Oh yes. Please tell us what Rupert Murdoch's lackies have to say about climate change. Why not bring us some articles from breitbart and infowars too?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Except a plane crash doesn't irradiate the entire geographic region for thousands of years, causing cancer outbreaks, mass migrations, and economic disruptions. And you can avoid getting in a plane crash by not getting in a plane. You're not safe from nuclear disasters except by moving far away.
Lets also add that yes the EC does ultimately choose who wins the Presidency. Still the popular vote shows what the majority of US citizens want.
The citizens of the United States by fluke of how system works got Trump. The policies the US Citizenry wanted are not Trumps. It is also that truth when it comes to congressional vote as well. Gerrymandering put in place because of 2010 midterms means that although Democratic party wins total congressional vote every election it doesnt mean that Democratic party controls congress.
Yes and the reason they exist is to overrule the vote if the citizens elect a dangerous crazy person. They showed they aren't willing to perform that function (even when it would be following the popular vote count), therefore they no longer have any reason to exist.
Can you please enumerate the specifics of the agreement that you find horrendous? Not generalities, but specifics?
Forget it, you'll just repost the WSJ editorials on which you base your opinion.
Last edited:
Because the congress would not judge on its merits but rather on politics. Interesting that US corporations are by and large in favor of staying in agreement across all sectors.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Lol, I didn't point this out because I thought it would be blatantly obvious to anyone that is the reason why.
It's sad climate change is seen as a political issue in this country. Even China now sees it as a serious issue to address.
X Fan
Active Member
Well.....try reading more than left news journals or MSNBC and you would be more informed ( I read both sides btw ).
Fact is WSJ/Murdochs are globalists and have been pounding on Trump since election....the Murdoch sons in particular (which are running day-to-day operations by the way) are very progressive in their views and have hired a bunch of journalists who do favor climate regulation.....but, if you weren’t so blinded you would know this....
X Fan
Active Member
haha...don’t you have the hockey playoffs to focus on....
btw: I won’t comment on my view of Trudeau....
X Fan
Active Member
Re: Nuclear: it’s the economics particularly in the face of very cheap/abundent natural gas and the difficulty in getting the plants built per plan (ask Southern Company/Toshiba about their new plant challenges).
However, I’d accept that trade-off vs. the Solar Farms/wind power that are killing birds: This Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year. Here's why that won't change any time soon
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
People care about people many times more than they do about birds (other than for some extreme members of the animal rights groups).
X Fan
Active Member
I suggest you search a little bit on how many birds are killed by coal plants and nuclear Power plants. Then search on the evil that cats and windows do to birds.
Last edited:
That would be interesting information - how many birds are really killed by each type of power generation? Because so far, the fossil fuel whores are implying it's only green energy that kills birds.
We have had 70 years. For a long time, it was progressing nicely. Then about Jimmy Carter Time, we pulled back. Which is harder to build: 360 square miles of solar array, or a single nuclear power plant?
Well, the good news is the people killed falling off roofs, or towers, or getting electrocuted, or killed in mining accidents are not cubicle workers or Starbucks barristas. So it's not killing anyone who should be allowed to vote anyways.
You aren't going to catch too many green cubicle workers or politicians getting killed in the normal execution of their job description.
Mining injuries for this group is carpal tunnel from playing minecraft, not black lung disease or cave-ins.
We deliberately killed tens of thousands of working class people so we could get warm fuzzys about No Nuke! rallies. Killing one person is a tragedy, killing thousands is just good campaign rhetoric (terrible paraphrasing).
No, it actually started massive wars which continues to this day.
And of course, you're not safe from urban crime and draconian taxes 'except by moving far way'. New York has been contaminated with crime for at least 250 years. When will the cleanup start? You'd be far safer living in a nuclear power plant.
First article I came to had ~46K by Wind Turbines, ~460K by Nuclear and ~24M by fossil fuel plants. Windows 97M and Cats 110M.
Second had Nuclear down to 330K, Solar at 28K and Wind at 328K. Oil and Gas at 1M and Coal at 7.9M.
Point is saying large numbers is good for argument may not be good for understanding. Sort of like Climate Change doesnt sound so bad when you are talking anywhere from .17 of a degree up to a couple of degrees. Doesnt sound so bad does it.
And how many died in fukushima? And you don't get to say that doesn't count or it won't happen again. You know that's not a sure thing and you're advocating people to bet THEIR LIVES that it won't.
It only takes 1 incident to kill thousands in a nuclear accident. A solar incident is simply called a sunny day.
Solve meltdowns,radiation, cancer, solve nuclear waste disposal, then nuclear can be attempted.
- Status
Similar threads
