Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

I bet that was a lot of money spent for nothing.
Considering it takes years to decommission a nuclear plant, it's more money than it'll ever be worth to keep them operating.
For example, San Onofre is taking 20 years to go offline and cost $4.4 billion to the taxpayers to shut down. Hardly a cheap endeavor.

Depends. You got any share in Kinder Morgan?
I once talked to someone who was adamant in shutting down Nine Mile Point. When I told them that doing so would only mean being replaced by natural gas and coal, they went into a tailspin on how no, they'll use green energy instead!
And when I said, that solar and wind would not even come close to being 5% of the output of Nine Mile, she said that we don't really need that much power anyways since it's all just wasted in the end.

Some people just don't understand how important it is that power is being constantly supplied to the network and how it's not a flat line all day but rising and falling depending on the time.
 
Considering it takes years to decommission a nuclear plant, it's more money than it'll ever be worth to keep them operating.
For example, San Onofre is taking 20 years to go offline and cost $4.4 billion to the taxpayers to shut down. Hardly a cheap endeavor.
Damn.

I once talked to someone who was adamant in shutting down Nine Mile Point. When I told them that doing so would only mean being replaced by natural gas and coal, they went into a tailspin on how no, they'll use green energy instead!
And when I said, that solar and wind would not even come close to being 5% of the output of Nine Mile, she said that we don't really need that much power anyways since it's all just wasted in the end.
Sounds like a complete asshole. I bet these people are going to pay a lot more to go 'off the grid' and stick solar panels on their roofs if it came to that.

Some people just don't understand how important it is that power is being constantly supplied to the network and how it's not a flat line all day but rising and falling depending on the time.
You only wish people knew that. It's why I'm glad I went to school and paid attention.
 
I once talked to someone who was adamant in shutting down Nine Mile Point. When I told them that doing so would only mean being replaced by natural gas and coal, they went into a tailspin on how no, they'll use green energy instead!
And when I said, that solar and wind would not even come close to being 5% of the output of Nine Mile, she said that we don't really need that much power anyways since it's all just wasted in the end.

Some people just don't understand how important it is that power is being constantly supplied to the network and how it's not a flat line all day but rising and falling depending on the time.
Yup. That's climatechange.wav

I just change the subject. They are the kind of people that think food comes from the grocery store. They just can't wrap their brain around the fact that you can't just shut down an arc furnace because of a cloud. Their worldview is too small and lacks sufficient technical know-how to grasp these concepts.
 
I just change the subject. They are the kind of people that think food comes from the grocery store. They just can't wrap their brain around the fact that you can't just shut down an arc furnace because of a cloud. Their worldview is too small and lacks sufficient technical know-how to grasp these concepts.
It's only a shame when they have their way.
 
You are not alkaline. Your body is buffered exquisitely to prevent changes in pH for the very simple reason that even tiny changes in pH can make you very dead. You can change the pH of your urine because that’s a waste product that various stuff can be dumped in to excrete.

See also: diabetic ketoacidosis. Normal pH of arterial blood is 7.38-7.42. Under 7.3= serious problems.

Fruitarianism is an eating disorder, and women who starve themselves often stop menstruating.

Eat some steak, and/or up your calories, or you’re headed for osteoporosis at a minimum.
 
Yup. That's climatechange.wav

I just change the subject. They are the kind of people that think food comes from the grocery store. They just can't wrap their brain around the fact that you can't just shut down an arc furnace because of a cloud. Their worldview is too small and lacks sufficient technical know-how to grasp these concepts.
Energy on demand is so important to society that we’ll be producing crude oil in a test tube with cellulose before there will be any wide scale conversion to an energy source where we’re at the whims of the weather. The people who won’t listen to you describe the problem aren’t actually interested in solving the problem. They’re just scared or looking for attention.
 
View attachment 702238
Guys did you know that uhhh if we don't pass the green new deal the whole world will look like Fallout in just over a decade? Some dumbass kid thinks it's true so we should do whatever theh want

I just don't see why people can't take the next step here. Yes, this theory has been around for 30 years at least. Yes, they've been predicting the end of the world within 12 years since 30 years ago.

So why the fuck are we still giving them truckloads of money to make up another dire 12 year warning?

People conflate global warming with general environmentalism, which is such annoying bullshit. Factory runoff is real, can be seen, and causes enormous health problems. CO2 is real, but outside of huge concentrations(see: China, India), is not a health hazard at all. They should concentrate on reducing CO2 emissions in areas with smog problems, or areas susceptible to smog, as that's where it causes a problem.

Renewable energy is great, where you can get it. Hamstringing your economy to switch completely over is just not doable, although you'd surely end up fucking over lots of people in the process.

This is the exact same strategy religion has used for millenia to get people to follow it. Threaten unimaginably dire consequences for not doing it, so it's worth any cost for even a tiny chance of avoiding these consequences that may well not exist. It works well on human psychology, but it's not actually logical.

I'm going to make a prediction. By the year 2060, we will have continued along the current trend, and the global average temperature will be 2 degrees C hotter than 1920, about 1 degree C hotter than the current average temperature. There will be some small climate changes due to this, although they will probably be impossible to quantify given the unpredictability of weather. Additionally, we can expect CO2 concentrations to rise, as they have historically done along with global average temperature changes.

That's a long way out though, so let's dial it back to 2030, where we can probably assume about a 0.15 degree C increase in global temp. This will lead to very, very slight sea level rise, so we'll probably see a tiny bit more flooding, although again, the noisy weather system will make this impossible to quantify.

If the current global warming hysteria is correct, by 2030 we should be all fucked up, certainly not just 0.15 C warmer. We should see significantly more deaths from flooding and such, some kind of measurable quantifiable difference. Remember, the whole reason this is supposed to be an emergency is that the process is supposed to be basically a thermal runaway scenario. Earth heats, more CO2 released, more snow melts, less sunlight reflected, more permafrost thaws and frozen organic matter rots, releasing more CO2, earth heats more, repeat until dead.

I have to assume, based on past trends, that there's a natural negative feedback to this rising temp, perhaps cloud formation, otherwise why did the earth cool off in previous warm periods? So the current rising trend will break eventually, but I certainly can't make any kind of prediction as to when that might happen. And it might not be perfectly linear, due to albedo changes (As the earth warms, there's less white snow and ice reflecting sunlight, meaning the earth will absorb more heat from the sun).

So what do you say? Will you take the bet? Is my proposition missing something?
 
Legit, people's attitudes towards nuclear pisses me off to no end. The plant near my town is the literal LIFEBLOOD of this community. It's created countless jobs and bolstered so many local businesses.

We all love our cloud maker dearly, but it's getting up there in age and instead of you know, attempting to repair it, the government has decided to shut it down. We're all terrified for what that means for the town, and I remember this smug soy-guzzling shit was crowing about how great it was that it was getting shut down and it's been a long time coming and how terrible nuclear is. I had to physically restrain myself from slapping him.
 
I just don't see why people can't take the next step here. Yes, this theory has been around for 30 years at least. Yes, they've been predicting the end of the world within 12 years since 30 years ago.

So why the fuck are we still giving them truckloads of money to make up another dire 12 year warning?

People conflate global warming with general environmentalism, which is such annoying bullshit. Factory runoff is real, can be seen, and causes enormous health problems. CO2 is real, but outside of huge concentrations(see: China, India), is not a health hazard at all. They should concentrate on reducing CO2 emissions in areas with smog problems, or areas susceptible to smog, as that's where it causes a problem.

Renewable energy is great, where you can get it. Hamstringing your economy to switch completely over is just not doable, although you'd surely end up fucking over lots of people in the process.

This is the exact same strategy religion has used for millenia to get people to follow it. Threaten unimaginably dire consequences for not doing it, so it's worth any cost for even a tiny chance of avoiding these consequences that may well not exist. It works well on human psychology, but it's not actually logical.

I'm going to make a prediction. By the year 2060, we will have continued along the current trend, and the global average temperature will be 2 degrees C hotter than 1920, about 1 degree C hotter than the current average temperature. There will be some small climate changes due to this, although they will probably be impossible to quantify given the unpredictability of weather. Additionally, we can expect CO2 concentrations to rise, as they have historically done along with global average temperature changes.

That's a long way out though, so let's dial it back to 2030, where we can probably assume about a 0.15 degree C increase in global temp. This will lead to very, very slight sea level rise, so we'll probably see a tiny bit more flooding, although again, the noisy weather system will make this impossible to quantify.

If the current global warming hysteria is correct, by 2030 we should be all fucked up, certainly not just 0.15 C warmer. We should see significantly more deaths from flooding and such, some kind of measurable quantifiable difference. Remember, the whole reason this is supposed to be an emergency is that the process is supposed to be basically a thermal runaway scenario. Earth heats, more CO2 released, more snow melts, less sunlight reflected, more permafrost thaws and frozen organic matter rots, releasing more CO2, earth heats more, repeat until dead.

I have to assume, based on past trends, that there's a natural negative feedback to this rising temp, perhaps cloud formation, otherwise why did the earth cool off in previous warm periods? So the current rising trend will break eventually, but I certainly can't make any kind of prediction as to when that might happen. And it might not be perfectly linear, due to albedo changes (As the earth warms, there's less white snow and ice reflecting sunlight, meaning the earth will absorb more heat from the sun).

So what do you say? Will you take the bet? Is my proposition missing something?

If the Earth gets a degree hotter that's still not a good thing. The worst effects are a long way down the road, true, but are we just going to wait and see if the worst pans out or take action to make sure it never happens at all?
 
Legit, people's attitudes towards nuclear pisses me off to no end. The plant near my town is the literal LIFEBLOOD of this community. It's created countless jobs and bolstered so many local businesses.

We all love our cloud maker dearly, but it's getting up there in age and instead of you know, attempting to repair it, the government has decided to shut it down. We're all terrified for what that means for the town, and I remember this smug soy-guzzling shit was crowing about how great it was that it was getting shut down and it's been a long time coming and how terrible nuclear is. I had to physically restrain myself from slapping him.
But muh highly publicized reactor failure from decades ago! Because plants hastily slapped together with very little considerations for safety in place are totally representative of the entire field now!
 
If I could offer a counterpoint - I'm not going to deny that nuclear power has a lot of benefits over all other forms of energy. Its output is massive, mostly clean, and it has potential be the future.

But look at the kind of idiocy we have on display here every day, from people from all walks of life, and tell me our species of arrogant apes is ready for a massive infrastructure switch that, while unlikely, could have massive implications for the immediate area if too many variables went wrong at the same time. To give that kind of power in general to massive corporations. It's not the nuclear power I don't trust, it's the people that have to run it.
 
If I could offer a counterpoint - I'm not going to deny that nuclear power has a lot of benefits over all other forms of energy. Its output is massive, mostly clean, and it has potential be the future.

But look at the kind of idiocy we have on display here every day, from people from all walks of life, and tell me our species of arrogant apes is ready for a massive infrastructure switch that, while unlikely, could have massive implications for the immediate area if too many variables went wrong at the same time. To give that kind of power in general to massive corporations. It's not the nuclear power I don't trust, it's the people that have to run it.
How many millions of people drive cars and we only have the accidents we have now, with signs and white lines painted on the road while we drive heavy machinery at high speeds?

How many airlines are in the sky at any given time?

How long have nuclear reactors been used? I posted earlier their safety record- safest power source in the world.

Here's some food for thought.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

If one rejects laissez-faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.

-Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom
 
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.
702710

They genuinely believe every nuclear power plant is ran this way
 
How many millions of people drive cars and we only have the accidents we have now, with signs and white lines painted on the road while we drive heavy machinery at high speeds?

How many airlines are in the sky at any given time?

How long have nuclear reactors been used? I posted earlier their safety record- safest power source in the world.

Here's some food for thought.

You have a point, but I still think that it's a little different. You have a major fuck up on the road? 15-20 lives, cleaned up in a day. A plane crash? 200 lives, probably cleaned up in a few days. But one nuclear reactor fuck up could have ramifications for centuries.
 
You have a point, but I still think that it's a little different. You have a major fuck up on the road? 15-20 lives, cleaned up in a day. A plane crash? 200 lives, probably cleaned up in a few days. But one nuclear reactor fuck up could have ramifications for centuries.

I get your point, but in the case of a plane crash it really depends on where that plane crashes.

I realize it was intentional, but 9/11 was still technically a plane crash that killed or injured 9,000 people and has had giant ramifications for nearly two decades.
 
I get your point, but in the case of a plane crash it really depends on where that plane crashes.

I realize it was intentional, but 9/11 was still technically a plane crash that killed or injured 9,000 people and has had giant ramifications for nearly two decades.

I mean, yeah, but you're kind of splitting hairs. The person I was responding to said 'accidents' and I'd classify 9/11 as very intentional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koby_Fish
I mean, yeah, but you're kind of splitting hairs. The person I was responding to said 'accidents' and I'd classify 9/11 as very intentional.

9/11 also was intentional but it didn't have to be. If an airplane suddenly goes down over a major metro area (NYC, LA) the death toll will not be limited to those on the plane and can (using 9/11 as an example) get really, really high.

Ironically, a large percentage (71%) of airplane accidents already occur very close to large groups of people; because they happen at the fucking airport so it isn't hard to imagine an accident scenario where a plane strikes and airport and kills thousands. It doesn't happen because of all of the safety, training, and controls in place to prevent it from happening.
 
Back