“Being proud of being ignorant is not becoming in this message board.” Blah.
“That “we should have turned to Venus already” is a straw man, climatologists are not saying that.”
I never suggested they are saying that, I’m saying that if you follow through the logic of positive feedback then that is what would happen. The fact that the Earth isn’t like Venus shows that it has negative feedback mechanisms that will act in opposition to the warming effect brought about by increasing greenhouse gasses, not positive feedback that will amplify a small temperature increase of half a degree or so into some huge cataclysm as the corrupt climatologists insist will happen.
“And clearly you are once again depending on the scientists not correcting and acknowledging that already”
The idiotic claim was in an IPCC report that had already been published, therefore supposedly checked over by the best scientists in the world. It was only the evil climate deniers pointing out the stupidity of the claim that got it removed and there was still no apology from the IPCC.
“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.”
Yes I realise that not every single person who cares about the environment is a genocidal maniac. But the mainstream ideologies of environmentalism (overpopulation, anti-nuclear, anti development) come from people inspired by eugenics, imperialism and hatred of humanity in general. This isn’t confined to the elite of environmentalism either, have you never heard anyone quoting that bit from the Matrix where agent Smith calls humanity a virus, people actually believe this shit.
If you believe that global warming is real but that transitioning to nuclear is the solution ,instead of cutting energy use, then great. But you should realise you are in the minority among the environmentalists. Most of them are driven by ideas other then cutting CO2 emmissions.
The reality is that you believe the shit that people that believe that shit are being taken seriously among researchers. I have presented evidence, you only bring say so’s with no evidence, I have seen that in reality the current Nazis are making efforts to take over the environmentalist movement, the fact that they have failed with the organizations is not taking away what I have seen coming from extreme rightists, I have seen several linking to truly racist sites when they talk about a “white genocide” going on and they segue to accusing the environmentalists of a similar idea. It is the ultimate in sour grapes when they failed to take over even the Sierra Club.
Relying on Youtube comments is like relying on a Google Vomit.
In other words, you really have no good evidence that serious researchers or scientists and even environmentalists are plotting genocide. What you have there is just a conspiracy theory at the same level as the Moon Hoax one.
Well correcting your misunderstandings of what I’m sayng is getting dull so I’m not going to bother anymore. Maybe you should head over to that youtube video I posted and join your enviro-pals.
Well, technically mass slaughter rather than genocide as such.
But look, punk, we radical Deep Ecology types aren’t going to be the ones committing genocide, forcing people into poverty and refugee camps, etc. We’re trying to warn you that you yourselves will end up doing that–many* non-*environmentalists are already doing that–because there simply aren’t the resources for all that you desire.
Seriously, a lot of the world’s worst problems come back to some variation on, “People want things they don’t realize they can’t have, or can’t have without screwing over somebody else.”
Oh good grief. What is poverty? Lack of relative economic power. Want to increase poverty? Get the birth rate higher than the death rate, it’ll happen.
Society tolerates, nay, encourages a rate long-term of population growth in humans that no naturalist would recommend for non-endangered wildlife species. And then wonders why so many people are displaced into slums, refugee camps, and so forth.
And magic “development” is supposed to feed everyone? As if.
You look at thngs as if there is a pie and as the population grows each person’s slice of the pie shrinks. That’s not how the economy works. People dig stuff out of the ground and turn it into useful products, in the words of Charlie Chaplin “the good Earth is rich and can provide for everyone”. More people= more workers.
“To populate is to govern” said someone I can’t remember the name of, if people are having children and those children survive to have some of their own then things are good. I don’t care if “naturalists” recommend it or not. If you want to decrease population growth then support economic development, poor people have more children then the wealthy, this is sociological fact. You want to deprive people of economic development, that’s genocide.
If all the arable land on Earth were farmed with modern techniques it could support hundreds of billions of people.’
You misunderstand; for many of us, it is not NIMBY, but NOMP.
I have been an environmental chemist; I have worked on superfund sites; I do not understand why people assume very dangerous waste can be easily managed when it never has been in the past.
And every type of waste we generate seems to be worse than the last.
The situation is like that because the sites for the disposal are not ready yet and delayed by many NIMBY efforts, but once again I do think the costs involved in dealing with the risks are not priced adequately, I do think that for all that have to live close to those places the industry should pay their mortgage or land value or give them free or very cheap energy.
It’s funny (in a Pit sort of way) to watch college sophomores (or just the sophomoric) discuss development issues without a shred of understanding of how development works, what’s involved, how various programmes function, etc. Not a hint of a clue. For example, I daresay that our September Troll is absolutely clueless about, say, Rio+20 (untill it just Googled it now), or how the concept of sustainable development is evolving. Given that it’s either an intentional troll or intentionally ignorant, I have no interest in making a pretence at informing it. Suffice as to say it’s made up such a fictional straw-world that even Rush or Beck would roll their eyes and be tempted to make a donation to PETA.
I have no idea how GIGO does it.
Speaking of GIGO, I think j666’s point was that nuclear power plants generate large quantities of hazardous materials that have two general characteristics: high hazard levels and long-term persistence. The high hazard levels are particularly relevant to things like expected utility; long-term persistence are particularly relevant to things like liability and the like.
Given industry’s (as an oversimplified whole) history of hazardous waste handling, even under relatively severe regulation (to speak nothing of the anti-regulation winds blowing though congress), it is an arguable proposition that nuclear waste will yield similar outcomes–particularly if we’re talking about scaling up nuclear power to the level in which it will make a substantial contribution to energy production. Further, given chains of custody, corporation law, potential cost distributions, etc., it is not quite feasible to pre-reward everyone who may suffer consequences. Free electricity and Springfield fish may placate those whose communities host a plant, but they are not the only ones possibly affected by waste. And once a plant has legitimately (as in, done their due diligence in earnest (which is very important)) and handed waste off to a third party, what happens when that third party has an accident (or does somethign nefarious) some distance from the source? Or if that third party hands off to another party, and that fourth party screws up? Ensure that the source has the funds on reserve to cover any losses caused by its products at any time? In fifty years? Two hundred? Five? Those could be enormous costs (again, consider the expected utility of the risk), something that would be prohibitively expensive for one plant to cover. I trust you see where the argument goes from there (I mean that in a you’re capable of following a discussion way, not a it’s-so-clear-that-you-must-agree-with-me way).
Nope, don’t worry, I do see that, the reason why I insist on paying the people that will have to live close to those places is precisely because of those risks, of course I do not have much hopes to see the industry face the real price they have to pay and do what they do in France by sharing more than just the risks. So until the Nuclear deal changes I do not see much development there so I do favor more efforts in developing and deploying solar, wind, geothermal and even more natural gas if we control the resulting emissions. (Easier to scrub the CO2 from natural gas than with coal as coal emits twice the amount of CO2 than coal)
This right here is the problem. This is not remotely true. Agriculture requires fresh water, lots of it, and nitrogen, and phosphorus. There are limits to all of these things, and we are close to at least two of those limits (not the nitrogen, admittedly). We could crash before we hit eight billion humans.
In any case, your plan would require the extinction of all wild large animals. I’ll continue to respect the Creation, thanks.
Salt water can be turned into fresh water, it just requires energy. Yes we’re back to energy again, I know you enviros think magic pixies keep the economy going but you should really think about how silly that is. Nitrogen and phosporous are plentiful in the Earths crust, eventually the good deposits will be used up and we’ll have to mine the less concentrate deposits instead, which will require more energy for the same amount of end product, energy yet again.
Incidentally, extremely rich deposits of potash have been found in my area, the North Yorkshire moors and plans are in place to start mining it. You can guess who wants to stop it from being developed.
Where did you pull “the extinction of all wild large animals” from?