Shit, I went door to door for Barry Goldwater! Brat, living on a SAC base, not exactly a tough sell, but still… Had some benefits.
“Where you going, honey?”
“Got a date with** 'luci**, Daddy.”
“That nice young man who was working for Goldwater? Fuck his ears off, dear, and have a nice time!”
“Thanks, Daddy, bye!”
I have pointed this out several times before, but clearly some media (actually almost all of it) has not reported on it:
Democrats are open to nuclear as part of clean energy legislation, but as usual you can count with the Republicans to stall bills like that. Because it will inconvenience the groups that did help them be elected.
And “replace” is in this case just code for “we do not want to have any regulations”
Ran out of edit time:
As I pointed before, one of the big problems IMHO is that a lot of moderate Republican and independents continue to be unaware of what their Representatives are doing in their behalf. As Jefferson did worry, ignorance is prevailing (thanks to powerful groups) and we have less informed voters nowadays.
I’m usually with you on these matters but disagree with this statement. It was Obama who shut down Yucca Mountain, after all. There are certainly Republicans who are against NP but the biggest opposition comes from the left, especially the far left.
Just because no one in that poll names global warming as the most important problem, does not mean that no one cares about it. In fact, “[a] little more than a third say they worry “a great deal” about climate change or about global warming, putting these concerns at the bottom of a list of eight environmental issues.” A quote, might I add, from the same source for ITR’s link.
Should the thread be closed now?
And I have criticized that move too in the past, but it does not take away what I said about nuclear power, the new plants are still under construction and Republicans are willing to toss out nuclear power when when bills include it as a part of an all encompassing solution.
After all, why they should worry when they have been told by the scientists in the fossil fuel payroll that nothing will happen?
Uncertainty.
This is something categorically denied by the likes of those like Bill McKibben and others beating the climate change catastrophist drum.
There is far more uncertainty in the actual degree and severity of climate change 25/50/100 years out.
People always trot out the more useless fact that well over 90% of scientists agree that global warming is real. And?
The danger of being in a plane crash is real, but how likely are the worst case scenarios to occur? Is there consensus on sea level rise that breaks 90%? Is there consensus that breaks 90% on ocean acidification levels? On temperature levels in the non linear chaotic weather system?
No, there is nothing CLOSE to a consensus on the degree and severity of those problems, but you would not know listening to the climate catastrophist. This is nothing more than neomalthusianism. The green movement rebuked the notion that mass starvation (due to capacity to feed issues not distribution issues) would occur, so all those nihilists who filled themselves with doom like predictions had to switch to a more plausible candidate.
Climate change.
But climate change has been occurring for the ENTIRE life of the planet, there is no such thing as a steady state climate. But to listen to some environmentalist, they seem to treat our current slice of climate, a tiny sliver of existence in the life age of the earth as a SACRED epoch that must not be perturbed by the actions of man.
With respect, wtf is this? Religion? There is nothing sacred about our current climate. NOTHING. I am not going apesh*t over climate change. That is not to say I don’t think it can or will cause problems, but I have far more faith in modern human civilization to solve most if not all of those problems. We have the most developed brains on the planet, and thousands of years of human civilization has granted us something that no other species or proto human has ever had. Science. We have the accumulated knowledge of the ages. Even with far more limited levels of that human populations struggled and survived ice ages and other environmental stresses. Today we live in wildly varying climates. But if the environment rapidly changes for the worst, we are in a better position to adapt and avoid civilization ending consequences than any other species on the earth.
I believe this because I am not a nihilist, not pessimist about life itself. I actually believe in an impossible radical idea among the environmental left. That we can actually… adapt.
que the no we can’t !!! The changes will be too fast and mass starvation and death, sea rises that will swallow people and cities whole.
If you believe that, it has more to do with your own psyche and death cultist like expectations of our abilities to adapt than anything else. Because you damn sure do NOT have VAST numbers of scientists that agree on the WORST most over the top predictions of doom and gloom related to climate change.
THAT is why I don’t care about global warming in the way that alarmists care.
I’m not sure if existence of the Phantom Menace proves or disproves this point.
Democrats toss out nuclear power regardless of the other contents of the bill. Conservatives are the main blocking point with AGW but you’re too willing to demonize them for everything, even when they are on your side (regarding NP). Right now the Democrats are a bigger blocking point for NP. Obama has labeled AGW a serious threat; has he done anything to foster NP?
And yet the Democrats believe the scientists on AGW and regard it as a serious problem but ignore a viable solution (NP). I get frustrated with both sides.
This just made me want to think of a counter example.
Quantum of Solace’s box office was $586 million and the bad guy’s plot was monopolizing water rights in Bolivia.
Just lately, Justified had a plot centering around the bad guy figuring on pot being legalized, so he wanted to buy up all the good pot growing land in Kentucky. Da fuq?
Spoiler: everybody gets shot.
As pointed before the nuclear power plants are still under construction, the Obama administration has supported them with loan guarantees because the dynamics of the energy market haven’t made new reactors a good deal for energy producers.
As pointed before this is just ignorance, many Democratic leaders do support nuclear power and I do over here in Arizona, you need to be frustrated with the market that because of Gas prices and other factors is not much enthusiastic about it.
So once again your complaint is really silly, the Republicans are the ones that are willing to toss out nuclear power when is part of the overall solution.
And once again you are ignoring the point that was made, Republicans do think they should worry about the issue at hand because they have been told by the scientists in the fossil fuel payroll that nothing will happen.
Uncertainty is not your friend.
That the scientists (as expressed by the IPPCC report that is based on the most analysed and reviewed current published science) do mention that:
And:
The already confirmed acceleration with the loss of cap ice (including glaciers) shows that in general the fake skeptics out there did lie to you and many others when they did (and continue to) claim in their sites that all the ice constantly is recuperating and that we should not worry about weather changes in the mid latitudes or an accelerated rise of the oceans.
In reality we should worry.
Again, this observed results are just a few of the items that were predicted to happen by increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, there are still other issues that are also likely to take place, so I really do not think that we should listen to people that are only interested in manufacturing doubt about this issue.
Correcting post #52:
And once again you are ignoring the point that was made, Republicans **don’t **think that they should worry about the issue at hand because they have been told by the scientists in the fossil fuel payroll that nothing will happen.
I’ve yet to see a proposed fix that isn’t absolutely devastating to the American lifestyle. Until there’s a solution that doesn’t involve us shivering in a 50 degree, one bedroom flat above a liquor store, huddling under a single flickering compact fluorescent and taking a stinking, low class bus to our job, I just don’t want to hear about the problem.
Hey, as long as you’re keeping an open mind about it.
It’s refreshing to hear the model is so accurate. So what year will all of these terrors start occurring? The model knows, right?
Oh dear, (as Peter Haadfield says) you clearly are not aware that models are not what is driving the science, models are just one tool climate scientists use.
(The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC)And what it is clear is that a lot of contrarian sites and denier sources lied (and continue to lie) when they told us that the ice in glaciers and the poles was not melting (it will recover… trust them :rolleyes:). And that ocean rise was not going to be a problem.
(Link with image of ocean rise measurements showing how Lomborg was wrong about using just a few years in 2008 to claim that the sea level was not increasing.)
Oh, I see. So now it’s, “Nevermind about the model, there’s just oodles of evidence over there. Click these links and get distracted somewhere else.”
Um, no thanks. Just tell me when the sky is gonna fall.
Check the links, you are too late, but as usual you miss that while we can minimise the bad effects now, unfortunately we have many in government that want to make sure we do not even do that and to make the situation worse.
Currently the calculated cost to make sure that those effects are not too damaging is around 1% of the GDP, but it looks like we will do the old penny wise, pound foolish routine.