Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.


Recommended Posts

When hasn't there been catastrophic flooding here?  :ols: frigging swamp needs flushed every now and then..

We could certainly send a few million folk back where they came from if you insist.(I'm assuming you aren't suggesting eliminating them)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Larry said:

Well, now there's a proposal to reduce the impact of global warning. 

 

Eliminate the the people from affected areas. 

Because that is definitely not the GOP master plan. Deny climate change, let the cities and coasts (you know, where Dems/Libs live) flood and kill them all, ensure GOP majority.

 

That would just be crazy talk. 

Edited by GhostofSparta
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GhostofSparta said:

Because that is definitely not the GOP master plan. Deny climate change, let the cities and coasts (you know, where Dems/Libs live) flood and kill them all, ensure GOP majority.

 

That would just be crazy talk. 

Kinda, yeah. The answer to why the GOP denies climate change is the same answer to a lot of the whys when you look at the screwed up aspects of our society & government...

 

Lobbies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clietas said:

Nuclear Power be going the way of the dodo. Getting fraked right in the ol cooling tower. Natural gas is the present.

 

Get use to saying wind, solar, and geothermal. That's the future. 

 

The present model of nuclear is, but it is rather dated....small modular on the other hand is just starting.

Even present model nuke comes in lower priced than wind and solar.

 

NG is certainly cooking though, and makes up for wind and solar's critical flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long for the new nuclear plants to be built? 20 years again? 10? Do the new plants create the same waste that can't be disposed of safely? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by clietas
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clietas said:

How long for the new nuclear plants to be built? 20 years again? 10?

 

 

 

 

 

 

modular can be built about as fast as any other.

 

Though my bet is on fuel cells

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they haven't really figured out nuclear disposal since I wrote a term paper about it in 1981.  The most original one was to load it all up on a rocket and shoot it off toward the Sun. 

 

Edited to change "have" to "haven't", which is want I meant to write. 

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Yes, they have really figured out nuclear disposal since I wrote a term paper about it in 1981.  The most original one was to load it all up on a rocket and shoot it off toward the Sun. 

This is a no brainer (or should be at least). You dispose of nuclear waste the same way you dispose of hypodermic needles. Discard it at the local beach. Alternatively, you can leave it under the handle of a gas pump but that's a little bit more work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 9:29 PM, clietas said:

Nuclear Power be going the way of the dodo. Getting fraked right in the ol cooling tower. Natural gas is the present.

 

Get use to saying wind, solar, and geothermal. That's the future. 

No love for Fusion power?  Ten years will be on the phase right before the demos for commerical reactors.  By 2040s, Natural Gas plants won't even make sense anymore, neither will Fission.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, twa said:

Study Reveals Solar Panels Contribute to Global Warming

http://conservativetribune.com/expert-green-energy-environment/

 

:rofl89:

You know how you spot a ****ty article?

 

When it has a headline like that, and then a sentence like this in the second or third paragraph

 

Quote

the study looked at 40 years’ worth of data and concluded that while more modern versions of solar panels may ultimately result in a net reduction of carbon emissions over the span of decades, 

 

Ie: bull **** article targeting the easily confused and know-nothings.

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I'm sorry I couldn't hear you over all the winning in Fukushima.

 

You don't believe science can overcome such things?

 

Science denier 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, twa said:

But, But, it was a Study in Nature 

:kiss-smileys:

I have no doubt a study on 40 years worth of solar panels determined the net reduction was small/nothing.

 

Using that to say solar panels are a waste is a totally different thing. That's why you need the research.

 

Your source concedes the latest tech is a net reduction, yet writes that headline.

 

The problem is with your dumb source, not Nature. At least, as far as my criticism goes.

18 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I'm sorry I couldn't hear you over all the winning in Fukushima.

 

That place that was listed as being located in a dangerous area?

 

That Japan never did anything about?

 

Yes, if you don't do it carefully there can be a disaster. No one really denies that.

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...