- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sen. Brandon Smith- America's new dumbest Senator
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
nope, that's precisely what you did...keep trying
date night, peace be with you stupid. It's your new name.
date night, peace be with you stupid. It's your new name.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:09 pm to BugAC
quote:
And that is why we are talking about this anyway. Because Al Gore made a movie, and Cap and Trade was proposed.
You're talking about this because Al Gore made a movie and Cap and Trade was proposed. Because you're a reactionary who has turned who was frankly a rather boring Democrat into some sort of Emmanuel Goldstein for green-socialism, which is more than that mediocrity rates. In reality, this has been talked about for over a century. Arrhenius, Callendar, Keeling, Manabe, Hansen, hell there were three IPCCs before Al Gore stepped into an editing booth.
I'm talking about this because I see a bunch of conservatives deciding that because they don't like the policy, which is understandable, they've decided they also don't like the science.
Which leads to them saying a bunch of profoundly stupid things about biology, chemistry, physics, and statistics, and making terrible arguments because this has become a tribalist issue which means the captain has turned off the critical thinking sign, please feel free to copy/paste that thing you found on that blog.
Which leads them to infer some massive conspiracy, maintained through a social network of idiots treating every "adjustment," no matter how well-explained, well-confirmed, or well-justified in the primary literature (lol consulting the primary literature), as a fraud, and endlessly quoting one 15-year-old email about one tree ring series in one graph.
Which leads them to check out of the real debate, about how the problem should be solved, meaning the debate is dominated by the left, attempting to solve the power problem with wishes and butterfly farts, as they are doing in Germany and soon France, actually going backwards because they are idiots who think nuclear power is the devil.
That's why I'm talking about this. I could give two fricks for ALGORE and his Learjet.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:12 pm to DelU249
quote:
check out the spidermantuba math
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:02 pm to Iosh
I'm all for nuclear energy if it can be done cheaply and safely. I strongly disagree with Hansen's data on AGW itself but I do respect the fact that he at least presents a fairly realistic (from an economic and feasibility standpoint) alternative to oil and gas in the video you linked earlier as opposed to fairy dust and unicorn crowd that think we can altogether quit using oil and gas tomorrow and move forward without a hitch.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:47 pm to Jay Quest
quote:
I suspect he was attempting say something far different from what the nitwits at HuffPo are reporting and, as people often do, he worded it poorly.
Its been reported that temperatures on Mars are rising and that is the point I'm sure he was attempting to make.
No, I don't think they took him out of context. He said "exact same temperature". Pretty precise wording right there, and no one called him out on that. Shouldn't it be disturbing that there wasn't a single red flag from any of these people that run our country that they're dumb enough to think that Mars has the same temperature as the Earth. If that were the case, all we'd really need are oxygen tanks, goggles, and ear protection to walk on Mars.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:47 pm to efrad
quote:
Your twisted math is seriously hurting the cause of the people whose side you are on.
33 * 0.03 != 0.99
mk
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:49 pm to BugAC
quote:
Also, CO2 makes up a miniscule amount of Earth's atmosphere, yet we are still led to believe it is a driving factor on the thermostat of earth.
So you are disputing really just facts on CO2's chemical properties? It's not an opinion, it's a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You've shown how ignorant you really are. I'm done arguing with you
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:53 pm to SpidermanTUba
And just so you don't write me off with him, yes Tuba is an idiot and clearly trolling.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:53 pm to OMLandshark
Dude why are you a dick?
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:57 pm to SpidermanTUba
I'm just thinking you're deliberately trolling.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:26 pm to SpidermanTUba
Tuba didnt you tell someone to lighten up this morning??
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:32 pm to SpidermanTUba
Has to be trolling, can't be serious.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:37 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:Neaux neaux, he's serious, and he claims a PhD too.
Has to be trolling, can't be serious.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:40 pm to kywildcatfanone
It's trolling now, he's trying to save face on an Internet message board
Posted on 7/11/14 at 11:50 pm to Iosh
quote:I suppose it matters if you consider a 6-10% reduction significant or not... If one buys into the doomsday predictions, it wouldn't seem like it would buy a lot.
This doesn't prove what you say it does. You're saying that we need to stop traveling and transporting goods entirely to "put a dent" in CO2 production. Transport is 22-32% of the pie depending on your graph. Cutting that by, say, a third, that wouldn't "put a dent" in CO2 production?
And you're probably not going to get the entire world to go along... so you're going to have to cut A LOT of transportation emissions in the compliant places to have any hope of covering the non-compliant places (which are growing in population).
quote:Sure it could. But the odds of getting that many nuclear facility licenses issued by DOE and state officials... DOE has issued two licenses (in 2012) since 1978.
Electricity is 38-41% of the pie. Replacing coal grids with nuclear (and the non-bullshite renewables where viable) wouldn't put a dent in CO2 production?
Not to mention the cost (about $7-12 billion per plant). Right now 104 reactors supply roughly 18% of our electricity.
So say we want to raise it what coal is... 43%. We'd need, roughly another 2-300 reactors at a cost of $2.1-3.6 trillion-- in a business that in many locations is not allowed by law to make a profit. Good luck raising that in the capital markets.
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 12:23 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 12:49 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Yes, but you're assuming the status quo, and now you're talking about the stuff that I support as a solution to global warming instead of BIOFUELZ.
Sure it could. But the odds of getting that many nuclear facility licenses issued by DOE and state officials... DOE has issued two licenses (in 2012) since 1978.
Not to mention the cost (about $7-12 billion per plant). Right now 104 reactors supply roughly 18% of our electricity.
Specifically, there's a massive double standard where it takes a minimum of six years to get a nuclear reactor through NRC while gas plants only occasionally have to deal with FERC (if their power transmission is across an interstate border) and for the most part will just sail through a state regulator inside of two years. On top of that, a ton of those costs are wrapped up in fighting speculative, margin-draining lawsuits that are brought about the instant a plant is announced, which helped killed the Levy facility in Florida before a shovel had even hit the ground. You want to talk about an area where we could use tort reform, there it is.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 12:54 pm to Iosh
quote:Indeed. But I see little to be optimistic about when it come to DOE's regulatory practices, nor the cost of building reactors (largely linked to DOE's requirements, lack of skilled workers, and raw material).
Yes, but you're assuming the status quo
quote:Absolutley! Every NIMBY wants cheap electricty... produced... over there.
Specifically, there's a massive double standard where it takes a minimum of six years to get a nuclear reactor through NRC while gas plants only occasionally have to deal with FERC (if their power transmission is across an interstate border) and for the most part will just sail through a state regulator inside of two years. On top of that, a ton of those costs are wrapped up in fighting speculative, margin-draining lawsuits that are brought about the instant a plant is announced, which helped killed the Levy facility in Florida before a shovel had even hit the ground. You want to talk about an area where we could use tort reform, there it is.
Ultimately, I think we will go down in history as a silly generation that didn't use what we had available (nuclear). It's like we're a nation of vegetarians sitting on a mountain of cheeseburgers saying "I'm starving to death!".
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News