Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

cricket wrote:

<quoted text>
Politicians in the UN and the US think that it is their role to determine the role of science and define what the science is...The Un goal is to contract and constrict [their own words] the economies of the developed countries even more. Read that: destroy.

Ah, I see...this global scientific consensus is merely cover for a conspiracy by the United Nations to destroy the "developed" (read: white) economies, laying us bare for takeover--by darker nations, we can assume?

Nauseous wrote:

Ah, I see...this global scientific consensus is merely cover for a conspiracy by the United Nations to destroy the "developed" (read: white) economies, laying us bare for takeover--by darker nations, we can assume?

It wouldn't suprise me if that's what you assume.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>It wouldn't suprise me if that's what you assume.

No way I won't stand for it.You are the commander of useless babble but also in fact the commander of making an ASSumption of your self.Hay dirtling take credit where credit is due.

Again:

useless babble wrote:

useless babble
useless babble

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

It wouldn't suprise(sic) me if that's what you assume.

I didn't assume that "steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rootingg(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig. I & Native Tribes have LEARNED that "steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rootingg(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.

Earthling-1 wrote:

Again:<quoted text>

Try a little harder. You can do it you can do it. Now repeat it again I will not post useless babble. Come on dirtling you have managed to cure your post of the hate. Now is the time to shine and work on cleaning up the useless babble you post.

For a short while longer, it's:

useless babble wrote:

useless babble
useless babble

koz wrote:

<quoted text>Electricity from nuclear power plants adds no carbon dioxide.

Most electricity in the US does not come from nuclear plants.
But with nuclear power, there are potentially grave problems.
CO2 isn't a problem. It is an imaginary fear only, a theme used to gain..what else? More money, more power and more control.
This is a carbon based planet and carbon based life forms on it. CO2 is a good thing.

That is also not something any individual is choosing to do with putting any action behind their beliefs nor do they usually have a choice in how electricity is provided in the area.

Do not underestimate the severity of the Fukushima nuclear crisis:
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect...

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php...

http://enenews.com/japan-nuclear-professor-ra...

Crisis? What crisis? It doesn't exist, because it wasn't mentioned on msm.

Earthling-1 wrote:

For a short while longer, it's:<quoted text>

Try a little harder. You can do it you can do it. Now repeat it again I will not post useless babble. Come on dirtling you have managed to cure your post of the hate. Now is the time to shine and work on cleaning up the useless babble you post.

PHDumbo wrote:

I will not post useless babble.[QUOTE]You just did.[QUOTE who="useless babble"]useless babble

And again.

koz wrote:

<quoted text>Electricity from nuclear power plants adds no carbon dioxide.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Doesn't everyone know that already?

Those who "know that already" are mistaken. Nuclear fuel has a rather large carbon footprint. Unless you figure out how to mine it, transport it and refine it all using nuclear energy. At present all of these processes are undertaken using large quantities of fossil fuels. Once again the pohm is wrong, stupid, or lying.

dudd wrote:

Those who "know that already" are mistaken. Nuclear fuel has a rather large carbon footprint. Unless you figure out how to mine it, transport it and refine it all using nuclear energy. At present all of these processes are undertaken using large quantities of fossil fuels. Once again the pohm is wrong, stupid, or lying.

Don't you do semantics, dudd?
koz wrote:
"Electricity from nuclear power plants adds no carbon dioxide."

A perfectly accurate comment.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Don't you do semantics, dudd?
koz wrote:
"Electricity from nuclear power plants adds no carbon dioxide."
A perfectly accurate comment.

Nuclear power plants cannot make electricity without fuel. Fuel for nuclear power plants has a carbon footprint, therefore electricity from nuclear power does indeed add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The statement is inaccurate, but you never have been big on truth telling.

You'll notice I didn't use any vile invectives in answering you, yet you still, as you are compelled to do, change my name to an attempted insult...but you misspell "dud". I'm beginning to pity you. Is that what you are after?

BURN That COAL.THANKS 2 odummy and the epa,and silly green movement.coal miners out of work,pain at the pump,pain at the electric plug.all u green super hero;s r destroying the economy.Burn that COAL.CONVERT IT 2 OIL.unless u believe green math which never is right.

GEEWIZ wrote:

BURN That COAL.THANKS 2 odummy and the epa,and silly green movement.coal miners out of work,pain at the pump,pain at the electric plug.all u green super hero;s r destroying the economy.Burn that COAL.CONVERT IT 2 OIL.unless u believe green math which never is right.

C'mon pohm show me I'm wrong correct this tard's English.

Oh and gee whiz GEEWIZ when have energy costs not gone up?

Oh and BTW the economy was screwed up long before Obama was elected. It has in fact been improving ever since he was elected. Admittedly it is improving way to slowly, but can you give an example of any other Western economy hit by the global financial crisis that is doing better?

budd wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Those who "know that already" are mistaken. Nuclear fuel has a rather large carbon footprint. Unless you figure out how to mine it, transport it and refine it all using nuclear energy. At present all of these processes are undertaken using large quantities of fossil fuels. Once again the pohm is wrong, stupid, or lying.

Please cite your source(s) for the calculation of nuclear's carbon footprint per 1000MWe relative to other current large-scale base load generation options like coal, natural gas, oil, etc. that you're preumably relying on in making this claim.

I'd be interested in reviewing it.

Thanks.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Please cite your source(s) for the calculation of nuclear's carbon footprint per 1000MWe relative to other current large-scale base load generation options like coal, natural gas, oil, etc. that you're preumably relying on in making this claim.
I'd be interested in reviewing it.
Thanks.

Where did I cite any calculations? If you follow the thread you will see that I was merely pointing out that the statement "Electricity from nuclear power plants adds no carbon dioxide." was incorrect. If you would like to prove me wrong in correcting the commenter's statement go ahead.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/23/antar...

Ice core shows Antarctic Peninsula warming is nothing unusual

Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now:
IPCC has got it all wrong

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/globa...

[Must have been all those Roman factories, internal combustion engines and over consumption of oil, gas and electricity. Also all that olive oil burning in their lamps. Not to mention all that carbon from Nero's fire heating up the planet. lol.]

cricket wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2 012/08/23/antarctic_peninsula_ ice_core/
Ice core shows Antarctic Peninsula warming is nothing unusual
Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now:
IPCC has got it all wrong

The Register is trash.

The analysis revealed that 15,000-12,000 years ago, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced significant warming, becoming about 1C warmer than today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

That's about 10,000 years before Roman times and 11,000 years before medieval time at least.

Analysis of a 364m-long ice core containing several millennia of climate history shows the region previously basked in temperatures slightly higher than today.

However, the peninsula is now warming rapidly, threatening previously stable areas of ice, the study warns.

The important point is that the Antarctic is *still* warming rapidly and will continue to do so.

budd wrote:

<quoted text>

I see, so you don't do semantics.
I'd try to explain, but it's probably too complicated for you.