If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Conservative climate hawks to GOP global warming deniers: You guys need to wake the hell up, smell the dried out roses and take global warming seriously   (motherjones.com) divider line 289
    More: Interesting, GOP, climate change denial, Bob Inglis, World Meteorological Organization, Charles Krauthammer, Weekly Standard, climate, David Frum  
•       •       •

3045 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2013 at 5:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-10 03:32:11 PM
Even if humans are causing climate change, God will not allow the Earth to become uninhabitable.

Therefore, let us pray.
 
2013-07-10 03:40:38 PM
Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change-not even those the left unfairly labels as "deniers"-actually denies that humans influence global climate.

I am betting that this is actually false.
 
2013-07-10 03:41:53 PM

make me some tea: Even if humans are causing climate change, God will not allow the Earth to become uninhabitable.

Therefore, let us pray.


Came to say pretty much this. Inhofe is a willful idiot.
 
2013-07-10 03:46:11 PM
Who is this RINO apostate?  Burn him at the stake.
 
2013-07-10 03:57:20 PM
I keep on saying that these guys are idiots for this.

Not just because its anti-science but because they believe it would be a win for Liberalism.

Guess what? Conservatism gets a big win, too

Why?

Because shutting down coal plants means we can open more nuke plants.

Think about that for a second:

You will get what you want.

Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win

It maintains the status quo.
 
2013-07-10 03:59:57 PM
Frame it as "worsening conditions in other parts of the world will drive people towards being more receptive to radical religion (terrorism) or immigration onto the U.S." or some other national security danger, not to mention the further destabilization of the middle east/north Africa by changing conditions there.
 
2013-07-10 04:10:54 PM

cman: I keep on saying that these guys are idiots for this.

Not just because its anti-science but because they believe it would be a win for Liberalism.

Guess what? Conservatism gets a big win, too

Why?

Because shutting down coal plants means we can open more nuke plants.

Think about that for a second:

You will get what you want.

Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win

It maintains the status quo.



If you want to think that Nuclear Power Plants are a divisive partisan issue then uh, good for you I guess. I'm as Libby as they come and I'd love to have more Nuclear Plants. I don't care which party gets the, built as long as we get going quickly.
 
2013-07-10 04:12:19 PM
Conservatives don't seem to know or understand the root of their own word, do they?
 
2013-07-10 04:13:58 PM

TuteTibiImperes: cman: I keep on saying that these guys are idiots for this.

Not just because its anti-science but because they believe it would be a win for Liberalism.

Guess what? Conservatism gets a big win, too

Why?

Because shutting down coal plants means we can open more nuke plants.

Think about that for a second:

You will get what you want.

Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win

It maintains the status quo.


If you want to think that Nuclear Power Plants are a divisive partisan issue then uh, good for you I guess. I'm as Libby as they come and I'd love to have more Nuclear Plants. I don't care which party gets the, built as long as we get going quickly.


For the GOP it is important.
 
2013-07-10 04:24:11 PM

PreMortem: make me some tea: Even if humans are causing climate change, God will not allow the Earth to become uninhabitable.

Therefore, let us pray.

Came to say pretty much this. Inhofe is a willful idiot.


God: "Look.  I gave you people plenty of warning, but you wouldn't listen, you just kept asking for more 'signs'"

/or other flood related parable.
 
2013-07-10 04:27:26 PM

cman: Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win


Not to today's GOP. If everyone wins, that means nobody loses. Which to them means they didn't really win. Especially if it means the Democrats get a win.

The last few years have shown there is nothing the GOP places a higher priority on, nothing that motivates them more, than ensuring the Democrats don't come out ahead under any circumstance. They've vetoed bills they wrote and sponsored because the Democrats came on board, for fark's sake.
 
2013-07-10 04:27:40 PM

TuteTibiImperes: cman: I keep on saying that these guys are idiots for this.

Not just because its anti-science but because they believe it would be a win for Liberalism.

Guess what? Conservatism gets a big win, too

Why?

Because shutting down coal plants means we can open more nuke plants.

Think about that for a second:

You will get what you want.

Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win

It maintains the status quo.


If you want to think that Nuclear Power Plants are a divisive partisan issue then uh, good for you I guess. I'm as Libby as they come and I'd love to have more Nuclear Plants. I don't care which party gets the, built as long as we get going quickly.


I'm a pro-nuke Liberal.  The problem with nuclear power is the aging power plants.  People need to build new power plants in sensible locations.
 
2013-07-10 04:40:06 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Conservatives don't seem to know or understand the root of their own word, do they?


That depends.  If you mean "conserve," then no they do not.

If you mean "con," obviously they do.
 
2013-07-10 04:41:22 PM

mrshowrules: TuteTibiImperes: cman: I keep on saying that these guys are idiots for this.

Not just because its anti-science but because they believe it would be a win for Liberalism.

Guess what? Conservatism gets a big win, too

Why?

Because shutting down coal plants means we can open more nuke plants.

Think about that for a second:

You will get what you want.

Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win

It maintains the status quo.


If you want to think that Nuclear Power Plants are a divisive partisan issue then uh, good for you I guess. I'm as Libby as they come and I'd love to have more Nuclear Plants. I don't care which party gets the, built as long as we get going quickly.

I'm a pro-nuke Liberal.  The problem with nuclear power is the aging power plants.  People need to build new power plants in sensible locations.



I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

The tech is far better and safer now than it was in the 70s. The problem is, every time a 70s-era nuke plant has issues somewhere in the world, people go full retard. None of the new plants have had major problems. Replace those old plants with new ones FFS.

/I'm looking at you, Indian Point
 
2013-07-10 04:48:13 PM

make me some tea: Replace those old plants with new ones FFS.


And update the power grid while we're at it.
 
2013-07-10 04:52:59 PM
When your head is stuck up a Bible's ass, you're not going to let a little thing like facts get in your way.
 
2013-07-10 04:54:55 PM

Calmamity: make me some tea: Replace those old plants with new ones FFS.

And update the power grid while we're at it.


Well, you see, that costs money. And as we all know, spending money to repair infrastructure is evil.
 
2013-07-10 05:01:47 PM
OMG we broke a heat record from 1913, EVERYBODY PANIC.
 
2013-07-10 05:03:08 PM

Aarontology: Calmamity: make me some tea: Replace those old plants with new ones FFS.

And update the power grid while we're at it.

Well, you see, that costs money. And as we all know, spending money to repair infrastructure is evil.


Whole freaking east coast needs to go to underground utilities, and yes, I do have an idea of what that will cost, but there's also a buyback on it in terms of lower maintenance and greater economic activity.

Long Island was a farking mess for 2 weeks after Hurricane Sandy--uncontrolled 6-way intersections and gas station closings are FUN--and all they did was put back together the existing jank-ass overhead system, and half-assedly at that. A lot of the busted poles are still there, with a new one next to it. My building in Queens has underground lines (upgraded after the Astoria Blackout in 2006), and guess what? We didn't lose power or internet for even a minute during the entire hurricane. It was amazing. I actually felt really guilty after hearing the woes of my coworkers who had no lights for 2 weeks straight.
 
2013-07-10 05:16:27 PM

make me some tea: Long Island was a farking mess for 2 weeks after Hurricane Sandy--uncontrolled 6-way intersections and gas station closings are FUN--and all they did was put back together the existing jank-ass overhead system, and half-assedly at that. A lot of the busted poles are still there, with a new one next to it. My building in Queens has underground lines (upgraded after the Astoria Blackout in 2006), and guess what? We didn't lose power or internet for even a minute during the entire hurricane. It was amazing. I actually felt really guilty after hearing the woes of my coworkers who had no lights for 2 weeks straight.


It amazes me - I grew up in Queens and we never had problems with blackouts because the lines were underground.  I watch them dig up HUGE stretches of road here in CT - why not move the power lines underground while they are working? At least start the project? It's not like Irene and Sandy were the last storms we're ever having and I really do not relish days and weeks without power.
 
2013-07-10 05:17:14 PM

make me some tea: /I'm looking at you, Indian Point


I'm looking at Indian Point and Oyster Creek. (oldest operating commercial nuclear power plant in the United States and set to close in 2019)
/they should start building a new now
 
2013-07-10 05:37:07 PM

make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.


While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.
 
2013-07-10 05:37:58 PM

serpent_sky: make me some tea: Long Island was a farking mess for 2 weeks after Hurricane Sandy--uncontrolled 6-way intersections and gas station closings are FUN--and all they did was put back together the existing jank-ass overhead system, and half-assedly at that. A lot of the busted poles are still there, with a new one next to it. My building in Queens has underground lines (upgraded after the Astoria Blackout in 2006), and guess what? We didn't lose power or internet for even a minute during the entire hurricane. It was amazing. I actually felt really guilty after hearing the woes of my coworkers who had no lights for 2 weeks straight.

It amazes me - I grew up in Queens and we never had problems with blackouts because the lines were underground.  I watch them dig up HUGE stretches of road here in CT - why not move the power lines underground while they are working? At least start the project? It's not like Irene and Sandy were the last storms we're ever having and I really do not relish days and weeks without power.


You'd think where I'd live would be a prime place for underground power lines (MSP - tornadoes and snowstorms), but the power is almost all above ground in the residential areas.
 
2013-07-10 05:43:24 PM

make me some tea: Whole freaking east coast needs to go to underground utilities, and yes, I do have an idea of what that will cost, but there's also a buyback on it in terms of lower maintenance and greater economic activity.


Underground utilities are a communist plot, obviously.
 
2013-07-10 05:52:27 PM
They must have found a way to personally profit.
 
2013-07-10 05:56:53 PM
No farking kidding.

Climate change shouldn't be a left-right thing.

Neither should conservation.
 
2013-07-10 05:58:09 PM

wildcardjack: They must have found a way to personally profit.


Ding ding ding winner winner expensive chicken dinner
 
2013-07-10 06:03:23 PM

wildcardjack: They must have found a way to personally profit.


With those who would fight tooth and nail against addressing climate change on its own merits I've always taken that angle. "Right or wrong, why not cash in on it? Why should we get beat by the <fill in nation of conservative outrage at the time> to being the world leader in a new fuel/energy source?  If we market it, and it happens to have benefit to the environment, then double win. But the important thing is to get there first!"

It seems to spin them to pit their ideology of anti-environmentalism against their pro-capitalism/American exceptionalism.
 
2013-07-10 06:03:50 PM
I say let the world warm up. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.
 
2013-07-10 06:05:47 PM
They CAN'T wake up, because all their money is in the status quo.  They just can't.
 
2013-07-10 06:07:13 PM

Smeggy Smurf: wildcardjack: They must have found a way to personally profit.

Ding ding ding winner winner expensive chicken dinner


Like that's a bad thing. If conservatives see that green tech is a burgeoning business and not just fly by night bullshiat, then it's a step in the right direction.
 
2013-07-10 06:09:12 PM

Ivo Shandor: I say let the world warm up. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.


It's better to imagine some of those  Tlingit gals in bikinis.  Don't try to picture an Aleut in a bikini ah hell you did.  Now you need a stiff drink.

distilleryimage0.s3.amazonaws.com

a little eyebleach for your sorrows
 
2013-07-10 06:09:38 PM

Ivo Shandor: I say let the world warm up. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.


Except that there will be few people to sell them to when the seaboards (major population centers for consumers of non-local goods) are underwater or otherwise uninhabitable. I am confident that was snark, but the problem is the short-sightedness of people who say that in all earnestness.
 
2013-07-10 06:10:51 PM

Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.


People actually involved in the effort to shut down the plant never actually argued that a tsunami will hit the plant, that's a common smear from people that can't address the actual arguments. In fact they like to point out that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island needed no weather event for a disaster. You probably heard some moron talking head say that (RFK Jr perhaps) then you conflated it with people you dislike because it's easy. The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.

The big problem for them is that they never bring realistic alternatives to the table. In any case, Entergy themselves say the plant only has another 20 years in it, so it's going away soon enough.
 
2013-07-10 06:11:46 PM

whidbey: Smeggy Smurf: wildcardjack: They must have found a way to personally profit.

Ding ding ding winner winner expensive chicken dinner

Like that's a bad thing. If conservatives see that green tech is a burgeoning business and not just fly by night bullshiat, then it's a step in the right direction.


I thought green tech was a buzzword to steal money through government loans.
 
2013-07-10 06:11:49 PM

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Ivo Shandor: I say let the world warm up. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

Except that there will be few people to sell them to when the seaboards (major population centers for consumers of non-local goods) are underwater or otherwise uninhabitable. I am confident that was snark, but the problem is the short-sightedness of people who say that in all earnestness.


Dude, he's an architect bent on bringing about the end of the world.

He knows what he's talking about.
 
2013-07-10 06:13:07 PM
 
2013-07-10 06:13:32 PM

Relatively Obscure: Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change-not even those the left unfairly labels as "deniers"-actually denies that humans influence global climate.

I am betting that this is actually false.


nah.  the question is what does "influence" mean?  1% ? 10% ?  100% ?
 
2013-07-10 06:13:44 PM

Intrepid00: I thought green tech was a buzzword to steal money through government loans.


So do a lot of other people.
 
2013-07-10 06:14:50 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.

People actually involved in the effort to shut down the plant never actually argued that a tsunami will hit the plant, that's a common smear from people that can't address the actual arguments. In fact they like to point out that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island needed no weather event for a disaster. You probably heard some moron talking head say that (RFK Jr perhaps) then you conflated it with people you dislike because it's easy. The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.

The big problem for them is that they never bring realistic alternatives to the table. In any case, Entergy themselves say the plant only has another 20 years in it, so it's going away soon enough.


Chernobyl and 3 mile island are drastically different reactor designs. You put these two in the same sentence you sound sirens you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-07-10 06:16:26 PM

Relatively Obscure: Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change-not even those the left unfairly labels as "deniers"-actually denies that humans influence global climate.

I am betting that this is actually false.


In private the acknowledge they accept it.

In public, they deny it.
 
2013-07-10 06:18:02 PM

Intrepid00: HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.

People actually involved in the effort to shut down the plant never actually argued that a tsunami will hit the plant, that's a common smear from people that can't address the actual arguments. In fact they like to point out that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island needed no weather event for a disaster. You probably heard some moron talking head say that (RFK Jr perhaps) then you conflated it with people you dislike because it's easy. The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.

The big problem for them is that they never bring realistic alternatives to the table. In any case, Entergy themselves say the plant only has another 20 years in it, so it's going away soon enough.

Chernobyl and 3 mile island are drastically different reactor designs. You put these two in the same sentence you sound sirens you have no idea what you are talking about.


sigh

The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.
 
2013-07-10 06:20:43 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.

People actually involved in the effort to shut down the plant never actually argued that a tsunami will hit the plant, that's a common smear from people that can't address the actual arguments. In fact they like to point out that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island needed no weather event for a disaster. You probably heard some moron talking head say that (RFK Jr perhaps) then you conflated it with people you dislike because it's easy. The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.

The big problem for them is that they never bring realistic alternatives to the table. In any case, Entergy themselves say the plant only has another 20 years in it, so it's going away soon enough.


The arguments against nuclear always seem to be 'well, there COULD be a disaster' and sure, if all of the redundant safety features fail, as has admittedly happened before, there could be a disaster, and a nuclear disaster can be devastating to the area.  However, fossil fuel plants spew tons of pollutants, particulates, and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere constantly when they're operating as they're supposed to - not to mention they burn fossil fuels that we could use for other things.

I'd rather take a minuscule risk of a major disaster over constant guaranteed moderate ecological damage.
 
2013-07-10 06:24:07 PM

Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.


If there is a significant tectonic event in the Azores (which is likely considering the geology), you can kiss the eastern seaboard goodbye. Particularly Florida.
 
2013-07-10 06:25:21 PM
mrshowrules:

TuteTibiImperes: cman: I keep on saying that these guys are idiots for this.

Not just because its anti-science but because they believe it would be a win for Liberalism.

Guess what? Conservatism gets a big win, too

Why?

Because shutting down coal plants means we can open more nuke plants.

Think about that for a second:

You will get what you want.

Its ok if they get a win because you are getting a win

It maintains the status quo.


If you want to think that Nuclear Power Plants are a divisive partisan issue then uh, good for you I guess. I'm as Libby as they come and I'd love to have more Nuclear Plants. I don't care which party gets the, built as long as we get going quickly.

I'm a pro-nuke Liberal. The problem with nuclear power is the aging power plants. People need to build new power plants in sensible locations.


Good luck with that. It seems to be an article of faith amongst the freshman teabaggies in the house that the DOE should be abolished, and guess who's most needed if you want newer, safer designs?
 
2013-07-10 06:25:46 PM

TuteTibiImperes: HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.

People actually involved in the effort to shut down the plant never actually argued that a tsunami will hit the plant, that's a common smear from people that can't address the actual arguments. In fact they like to point out that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island needed no weather event for a disaster. You probably heard some moron talking head say that (RFK Jr perhaps) then you conflated it with people you dislike because it's easy. The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.

The big problem for them is that they never bring realistic alternatives to the table. In any case, Entergy themselves say the plant only has another 20 years in it, so it's going away soon enough.

The arguments against nuclear always seem to be 'well, there COULD be a disaster' and sure, if all of the redundant safety features fail, as has admittedly happened before, there could be a disaster, and a nuclear disaster can be devastating to the area.  However, fossil fuel plants spew tons of pollutants, particulates, and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere constantly when they're operating as they're supposed to - not to mention they burn fossil fuels that we could use for other things.

I'd rather take a minuscule risk of a major dis ...


Yeah I'm fine with that, just put it somewhere that isn't near a city with millions of people that is possibly the main economic hub of the nation.
 
2013-07-10 06:27:20 PM
maxheck:

Good luck with that. It seems to be an article of faith amongst the freshman teabaggies in the house that the DOE should be abolished, and guess who's most needed if you want newer, safer designs?

Nuclear engineers?
 
2013-07-10 06:28:16 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Intrepid00: HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: make me some tea: I'm liberal and I'm all for more nuclear plants. I'd like to see some polling on what % of liberals are pro-nuke, I'd bet that a good portion of us are.

While you're at it, have a word with RFK Jr. and the rest of the Hudson Valley leftist neoluddites who think Indian Point should be closed because a tsunami's going to hit it.

Somehow this tsunami of which they speak is going to materialize somewhere in the Atlantic outside New York Harbor and roar 30 miles inland without doing any other damage along the way. The no-nukes nuts make climate-change-uberskeptics look like Carl Sagan.

People actually involved in the effort to shut down the plant never actually argued that a tsunami will hit the plant, that's a common smear from people that can't address the actual arguments. In fact they like to point out that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island needed no weather event for a disaster. You probably heard some moron talking head say that (RFK Jr perhaps) then you conflated it with people you dislike because it's easy. The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.

The big problem for them is that they never bring realistic alternatives to the table. In any case, Entergy themselves say the plant only has another 20 years in it, so it's going away soon enough.

Chernobyl and 3 mile island are drastically different reactor designs. You put these two in the same sentence you sound sirens you have no idea what you are talking about.

sigh

The idea is that catastrophe can happen despite best laid plans, and the impact of an Indian Point disaster will be far more costly then closing it and coming up with an alternative.


Cheynobyl was never designed with the best laid plans. This is why you don't get it.
 
2013-07-10 06:28:42 PM

SixPaperJoint: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Ivo Shandor: I say let the world warm up. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

Except that there will be few people to sell them to when the seaboards (major population centers for consumers of non-local goods) are underwater or otherwise uninhabitable. I am confident that was snark, but the problem is the short-sightedness of people who say that in all earnestness.

Dude, he's an architect bent on bringing about the end of the world.

He knows what he's talking about.


Unless he has the skills of Allan Stern, I don't a simple architecture focus will be enough to survive.
 
2013-07-10 06:30:47 PM
I just can't understand the republican's attitude towards global warming.  There is a TON of money to be made.  Once the research pays off, this will be a tech revolution greater than the personal computer.  Just think, virtually every vehicle on the planet will need to be upgraded or replaced to run on a non-petroleum fuel source.  Mountains of appliances that become obsolete through inefficiency.  Are they that afraid of having their money tied up for a few years while products are developed?  Do they really need the instant gratification of fraudulent bank schemes and blue chip oil companies that bad?
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report