Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

Piga Dgrifm said:
I wish the fear mongering would stop so we could have an actual discussion on what should be done to better the environment, but I guess "REEEEE! THE END IS NIGH!" is all we get to work with.
Click to expand...
I've tried. But anything other than doom-and-gloom "we are so totally screwed unless we dismantle X" bounces right off of their heads. Like, I've tried pointing out it's an energy production issue not an ecological one so we should probably, in the short term, focus on grid scale carbon-free production sources. Yeah, doesn't work. Well, it kinda does until I point out the only thing we got that could do that right now is nuclear without substantially changing our standard of living. Off the table.

They are wedded to the idea that we must live in solar-powered mudhuts as subsistence farmers to fix this. Well, anyone that isn't part of the urban elite of course. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the advocates don't want a solution that works they want a solution that fits their view of the future.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary, TerribleIdeas™, Cosmug and 8 others
ColtWalker1847 said:
They are wedded to the idea that we must live in solar-powered mudhuts as subsistence farmers to fix this. Well, anyone that isn't part of the urban elite of course. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the advocates don't want a solution that works they want a solution that fits their view of the future.
Click to expand...
You live in fourth-world condition in order to save the planet.
I continue to sip my fappucino and post shit on twitter with my latest MacBook pro.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary, TowinKarz, Clones of Alex Jones and 8 others
ColtWalker1847 said:
I've tried. But anything other than doom-and-gloom "we are so totally screwed unless we dismantle X" bounces right off of their heads. Like, I've tried pointing out it's an energy production issue not an ecological one so we should probably, in the short term, focus on grid scale carbon-free production sources. Yeah, doesn't work. Well, it kinda does until I point out the only thing we got that could do that right now is nuclear without substantially changing our standard of living. Off the table.

They are wedded to the idea that we must live in solar-powered mudhuts as subsistence farmers to fix this. Well, anyone that isn't part of the urban elite of course. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the advocates don't want a solution that works they want a solution that fits their view of the future.
Click to expand...
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: TerribleIdeas™, Cosmug and UnsufficentBoobage
ColtWalker1847 said:
Well, it kinda does until I point out the only thing we got that could do that right now is nuclear without substantially changing our standard of living. Off the table.
Click to expand...

The absolute refusal even to acknowledge nuclear power means these people don't really take the climate change issue seriously at all.

Because you don't solve it or even reduce it without using nuclear power to some degree.

They are wedded to the idea that we must live in solar-powered mudhuts as subsistence farmers to fix this.
Click to expand...

This works, if you eliminate something like 90% of the population. You can't just get rid of whitey and have this work. You have to get rid of a lot more of the human race to do that.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: TowinKarz, lolwut, Clones of Alex Jones and 9 others
AnOminous said:
The absolute refusal even to acknowledge nuclear power means these people don't really take the climate change issue seriously at all.

Because you don't solve it or even reduce it without using nuclear power to some degree.
Click to expand...
Yup. The numbers don't work any other way. I've adopted it as my litmus test to see if somebody actually cares to look into it or is just an NPC that loaded climatechange.wav.

AnOminous said:
This works, if you eliminate something like 90% of the population. You can't just get rid of whitey and have this work. You have to get rid of a lot more of the human race to do that.
Click to expand...
Right. So who gets the axe. Oh yes, all the people who don't think like me. How wonderfully convenient.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: TowinKarz, TerribleIdeas™, Cosmug and 5 others
AnOminous said:
The absolute refusal even to acknowledge nuclear power means these people don't really take the climate change issue seriously at all.

Because you don't solve it or even reduce it without using nuclear power to some degree.
Click to expand...
People seem inclined to shut nuclear down because of meltdown paranoia or something. In real life I've observed a successful campaign to have a plant shut down and honestly I have trouble understanding why other than possibly "muh Chernobyl". Someone please enlighten me on this, genuinely.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: SourDiesel, Alec Benson Leary, Cool kitties club and 1 other person
scathefire said:
People seem inclined to shut nuclear down because of meltdown paranoia or something. In real life I've observed a successful campaign to have a plant shut down and honestly I have trouble understanding why other than possibly "muh Chernobyl". Someone please enlighten me on this, genuinely.
Click to expand...
hanoi-jane-vietnam1.jpg

en.wikipedia.org

The China Syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Active measures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
www.breitbart.com

Communist Agenda Behind Climate Change Movement

A report from PJ Media beautifully illustrates how the climate-change contingent is aligned with Communists who hope to change the American system.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Cool kitties club, Jhonson Jhonson, Super-Chevy454 and 5 others
scathefire said:
People seem inclined to shut nuclear down because of meltdown paranoia or something. In real life I've observed a successful campaign to have a plant shut down and honestly I have trouble understanding why other than possibly "muh Chernobyl". Someone please enlighten me on this, genuinely.
Click to expand...
Because the easily misled and low information population have been led to believe Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and then Fukushima are these massive events just waiting to happen.

What they're never told is that Three Mile Island didn't hurt anybody, Chernobyl happened because safeties were turned off intentionally, and Fukushima was in a terrible spot.

Oh, Russia is still using Chernobyl-style nuclear reactors. As a power generation source nuclear has the safest safety record, by far.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary, lolwut, Cool kitties club and 10 others
scathefire said:
People seem inclined to shut nuclear down because of meltdown paranoia or something. In real life I've observed a successful campaign to have a plant shut down and honestly I have trouble understanding why other than possibly "muh Chernobyl". Someone please enlighten me on this, genuinely.
Click to expand...
The legacy of the environmental movement of the 70's. Somewhere in there, after the big mainstream things got dealt with, clean air clean water pollution controls superfunds etc, the movement lost steam and became heavily partisan. It started incorporating a lot of lefty politics into it's ideals and became extremely pacifist and virulently anti-nuclear. Because bombs. That's why you see some of the old-timers still making the rounds like Helen Caldicott repeating weird half-remembered rhetoric from almost 50 years ago. To them Chernobyl wasn't a steam explosion caused by a positive void coefficient. It was a bomb going off. Their worst fears recognized.

To them nuclear plants are just bombs and everybody has to duck and cover because of the coming nuclear apocalypse. We basically have to wait for all of them to retire or die off (and their donors) for the movement to take a look at nukes with anything other than contempt.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary, Cool kitties club, MrHoneyBadger and 1 other person
DanteAlighieri said:
Because the easily misled and low information population have been led to believe Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and then Fukushima are these massive events just waiting to happen.

What they're never told is that Three Mile Island didn't hurt anybody, Chernobyl happened because safeties were turned off intentionally, and Fukushima was in a terrible spot.

Oh, Russia is still using Chernobyl-style nuclear reactors. As a power generation source nuclear has the safest safety record, by far.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how rare problems ever really occur from nuclear power plants. Of course, the USSR none-withstanding. Chernobyl was not the first time they had a nuclear disaster of some sort.

Renewables are always touted as the future and that we absolutely need to get on changing over to solar and wind power but they just do not produce enough energy nor can they do so at all times. They're can't adapt to a day's changing power curve like traditional steam turbine plants can, solar can't operate at night for the obvious, wind can't operate on calm days, and worse for solar is that there is no efficient way to store excess energy as of yet.

Hydro and nuclear are the two best forms of energy production available to us currently but both are despised in the Western world for differing reasons. Hydro for being terrible to fish and raising the water levels of rivers upstream and nuclear because they clearly are all Chernobyl's waiting to happen, not to mention the whole waste issue. Until these attitudes are either ignored or assuaged, we're going to be using coal, oil, and natural gas as power sources for the foreseeable future.

The real kicker is that nuclear power plants in the US are not only aging and in need of replacement, but in highly misguided attempts to "go green" they're being politically forced to shut down in some places, only to be replaced with coal and oil plants.

So much for fucking saving the world, eh?

EDIT - Two examples of the last part are the Indian Point Energy Center and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
 
Last edited:
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary, Cool kitties club, Jhonson Jhonson and 7 others
KiwiLedian said:
The real kicker is that nuclear power plants in the US are not only aging and in need of replacement, but in highly misguided attempts to "go green" they're being politically forced to shut down in some places, only to be replaced with coal and oil plants.

So much for fucking saving the world, eh?
Click to expand...
Now that's just sad. sigh
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary, Cool kitties club and MrHoneyBadger
KiwiLedian said:
Renewables are always touted as the future and that we absolutely need to get on changing over to solar and wind power but they just do not produce enough energy nor can they do so at all times. They're can't adapt to a day's changing power curve like traditional steam turbine plants can, solar can't operate at night for the obvious, wind can't operate on calm days, and worse for solar is that there is no efficient way to store excess energy as of yet.
Click to expand...
Solar and wind are just natural gas by proxy. Cogen gas plants can't ramp up and down quick enough to meet varying loads (steam turbines take a while to get up to temp) so they essentially operate as less efficient peaker plants to pick up all the shortfalls. The WWS movement can't even see that they are being played. It can't replace baseload power without burning a shitload of gas very inefficiently. It isn't green.

KiwiLedian said:
EDIT - Two examples of the last part are the Indian Point Energy Center and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
Click to expand...
Vermont Yankee. The way they killed that one hurt. Nobody involved, NOBODY, wanted it shuttered. Only outside interest groups. But they just brought more people to protest and cause a stink than the little town could handle until they quit.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, MrHoneyBadger, scathefire and 4 others
ColtWalker1847 said:
Vermont Yankee. The way they killed that one hurt. Nobody involved, NOBODY, wanted it shuttered. Only outside interest groups. But they just brought more people to protest and cause a stink than the little town could handle until they quit.
Click to expand...
I bet that was a lot of money spent for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back