Global warming

  • @boothe i guess thats where thorium comes in

  • @iattacku said in Global warming:

    @boothe i still think nuclear is the best power source. The only downfall is that uranium is even more scarce than fossil fuel

    There’s quite a bit of yellow cake uranium on both the Hammonds and Bundy ranches along with gold, silver, molybdenum and other valuable minerals. Hence the federal push to run them off. It was never about a tortoise in the Hammonds case, it was about big money and a Chinese energy deal with Rory Reid and Harry Reid. How come the MSM wouldn’t talk about that? More corrupt Democ-Rats selling out the country being protected by their fellow travelers in the media perhaps?

    I too am a strong proponent of nuclear energy (having worked in the industry for nearly two decades) and I particularly like the new generation of small modular reactors: What’s really interesting to me is that not only did Russia manage to take control of 20% our uranium production (thanks Hillary), they also lead the world in small nuclear reactors: This is one area where the U.S. needs to pick up the ball and run with it. Nuclear energy takes CO2 out of the equation and it can be done safely. But, as Fukushima Daiichi proves, you have to keep General Electric out of the game. A network of small modular nukes would contribute to a more flexible and decentralized grid as well.

  • More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the latest (Gasp!) catastrophe: Global Greening! Now just a few years ago we were hearing how everyone should plant more trees, stop deforestation, yada, yada, yada, to sequester all this anthropogenic carbon naturally. Well guess what? Increased plant growth is doing just that! And guess what the left-tards are doing? A complete 180, kicking basic biology (and climatology) to the curb and saying all this new plant growth is actually bad for the evironment. I kid you not. Under the “You can’t make this up…” column:

  • @boothe the big downsides I see to global temperatures rising are the invasive species such as fire ants that will spread and probably the storm. The only problem is how does know for sure if the warming is caused by man if we only recently have been able to record temperature, weather, and humidity with great accuracy

  • The EPA says that Trump’s rollback of coal regulations will result in “between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030” and “48,000 new cases of exacerbated asthma and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030.”

    That’s the EPA’s own analysis.

  • administrators

    @iattacku Don’t get too excited about global warming just yet. 2019 is supposed to kick off a solar minimum, meaning lower temperatures all over. I think we’re already seeing some of it as August, normally Tennessee’s hottest month, feels closer to fall weather. In fact, this entire summer has been surprisingly mild. Makes me wonder what winter has in store.

    As Phil Valentine likes to say regarding the topic of global warming: “It’s the sun, stupid!”

  • @jak Quite right Jak. Skip back up to post # 15 in this thread for a couple of links verifying what you assert. The left-tards are so caught up in their unhinged anti-human campaign that they believe warming is making things colder. And you are quite right, it is the sun. But you can’t tax people on solar radiation (or the lack thereof), so you have to attack cost efficient energy sources in the name of “carbon pollution”. And of course there is a lot of grant money and potential “carbon tax” revenue at stake too. Cui bono? Just look and see who has their hand out wanting their palm greased…

  • @jammyjaybird said in Global warming:

    The EPA says that Trump’s rollback of coal regulations will result in “between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030” and “48,000 new cases of exacerbated asthma and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030.”

    That’s the EPA’s own analysis.

    If the EPA and the entire left-tard “renewable energy” chorus were serious about reducing our carbon footprint and reducing the mortality rate of all energy sources they’d be pushing for a wholesale shift to nuclear energy worldwide:

  • So now it turns out that Trump was barking up the wrong tree when he asked the Russians, publicly, to find the Hildebeast’s missing emails. He knew the DOJ / FBi sure as hell weren’t interested in doing so. He should have asked the Chinese, since they’re the ones that actually have them. You would think his puppet master, Mr. Putin, would have let him know through a “back channel” or something. Embarrassing… (/sarc) Source:


    “Polluted air may impede cognitive ability as people become older, especially for less educated men,” the authors say.

  • Gas and nuclear power are safer per unit of energy than many non-conventional energy sources such as wind and solar. How can that be? The inputs to produce these energy sources have to be taken into account. Most “zero emissions” energy sources are actually just “elsewhere emissions” sources and produce things like a huge toxic lake in China. If you are curious here’s a surprising analysis and explanation of the relative hazards of our energy sources from a risk accounting standpoint:


    This climate visualization shows temperature anomalies by country from 1880 through 2017, based on data from NASA.

    From the article: The latest visualization of the Earth heating up was built by Antti Lipponen, a research scientist at the Finnish Meteorological Institute, and it has caught fire. Just since Saturday, it has been shared 16,000 times on Twitter. It reveals the majority of countries have warmed by at least one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), and all but one (Kiribati) have warmed by at least 0.5 degrees (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s.

  • I’ve been saying for years (decades actually) that the answer to our energy problems lies in clean, safe nuclear power. I am confident the carbon dioxide = pollution hoax is a backdoor method to tax us on breathing…well, okay…taxing us just on exhaling. Let’s not forget that Algore and the usual suspects stood to make obscene amounts of money on trading “carbon credits” (i.e. monetizing their fear mongering). However, a lot of otherwise intelligent people (who should know better) have jumped on the CO2 is poison bandwagon too and even natural gas isn’t good enough for them. Now MIT has confirmed my position.

    From the MIT report, “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World”: “While a variety of low- or zerocarbon technologies can be employed in various combinations, our analysis shows the potential contribution nuclear can make as a dispatchable low-carbon technology. Without that contribution, the cost of achieving deep decarbonization targets increases significantly (see Figure E.1, left column). The least-cost portfolios include an important share for nuclear, the magnitude of which significantly grows as the cost of nuclear drops.”

    One of the reasons we have thrived as a species is the availability of abundant inexpensive energy. Take that away and more humans will die, plain and simple. Now, if the anti-carbon left comes out against the stance outlined in the MIT study, it will reveal that they aren’t interested in actually reducing carbon emissions while maintaining our current energy supply. It will add more weight to the argument that what the left really wants is a net reduction in human life on the planet (as if their support for abortion on demand and non-reproductive sex didn’t show us that already).


    It’s real, and it exists even when political affiliation is controlled for.

    Among Democrats alone, there’s a 20 pt gap between whites and non-whites on the question of whether taking action on global warming should be a top priority for Congress and the president.

    Very interesting.

  • @jammyjaybird So what does this racial gap on “Gore-bull warming” tell us? That the majority of whites, minus “wonky white men” are more skeptical? Or does it tell us that ethnic minorities are more easily swayed with “wonky white men’s” settled science? To me is shows that we have divisions across racial lines (duh) that the ruling elite will try to maintain and capitalize on. But despite their best efforts to keep “Gore-bull” warming on life support and the writer’s best efforts to skew the data to support his position (From the article “Note: I’m using an average of two years because individual years have relatively small subsample sizes.”), whatever that position is supposed to be, the trend shows a decline / leveling off in the number of true believers. Perhaps “Gore-bull warming” isn’t as dire as some people would have us believe? See this: Now, about the upcoming grand solar minimum:

  • @jammyjaybird only poor people.

  • @jammyjaybird interesting that you people invariably reduce everything to one of three things:
    material wealth

  • @bem My previous three comments on this thread were about falling human intelligence, rising global temperature readings, and premature death.
    If you’re gonna come at me, at least be accurate.


    Associating “Race” and “Climate” is absurd, and consistent with liberal dogma. I mock your steadfast adherence to it. That’s all.

  • @bem I didn’t write the article, snowflake. I just linked it. Aim your butthurt elsewhere.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to A Kings Castle was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.