Climate change

[Sibelius Hindemith]

The problem with nuclear energy is that nuclear waste is forever.

[gil]

And everyone, please keep in mind that the last hurricane to hit Los Angeles was 88 years ago. Does that mean climate change was on the brink of armageddon in 1935 as well?

What did we do to stop the armageddon then?

I warned everyone back in 1935. Nobody even replied to my tweets!

I would have, but we were poor, and if my parents had caught me using precious candles to light my screen to read twitter, there would have been holy hell to pay.

[douche]

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet will be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… asshole.”

― George Carlin

[gil]

Good old George Carlin. Love it! The Earth will be fine.

[ddraig]

And everyone, please keep in mind that the last hurricane to hit Los Angeles was 88 years ago. Does that mean climate change was on the brink of armageddon in 1935 as well?

What did we do to stop the armageddon then?

I warned everyone back in 1935. Nobody even replied to my tweets!

It was Trump's fault back then, too!

[ddraig]

The problem with nuclear energy is that nuclear waste is forever.

https://hackaday.com/2020/01/29/alterna ... ear-waste/

"The proposed solution to this problem is to instead use fast-neutron reactors, which “breed” non-fissile uranium-238 into plutonium-239 and plutonium-240, which can then be used as fresh fuel. Advanced designs also have the ability to process out other actinides, also using them as fuel in the fission process. These reactors have the benefit of being able to use almost all the energy content in uranium fuel, reducing fuel use by 60 to 100 times compared to conventional methods.


Unfortunately, fast breeder technology has largely been held back by economics. The discovery of more abundant uranium resources in the 1970s has meant it’s cheaper to simply dig up more fuel than to reprocess waste. Additionally, concerns about the ability of fast breeder reactors to create weapons-suitable nuclear material have also stymied development. While the technology is promising, major developments in this area are likely decades away."

But then, there is a potential answer already out there.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... an-be-done

[ddraig]

Very good article on "Climate Change." It brings a different perspective to the table.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... odels.html

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

The problem with nuclear energy is that nuclear waste is forever.

We have the ability to recycle the waste.

I watched a video about how we use the isotopes and we only use like 12% of the isotope before we declare it waste. But, there is a way to recycle it and reuse it over and over.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

A little something on LinkedIn.
The author says there will be more to come.....

TEN CLIMATE PREDICTIONS THAT WERE SERIOUSLY WIDE OF THE MARK: CHAPTER ONE - In the cozy “97% consensus” world of climate scientists, where predictions of the man-made “climate emergency” are a matter of “settled science”, it is sobering to read that the climate scare industry has a long and undistinguished track-record.

1. 1967 the Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that the “time of famines” had come due to runaway population growth and food shortage, and that the worst period of starvation would be in 1975.

2. In 1970 James P. Lodge Jnr., a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, stated that by 2030 there would be a new Ice Age caused by air pollution blotting out the sun.

3. In 1971 Dr. S.I. Rasool, a NASA scientist, warned that fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere would cause a new Ice Age “within 50 years”.

4. In 1972 a group of 42 distinguished scientists led by George J. Kuala of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, wrote to President Nixon to warn of a massive cooling “deterioration” in the earth’s temperature.

5. In 1974 Professor Donahue of the University of Michigan testified to Congress that mankind was “on the verge of a period of great peril to life on this globe” due to damage to the ozone layer.

6. In 1976 Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote a book called “The Genesis Strategy” “reflecting the consensus among the climatological community” that world food reserves were insufficient to protect against future famine.

7. In 1978 an international team of scientists produced a study published in Nature magazine that saw “no end in sight to the thirty-year cooling trend”. This was later flatly contradicted by NASA whose satellite data suggested a slight warming trend after 1979.

8. In 1980 the Canadian government called for urgent action to prevent hundreds of lakes from being destroyed by acid rain only for a US government report to conclude in 1990 - after spending $537 million of tax-payer’s money - that acid rain was not an “environmental crisis”.

9. In 1988 James Hansen of NASA stated that the “greenhouse effect is now here” and that it would lead in the 1980s and 90s to “heatwave drought situations” in the US. Subsequent precipitation figures for those years proved his prediction to be completely wrong.

10. In the same year, Mr Husein Shabib, Environmental Affairs Director of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, predicted that the country’s 1,196 islands would be covered by seawater within thirty years.

[D-train]

There are two possible outcomes:

1% chance: There will be some fairly significant negative outcomes in a few decades
The left: See, we told you so!!!

99% chance: Nothing significant comes of it
The left: See, all our efforts paid off and saved the planet. We are heroes and saved you from yourselves!!