Enviromentalistic Politics

[GrandizerII]

Yes, let's disregard everything that climate scientists have been telling us and denigrate it as alarmism from the left.

Yes, and while we are at it, let's construct a straw man and tear it down.

Strawmanning eh? People can read your first reply clearly.

Don't think for a second you're fooling me. I'm well aware there is a group of climate change deniers out there pretending to be "realists"

[BryanS]

Yes, and while we are at it, let's construct a straw man and tear it down.

Strawmanning eh? People can read your first reply clearly.

Clearly you cannot.

[onlinebiker]

Yes, let's disregard everything that climate scientists have been telling us and denigrate it as alarmism from the left.

Yes, and while we are at it, let's construct a straw man and tear it down.

Better yet - build a wooden man and we'll burn it down!

Oh..  Shit... They already do that out in Black Rock City Nevada....


Carry on...

[GrandizerII]

Strawmanning eh? People can read your first reply clearly.

Clearly you cannot.

I sure as hell can. I even read it again. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

[BryanS]

Clearly you cannot.

I sure as hell can. I even read it again. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Just shows you still cannot read. I never denied global warming. As long you are putting words in my mouth, it looks to me your definition of accepted global warming science is that the world will end if we do not radically overhall the economy within ten years. I just happen to think that's bullshit. 

I happen to think that encouraging nuclear power is more effective than our current ethanol subsidy programs--du you disagree? Why? I support wind and solar energy as clean energy technologies, but understand the reality that we cannot run on them exclusively--this is not a controversial position. Just ask any power company whether they would trust their grid to be run exclusively on solar and wind.

[GrandizerII]

I sure as hell can. I even read it again. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Just shows you still cannot read. I never denied global warming. As long you are putting words in my mouth, it looks to me your definition of accepted global warming science is that the world will end if we do not radically overhall the economy within ten years. I just happen to think that's bullshit. 

I happen to think that encouraging nuclear power is more effective than our current ethanol subsidy programs--du you disagree? Why? I support wind and solar energy as clean energy technologies, but understand the reality that we cannot run on them exclusively--this is not a controversial position. Just ask any power company whether they would trust their grid to be run exclusively on solar and wind.

The more we postpone seriously addressing the issue, the harder and harder it becomes to fix it. We can't afford to go easy on this problem anymore. Enough with the" climate change is real but it's not so bad, let's take our time to fix it" bullshit.

[BryanS]

The more we postpone seriously addressing the issue, the harder and harder it becomes to fix it. We can't afford to go easy on this problem anymore. Enough with the" climate change is real but it's not so bad, let's take our time to fix it" bullshit.

I agree more should be done. But why is there so much opposition to nuclear power? We could shut down all our coal/oil/nat gas plants if we made a serious effort to convert more to nuclear. We should also stop wasting our time and money subsidizing ethanol--research into cellulosic ethanol is still worth pursuing, but growing feed corn to make fuel is a terrible waste and a handout to farm interests. The biggest opposition to carbon free electricity in the US are environmental activists' opposition to nuclear power.

---

From wiki:

Of the 100 reactors operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier

That is just sad. And really, technology has advanced somewhat in the past 45 years. I would think we can do better with newer plants. If there is a subsidy worth paying, its to nuclear power, not ethanol. Reallocating that money to nuclear would actually reduce carbon output.

[GrandizerII]

The more we postpone seriously addressing the issue, the harder and harder it becomes to fix it. We can't afford to go easy on this problem anymore. Enough with the" climate change is real but it's not so bad, let's take our time to fix it" bullshit.

I agree more should be done. But why is there so much opposition to nuclear power? We could shut down all our coal/oil/nat gas plants if we made a serious effort to convert more to nuclear. We should also stop wasting our time and money subsidizing ethanol--research into cellulosic ethanol is still worth pursuing, but growing feed corn to make fuel is a terrible waste and a handout to farm interests. The biggest opposition to carbon free electricity in the US are environmental activists' opposition to nuclear power.

lol @ last sentence.

I am intentionally ignoring the nuclear power red herring, if that wasn't clear before.

[BryanS]

I agree more should be done. But why is there so much opposition to nuclear power? We could shut down all our coal/oil/nat gas plants if we made a serious effort to convert more to nuclear. We should also stop wasting our time and money subsidizing ethanol--research into cellulosic ethanol is still worth pursuing, but growing feed corn to make fuel is a terrible waste and a handout to farm interests. The biggest opposition to carbon free electricity in the US are environmental activists' opposition to nuclear power.

lol @ last sentence.

I am intentionally ignoring the nuclear power red herring, if that wasn't clear before.

I know you are ignoring it. That's why I keep mentioning it. I think it helps to draw attention to your an many activist types blind spot to the issue. 

And it's no red herring:
Bernie Sanders' $16 Trillion Climate Plan Is Nothing Short of a Revolution

The thing is, Sanders won’t make this easy. The plan explicitly says it will not rely on nuclear power, a move that will resonate with activists but could also wreak havoc on the electrical grid. Nuclear provides a baseline type of energy because it can, if needed, always be on.

[GrandizerII]

Since BryanS is now throwing at me a different argument from what I was contesting, let me remind everyone here what exactly I'm taking issue with:

And the chicken little screams about the sky falling coming from climate change alarmists does more harm than good in my view. The idea that we are headed towards a catastrophe is not established. I'm not a climate change denier, but I also understand that current predictions of climate change have a large margin of error to them, and to date there is no model that accurately predicts the amount of warming we are to experience. That ability to predict should be the gold standard, but we don't have it yet. Anyone who claims to know of pending catastrophe unless we enact extreme political policies within 10 years is just as ignorant as people who claim there is nothing to climate change. 

I wish journalists would do their job and cover this topic honestly, but journalist by and large are intellectually incurious and incompetent hacks.