Do you know that nuclear energy doesn’t emit GHG? You need to understand that.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m beginning to believe you just come here to spout nonsense and non sequiturs.
Well, working fine to show others that are reading this that you miss a lot, like post #91 and #103 so thanks.
: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.
I neither know nor understand that.
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.
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?
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.
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 [del]breakfast[/del] 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.
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.
Like I said, we aren’t going to do anything about global warming. Both sides claim that there isn’t enough evidence. And there never will be.
Regards,
Shodan
Usually this is related to things like extreme weather like hurricane numbers, the evidence is enough for items like ocean rise, ocean acidification, increase in heatwaves, hurricane and storm intensity increase.
It is a propaganda wonder to see contrarian sources make hay out of doubtful results of a warming world like a possible increase in the number of hurricanes; while telling their viewers or readers to dismiss the most certain results by implying or telling to their followers that ergo, all the other issues should be doubted the same.
While it is interesting for a guy with a background in social studies and history like me, it does not take away the reality that powerful interests do not give a hoot if we add even more possible harmful results to the nation and the world if we continue to treat the atmosphere as a sewer.
How is history going to judge the environmentalists who fought “Going Nuclear” tooth-and-nail for decades on end?
When they fought going solar in the vast stretches of desert available to put in large solar farms, on the grounds that some insect, some reptile was going to be displaced by the installation?
How are they going to judge the 1% that stood on NIMBY wrt wind farms? The environmentalists who are now opposed to wind farms for environmental reasons (kills migrating birds)?
Hey ExTank, your party currently controls every branch of the US government. If you guys want to “go nuclear”, or install solar panels in the desert* nobody is stopping you. Why aren’t you asking your representative about it? Note: If you live in Florida or North Carolina, maybe avoid using the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in your letter; the republican governments in those states have banned environmental officials from using those terms.
If you can’t hear the snark in that, rest assured, it’s there. This argument doesn’t magically become less nonsensical just because your name isn’t Shodan and/or you didn’t read the thread. In reality, there is one party in congress who is possibly wrong on policy details but understands that there is a problem that needs solving, and there is one party in congress whose leaders have called the problem a hoax over and over again. The only fucking “NIMBY” when it comes to wind farms is a certain orange asshole who insisted that they ruined the view at his fucking golf course. There is no fucking comparison here.
And as usual, I have no idea whether this person is debating in good faith or not. Because that’s never a fair assumption when talking about republicans and climate change. It just isn’t.
*(This is easily one of the most bizarre complaints I’ve ever heard. Nobody is against putting up solar installations in the desert because of endangered species concerns. That’s just straight-up not a thing and I have no idea where you’re getting it from. In fact, there’s a whole Wikipedia page on solar plants in the Mojave Desert. The problem is usually logistical - how do you reliably transport the energy from point A to point B; how do you build a solar farm in the desert; who’s going to pay for it; how long will it take to build. Things like that.)
Only true for a few (capitalist exploiter class for the most part). Most believe the right wing/exploiter class media machine.
I think the majority will be rightly judged as pathetic dupes, while those liars who deliberately do everything in their power to accrue wealth and power while perfectly aware they are burning the planet to death will be judged a little more harshly.
Both sidesism? Really? On the one hand, we have a party that insist that global warming is a hoax, and passes legislation to prevent it from even being discussed.
And the other side, we have people who want to be careful about how we deal with a technology that needs to be dealt with carefully.
You really consider those to be equivalent?
The right says that there is not enough evidence and never will be for global warming, and will never do anything about it.
The left says that we need to improve the designs to be safer, and that we can do that.
As some of the environmentalists who fought nuclear tooth and nail brought much needed safety regulations to the nuclear industry, improving the safety of both the communities nearby and the people who worked in the plant, I would say relatively well.
History may not look as kindly upon those who decided that it wasn’t worth continuing to do if it had to be done safely.
Cite, please
By the 1%, I assume you mean the richest 1%, who do have quite the NIMBY on wind farms near their properties. They don’t want those properties values to be lowered by being withing sight of a wind turbine.
Well then, can you explain what you think would CONVINCE you and other science deniers to pay attention to the science on this issue?
When climate scientists, the IPCC and other science-aware people try to explain the relevant climate science issues to science deniers such as yourself, you respond by proposing scientifically absurd alternative explanations and/or saying it’s some kind of political “scam”.
When it’s pointed out that professional opinion-influencers sponsored by powerful interests are taking advantage of people’s ignorance, laziness and gullibility to promote anti-science views, and that the targets of this strategy are abdicating their civic responsibilities by buying into it, you merely pout about “name-calling”.
So if you won’t listen to facts and reason, and you won’t listen to reproach and criticism, what WILL you listen to? Should we start ad campaigns claiming that learning the facts about climate change will make your penis bigger, or something? Do you want to be lied to, since you are evidently determined not to be persuaded by the truth?
doorhinge’s science-denier bumper sticker: “I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I’M WRONG”. :rolleyes:
What evidence does the left deny? Especially the left that supports nuclear power.
Lots of environmentalists in California. Try driving through the Altamont pass sometime - tons of windmills. Also on the way to Vegas. It doesn’t look like those environmentalists have a lot of power even here.
It strikes me that if you ta carbon enough, it might make nuclear plants more economically feasible than they are today. Let’s hear it for the carbon tax right wing nuclear fans.