SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-countries-negative-global-environmental.html
Human well-being will be severely jeopardized by negative trends in some types of environmental harm, such as a changing climate, deforestation, loss of access to fresh water, species extinctions and human population growth, scientists warn in today's issue of BioScience, an international journal.
The viewpoint article—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was signed by more than 15,000 scientists in 184 countries.
The warning came with steps that can be taken to reverse negative trends, but the authors suggested that it may take a groundswell of public pressure to convince political leaders to take the right corrective actions. Such activities could include establishing more terrestrial and marine reserves, strengthening enforcement of anti-poaching laws and restraints on wildlife trade, expanding family planning and educational programs for women, promoting a dietary shift toward plant-based foods and massively adopting renewable energy and other "green" technologies.
Global trends have worsened since 1992, the authors wrote, when more than 1,700 scientists—including a majority of the living Nobel laureates at the time—signed a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the last 25 years, trends in nine environmental issues suggest that humanity is continuing to risk its future. However, the article also reports that progress has been made in addressing some trends during this time.
The article was written by an international team led by William Ripple, distinguished professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. The authors used data maintained by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and individual researchers to warn of "substantial and irreversible harm" to the Earth.
"Some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmist," said Ripple. "Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences. Those who signed this second warning aren't just raising a false alarm. They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path. We are hoping that our paper will ignite a wide-spread public debate about the global environment and climate."
Other links:
Here is the official page where you can read the full article, endorse the article, view signatories, and endorsers
Direct link to full article in PDF
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:50PM (68 children)
It might, might, improve credibility if they weren't using an old Soviet front group. Yall do know the Cold War is over now and the historians have started admitting some of this stuff and yea, Union of Concerned Scientists was totally a Soviet puppet organization.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:05PM (27 children)
Mmm... the "attack the messenger" line. Should have arm yourself with more than bullshit though.
[Citation needed]
Because, you see, the 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity [ucsusa.org] happened in... guess when?... surprise, 1992.
The Soviet union dissolved in 1991 [wikipedia.org] and I guarantee you that for the previous 3-4 years nobody had "cold war" in mind - but rather "perestroika" and "revolutions" - I know this, I was involved in one of the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:46PM (3 children)
Soviets also supported the Black Panthers and the KKK, but that doesn't mean they started or operated either. It's a matter of providing money and organizational skill.
Since the groups operate on their own, they can at least coast along after the loss of Soviet help. Some last longer than others.
Russia has continued the tradition. Those protests against Trump were partly supported by Russia.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:54PM (2 children)
Doubling down on shite just gives you more shite, fellow human...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
Guilt by association
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:22PM
Thanks, Donald!
(Score: 1, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:44PM (22 children)
Wiki won't outright name UCS but does allow Soviet influence on the peace movement [wikipedia.org] to stay up. And yes UCS was deeply involved in the same movement to defang the West. And look at this [discoverthenetworks.org] history of where they came from, where their money comes from and who their allies are. See any non Prog political allies? Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you probably are. There is of course much more but Google is doing a much better job of not returning useful results on CrimeThink searches these days. Some of us were alive and politically aware back in the Reagan Administration though and don't need a webpage to tell us which side the Union of Concerned Scientists was on.
And more important, I realize you fuckers are impervious to evidence so why bother adding more? Any reasonable person reading along has enough to see where I'm arguing from and you can't be reasoned with at all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:21PM (19 children)
(lemme see how I'll be doing on the invectives-for-stylistic-purposes dept)
Bullshitting then covering your ass. Typical jmorris, no surprises there.
Rest assured, us fuckers aren't interested in the old monkey asshole that you are (don't make me remind you what the dick niggers do and don't)
Ah, there it comes... behold... the... god
The genius that prepared himself for a historic Cold War meeting by reading Tom Clancy thriller [independent.co.uk], the bluffer that brought the world closer to a nuclear war [wikipedia.org] second only to the Cuban incident.
The brilliant mind behind enriching the 1%-ers by increasing the spending rate of 2.5% per year to be repaid from taxes paid by the lesser - the pissing-down economy or whatever it was called.
Here are some of his other achievements:
Pissing-down economy in action
Sure, jmorris, worship Reagan, admit that shit-of-an-actor-playing-president is a 3 orders of magnitude better than you'll ever be; you will be absolutely right on this one, your mother should have let you go and keep the stork.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:13PM
My 3rd point in the "achievements list" is missing this source of the blockquote [shmoop.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:21PM (9 children)
Reagan was "good" compared to Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, FDR...
That doesn't mean Reagan was flawless. He was pretty bad!
Not even Trump is flawless. There is the net neutrality issue, the failure to lock her up (so far), the lack of a Muslim ban... but overall we're looking at the best president in at least a century. Still, he definitely isn't flawless.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:53PM (7 children)
0.5/10, could tell you weren't serious within 5 seconds. Go back to Ivan and tell him he's paying you too much.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:24PM (6 children)
I look like a troll to you because you are out of touch with America.
I may be a bit more to the right than most Americans... but not that much. The polls denying that America loves Trump mean about as much as the ones that gave him a 2% chance of winning.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:12PM (5 children)
I get it, I get it, most of my fellow citizens are idiots. Seems to include you too. You're still not worth what Ivan's paying you even if that's nothing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:29AM (4 children)
Apparently the US slightly-less-right-than-the-other-party have never heard of the term pyrrhic victory, and completely fail to understand the even-more-right Heinleinian mentality of "your status in Hell depends on the size of your honor guard".
You keep fucking over the deplorables and then pissing on what they have left. And are then surprised that they don't want your Witch-in-Chief, and that they won't support you.
So which party has even more morons than the other one?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:57AM (3 children)
What in Cthulhu's borderline-unpronounceable name makes you think I actually liked Clinton? I want to see her entire dynasty searing in hellfire right next to the Bushes and for most of the same reasons. Here's a hint, shithead: the ones fucking over the "deplorables" have been the GOP, and this has been the case since the Civil Rights Era.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)
More Americans were horrified of the Clinton Creature, than were terrified of the Trump Tampon - and you call those Americans idiots? Apparently you are an idiot equal to your fellow Americans if you actually thought one was preferable to the other. The Democrats robbed the voters of a choice. Stop whining about the GOP - that party gave in to it's consituents, unlike the fascist fucking demoncrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @09:12PM
Why do the deplorable Trumpsters get so upset about people pointing out how completely idiotic and totally hornswaggled they are? You should just "own" the stupid. Not doing so only makes you look more stupider. You stupid Trump voter. Idiot. Parsnip.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:03PM
superstitious, much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:58AM
Not even. Ha. Ha, ha. This is too funny. Worst president Ever, and he had to bump George "Dubya" Bush out of that slot, which I guess is no mean feat. So not even Trump is flawed, but by not having any redeeming qualities, other than noticing how much it made himself feel good about himself to pardon turkeys, all be himself. I have a growing suspicion that this AC is one of those turkeys. And, death to all Trump supporters, and may they roast in oven, or be deep-fried, and be served with cranberry sauce. Deplorable, just deplorable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:44PM (7 children)
That includes state level jobs over which no US president has control. Federal jobs increased under Obama by about 10% [washingtontimes.com]. Meanwhile, it appears that the number of federal employees increased under Reagan by roughly 300k from 5.0 million in 1980 to 5.3 million in 1988. So smaller in both number and percentage.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:03PM (5 children)
Maybe, but it allows Obama to rightfully claim more jobs created in the private economy than his predecessor - certainly better than Reagan by this metric [cnn.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:36PM (4 children)
I think there's good reason to blame Obama for the 5 million job loss between January 2009 and February 2010 as well as the glacially slow recover from that point to the November 2016 election.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:11PM (3 children)
Scroll lower until you get to "The Obama administration derives that figure by looking at how many private sector jobs (so excluding government jobs) have been added since the lowest point during the Great Recession."
Other metric.
Translation: "I'm the opinion there are reasons..."... how does this work when I haven't seen the reasons you claim stay at the base of your thinking?
Et tu, Brute?
I was hoping that complaining about the "heavy burden inherited from the previous regime" is a whinging that only the politicians in the former communist countries would use - I heard it so many times I decided to immigrate.
Come on now, it's unbecoming... whoever is using this is painting himself as unworthy to be elected and a liar: they promised strength and described how they'll fix everything... and what do we hear? Whinging about how much "eviler were the previous regime" than "the promissor's feebler good fiber and potency to deal with the reality"? Gaahhh.
(continue to do this and every time I'll deduct a bit of from your amount of respect I granted you just because you're a human. No, I'm not grinning this time)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:57AM (2 children)
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Back in early 2009, the Obama administration via two administration economists, Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein, came up with a chart [thinkprogress.org] rationalizing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a bit of economic stimulus comprised of short term spending and tax cuts to the tune of $800 billion.
There are three curves on that chart all related to the standard measure of unemployment in the US. One curve is their projection of US unemployment for the few years after the recession started when no stimulus was attempted. A lower curve was the projection of unemployment over the same time period, if the ARRA were enacted (with slight changes, since the projection predated the final ARRA bill passed). The final curve is of actual unemployment over that time period which is significantly higher throughout the entire period (the linked story only goes through roughly mid 2011, but unemployment rates [bls.gov] remained higher than the 5% target through to 2016) than either of the projections and didn't settled down to pre-recession levels by the end of the time period.
So the obvious question here is why did that happen? The party line is that the recession was worse than expected and the higher unemployment rates were due to an unforeseen crash in labor markets that could have been addressed by an even bigger stimulus. The linked story above blames the Federal Reserve despite their considerable efforts to push the economy via monetary policy.
My view is that Obama was the problem that was bigger than foreseen. For both his terms, he had implemented a variety of hostile business law and regulation. Why would businesses gratuitously hire people in those circumstances? For example, even by mid 2011 when the above story was written, the divergence from plan was still 3% higher unemployment above the projected ARRA rates.
Here's a couple of charts [businessinsider.com] that illustrate the problem nicely. We've had a bunch of recessions since the end of the Second World War in the US. Aside from the 2001 and 2007 recessions every one of them took off in employment rate once the economy started to recover. And GDP has been remarkably slow to recover compared to every other such recession, including the 2001 one. I think the big difference was that no other recession had a president who was more concerned about ideological policy implementation than the economic recovery of the US and it shows in a recovery that has taken both terms to come about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:44AM (1 child)
Clearly, we should work to recreate the conditions that existed prior to 1980: higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter banking regulation.
While BI is giving us partisan spin, the graphs don't appear to lie.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:02AM
Then when we take those away, we'll get the desired economic boost. /sarc
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:01AM
khallow, the Washington Times is Moonie central! If you cite them you loose what little credibility you have here amoungst the soylentils. Sometimes, when people say "citation needed", it is best to not cite somewhere that weakens your argument, as opposed to your usual oblivious rebuttal strategy of just going with the bare unsubstantiated irrational right-wing talking point.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:02PM
It never occurred to you that the reason for which UCS isn't listed there could be because they weren't sponsored by Soviets?
I mean, you can't rationally reject this possibility, can you? Without proof, it's up to anyone mind if it accepts the claim or not. Usually, I tend to discount them, that's noise not information.
I'm looking and what I see is:
I can't see "Soviet" and I can't see "Russia" or "Putin" (a thing that I can't say about you current Agent-Orange-in-chief, but let's drop this for the moment)
Most (all?) of those organizations are based on... (let me try to use a word that should be to your liking).... yuuuge wealth accumulated by capitalistic means, so I fail to understand what you have to grumble on UCS funding sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:01AM
Some of us are old and can't separate nationalist propaganda from our own thoughts and thus prefer to avoid sources of information which might trigger cognitive dissonance #TIFIFY
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:08PM (27 children)
I will admit, I am not familiar with the group, but a quick google and a cursory glance at their wiki makes them seem like a run of the mill MIT based anti-nuclear anti-climate change advocacy group. How exactly are they a soviet front group? And perhaps more philosophically, does that change the message, we're all fucked together on this one, and a large number of credentialed experts agree (I'll admit, I am taking that these are credentialed experts on TFA's authority).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:22PM (23 children)
How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses? Nuclear is the only true viable solution. Wind and Solar are great but it would be hard to scale that for our whole country in a time frame where it can make a difference. It is sad to know that Hydro is a problem now because of the rise and fall in water levels causing plant decay, anyone have the link to that soylent article?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:17PM (16 children)
Because of this:
"Building new renewables is now cheaper than just running old coal and nuclear plants. [thinkprogress.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
If the title is true, there is no need to do anything, the market will take care of it before long.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM
Not if Big Government gets in the way of renewables by unfairly subsidizing coal, oil, and natural gas. And don't forget all the onerous regulations imposed on homeowners wanting to install home solar arrays. Too bad about that
climate researcherenergy industry conspiracy to stifle innovation and keep our infrastructure in the stone age.If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:56PM
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:11PM (12 children)
And anyone who can claim that fossil fuels are more expensive in the developing world than in the developed world is doing something very wrong.
Who really believes that when cost of labor and materials is greatly lower in these countries than in the US?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:33PM (7 children)
LIAR!
'Versions 6.0 – 11.0 present the LCOE on an unsubsidized basis, except as noted on the page titled “Levelized Cost of Energy—Sensitivity to U.S. Federal Tax Subsidies”'
https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf [lazard.com]
Just look at the title of this graph:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450333/chart-1-finally.jpg [lazard.com]
"Hurr, Durr... I know better than someone who spends most of their life studying this topic ...."
You ignore the cost of capital which the report notes is likely to be higher in non-OECD countries.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:55PM (6 children)
In other words, the analysis can contrive scenarios where unsubsidized cost of renewable sources (other than hydro, of course) can be cost competitive with the unsubsidized cost of non-renewable sources, but in general it's not.
FTFY.
One doesn't buy capital with labor and materials. One builds it.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:32PM (5 children)
So you assert that Lazard is in the business of promoting renewable energy sources? Do know what Lazard is? It's an investment bank, it's unlikely to be promoting renewable energy unless it really thinks that it is a good investment.
As a capitalist, you should understand that this is back to front. Or perhaps you are just a know-nothing blowhard?
One uses capital to buy labor and materials in order to build and operate assets. That capital comes with an assumed interest rate: the cost of capital.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (4 children)
And hence, where it would profit them to promote their "good investments".
There is no understanding in your quote. It is claimed that the cost of capital is high in developing world countries. But once again, what is the cost of such? It is primarily the cost of labor and materials, particularly when you get to fundamental infrastructure like power plants.
No, one uses a medium of trade to buy the above, usually money.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:01PM (3 children)
Posting this for the benefit of the financially illiterate.
Cost of capital refers to the opportunity cost of making a specific investment. It is the rate of return that could have been earned by putting the same money into a different investment with equal risk. Thus, the cost of capital is the rate of return required to persuade the investor to make a given investment. [investinganswers.com]
What is 'Cost Of Capital' [investopedia.com]
The cost of funds used for financing a business. Cost of capital depends on the mode of financing used – it refers to the cost of equity if the business is financed solely through equity, or to the cost of debt if it is financed solely through debt. Many companies use a combination of debt and equity to finance their businesses, and for such companies, their overall cost of capital is derived from a weighted average of all capital sources, widely known as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC).
As can be seen, it has nothing to do with the cost of labor and materials.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
Further, we're missing a big point here. Why would an investment of equal risk have a higher cost of capital associated with it in a developing world country than in a developed world country? What's the market inefficiencies making this happen at all? A key inefficiency is that the big money is coming in from the developed world. That will always distort a market in a contrary direction to the source of the big money. So investors throwing money in from their developed world location are paying more, including cost of capital, than someone local in a developing world locale. Not all investment comes from the developed world and it won't have the same problems with cost of capital. Cost of capital differs with where your money is located.
I father this is one of the many wealth transfer mechanisms from the developed world elsewhere as they pay a premium for such developing world capital.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM (1 child)
There is no arguing with someone who is militantly ignorant.
You adopted your usual style: 3 wise monkeys. Just ignore or deny anything that doesn't fit your world view.
It's not about me missing your point: it's about you denying well-sourced information.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:57AM
Now presumably some day it will become true just because these sources of power appear to be getting cheaper while most of the rest aren't. But once again, it hasn't happened yet.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
You assume they have skills to do so. Labor and materials may be cheap, but that doesn't translate instantly into being able to deploy nuclear facilities. You need expensive and long term training for your citizens before you have enough people in your talent pool. That's one of the advantages countries with big populations have, more trained scientists. Of course, that's only with a good educational system, which is why the U.S will crater sooner than later. Our real talent are in their 60's, 70's and 80's right now.
If your own country can't provide the skill, how do you attain it? I would imagine paying for it, which is what would raise the costs up. I don't think it's a coincidence that developing countries often seek reputable foreign companies that possess those skills.
Then we can get into just how damn dangerous conventional nuclear facilities are. They would need newer designs, such as thorium reactors. It makes so much more sense for them to wait for the first world countries to develop the tech, and then they implement the tech themselves at a later point, or purchase it. An older conventional design would require so much more security and maintenance.
You forgot something else, which surprised me for you :)
Regulations. Those are what makes a screw cost $10k. When you are that paranoid about your reactor having issues, which seems very healthy to me, you need to spend a lot more money in doing even the simplest things. Like sourcing a fucking screw.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM
Ahhh, that's what you meant by conventional. I was stuck in nuclear.
Yeah, you have a point. Burning coal is cheaper there if the labor and materials are cheap.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:18PM
Burning coal has high maintenance costs - many power stations are old enough.
Unless you build new coal fired stations, which translated into investment. Investment which most of the banks will think twice before financing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:24PM
Easily, for sufficient pay.
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:19PM
Sorry, in retrospect I wasn't clear. They are anti nuclear weapons. I have no idea what their policy stance is on nuclear power. But it looks like from 63-92 their primary message was nuclear disarmament.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:49PM
Easy. I am, and I'm not. Nuclear is extraordinarily bad for the environment, which is completely unarguable. What has become very clear is that the endemic corruption in the U.S produced dangerous and costly nuclear facilities. To be fair, this science was heavily under development.
I'm completely against all nuclear facilities that use the older conventional designs, and are subject to the corruption and regulations that make screws cost 10k. That's why it costs taxpayers so damn much, and then ultimately it just makes a few people richer that own the damn things. Like Mr. Burns :)
I'm completely FOR all newer reactor designs that were made to be safe above all else. AFAIK, thorium reactor designs are the only ones that fail gracefully. Those reactors should be cheaper and safer to operate, not to mention build.
Additionally, I'm ALL FOR the government making multiple thorium reactors in each state....... and then giving the power to the people literally. Power is free from the government, paid for by your taxes :) Charge for anything over normal usage, but otherwise, citizens won't be freezing because some hellbound executive cocksucker decided to lay people off before Christmas and now they can't afford heat in the winter.
Ubiquitous safe and cheap power in the U.S could help get our economy back into shape, and not having to deal with frozen or cooked citizens is a good thing. Heat waves kill the old and the poor, and quite often, the old are poor.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:24PM
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:18AM (1 child)
I'm pro-nuclear, but you seem to fall into the same trap to the person you're replying to. Nuclear is not mutually exclusive to wind and solar - Note, I inferred this by your statement "Nuclear is the only true viable solution".
No it is not, but it shouldn't be avoided either. Solar can be viable too if we pour enough research into it. If we can develop better solar PVs with higher efficiency they can become even more viable. Both nuclear and solar has the added benefit of being tech we can use for space faring as well. I don't follow wind, so can't comment on that.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29AM
My statement was in error. I prefer a baseline of Solar and Wind with some sort of stored energy (hydrogen, gravity cells, future battery, diesel) to handle spikes.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:36PM (2 children)
The group abuses the trust that people have/had in science to achieve leftist goals.
They claim to represent scientists. Well, they don't. For example, my father is a scientist, PhD and all. He's an atheist and an early baby boomer too, so you could wrongly expect him to agree with this stuff. Nope.
Back in the 1960s, he was writing about how we should build more nuclear weapons and fight harder in Vietnam. He wanted Vietnam nuked. More recently, he was active in Tea Party stuff. He owns 15 to 20 guns. He thinks climate change is mostly nonsense. He hates abortion. He loves nuclear power. He hates illegal aliens and people who live here without fully switching to English.
Don't assume scientists are all cut from the same cloth. This group does not represent them.
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM
You do not understand. Your father is not a scientist because the word's definition now includes a political alignment. Blacks who stray from the reservation aren't "authentic blacks", women who aren't feminists aren't "women" and so on. You must always specify a language now. If unspecified it is assumed to be NewSpeak and not English so none of the words mean what English speakers assume they do.
Translation guide
English NewSpeak
woman cis-female
feminist woman
black if (angry) African-American else Uncle Tom
scientist bad person
activist (in lab coat) scientist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:35PM
Have you considered a long-term care facility? Whatever you do, do not let your father go to Vegas, or to Church, for that matter.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:21PM (9 children)
It might be in bad taste to quote myself [soylentnews.org], but:
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a Russian shill, it's all part of a conspiracy against capitalism. No need to even consider the evidence.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:09PM (8 children)
"Climate Change" nowadays means "you must admit millions of filthy savage CIA-trained refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa to conquer your society."
Thanks, but no thanks. Let's go back to saving the gay whales, shall we?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:37PM
Not sure where exactly you're coming from there. Although the US military does foresee climate change as a major threat multiplier [military.com] and is taking steps to prepare for the resulting problems [columbia.edu], including increased numbers of climate refugees [independent.co.uk] (report [cna.org]).
Disbelieving climate science won't make those "savage" refugees go away.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:59PM (6 children)
Hey, dipfuck, millions of those "savages" live in places that are going to suffer most from climate change. If you think there's a lot of them now, wait until Bangladesh ends up 2/3 underwater.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:54PM (3 children)
Well, Russia is ^ that-a-way. They have plenty of free land and I hear Siberia is pretty resistant to global warming.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:14PM (2 children)
Siberia, er...this would be the place where the ground is literally exploding due to warming causing massive methane bubbles to burst under the permafrost, no? Doesn't sound resistant to climate change at all. Sounds, actually, like an early warning system of sorts.
Oh well, no one reads your comments for insight or facts.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:15PM (1 child)
there are places where huge rocks have fallen on the resident's heads. other places where the rain won't fall. other places where to much rain falls. lots of places where the wind flattens everything. Siberia? the ground blows up now and then. maybe you prefer genuine earthquakes? move to California. are volcanoes preferable?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:49PM
Yeah, just hold still long enough for me to tie you up and drop you into one of them...Lady Pele will eat well tonight.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:09PM (1 child)
What you bitching about? Eth said he wanted to save you. "Let's go back to saving the gay whales, shall we?" Or, is it alright that we kill all you fat lesbians, and render you down for lard?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:57PM
Since when is 165 lb at 6' fat? You're probably twice my weight and half a foot shorter, ya basement-crawling incel autist. Go back to snaffling Hot Pockets and let the grown-ups talk amongst themselves.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:29PM (1 child)
It might also help to remove all of the software engineers and, PhD obstetricians, et al from the list of "scientists" I'm supposed to believe have relevant credentials.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:46PM
Or just reject the implied premise that scientific truths are determined by consensus, i.e. by a vote. One fact, or the lack of them, outweighs a thousand "button sorters and bottle washers."