Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Commonwealth refugees swilling chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 718
    MEMBERS
  • 32814
    MESSAGES
  • 76
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 73503 views.
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-22

I absolutely agree that nuclear power is the way to go in the future.

We have to get past our fear.

Renewables are supplements, yes, but every little bit helps.

Australia is lousy with uranium, but it has such a stigma attached to it.

That whole big bomb thing, I guess.

I think geothermal energy could be another way to get base load power in a greener way.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Aug-22

Trolly8 said:

We had been there since WW-II, maybe even before, I can not remember the exact date and everyone was happy until the IFTs showed up.

You brutalised their women. Same as you did in Vietnam and Iraq.

Then created desperate jihadi, as in every place you go.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-22

Trolly8 said:

Didn't you read that article several posts above?

Depends what the article was.

A lot of climate change deniers post "evidence" that is just some guy's blog.

For me the debate is over.  The climate is changing, the Earth is warming, humans are responsible.

The last clingers on to denial are just doing so because they don't want to change their lives or they just don't care.  Not to mention those who make money from the death of the planet.

After all, it's their grandkids' problem.  And fuck 'em!

I prefer those who ignore the debate completely and just get on with doing their part to help.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-22

You have enough conservative voices in D.C to form a complete circle jerk of mutual agreement.

Don't try to steal my new Republican!

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-22

Trolly8 said:

How come the mainstream news never publishes any the thousands of dissenting opinions?

On the contrary.  The media's bias towards balance in the media often sees some delusional idiot having their say on Climate Change, (and vaccinations) in a split screen debate that gives the impression of a 50/50 split on the issue.

If the media really wants to be balanced and fair, then they should have one hold out and their 2 friends vs 97 scientists with decades of irrefutable proof.

Simply put, if 97 doctors told you you had cancer, why are you listening to the 3 naturopaths who are saying everything is fine?

Because it's comforting, I guess.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-22

How about Associated Press?

Or is any news source that doesn't grovel at Trump's feet automatically biased?

You can't declare bias in the media, and then admit you only watch Fox News and read conservative blogs.


I mean, did you actually READ the Wikipedia entry?  It basically calls out Climate change deniers as idiots who skip past the data in order to cherry pick out one sentence of uncertainty, then ride it - as though one scientist admitting they don't know the answer to a problem is good enough reason to doubt all science and the process.

This is how science denial works.

Just like any other ignorant view - be it anti-vaxxers, bible thumpers or flat earthers.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Aug-22

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said: I absolutely agree that nuclear power is the way to go in the future. ... Australia is lousy with uranium, but it has such a stigma attached to it. That whole big bomb thing, I guess.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/

The Joint European Torus tokamak generator, as seen from the inside. (Credit: EUROfusion)

I'd like to be pro-nuclear - but it seems to be impossible to make it acceptably clean. Any handling of fission material inevitably brings about quite wide-spread contamination.

Now, fusion would be totally different - almost entirely clean. But we seem to be unable to get there. If CERN had succeeded, or looked like it was succeeding, there'd be no Brexit.

Why Nuclear Fusion Is Always 30 Years Away

March 23, 2016 11:50 am 

Nuclear fusion has long been considered the “holy grail” of energy research. It represents a nearly limitless source of energy that is clean, safe and self-sustaining. Ever since its existence was first theorized in the 1920s by English physicist Arthur Eddington, nuclear fusion has captured the imaginations of scientists and science-fiction writers alike.

... a big payoff requires an equally large investment, and for decades we have wrestled with the problem of energizing and holding on to the hydrogen fuel as it reaches temperatures in excess of 150 million degrees Fahrenheit. To date, the most successful fusion experiments have succeeded in heating plasma to over 900 million degrees Fahrenheit, and held onto a plasma for three and a half minutes, although not at the same time, and with different reactors.

The most recent advancements have come from Germany, where the Wendelstein 7-X reactor recently came online with a successful test run reaching almost 180 million degrees, and China, where the EAST reactorsustained a fusion plasma for 102 seconds, although at lower temperatures.

Still, even with these steps forward, researchers have said for decades that we’re still 30 years away from a working fusion reactor. Even as scientists take steps toward their holy grail, it becomes ever more clear that we don’t even yet know what we don’t know.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-24

The simple truth about Australia is that we have a hell of a lot of uninhabited desert to safely store the nuclear waste.

No fault lines or tsunamis to worry about in the red centre.  Just make sure the hole is deep an insulated.

In reply toRe: msg 487
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-24

I think everyone knows where he can shove his apology.


In reply toRe: msg 488
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Aug-30

TOP