with the CO2 and other greenhouse gases pollution. What I think it should be done is for all to take into account that we do have many nuclear powered ships and subs that are going around. And that leads me to think that the government should indeed declare an emergency regarding the climate and then get the military to develop and deploy next gen nuclear plants, mostly in the west on remote military installations. Just before that takes place, follow the French example to really fund science education in all schools, and educate people by funding also trips to the new nuclear plants in development.
  #150  
Old 10-26-2018, 09:50 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because your side has the anti-nuclear loonies that are standing in the way of actual progress.

Your side is the one that has to tell Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to go stick a solar panel up their noses and that AGW is too real and significant an issue to mess around with. They aren't listening to anyone else.

Regards,
Shodan
Given that Republicans control the NRC and many state governments, why aren't there a massive number of proposals for developing nuclear plants in Alabama and Mississippi for two. Are they afraid of a single Senator from Vermont and one woman who won a primary in New York?
I didn't realize we had such power. I wish they used it for trivial things like abortion and voting rights.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017