What Do You Gain By Denying Climate Change?

DUH errrr According to FOX news water vapor is made up of socialism. Duh yeah that's it. Duuuuuuuhhhhhh .........................!

 

I have no idea why this would be a left/right issue but that's how some people roll I suppose.

The only question that needs to be answered for me to be 100% pro nuclear energy is how do we dispose of the waste matter permanently. As it stands now the half life is roughly 100 generations long. Where is the waste supposed to be stored or alternately disposed of?

That's the $64,000 question.

 

LOL!!!

Gee...last week they said it was made of Liberal Concepts! LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

Yep. I 'chop', because the know-it-all idiocy being spewed by yourself and others... is astounding, in the face of the current opinions of most scientists.

And I'm pretty much with the 97% consensus of scientists and related studies.

People can keep dancing around the issue, but I think it is time to listen to what the best brains on the topic are saying.

 

Umm, the best brains have been wrong for over a decade. Keep side stepping it, and I'll keep replying with that fact.

 

No, you won't.

Either the planet will see to it that you don't; or laws dictating that you change will do the same.

 

Smug IDIOTS think that cannot happen here.

 

No it's not. With MODERN Nuclear Power over 30% is recyclable and that number is climbing strongly. If you know about the miniscule amount of fuel required for a MODERN plant, you would know the amount of waste produced could fit under a small child's desk and can be quickly turned to inert glass at sites like Hanford and stored at sites like Yucca Mountain and reused as the technology catches up as predicted.

But, we will have tons of ignorant lefty envirowhackos totally ignorant on MODERN nuclear power and the pretend Nuclear Boogieman. Do yourself a favor and watch Pandora's Box. It aired on CNN about 2 months ago. Then you too can be educated on MODERN nuclear power. Because, right now... your not.

 

Records in the scope of time that man has been keeping records is like claiming that the one raindrop that hit you during a thundershower was the biggest one ever.

 

This issue seems to have a ridiculous number of people burying their heads in the sand.

I am going to blame Al Gore as he predicted things happening too fast but they are happening as I type.

Their is absolutely no doubt that Global Warming is effecting the planet....that is not up for debate.

How can we stop it?

Personally I think we have passed a Threshold Point from which the process is self sustaining that being the continued release of CH4 in Gel Form bubbling up into our atmosphere as CH4 holds in atmospheric heat 71 times greater than CO2.

AboveAlpha

 

Maybe, just maybe that is so... but I would never buy that as being true from YOU here in this forum.

 

Yes some of the best brains haven't got it quite right. But I think your desire to listen to retards, while the opposite philosophy, isn't the best course of action.

But to each their own.

 

What a profound analogy.

So what you are saying is; "That Ronald Reagan ruined America with the stupidity of trickle down economic and the repeal of the fairness doctrine"? Or are you saying, "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat?"

 

So 70% still needs to be stored. Even an UNMODERN needed a very small amount of fuel to function. The amount of materiel needed to create a reaction hasn't changed drastically in 30 years. Physics remain physics and matter remains matter after all.

The problem is there is no long term storage proven 100% effective and as such it's an incredibly dangerous thing to produce the waste material.

I will do us both a favour. I'll allow you to believe what you've watched on TV and I'll believe what I've read and we'll wait 100 years and see who's right and never discuss the matter again.

I don't recall claiming to have the answer to the problem so I'm not right. I have never claimed so .. You claim to be an authority on the matter (on matter, har har) by watching a television show. Sir, we appear to be at a disagreement on the issue.

 

Lol, says people can dance around the issur... continues to dance around the issue. I'm sorry, but you're just not making for even remotely intelligent discussion tonight.

 

Sorry, but you aren't saying anything new or particularly reasonable. (Boring stuff from you here.)

Later.

 

Straw men followed by, lol, failure to notice a blunt joke, followed by straw men, followed by straw men. Dude, don't just parrot back what you normally say in these types of threads, read what you're responding to.

 

Naw, I've said a bunch you're apparently not aware of, but you've childishly failed to get past reading a sentence.

 

I disagree with that. And we disagree overall. So be it.

 

I know you're new here mate, but in all seriousness, do you know what straw men are?

 

Follow the money; like those guided by blind faith... it blazes a path to what is convenient to believe, not what is necessarily reasonable.

 

It's too bad. You obviously spend a lot of time on here, I don't see why you have an aversion to any meaningful discussion.

 

Yep. I do okay.

I just hope people don't blow off climate change for too long. That's where I'm coming from at this point.

 

Maybe replacing the politicians in America, will get something done?

 

I sure do. They are people who say that climate change is a hoax because it is cold in winter.

But if you need a clearer definition a straw man uses a methodology of creating a fallacy through a misrepresentation of the topic at hand. For climate deniers to be successful, their argument requires that the reader is ignorant or uninformed on the topic of climate science. However I find the illusion which is apparent on this site is that the deniers believe the straw man argument. They are the ignorant and are simply repeating the covert false argument that was drilled into their heads by the constant droning of right wing talking heads.

So perhaps your query of me was created by your understanding that deniers aren't making straw man arguments, but are simply repeating them, and are therefore straw minions and not men at all.

Am I following your thesis?