What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (2 Viewers)

Joe Bryant said:
How widespread is nuclear energy? 

I live in Knoxville TN and maybe because we're next door to Oak Ridge National Labs and home to TVA, I know a lot of nuclear engineers and we've had nuclear power plants for years here. :shrug:
Click to expand...
About 100 operating reactors in the U.S., in just over half the states, generating 20-25% of our total electricity.

 
joffer said:
some locations aren't great for wind or solar.  it doesn't have to be a major part.  i'm just not discounting it.
Click to expand...
Geothermal or waste heat recovery (pretty much same tech) might be usable in those parts of the world

 
butcher boy said:
So the UN is further propagating this Ponzi scheme.  In other words, "Give us more money".  Funny how every 10 years, the climate change alarmists come along and tell us we only have 10 years or so to get our act together or else.  Only they never specify what the "or else" is.  We're about to go through a cold period.  The solar minimum is in full effect.  Don't be fooled by this long con.
Click to expand...
I know that you and many other conservatives think this is all a hoax or a scam. I used to waste time debating that with you until I realized that’s exactly what it was: a waste of time. I can’t stop you from rejecting science. But at the same time I would prefer not to be a victim of your poor decision making. The rest of us need to come up with a plan- if we succeed then you can pretend that it was never a problem in the first place. If we fail, then those of us who knew better will be forced to suffer right along with you. 

 
butcher boy said:
So the UN is further propagating this Ponzi scheme.  In other words, "Give us more money".  Funny how every 10 years, the climate change alarmists come along and tell us we only have 10 years or so to get our act together or else.  Only they never specify what the "or else" is.  We're about to go through a cold period.  The solar minimum is in full effect.  Don't be fooled by this long con.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you believe we're in the midst of a solar minimum period, and yet we're still experiencing record temperature averages and unprecedented ice melt, and you think this supports your position that global climate change isn't happening?

 
timschochet said:
I know that you and many other conservatives think this is all a hoax or a scam. I used to waste time debating that with you until I realized that’s exactly what it was: a waste of time. I can’t stop you from rejecting science. But at the same time I would prefer not to be a victim of your poor decision making. The rest of us need to come up with a plan- if we succeed then you can pretend that it was never a problem in the first place. If we fail, then those of us who knew better will be forced to suffer right along with you. 
Click to expand...
It's not a hoax.  It's happening on some level.  But I believe there is no need to be as alarmist about it as the fake news media is.   

 
Sheriff Bart said:
True but that was a really old plant that should have been decommissioned years ago.  Modern plants are very safe.  There's still that whole nuclear waste thing though. 
Click to expand...
San Onofre's last near-accident transferring waste was a month ago.  I live near the largest contaminated site in the US, which consisted of nine reactors closed from 1968-1987.   We just had a release of radioactive contaminants nine months ago as part of the cleanup--and that has nothing to do with the buried waste that has seeped into the water table.  

The safety of nuclear energy has always been touted right up until the next failure or environmental disaster.

 
butcher boy said:
So the UN is further propagating this Ponzi scheme.  In other words, "Give us more money".  Funny how every 10 years, the climate change alarmists come along and tell us we only have 10 years or so to get our act together or else.  Only they never specify what the "or else" is.  We're about to go through a cold period.  The solar minimum is in full effect.  Don't be fooled by this long con.
Click to expand...
We need an emoticon of an Ostrich with his head stuck in the sand

 
When Y2K was getting closer, there was a lot of panic. But people put in the time, money and effort to minimize if not eliminate the problem.

Not saying Y2K is on par with Climate Change, but we did come together and fix it. I am hoping it will lose its partisanship and become a goal to save the planet

 
badmojo1006 said:
When Y2K was getting closer, there was a lot of panic. But people put in the time, money and effort to minimize if not eliminate the problem.

Not saying Y2K is on par with Climate Change, but we did come together and fix it. I am hoping it will lose its partisanship and become a goal to save the planet
Click to expand...
And as I’ve pointed out before, there was bi-partisan cooperation to fix the hole in the ozone and pass the clean air act to reduce pollution. It’s not even science but just straight up common sense that burning a bunch of coal and oil and gas into the air we breathe isn’t good. 

 
According to Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. That’s both crazy and a sign of how easily we could reduce emissions. 

 
Insomniac said:
It seems a lot of people think it's not going to affect their life that much. I'd be one of those people. The actuary tables don't particularly like my chances to be around in 2050 (or even 2040) and it doesn't seem likely climate change will have any disastrous effects on me in that time period. OTOH when my friends used to go backpacking we always made sure we cleaned up our campsites even though we were probably never going back to that particular site so that other people could enjoy it too. Maybe that type of thinking is out of style in Trump's America on a much larger and more serious scale.
Click to expand...
No it's not.  Was taught a long time ago about littering from my grandfather.   I leave a campsite better than when I arrived.  It's not that hard.

 
irishidiot said:
Not up on this subject at all.  I know I was concerned with some pretty important studies that were proven to be fixed in that they inflated the numbers, but realize that recognizing our environment & improving it is a grand thing.  This from American Thinker-wondering whether he has any decent points & if anyone here can look at it objectively?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
Click to expand...
I have no doubt there have been peopl who exaggerate some claims, push models to worst case scenarios, gather public support to fight climate change with rhetoric ,etc. Some have done it for money, some for personal recognition and some because they believe in the cause. However, that doesn’t negate all of the science and all of the indicators that point to problematic changes to our environment as a result of human negligence. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s no different then smoking now. We all know what’s going on and why it’s bad. The energy companies knew a long time ago and have spent a lot of money to try hide it or bury it or distort it. Just like big tobacco did decades ago.

 
irishidiot said:
Not up on this subject at all.  I know I was concerned with some pretty important studies that were proven to be fixed in that they inflated the numbers, but realize that recognizing our environment & improving it is a grand thing.  This from American Thinker-wondering whether he has any decent points & if anyone here can look at it objectively?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
Click to expand...
Do you find his arguments convincing?

 
-fish- said:
Except we're actively deregulating for the biggest polluters.   
Click to expand...
We know the current GOP and especially Trump won’t do anything to help the situation. They are actually saying since things are so bad, what does it even matter? Like the guy with lung cancer who won’t quit smoking.

 
timschochet said:
I’m repeating what the scientists are saying. I have no idea what we need to do or how to do it. I don’t even know how we would start. And even if we did, I don’t know how much the United States could accomplish on our own without China and a few other nations that are also complicit. 

I don’t have any answers. But the article concerns me greatly and I think we have to do something pretty quick here. Got any ideas? 
Click to expand...
Fire up the economy to pay for changes.   A broke ### economy cant pay for whatever needs to be done

 
-fish- said:
San Onofre's last near-accident transferring waste was a month ago.  I live near the largest contaminated site in the US, which consisted of nine reactors closed from 1968-1987.   We just had a release of radioactive contaminants nine months ago as part of the cleanup--and that has nothing to do with the buried waste that has seeped into the water table.  

The safety of nuclear energy has always been touted right up until the next failure or environmental disaster.
Click to expand...
There was an episode of Mork and Mindy where Mork freaks out that humans have nuclear plants but no Nuke Away to deal with the waste. Not sure why that's still lodged in my brain. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
How would you fire up the economy? 
Click to expand...


Have the govt stop helping the economy so much.

But you are a smart guy.  Smarter than me.    You are far more grounded in problem solving.   If you wanna fix the problem it will only happen if it can be profitable. 

What are your thoughts?

 
quickhands said:
Have the govt stop helping the economy so much.

But you are a smart guy.  Smarter than me.    You are far more grounded in problem solving.   If you wanna fix the problem it will only happen if it can be profitable. 

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’m not claiming to be smarter than you. 

But- I disagree with your premise. It seems to me that we need to start solving this problem ASAP and if we need to go into further debt to do it, so be it. One of the main reasons that I wasn’t for the tax cut was because I saw major necessary spending ahead. Too late now. We can’t wait. 

 
timschochet said:
I’m not claiming to be smarter than you. 

But- I disagree with your premise. It seems to me that we need to start solving this problem ASAP and if we need to go into further debt to do it, so be it. One of the main reasons that I wasn’t for the tax cut was because I saw major necessary spending ahead. Too late now. We can’t wait. 
Click to expand...
I said it you didnt.

Isnt this like the 3rd or 4th  10 year or else.    If the world isnt gone at 2030 im sure we can start another 10 year end of the world count down.

This is could get as bad as the end times prophecy predictions.   

 
quickhands said:
I said it you didnt.

Isnt this like the 3rd or 4th  10 year or else.    If the world isnt gone at 2030 im sure we can start another 10 year end of the world count down.

This is could get as bad as the end times prophecy predictions.   
Click to expand...
Except that the effects can be seen and quantified.   

 
Ilov80s said:
According to Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. That’s both crazy and a sign of how easily we could reduce emissions. 
Click to expand...
i"d like to see the math.  Are they making oil companies responsible for all auto emissions.  Are the attributing all emissions to electric companies for all the electricity consumed by everyone.  

 
-fish- said:
San Onofre's last near-accident transferring waste was a month ago.  I live near the largest contaminated site in the US, which consisted of nine reactors closed from 1968-1987.   We just had a release of radioactive contaminants nine months ago as part of the cleanup--and that has nothing to do with the buried waste that has seeped into the water table.  

The safety of nuclear energy has always been touted right up until the next failure or environmental disaster.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i remember this conversation last time. I honestly has no idea about a power plant reactor in richland/hanford site so yeah you threw me off. Well, thats because there is no muclear power plant there. The Hanford site of which you are speaking houses the reactors for making our oroginal pu stock. That is a far cry from a modern nuclear power plant. I guess youll just roll them together though if it makes you feel more comfortable. Because thats all the fright frok nuclear power is, feeling comfortable. It has nothing to do with objectively measuring risk.

But hey, you won. Nuclear power is dying, and in about 10 years there will be scant power plants in the is. Job well done. I dont know why this academic argument needs to exist. You won. Nuclear lost. I hope you have plans, you know....besides keeping dirty coal plants (surprise! They have nuclear waste too PLUS the co2),  and fracking plants which have hardly any regs, so youll get poisoned water tables (olus radioactive waste, did you know that?) PLUS co2 there too. And solar/wind cannot support the energy vacuum nuclear will leave, hydro has massive ecological problems on its own. But hey, mission accomplished. Nuclear will die soon.

Lets just go back to burning wood and poop.

 
butcher boy said:
It's not a hoax.  It's happening on some level.  But I believe there is no need to be as alarmist about it as the fake news media is.   
Click to expand...
I think the point is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. The scientists could be off on their time line either way, so why do the bare minimum and hope they are right? 

 
Hey fish, do you want all our doe labs shut down? Thry handle some hot stuff. Hotter than you can shake a stick at.

 
it always was too late - too many emerging economies who'll be damned if they'll learn from the cautionary tale which continues to be America's ridiculous consumption. doesn't mean we shouldnt act as tho it isn't too late, but it is

 
Joe Bryant said:
If you want to discuss seriously, please do. There should definitely be other viewpoints so this doesn't become an echo chamber. But don't just lob stuff for fun. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I read all the time on health and nutrition.   Actually mealworms have a high protein content and I am told they can be prepared to taste good. (I have never tried them)

 The other product is blue-green algae that is forming more because of warming. If this continues as it will people will need to adapt and companies will be harvesting this and converting it into a food source. We are so used to roasting pigs and throwing a side of beef into smokers. 

Warming is not going to stop as other nations develop.  So there will come a time in the future that people  eat mealworms and algae products on a regular basis and think roasting a pig is barbaric.

Blue-green algae are used as a source of dietary protein, B-vitamins, and iron. They are also used for weight loss, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hayfever, diabetes, stress, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and other women’s health issues.

Some people use blue-green algae for treating precancerous growths inside the mouth, boosting the immune system, improving memory, increasing energy and metabolism, lowering cholesterol, preventing heart disease, healing wounds, and improving digestion and bowel health.

Blue-green algae are commonly found in tropical or subtropical waters that have a high-salt content, but some types grow in large fresh water lakes. The natural color of these algae can give bodies of water a dark-green appearance. The altitude, temperature, and sun exposure where the blue-green algae are grown dramatically influence the types and mix of blue-green algae in the water.

Blue-green algae is an excellent source of protein.
 

How does it work?

Blue-green algae is high in protein, iron, and other mineral content which is absorbed when taken orally. Blue-green algae are being researched for their potential effects on the immune system, swelling (inflammation), and viral infections.

 
wikkidpissah said:
it always was too late - too many emerging economies who'll be damned if they'll learn from the cautionary tale which continues to be America's ridiculous consumption. doesn't mean we shouldnt act as tho it isn't too late, but it is
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Im not an expert, but i doubt india with its 1B people will respond to the preaching with nithing but solar farms after the west built their empires on cheap energy.

 
Dedfin said:
Hey fish, do you want all our doe labs shut down? Thry handle some hot stuff. Hotter than you can shake a stick at.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but I'd hope that they're also working on increasing safety and finding solutions to the nuclear waste disposal issues at the sites researching nuclear energy.   As far as high energy physics and biological and environmental research, I'm all for it.   

My problem has been the repeated failures of multiple sites over time, and particularly the safe disposal of waste.   We've had multiple major disasters in my lifetime, and each time people claim that nuclear energy is clean and safe.  In the meantime, I'm catching radioactive fish from the Fukushima plume, and just this year not far from my house there was another accident relating to the Hanford cleanup that released radioactive contamination into our local population.  The entire Pacific ocean has been contaminated.   

There are 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste at San Onofre, and the plan is to just bury it next to the beach, just feet over the water table?   Genius.   We haven't learned a damned thing.    They don't even have a federal or state evacuation plan for that disaster in the making.  

 
Thanks for the post fish. The scientists of the 40s 50s and 60s were beilliant physicists but pretty bad ecologists. Im afraid we will be cleaning up after them for a long time. I dont know how else to comment on sote like hanford, nevada/utah, nm and other early is nuclear sites. I will read about san onofre because im not familiar with their situation. I cannot rhink of a single nuclear failure in the usa. Tmi was not a failure.

 
Dedfin said:
Yeah, i remember this conversation last time. I honestly has no idea about a power plant reactor in richland/hanford site so yeah you threw me off. Well, thats because there is no muclear power plant there. The Hanford site of which you are speaking houses the reactors for making our oroginal pu stock. That is a far cry from a modern nuclear power plant. I guess youll just roll them together though if it makes you feel more comfortable. Because thats all the fright frok nuclear power is, feeling comfortable. It has nothing to do with objectively measuring risk.

But hey, you won. Nuclear power is dying, and in about 10 years there will be scant power plants in the is. Job well done. I dont know why this academic argument needs to exist. You won. Nuclear lost. I hope you have plans, you know....besides keeping dirty coal plants (surprise! They have nuclear waste too PLUS the co2),  and fracking plants which have hardly any regs, so youll get poisoned water tables (olus radioactive waste, did you know that?) PLUS co2 there too. And solar/wind cannot support the energy vacuum nuclear will leave, hydro has massive ecological problems on its own. But hey, mission accomplished. Nuclear will die soon.

Lets just go back to burning wood and poop.
Click to expand...
I never said it was anything but what it was.   But we still have to deal with the fact that the groundwater is polluted and we keep having problems resulting from the cleanup.  Until the answer to nuclear waste is something better than burying it next to a water table, I'm always going to have a problem with it...because we don't manage to learn from our mistakes.   

Is burying over 3 million pounds of waste onsite at San Onofre really a good idea?

 
quickhands said:
Fire up the economy to pay for changes.   A broke ### economy cant pay for whatever needs to be done
Click to expand...
How isn’t the economy fired up now? Our real GDP is an all time high, double what it was 30 years ago. What is the measure for a fired up economy? 

 
-fish- said:
I never said it was anything but what it was.   But we still have to deal with the fact that the groundwater is polluted and we keep having problems resulting from the cleanup.
Click to expand...
Yeah im just saying that we are talking about threats from muclear plants, wbich will die off in our lifetimes. So screw it. I hope the solar people have some answers l.

 
Ilov80s said:
How isn’t the economy fired up now? Our real GDP is an all time high, double what it was 30 years ago. What is the measure for a fired up economy? 
Click to expand...
Thats negative.   Lets get fired up.    Or we could just kill half the population.

Thanos is on to something

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
484
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
Stealthycat
Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
5K
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top