Environmentalists are liars - Clickbait title; more nuanced perspective.

[LazarusOwenhart]

with modern reactor designs, that is no longer the case (if it ever was the case in the west to begin with)
like i said, the worst possible scenario already happened at TMI, and the ultimate security measure (the containment building) proved that it's good enough to contain that. and since TMI there has been a lot of advancement in reactor and plant design, to the point that there are now passively safe reactors that basically can't ever have a meltdown unless there is some serious act of sabotage or outside attack on the plant

Sabotage and attack are human factors under the definition of stupidity. Also, it's more waste disposal than plant safety that's the sticking point. You can't call nuclear 'clean' until it's not generating waste products that won't be safe for a number of lifetimes.

 

[Watermelanin]

Sabotage and attack are human factors under the definition of stupidity. Also, it's more waste disposal than plant safety that's the sticking point. You can't call nuclear 'clean' until it's not generating waste products that won't be safe for a number of lifetimes.

Well it should be noted that, generally speaking, the lifetime of nuclear waste is inversely proportional to how dangerous it is. The more radioactive a thing is, the shorter its half life is; the longer the half life, the lower its radioactivity.
This touches on another dishonest tactic used by enviro-faggots: they talk on and on about how this shit will last for millions of years, but brush under the rug the fact that being around this stuff would be akin to flying on a commercial airliner. The danger associated with nuclear waste drops exponentially over time with the nasty shit decaying in short order and the stuff you're left with after that fizzling out very slowly while not being all that harmful in the meantime.

When you understand this and how little waste nuclear plants produce, the waste disposal thing really isn't that big of an issue.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Well it should be noted that, generally speaking, the lifetime of nuclear waste is inversely proportional to how dangerous it is. The more radioactive a thing is, the shorter its half life is; the longer the half life, the lower its radioactivity.
This touches on another dishonest tactic used by enviro-faggots: they talk on and on about how this shit will last for millions of years, but brush under the rug the fact that being around this stuff would be akin to flying on a commercial airliner. The danger associated with nuclear waste drops exponentially over time with the nasty shit decaying in short order and the stuff you're left with after that fizzling out very slowly while not being all that harmful in the meantime.

When you understand this and how little waste nuclear plants produce, the waste disposal thing really isn't that big of an issue.

You realize that when your sources for this "data" are the USDA and an article written by a professor at UCD, funded by the industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/24/un-meat-report-climate-change then edited by Paul fucking Keaveny, you have no credibility right? The USDA have an agenda to push as much high profit farming as humanly possible and will naturally publish any and all bullshit statistics they can find to support the idea that climate change is to blame on everything BUT agriculture and Paul Keaveny is a nobody journalist who worked for the fucking Sun newspaper, a paper whose agenda is along the lines of "Foreigners are scary and climate change is made up because the commies hate big macs."

 

[Watermelanin]

You realize that when your sources for this "data" are the USDA and an article written by a professor at UCD, funded by the industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/24/un-meat-report-climate-change then edited by Paul fucking Keaveny, you have no credibility right? The USDA have an agenda to push as much high profit farming as humanly possible and will naturally publish any and all bullshit statistics they can find to support the idea that climate change is to blame on everything BUT agriculture and Paul Keaveny is a nobody journalist who worked for the fucking Sun newspaper, a paper whose agenda is along the lines of "Foreigners are scary and climate change is made up because the commies hate big macs."

Attacking the credibility of your opposition rather than the meat of their argument? Yes, that really is the last line of defense when a demogogue is found to be in an untenable position. Maybe ask for a source for my claims rather than just say "you're not credible."
And you sighting THE GUARDIAN?
TOP
FUCKING
KEK
They were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to publish bullshit on behalf of environmentalist groups. The USDA did nothing wrong. The Guardian is literally a paid arm of fagtivists.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Attacking the credibility of your opposition rather than the meat of their argument? Yes, that really is the last line of defense when a demogogue is found to be in an untenable position. Maybe ask for a source for my claims rather than just say "you're not credible."
And you sighting THE GUARDIAN?
TOP
FUCKING
KEK
They were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to publish bullshit on behalf of environmentalist groups. The USDA did nothing wrong. The Guardian is literally a paid arm of fagtivists.

So you respond to my attack on the credibility of your sources with a critique of the credibility of my source using a source of your own with questionable credibility IE links with the Monsanto corporation of all people.

Answer me this then, the climate change myth rhetoric tends to come from groups and organisations with a lot of money to lose if climate legislation is tightened. Massive corporations that stand to gain a lot financially if environmental protections are relaxed.

Opposition to these people tends to come from organisations which don't have a huge financial stake in proving the point. Why bother taking a viewpoint that you allege is demonstrably false if there's nothing to gain? Where's the money, particularly considering there's a LOT of money in writing papers that deny that a particular industry is damaging the environment.

The critical thinking route through any argument like this is to follow the money to find the bullshit and if you follow the climate change money it all rests with the rich deniers.

 

[Watermelanin]

So you respond to my attack on the credibility of your sources with a critique of the credibility of my source using a source of your own with questionable credibility IE links with the Monsanto corporation of all people.

Monsanto doesn't even exist anymore you fucking nigger. GLP is funded by those that choose to fund them. There is zero evidence (as far as I know) of corporate funding going to them. If you can provide such evidence, I'd be HAPPY to see it.

Answer me this then, the climate change myth rhetoric tends to come from groups and organisations with a lot of money to lose if climate legislation is tightened. Massive corporations that stand to gain a lot financially if environmental protections are relaxed.

I don't doubt climate change. Read the thread.

Opposition to these people tends to come from organisations which don't have a huge financial stake in proving the point. Why bother taking a viewpoint that you allege is demonstrably false if there's nothing to gain? Where's the money, particularly considering there's a LOT of money in writing papers that deny that a particular industry is damaging the environment.

There's money in spouting BULLSHIT when people are paying you to spout it. You know very well that oil companies will pay people big bux to say man made climate change is bs. But those facts do not disprove the facts I have provided.

 

[DumbDude42]

Sabotage and attack are human factors under the definition of stupidity. Also, it's more waste disposal than plant safety that's the sticking point. You can't call nuclear 'clean' until it's not generating waste products that won't be safe for a number of lifetimes.

dealing with nuclear waste is as easy as "put it in a thick concrete box somewhere" lol
this stuff is produced in really small quantities, and with reprocessing plants and breeder reactors the vast majority of it (the spent uranium, also the plutinium) can be recycled into usable fuel again, leaving only a super tiny amount of fission products left for long term storage

this vid goes over the situation pretty well:

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Monsanto doesn't even exist anymore you fucking nigger. GLP is funded by those that choose to fund them. There is zero evidence (as far as I know) of corporate funding going to them. If you can provide such evidence, I'd be HAPPY to see it.


I don't doubt climate change. Read the thread.


There's money in spouting BULLSHIT when people are paying you to spout it. You know very well that oil companies will pay people big bux to say man made climate change is bs. But those facts do not disprove the facts I have provided.

So who's paying the environmentalists? Come on dude, WHO profits. Which massive corporation/government stands to make a ton of money if we ban fossil fuels and shut down industrial farms. Where's the benefit for the few? If there's money in spouting bullshit then the bullshit serves somebody's profit agenda.

@DumbDude42 I'm not gonna get sidetracked in a nuclear debate because like most sensible people I support nuclear. You're making arguments at me that I already know and understand. My point was that the leadership of these groups tend to be anti nuclear for waste disposal reasons and whether that stance is outdated or not is dependent on the nuclear industry making good on waste security promises.

 

[Watermelanin]

So who's paying the environmentalists? Come on dude, WHO profits. Which massive corporation/government stands to make a ton of money if we ban fossil fuels and shut down industrial farms. Where's the benefit for the few? If there's money in spouting bullshit then the bullshit serves somebody's profit agenda.

Hm... if only some high IQ, ravishingly attractive, individual with a negroid avatar posted an article that explained where (at least some of) the money is in all of this...
But seriously: organic agriculture, "green" energy, and lab produced pseudo-meat are all multi million dollar industries just like their counterparts. The difference is one of them makes their money filling a legitimate demand and the other manufactures demand by peddling bullshit and forcing the government's hand to act against their competition. I'm not saying that both sides of this coin aren't guilty of peddling bullshit to a degree. But only one side incorporates it in their business model.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Hm... if only some high IQ, ravishingly attractive, individual with a negroid avatar posted an article that explained where (at least some of) the money is in all of this...
But seriously: organic agriculture, "green" energy, and lab produced pseudo-meat are all multi million dollar industries just like their counterparts. The difference is one of them makes their money filling a legitimate demand and the other manufactures demand by peddling bullshit and forcing the government's hand to act against their competition. I'm not saying that both sides of this coin aren't guilty of peddling bullshit to a degree. But only one side incorporates it in their business model.

Yeah I'm sure the impossible burger enjoys the same market share as McDonald's and there's just tons of money to be made howling into the void of industrialized agriculture. You're using flawed data to demonstrate a flawed point. It's not JUST about the methane produced by beef cows, although that's certainly a factor, it's about the vast areas of rain forest that are being decimated to create more pasture, it's about the damage that the loss of that forest causes. Millions of tons of carbon locked in place as part of the cycle suddenly released into the atmosphere with no new trees growing to sink it. Deforestation causes soil erosion, habitat loss, local micro climate disruption. The transport of that meat generates a huge carbon footprint as it's dragged halfway across the world to make a rubbery tasteless burger. You're acting like mass industrialization has suddenly given humanity the ability to hork down three meat meals a day where 50 years ago in the UK at least, 3 a week was more common. You've cited one article, which I've discredited because it was paid for by the industry. Find me another article, from an unimpeachable source, that proves your point.

 

[Watermelanin]

It's not JUST about the methane produced by beef cows, although that's certainly a factor, it's about the vast areas of rain forest that are being decimated to create more pasture

,
I've already addressed this. If they weren't doing it for pastures, they'd do it for other crops. Yes, doing so would be more efficient calorie-per-calorie. But the majority of the world doesn't have a calorie deficit. Meat is a better choice because it's more nutrient dense than what you could generally grow in these places.

The transport of that meat generates a huge carbon footprint as it's dragged halfway across the world to make a rubbery tasteless burger.

As would transporting crops. The point there is moot.

You're acting like mass industrialization has suddenly given humanity the ability to hork down three meat meals a day where 50 years ago in the UK at least, 3 a week was more common.

There have been societies that have lived a nearly carnivorous lifestyle for thousands of years (inuits and maasai are the first to come to mind). There is no biological barrier to such a diet.

You've cited one article, which I've discredited because it was paid for by the industry. Find me another article, from an unimpeachable source, that proves your point.

You haven't discredited shit. You merely posted an article which was EVEN MORE blatantly funded, just by fagtivists instead of industry.
You want another source? Have it.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

,
I've already addressed this. If they weren't doing it for pastures, they'd do it for other crops. Yes, doing so would be more efficient calorie-per-calorie. But the majority of the world doesn't have a calorie deficit. Meat is a better choice because it's more nutrient dense than what you could generally grow in these places.

As would transporting crops. The point there is moot.

There have been societies that have lived a nearly carnivorous lifestyle for thousands of years (inuits and maasai are the first to come to mind). There is no biological barrier to such a diet.

You haven't discredited shit. You merely posted an article which was EVEN MORE blatantly funded, just by fagtivists instead of industry.
You want another source? Have it.

Why import it? The US has more than enough farmland to feed itself, so does the UK, and most of Europe, in fact, most countries do or have direct neighbors with a surplus of available farmland. Oh yeah, it's cheaper and you don't have to worry about things like minimum wages, health and safety and animal welfare standards when your food is produced in a third world hellhole by people desperate for even a scrap of the kind of food you get to eat. You're super angry about this by the way, which I love because even if meat was zero carbon the amount of suffering it creates just to feed the demand for cheap cow bits shows me that you've found this article and think you're just super informed. Also I directly tied that particular article to the meat industry and all you did was tie a publication I cited to a spurious piece of reporting at another time on a related subject.

I never said it was unhealthy for humans to eat an all meat diet per se, both the inuit and maasai peoples historically were able to subsist on those diets because the game was plentiful and the numbers of people were governed by the availability of food. Both those peoples had an abiding respect for the world they lived in, and I don't mean some spiritual ooga booga bullshit, I mean that they understood it, inhabited it rather than dominated it. Westerners don't subsist, we dominate, subsistence is having enough food, industrialized agriculture is having so much food you can afford to dump thousands of tons of it in landfill because why the fuck not?

 

[Watermelanin]

Why import it? The US has more than enough farmland to feed itself, so does the UK, and most of Europe, in fact, most countries do or have direct neighbors with a surplus of available farmland.

Not all farmland (or climates for that matter) are created equal. Try growing bananas in Russia. See what happens.

You're super angry about this by the way

The only thing I'm mad about is the fact that I haven't received any tophats yet.

the amount of suffering it creates just to feed the demand for cheap cow bits

The amount of suffering it creates is dubious at best. If people in these shitholes weren't farming cattle, they'd be farming something else and be stuck with the same shitty working conditions.

Also I directly tied that particular article to the meat industry and all you did was tie a publication I cited to a spurious piece of reporting at another time on a related subject.

Let me put it this way: Researchers can take money from whoever they want. Who is funding them means fuckall to me. Note that I wasn't disparaging the guardian for taking special interest funding. I was mocking you for citing them when saying my article was funded by special interests. Know the difference.
It's not the funding; it's the methodology that matters. Yes, my article DID receive a sizeable research grant from industry. But are you saying the argument isn't sound? The IPCC's original report compared direct emissions from transportation to the entire life-cycle of meat production (which includes transporting that meat). You're smoking crack if you think that's a valid comparison. Also note that you're accusing the USDA of being in the pocket of industry when, as your article makes clear, they were actually a contributor to the paper's funding. And as I said before: the USDA did nothing wrong.

 

[Watermelanin]

Conservation biologist here: Can confirm.

What's that job like?
It must be hell to know that people who are on your side (on paper) are doing everything in their power to stifle you work. Your cause is a noble one, but I'm glad it's not one I've taken up.

 

[L50LasPak]

Though I generally disagree with a lot of @Watermelanin's points he actually raises a good one about how "green" industries are becoming a big deal and making millions for energy companies. He's wrong about the rubberburger (so far, that technology has a lot of potential though) but it is generally true that green energy such as wind, hydroelectric and solar are extremely expensive, require an extraction of precious metals that does significant damage to the locations around their mining sites and in general they don't really produce that much power. They're a front for energy companies to pretend they're doing something while their main source of fuel is still coal and oil.

Furthermore, climate change is real and there's not a whole lot that can be done about it at this point. Even minute temperature changes can produce changes in the atmosphere that affect things like jetstreams, cloud cover and tidal patterns. So these green energy sources will be completely useless in a couple of decades. Areas with previously no cloud cover will see more of it, so solar's fucked, tidal patterns will fuck hydroelectric unless we're talking exclusively about river dams, and rivers could still be affected by a lack of rain or by too much of it. Wind farms are not immune to storms, assuming there will even be regular airflow in those locations.

This is why I'm a Geo/Nuke guy. They both have their own problems but they seem the least likely to be affected by humans fucking up the planet in the coming decades.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

What's that job like?
It must be hell to know that people who are on your side (on paper) are doing everything in their power to stifle you work. Your cause is a noble one, but I'm glad it's not one I've taken up.

I've worked several jobs because most are seasonal/temporary, and generally one needs 5+ years experience with a masters degree to be competitive at anything permanent.

Well I took up the cause because I'm an autistic sped obsessed with snakes and salamanders - which, ironically, might explain my comparative level-headedness compared to some of my peers who joined the cause because they were indoctrinated in college/HS about environmental issues.

...unless we're talking exclusively about river dams...

River dams are extremely destructive to migratory fish populations and minnow diversity, and in some regions (Appalachia) can also be destructive to salamander, mussel and crayfish diversity.

Hydroelectric is a great example of "green" logic. It's "green" because of no CO2 emissions and is comparatively more renewable than fossil fuels, but is ultimately a long-term death sentence for native biodiversity in the river systems which they are implemented.