Climate change discussion

1,596 posts in this topic

41 minutes ago, balticus said:

It's the climate change thread.   

 

This is the place where everyone needs to complain about impending doom, ridicule the "fascists" who suggest people should limit their carbon footprints by adjusting their own personal lifestyle and condemn the non-believers and apostates who doubt the gospel of Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.  

 

 

You missed out Maurice Strong, the granddaddy of the whole thing. Taught Skull and Bones Al Gore 322 what to say.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.6.2019, 14:16:24, MikeMelga said:

There were 2 major nuclear accidents, one was in a very old tech reactor, managed by the decrepit soviet union. The other was an even older reactor managed by the Yakuza.

 

Just read this today. *WARNING- Containers spoilers for anyone watching the Chernobyl series on Sky.*

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7109637/Explosive-truth-Chernobyl-revealed-heart-stopping-climax-hit-TV-drama.html

 

Beyond words.

So basically they saved on costs (Communists? saved on costs? :wacko:)

Terrible.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.6.2019, 17:04:01, zwiebelfisch said:

 

However, switching to nuclear would actually save lives as the deaths per unit of energy produced is lower for nuclear than any other, even wind or solar.  Including the deaths due to Chernobyl, Fukushima and anything else.

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear/

 

Nuclear power is not the way for the future. I am actually really shocked how many people still think nuclear power is so great. I find it terrifying. We need to find a better way for the future.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anna66 said:

Nuclear power is not the way for the future. I am actually really shocked how many people still think nuclear power is so great. I find it terrifying. We need to find a better way for the future.

I think today with the falling of solar panel costs, nuclear is no longer the only way out, but until now, it was really the only way to avoid a catastrophic climate change scenario.

 

The nuclear fear is one of the hardest to counter, unfortunately for our generation.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to everyone i am new to this topic. nuclear energy s not clean it produces waste vich is quite dangerous dirty and nuclear energy is dvastating and deadly if it gets out of control.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing incorrect about the above post, but I learnt absolutely nothing from it, and would be surprised to find anybody got any insights from it.

 

Yes Nuclear accidents are nasty. Are they nastier than say Deepwater horizon?

Is nuclear waste nastier than CO2 waste. More planet destructive?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Magmax said:

Hello to everyone i am new to this topic.

 

We can tell.

 

37 minutes ago, Magmax said:

dvastating and deadly if it gets out of control.

 

Unlike coal which is devastating and deadly eben when it doesnt get out of control.

 

9 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

Yes Nuclear accidents are nasty. Are they nastier than say Deepwater horizon?

 

They make better headlines. But if we look at the statistics we find nuclear to be much safer than all alternatives even wind or solar.  

 

10 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

Is nuclear waste nastier than CO2 waste. More planet destructive?

 

No. Nuclear is the solution to global warming.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zwiebelfisch Don't call it "global warning". It just encourages Trump lookalikes and some of the more dense posters in this thread to say:

 

Last winter was very cold. I don't believe in global warming. I can't wear short skirts in May anymore (That's not a Trump quote). 

 

It's climate change NOT global warming.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, zwiebelfisch said:

 

Greenpeace is an anti nuclear organisation, thats like asking Trump if Clinton should be president.

 

 

We did.  Its called nuclear.

 

Nuclear is not the future, it is old. Really old, and has many flaws. It is far from safe. (see link below)

 

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/cracks-found-nuclear-reactor-could-15944122

 

The future in my view is producing energy from a clean safe way. As you posted before, a link from India producing energy from sewage.

 

Anyhow, as you said it is like asking Trump if Clinton should be president. I am anti nuclear, much like greenpeace are, difference in opinions that's all ;)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anna66 said:

 

Nuclear is not the future, it is old. Really old, and has many flaws. It is far from safe. (see link below)

 

Of course it is old ...

 

That all started with the Big Bang! (Bang!)

 

 

 

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, 
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait... 
The Earth began to cool, 
The autotrophs began to drool, 
Neanderthals developed tools, 
We built a wall (we built the pyramids), 
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang! (Bang!) 
 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

Of course it is old ...

 

That all started with the Big Bang! (Bang!)

 

 

 

 

 

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, 
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait... 
The Earth began to cool, 
The autotrophs began to drool, 
Neanderthals developed tools, 
We built a wall (we built the pyramids), 
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang! (Bang!) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The question is, are we now all fully illuminated?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

There is nothing incorrect about the above post, but I learnt absolutely nothing from it, and would be surprised to find anybody got any insights from it.

 

Yes Nuclear accidents are nasty. Are they nastier than say Deepwater horizon?

Is nuclear waste nastier than CO2 waste. More planet destructive?

 

 

It is all bad, and it has all been caused by humans. We live so far away from nature and so unnaturally that we have a massive impact. Maybe we are aliens? Every other natural species lives in harmony with the environment. Nature also has a way of keeping things in check.

 

Native tribes like the aborigines, native Americans etc etc... actually worshipped the planet. Lived in harmony with it.

 

Technology did and does indeed come with a price.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anna66 said:

Native tribes like the aborigines, native Americans etc etc... actually worshipped the planet. Lived in harmony with it.

 

Yes, and they were lucky to live to be 30 years old.

 

6 minutes ago, Anna66 said:

 

Technology did and does indeed come with a price.

 

Of course, those 1€ flagship smartphone advertisements are not to be trusted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anna66 said:

 

Nuclear is not the future, it is old. Really old, and has many flaws. It is far from safe. (see link below)

 

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/cracks-found-nuclear-reactor-could-15944122

 

The future in my view is producing energy from a clean safe way. As you posted before, a link from India producing energy from sewage.

 

 

As far as I know, there are new designs for nuclear, e.g. fusion and Thorium based reactors.   Thorium does not generate some of the nasty by-products that fission does, but is probably not 100% clean.  

 

I enjoyed this video but find the arm/hand movements of Bill Gates to be a bit distracting.  ;)     Gates makes the point the alt-energy is okay, but it won't generate the power needed to make steel, cement, and fertilizer.    Worth a listen/watch.  

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balticus said:

As far as I know, there are new designs for nuclear, e.g. fusion and Thorium based reactors.   Thorium does not generate some of the nasty by-products that fission does, but is probably not 100% clean.  

The only reason we don't have thorium reactors since the 70's is because you can't make nukes with it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

The only reason we don't have thorium reactors since the 70's is because you can't make nukes with it.

 

Dont forget science denying chicken little greenpeace and friends.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

The only reason we don't have thorium reactors since the 70's is because you can't make nukes with it.

 

I worked at a nuclear facility in the early 80's. We only produced plutonium 28 for bombs. Nuclear power stations are for an entirely different purpose. Lots of dirty stuff left behind, though.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red sky at night, shepherds delight,

Red sky in the morning, global warming.

This thread on climate change is getting very boring,

Just reading it I cannot help but yawning,

Maybe we should all get off our ar**** instead,

and do something about it before we all end up dead!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now