Global warming pauses... for sixteen years

UncleBuck · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
I doubt that acquiring ID is that costly, nearly everyone has ID already, and those that don't are unlikely voters anyway.

you just don't want those "afro-americans" and other undesirables voting, you snitching stormfront-loved piece of shit.

canndo · Oct 17, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
ok the design of that style of nuclear reactor is inherently unsafe as it needs constant cooling

the buildings were built like brick shit houses as part of the protection that build survived the earthquake and the tsunami

the pressure vessels also survived a few weeks without sufficient cooling and we never had a Chernobyl style meltdown it was "mostly contained"

apart from "keeping it plugged in" the system did its job very well, proof of concept

but i would like to see passively cooled nuclear reactors built from now on. the ones where you just walk away without ever the risk of criticality

The designs for passive safety reactors have been around for a very long time - there are many who believed that nuclear reactors were over-engineered. I recall seeing reaction dampeners and water cooling systems that rely only on gravity where as you said, walking away would result in a quickly halted reaction.

Red1966 · Oct 17, 2012

cannabineer said:
^rem measure cumulative exposure and not intensity ... cn

Correct, absorb equivalent of 5,000 mrem in 1 second is considered a max safe level for the entire year, absorb 86,400 mrem over a days time (5,000 mrem X 60 Seconds X 60 Minutes X 24 Hours) is far beyond a fatal dose.

ginjawarrior · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
I doubt that acquiring ID is that costly, nearly everyone has ID already, and those that don't are unlikely voters anyway. The schemes in place for controlling GW only restrict some nations, at the cost of trillions not millions, and don't restrict the carbon outputs of the most populous nations, China and India, at all. These schemes seem to be designed not to control GW, but to enact some sort of "social justice" that transfers wealth from "developed" nations to "undeveloped" nations. If anything, China and India are way overdeveloped, yet they are not constrained at all by the current proposed schemes. All these programs will do it transfer the source of pollution to nations that currently make little or no attempt at all to curtail emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
About 17 percent of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States
"Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 14.3 percent of the domestically produced electricity in the first six months of 2011.[SUP][1][/SUP]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India
the share of RE in the energy sector, as on March 2011, is 10.63%[SUP][1][/SUP] of total generation capacity of India.

canndo · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
I doubt that acquiring ID is that costly, nearly everyone has ID already, and those that don't are unlikely voters anyway. The schemes in place for controlling GW only restrict some nations, at the cost of trillions not millions, and don't restrict the carbon outputs of the most populous nations, China and India, at all. These schemes seem to be designed not to control GW, but to enact some sort of "social justice" that transfers wealth from "developed" nations to "undeveloped" nations. If anything, China and India are way overdeveloped, yet they are not constrained at all by the current proposed schemes. All these programs will do it transfer the source of pollution to nations that currently make little or no attempt at all to curtail emissions.

Several studies, including one that was quoted in the most recent SCOTUS decision (making our arguments mostly moot btw) and the Brennan study shows that there are a great deal more people who vote and do not have ID then you are imagining. But your attitude of "well, there aren't that many people who would be unable to legitimately vote under ID laws" is concerning. Of course it doesn't cost "that much" money, certainly it does not compare to the funds it would take to curtail global warming but that isn't or wasn't the point.

with regard to the rest - shall we wait until others start curtailing emissions before we start?

Red1966 · Oct 17, 2012

canndo said:
I like people to respect me. I like people to like me - a lot actually, but I am unwilling to change my behavior very much in order to have either of those happen. I figure if I were willing to make changes in my behavior in order to have people like or respect me, they would not like or respect me very much

UncleButtHead does understand that. In his world, you only qualify for respect if you agree with him. If you don't agree with him, then any slanderous lie is permissable, even elaborate schemes to portray a totally false narrative.

Red1966 · Oct 17, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
ok the design of that style of nuclear reactor is inherently unsafe as it needs constant cooling the buildings were built like brick shit houses as part of the protection that build survived the earthquake and the tsunami the pressure vessels also survived a few weeks without sufficient cooling and we never had a Chernobyl style meltdown it was "mostly contained" apart from "keeping it plugged in" the system did its job very well, proof of concept but i would like to see passively cooled nuclear reactors built from now on. the ones where you just walk away without ever the risk of criticality

Glad you are seeing "the light". The problem with "fail safe" mechanisms is there always seems to be something we overlooked. The requirement for active cooling was a glaring mistake and should have been seen beforehand.

ginjawarrior · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
Glad you are seeing "the light". The problem with "fail safe" mechanisms is there always seems to be something we overlooked. The requirement for active cooling was a glaring mistake and should have been seen beforehand.

lol i already knew "the light"

as to the generators

"In the basements of turbine and reactor buildings, 6 of the 12 diesel generators shuddered to a halt as the floodwaters inundated them. Five other generators cut out when their power distribution panels were drenched. Only one generator, on the first floor of a building near unit 6, kept going; unlike the others, all of its equipment was above the water line. Reactor 6 and its sister unit, reactor 5, would weather the crisis without serious damage, thanks in part to that generator."
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/24-hours-at-fukushima/2

UncleBuck · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
UncleButtHead does understand that. In his world, you only qualify for respect if you agree with him. If you don't agree with him, then any slanderous lie is permissable, even elaborate schemes to portray a totally false narrative.

*permissible

it's not my fault that your very words are so popular on stormfront.

they are, after all, your words, not mine. and they are very popular on stormfront.

Red1966 · Oct 17, 2012

canndo said:
Several studies, including one that was quoted in the most recent SCOTUS decision (making our arguments mostly moot btw) and the Brennan study shows that there are a great deal more people who vote and do not have ID then you are imagining. But your attitude of "well, there aren't that many people who would be unable to legitimately vote under ID laws" is concerning. Of course it doesn't cost "that much" money, certainly it does not compare to the funds it would take to curtail global warming but that isn't or wasn't the point. with regard to the rest - shall we wait until others start curtailing emissions before we start?

Are you referring to the SCOTUS decision upholding voter ID? I don't understand how that supports your argument. The Brennan group is an extreme left wing nut group trying to pass themselves off as being neutral. Please don't think I give any credence to anything they say. Shall we wait? Yes, enriching others at our expense doesn't curtail emissions at all, it just transfers the location. And, I suspect, will increase the pollution levels. China's handling of toxic waste is a good example of what we can expect.

UncleBuck · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
Are you referring to the SCOTUS decision upholding voter ID? I don't understand how that supports your argument. The Brennan group is an extreme left wing nut group trying to pass themselves off as being neutral. Please don't think I give any credence to anything they say. Shall we wait? Yes, enriching others at our expense doesn't curtail emissions at all, it just transfers the location. And, I suspect, will increase the pollution levels. China's handling of toxic waste is a good example of what we can expect.

the stormfront snitch is upset that court after court in state after state keeps ruling against the voter suppression nonsense that he loves so much.

so sad.

canndo · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
Are you referring to the SCOTUS decision upholding voter ID? I don't understand how that supports your argument. The Brennan group is an extreme left wing nut group trying to pass themselves off as being neutral. Please don't think I give any credence to anything they say. Shall we wait? Yes, enriching others at our expense doesn't curtail emissions at all, it just transfers the location. And, I suspect, will increase the pollution levels. China's handling of toxic waste is a good example of what we can expect.

So you are maintaining that the Brennan study is false?

Red1966 · Oct 17, 2012

I'm maintaining the Brennan group is biased and tries to falsely portray they are not. Therefore, they are untrustworthy and I give them no credence. You know, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

canndo · Oct 17, 2012

Red1966 said:
I'm maintaining the Brennan group is biased and tries to falsely portray they are not. Therefore, they are untrustworthy and I give them no credence. You know, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Kindly point out the flaws in the study Red. Impugning the source is lazy thinking and lazy debating.

Red1966 · Oct 17, 2012

I have already told you I give no credence to the Brennan Group. That is the flaw that makes their study disreputable. The Brennan Group's study outcomes can ALWAYS be predicted. They always come down with the most liberal result, no matter what the subject. Give me some reason I should give them any credence at all.

InCognition · Oct 18, 2012

I find it quite funny how those who are pro-global warming (man-made), always manage to whip out a chart that displays statistical information for the past 100 years or less.

News flash: The Earth is hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundred of millions of years old. 100-year statistical references regarding "global warming" aren't worth a single grain of credibility.

There is no doubt man is causing considerable pollution to the planet. Pollution and climate are two entirely separate facets though, when it pertains to the "global warming" topic.

Pollution is irrefutably having various effects upon the planet, however the theories that this pollution is drastically causing "global warming" are just that... theories. As such, you could label these theories as bullshit.

There's always a possibility that man could possibly be aiding the natural warming cycle of the planet. You have to be bat-shit crazy though to rely on a 100-year (or less) chart, as a foundation to determine if man is causing global warming.

ginjawarrior · Oct 18, 2012

InCognition said:
I find it quite funny how those who are pro-global warming (man-made), always manage to whip out a chart that displays statistical information for the past 100 years or less.

News flash: The Earth is hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundred of millions of years old. 100-year statistical references regarding "global warming" aren't worth a single grain of credibility.

There is no doubt man is causing considerable pollution to the planet. Pollution and climate are two entirely separate facets though, when it pertains to the "global warming" topic.

Pollution is irrefutably having various effects upon the planet, however the theories that this pollution is drastically causing "global warming" are just that... theories. As such, you could label these theories as bullshit.

There's always a possibility that man could possibly be aiding the natural warming cycle of the planet. You have to be bat-shit crazy though to rely on a 100-year (or less) chart, as a foundation to determine if man is causing global warming.

you know whats hilarious?

you not pulling up the op for quoting a time period less than 2 decades

NLXSK1 · Oct 18, 2012

I have found that global warming happens every morning and goes through about midafternoon followed by global cooling overnight.

Damndest thing, it happens every day...

Global warming pauses... for sixteen years

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

canndo

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member

canndo

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member

canndo

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member

canndo

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member

InCognition

Active Member

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member