Started By
Message

re: Sen. Brandon Smith- America's new dumbest Senator

Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:05 pm to
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:05 pm to
nope, that's precisely what you did...keep trying


date night, peace be with you stupid. It's your new name.
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:09 pm to
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 by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:12 pm to
quote:

check out the spidermantuba math


Posted by efrad
Member since Nov 2007
18644 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:31 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:43 pm
Posted by Govt Tide
Member since Nov 2009
9113 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:02 pm to
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 by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108243 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:47 pm to
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 by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:47 pm to
quote:


Your twisted math is seriously hurting the cause of the people whose side you are on.



33 * 0.03 != 0.99


mk
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108243 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:49 pm to
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 by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108243 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:53 pm to
And just so you don't write me off with him, yes Tuba is an idiot and clearly trolling.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:53 pm to
Dude why are you a dick?
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108243 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:57 pm to
I'm just thinking you're deliberately trolling.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:59 pm to
n
Posted by fleaux
section 0
Member since Aug 2012
8741 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:26 pm to
Tuba didnt you tell someone to lighten up this morning??
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:28 pm to
y
Posted by kywildcatfanone
Wildcat Country!
Member since Oct 2012
119116 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:32 pm to
Has to be trolling, can't be serious.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:37 pm to
quote:

Has to be trolling, can't be serious.
Neaux neaux, he's serious, and he claims a PhD too.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:40 pm to
It's trolling now, he's trying to save face on an Internet message board
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57208 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 11:50 pm to
quote:

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?
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.

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:

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?
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.

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 by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/12/14 at 12:49 pm to
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.

Not to mention the cost (about $7-12 billion per plant). Right now 104 reactors supply roughly 18% of our electricity.
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.

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 by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57208 posts
Posted on 7/12/14 at 12:54 pm to
quote:

Yes, but you're assuming the status quo
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).

quote:

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.
Absolutley! Every NIMBY wants cheap electricty... produced... over there.

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!".
first pageprev pagePage 8 of 8Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram