Well it’s the fucking BBQ-Pit. What the fuck did you fucking expect?
I was all ready to call bullshit on your idyllic life until you explained your wife was pretty. That changes everything. Ugly women can’t draw for shit.
.
Just for the record, over here me and many others already dismissed many of the alarmist ideas that **foolsguinea ** gets into.
And just for the record, alarmism that goes for the other extreme is also stupid. In reality many of the serious environmentalists also know why an element of progress has to be included in the mix to drop the alarmist ideas that we would not figure out better ways of growing crops and that famine was going to be put at bay even with the population growth.
There is also once again from you the discredited idea that the ones that are pointing at the risks of doing nothing to be proponents of throwing billions of people into poverty, talk about blaming the ones that are warning you about preventing an accident to be guilty of it if it takes place.
The past examples of societies spending money to get clean water and disposing sewage demonstrated that the ones claiming that progress was going to stop if we did something about the lack of sewage disposal and clean water where demonstrated to be the alarmists, while the price to pay for that is still there, the benefit of not dealing with constant epidemics of cholera and other diseases can not be easily calculated, but I will say that even you would not try to find out if we should get rid of that benefit.
Iran has had nuclear power, the US and Israel are objecting because they believe they have evidence that they’re developing nuclear weapons. Minor difference.
Every country that has developed nuclear power for peaceful purposes has weaponized it. I think South Africa is the only country to weaponize and then voluntarily disarm. Generally though, you can expect countries to arm themselves with nukes.
We invaded Iraq because we “believed” they were building nuclear weapons. Our government lied. They just wanted to invade. How many trillions of dollars has our meddling in ME affairs cost us?
How much wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, space-based power and efficiency improvements could those trillions have bought, right here at home? We need a brand-new intelligent, decentralized energy grid. We could have one. But no, that’s way too expensive. Spend a few more trillion invading countries for developing nuclear power instead of trying to be a true world leader and doing something useful and constructive with our trillions.
Ok, dudes- Iran’s nuke policies are not part of this thread, can you take that to GD? Thanks!
Personally, I expected video of you fucking a cactus.
I’m all for reducing litter, stopping oil spills, stopping seal clubbing, catylitic converters, preserving certain areas of particular beauty and ecosystems ect. But as I’ve been saying this isn’t the purpose of the environmental movement. You don’t have to be an eco-freak to think clubbing a baby seal to death is bad. My beef is with the global warming crowd and the overpopulation gang who’s philosophy stems from eugenics and hatred of human progress.
The risks of doing nothing are miniscule in comparison to the risks of doing what the environmentalists want. When they say we should cut our energy usage by X percent do you think they mean to achieve this by not filling the kettle up full or turning the heating down a bit? They mean we should deny economic development to those without and roll back the living standards of those who already enjoy the fruits of technological progress. As the OP points out these people have no intention of moving to a viable non CO2 producing energy source, they just want to deprive people of power.
Building sewer systems and water treatment plants is progress, the exact opposite of what the Malthusian left want. Think of a dam project in the third world that would provide clean water and power to the poor. Who would be the first to try and shut it down? You guessed it.
I just read that, and at the bottom of the article is a clarification that renders his argument fallacious. The choice isn’t more nukes or more coal & gas. We have lots of choices.
Heh, he don’t know me really well eh folks?
NO
These people are not all people in the research and environmental community, what you have here is mostly a straw man as the most serious researchers do not follow what the sierra club says.
And more straw, must be a sale at the Prairie Store.
I used to be hopelessly and unabashedly opposed to all nuclear technologies, including nuclear power plants of any sort.
Then I went to college, grew up, and got educated.
So don’t give up on these anti-nuke folks. Change is possible.
@ GIGObuster
That article you quote is absolute dross. To prevent CO2 levels from rising significanty by reducing energy use would have terrible effects on the global economy.
“These people are not all people in the research and environmental community, what you have here is mostly a straw man as the most serious researchers do not follow what the sierra club says.”
They are the people who fund the environmentalist movement, he who pays the piper calls the tune. And those serious researchers you mention, would that include Phil Jones of CRU who gloated over the death of a “climate denier”? “This is cheering news” was his response to the news of John daly’s death. Or the IPCC who reckon the Himalayan ice caps will melt in 35 years because they heard so in radical environmentalist magazine.
“And more straw, must be a sale at the Prairie Store.”
Staw man straw man straw man. Do you have any other response? In no way was what I said a misrepresentation. You are saying that environmentalism represents progress in the way that building needed infrastructure does, I pointed out that the first group to stop the building of needed infrastructure is the environmentalists.
You can not call it dross when you clearly did not read it, one main point is that moderated changes will do a lot.
And thank you for showing to all what an illogical sod you are, the science does not depend on the personality of the scientist, is that was so then Newton would be reviled and his principles would be dismissed. As for the Himalayan thing the error was acknowledged and corrected, something that is eons better than what denial sites do.
Not all of them as already mentioned, your desperation is shown by your stupid say so that people like the Sierra Club represent all environmentalists.
And you are just avoiding the fact that in times past there were many non environmentalists claiming that the economy of the nation would end if we did something as reasonable as getting clean water.
Issues?
Issues?
Solve the issues, then we can talk.
… issues …
One of the ways to solve the issue involves doing something similar to what they do in France, there is a lot of standards there and the people that live close to the plants benefit directly, heck, many are part owners of the plants; the point here is that, good luck in convincing the industry in the USA into looking into solutions that are close to socialism but the reality is that a lot of the NIMBY that is seen (And it is impossible that those rates of opposition that you see when things come to a vote are all made of old fashion environmentalists, clearly a lot of people, even conservatives, fall for the NIMBY) is IMHO happening because right now there are very little incentives or benefits that the communities that are around the proposed disposal sites are seeing.
“You can not call it dross when you clearly did not read it, one main point is that moderated changes will do a lot.”
The tipping point eh? If we do everything those nuts say we *might just *avoid catastrophe. There is no tipping point, in natural systems negative feedback virtually always outways positive feedback, if the earth had such huge positive feedback mechanisms in relation to warming then it would have turned into another venus a long time ago. The point of saying small changes will have large effects is a propaganda method to counter the obvious fact that CO2 levels are going to increase a lot no matter what hummus eating Prius drivers in the West do, NATO can bomb as many defenceless countries like Libya into ruin as they can and CO2 will still increase.
“And thank you for showing to all what an illogical sod you are, the science does not depend on the personality of the scientist, is that was so then Newton would be reviled and his principles would be dismissed. As for the Himalayan thing the error was acknowledged and corrected, something that is eons better than what denial sites do.”
Do you really think Phil Jones, who works in the field of climatology- a field that was created soley because of the global warming hysteria- goes straight from emailing his friend Michael Mann- who also works in the newly created field of climatology- gloating over the death of someone who disagrees with their work to an unbiased assassment of the facts? The close knit clique of climatatologists review each others work and deny others the chance to see it even when the FOIA is used, they shredded and deleted a load of their work and data to prevent it being seen under a FOIA request.
If I found a cockroach in my soup at a restaurant, pointed it out to the waiter and he acknowledged it’s existence and picked it out I would not be satisfied. It would have tainted the rest of te soup and my opinion of the restaurant, I would be wondering how it got in their in the first place. Saying the Himalayan ice caps will melt in 35 years is off the charts in it’s stupidity, to a real scientist who knows anything about geology it would be like saying "if we don’t reduce our CO2
Ah shit, he melted.
(continued)
“if we don’t reduce our CO2 output then superman will come down from the sky and slap us around.” So how did it get their? Obviously the IPCC has nothing to do with science, it’s a propaganda organisation designed to cloak a political agenda in the veil of science.
“Climate denial sites” don’t pretend to be the be all and end all of everything in relation to global warming, they’re not multi-million dollar internation organisations set up by the UN who claim that every scientist in the world who isn’t crazy or in the pay of oil companies should agree with them.
"Not all of them as already mentioned, your desperation is shown by your stupid say so that people like the Sierra Club represent all environmentalists.
And you are just avoiding the fact that in times past there were many non environmentalists claiming that the economy of the nation would end if we did something as reasonable as getting clean water."
Not all leopards have spots, not everyone in jail has commited a crime, not all ducks quack. If I said I was a Nazi and that the holocaust never happened would it be reasonable for you to bring up Hitler and Nazi germany to show how evil Nazism is? Of course it would be, although I could still say, “well not all Nazis like Hitler, they think we should do things different to how he did them”. The point being that virtually all modern environmentalism is inextricably linked to the evil policies of organistations like the Club of Rome, WWF, Sierra Club. They can’t be seperated no matter how much you deny it.
I pressed the enter key by mistake, tried to edit it but went passed the 5 minute time frame.
Being proud of being ignorant is not becoming in this message board.
That “we should have turned to Venus already” is a straw man, climatologists are not saying that.
And clearly you are once again depending on the scientists not correcting and acknowledging that already, what it is clear also is that you are incapable of even acknowledging that not all environmentalists are like the Sierra Club as Nuclear is also seen by serious researchers as a piece on how to deal with global warming.
And even there you are showing even more irrationality, I already pointed out that the Sierra Club rejected the real Nazis, that you continue with that stupid and insulting point of declaring the environmentalists to be Nazis just demonstrates to all how simpleminded and trashy are the sites or sources of information you are relying on.