Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Thug Lessons posted:

You're just confused.

I'm confused for sure.

# ? Apr 10, 2018 21:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 08:39

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Orange Sunshine posted:

There are many things we could do which would not be expensive at all, but which we are not doing because of the current political situation.

For example, something like half of Americans are driving around in enormous trucks and SUVS which get half or less the gas mileage that a reasonable passenger car would get. It would actually save us a large amount of money if people were driving reasonable cars, both in gas and in the expense of the vehicles. A culture which was unified could make driving a fuel efficient car a patriotic thing to do, due to combating global warming and due to removing our dependency on foreign oil.

Nuclear power is the simple replacement for coal plants, and could be produced reasonably cheaply if the whole process of building them were streamlined. In this case, it's primarily liberal environmentalists who oppose nuclear power, although everyone has the NIMBY attitude.

Large tax breaks (larger than currently exist) for investing in wind and solar power would help as well.

You want to start with the efficient reasonable actions, not with "AND NOW WE ALL ABANDON OUR CARS AND SIT IN THE DARK HOLDING CANDLES AWAITING OUR OWN EXTINCTION IN PENANCE FOR OUR SINS AGAINST NATURE".

Well, the thing is that the "ABANDON CARS AND SIT IN THE DARK" people aren't policy-makers, while the opposite end "CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CHINESE HOAX" most certainly are, so you're actually falling into the false middle fallacy that conservative and oil industry influencers are promoting. You know, "both sides are equally wrong" and "there are many people saying many different things so who knows what's true?" kind of poo poo that's meant to prey on the uninformed, because status quo works in their favor.

Now, while it's true that undesirable and counterproductive notions like denuclearization have hung onto the side of environmental awareness, and the Democrats don't have a comprehensive and effective environmental strategy (no one in the world does, for that matter), your blame of "the left" here is just as misplaced as blaming the poor for not being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 10, 2018

# ? Apr 10, 2018 22:01

Polio Vax Scene: Apr 5, 2009

Orange Sunshine posted:

Regarding the climate change debate, this is a debate that can't be won since conservatives (or at least, the more educated and intelligent of them) know it's real and are merely pretending to believe that it isn't.

American conservatives figured out that the climate change solutions which liberals were suggesting were utterly unacceptable to them, and so ended up using an old debate trick of simply refusing to accept the obvious proof that man made climate change is even a real thing. The average person is not going to actually learn enough about the science behind it to be able to judge for themselves, so all it took was a small number of conservative speakers and writers to question the validity of climate change, and the uneducated conservative masses decided the whole thing was some sort of liberal trick which they could safely ignore. So now anyone trying to pass any law or do anything to combat global warming in the U.S. faces an uphill battle since they have to try to convince so many people that there even is a problem in the first place.

I'm going to say that the left has only itself to blame for this, as liberals attempted to use the very real problem of global warming to try to push every one of their pet issues which had nothing to do with it. The OP message from this thread, for example, suggests a socialist revolution as a reasonable solution. This thread, and every other I've seen everywhere on this, has people suggesting that we all need to abandon our cars and suburban living and move to large cities where we can take the bus, or that we must lower the human population to some small fraction of where it is today, or abandon most of our technology altogether.

Extreme suggestions like this are why the U.S. is gridlocked on the subject of climate change and is doing nothing, while we wait to see if improvements in technology will allow us to invent our way out of the problem.

Paragraph 2: conservatives leaders reject climate change
Paragraph 3: its the left's fault
:thumbsup:

# ? Apr 10, 2018 22:14

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Conspiratiorist posted:

Well, the thing is that the "ABANDON CARS AND SIT IN THE DARK" people aren't policy-makers

Arguably, anti-nuclear luddites have more firmly convinced the people of their cause than Trump has convinced the US population of any of his.

# ? Apr 10, 2018 22:21

Orange Sunshine: May 10, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Polio Vax Scene posted:

Paragraph 2: conservatives leaders reject climate change
Paragraph 3: its the left's fault

Good point. Screw conservatives, they're all backwards losers who can't possibly be of any help with anything.

Now, let's talk about what type of socialist revolution would best serve the climate change cause. Do we want a big government central planning techno socialist system, or some sort of benevolent Khmer Rouge led anarcho-primitivism?

# ? Apr 10, 2018 23:57

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Cingulate posted:

Arguably, anti-nuclear luddites have more firmly convinced the people of their cause than Trump has convinced the US population of any of his.

If only the USA nuke industry was competent and stopped blaming hippies for their woes.

I'm paying stupid-high rates because the "Too Cheap To Meter" SONGS plant was basically broken by the utility.

I do think it was foolish for Germany to shut down any nuke plant until ALL the coal ones were decommissioned.

I'm a physicist.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 00:03

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Orange Sunshine posted:

Good point. Screw conservatives, they're all backwards losers who can't possibly be of any help with anything.

Now, let's talk about what type of socialist revolution would best serve the climate change cause. Do we want a big government central planning techno socialist system, or some sort of benevolent Khmer Rouge led anarcho-primitivism?

What exactly are you arguing itt? As far as I can tell your main claim is "Conservatives are reluctant to address climate change because some (all) leftists/liberals use unreasonable rhetoric or make unrealistic proposals". Is this what you're trying to say?

# ? Apr 11, 2018 00:13

Orange Sunshine: May 10, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Nocturtle posted:

What exactly are you arguing itt? As far as I can tell your main claim is "Conservatives are reluctant to address climate change because some (all) leftists/liberals use unreasonable rhetoric or make unrealistic proposals". Is this what you're trying to say?

Conservatives in the U.S. refuse to address climate change because they believe that liberals will attempt to implement large numbers of unreasonable proposals as ways of dealing with climate change. And they have successfully managed to confuse large numbers of people into thinking that climate change may not be a real thing, to the point that doing anything about climate change becomes controversial and difficult.

The solution to this (if you don't have a liberal controlled government that can just ram through any legislation it wants) is to divorce issues of climate change from politics altogether, and look at solutions that everyone would find to be reasonable. It has to be an American cause, not a liberal cause. People wishing to smash the patriarchy or end global capitalism or impeach Donald Trump should not mix these activities with trying to counteract climate change.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 00:35

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Orange Sunshine posted:

Conservatives in the U.S. refuse to address climate change because they believe that liberals will attempt to implement large numbers of unreasonable proposals as ways of dealing with climate change.

This is true.

But it's also true that any regulation is something they consider an unreasonable proposal, as it cuts into their lobby overlords bottom-line.

And then you've got puppeteers like the Kochs who believe the best way forward is to put the pedal to the metal, and gently caress the rest of the world.

You've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation going on here - the American Right considers anything left-of-center to be extreme and unacceptable. They're not afraid of leftist anti-natalists or anarcho-primitivists, they're afraid of loving emissions reductions standards.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 00:56

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Orange Sunshine posted:

Conservatives in the U.S. refuse to address climate change because they believe that liberals will attempt to implement large numbers of unreasonable proposals as ways of dealing with climate change. And they have successfully managed to confuse large numbers of people into thinking that climate change may not be a real thing, to the point that doing anything about climate change becomes controversial and difficult.

The solution to this (if you don't have a liberal controlled government that can just ram through any legislation it wants) is to divorce issues of climate change from politics altogether, and look at solutions that everyone would find to be reasonable. It has to be an American cause, not a liberal cause. People wishing to smash the patriarchy or end global capitalism or impeach Donald Trump should not mix these activities with trying to counteract climate change.

Cap and Trade was invented by a lawyer in the Reagan Admin:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/

Conservatives don't address climate issues because the consequences of doing so (getting primaried by a Koch backed candidate) are harsh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis

On climate change, Inglis said that conservatives should go with the facts, and the science, and accept the National Academy of Science's conclusion that climate change is caused by human activities and poses significant risks, which 97 percent of climate scientists agree with. Studies conclude that coal power plants are responsible for 23,600 premature deaths in the U.S. per year, and conservatives should hold them accountable, he said, perhaps with a carbon tax on their emissions.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 01:00

Orange Sunshine: May 10, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Conspiratiorist posted:

This is true.

But it's also true that any regulation is something they consider an unreasonable proposal, as it cuts into their lobby overlords bottom-line.

And then you've got puppeteers like the Kochs who believe the best way forward is to put the pedal to the metal, and gently caress the rest of the world.

You've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation going on here - the American Right considers anything left-of-center to be extreme and unacceptable. They're not afraid of leftist anti-natalists or anarcho-primitivists, they're afraid of loving emissions reductions standards.

Climate change issues are not left of center, they're just basic issues facing humanity right now.

And emissions reductions standards are not necessarily the solution. If there were no other way of producing power besides fossil fuels, then we'd have a huge problem on our hands, since our only choices would be dismantling our technological society and going back to subsistence farming, or accepting ever rising CO2 levels and global warming. But fortunately, we have other choices. We have wind power, solar power, nuclear power, and we have potential new technologies which can help replace fossil fuels. We can invent our way out of the problem, as we've been doing over the past few decades as the cost of wind and solar power have plummeted.

The pro business wing of the Republican party in the U.S. would love to see the U.S. become the world's leading manufacturer and distributor of solar panels and wind turbines and nuclear reactors. Environmentalists instead focus on trying to shut down coal plants, which are to be replaced by who knows what but certainly not nuclear plants, and push for large taxes on anyone producing CO2. "Let's all try to produce less and have less of an economy" is never going to be accepted by any business community, and is the wrong approach. If you want the business community in the U.S. to be for something, you show them how they can make money off it and grow the economy through it.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 03:24

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Orange Sunshine posted:

Climate change issues are not left of center, they're just basic issues facing humanity right now.

And emissions reductions standards are not necessarily the solution. If there were no other way of producing power besides fossil fuels, then we'd have a huge problem on our hands, since our only choices would be dismantling our technological society and going back to subsistence farming, or accepting ever rising CO2 levels and global warming. But fortunately, we have other choices. We have wind power, solar power, nuclear power, and we have potential new technologies which can help replace fossil fuels. We can invent our way out of the problem, as we've been doing over the past few decades as the cost of wind and solar power have plummeted.

The pro business wing of the Republican party in the U.S. would love to see the U.S. become the world's leading manufacturer and distributor of solar panels and wind turbines and nuclear reactors. Environmentalists instead focus on trying to shut down coal plants, which are to be replaced by who knows what but certainly not nuclear plants, and push for large taxes on anyone producing CO2. "Let's all try to produce less and have less of an economy" is never going to be accepted by any business community, and is the wrong approach. If you want the business community in the U.S. to be for something, you show them how they can make money off it and grow the economy through it.

hooman posted:

Climate Change: We're missing the forests for the trees.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 03:34

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

rivetz posted:

I have no scientific credentials of any kind and am unable to dropkick this poo poo into the social media garbage receptacle where it presumably belongs, might someone be inclined to gimme a couple of succinct paragraphs that I could use to respond to this thing

What is the point this person is trying to support with this?

# ? Apr 11, 2018 04:35

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

Orange Sunshine posted:

Climate change issues are not left of center, they're just basic issues facing humanity right now.

And emissions reductions standards are not necessarily the solution. If there were no other way of producing power besides fossil fuels, then we'd have a huge problem on our hands, since our only choices would be dismantling our technological society and going back to subsistence farming, or accepting ever rising CO2 levels and global warming. But fortunately, we have other choices. We have wind power, solar power, nuclear power, and we have potential new technologies which can help replace fossil fuels. We can invent our way out of the problem, as we've been doing over the past few decades as the cost of wind and solar power have plummeted.

The pro business wing of the Republican party in the U.S. would love to see the U.S. become the world's leading manufacturer and distributor of solar panels and wind turbines and nuclear reactors. Environmentalists instead focus on trying to shut down coal plants, which are to be replaced by who knows what but certainly not nuclear plants, and push for large taxes on anyone producing CO2. "Let's all try to produce less and have less of an economy" is never going to be accepted by any business community, and is the wrong approach. If you want the business community in the U.S. to be for something, you show them how they can make money off it and grow the economy through it.

The Kochs disagree with you and shape conservative policy accordingly.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 05:10

Ratoslov: Feb 15, 2012; Now prepare yourselves! You're the guests of honor at the Greatest Kung Fu Cannibal BBQ Ever!

Orange Sunshine posted:

Climate change issues are not left of center, they're just basic issues facing humanity right now.

Objective truth has never been a barrier to something being a political issue.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 07:09

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Orange Sunshine posted:

We can invent our way out of the problem

I feel like ignorance is the root of this style of denial. People legitimately believe that it is okay for anyone to still be burning fossil fuels to power a society. The scale of the problem is so far beyond these people that they outright refuse to accept the problem at all and just keep telling themselves that technology is going to fix everything.

If anyone really gave a poo poo about the future we'd be done burning fossil fuels entirely by now and would have put together a worldwide effort to replace all fossil fuel consumption with clean energy, including (and in many areas primarily) nuclear power.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 08:13

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Car Hater posted:

That doesn't make it incorrect.

Yeah, the stupidity and bad logic employed made it wrong. It being repugnant is just a value judgement.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 08:44

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Libluini posted:

It being repugnant is just a value judgement.

Du und ich, in agreement?????

# ? Apr 11, 2018 09:43

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Sooooooo is there any group in the world with a realistic plan for getting nuclear fission into the debate and eventually policy again? I assume the hurdles would be
- literally everyone hates nuclear
- it takes decades to put up a reactor

So while I love disagreeing with literally all my friends by saying actually, atoms are good, has this ship not realistically sailed and what's left is hoping Elon Musk invents American Bald Eagle-shaped solar cells hand-assembled by red-blooded Texans within the next 3 years?

# ? Apr 11, 2018 10:02

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Cingulate posted:

Sooooooo is there any group in the world with a realistic plan for getting nuclear fission into the debate and eventually policy again? I assume the hurdles would be
- literally everyone hates nuclear
- it takes decades to put up a reactor

It's also expensive as poo poo. Nuclear's never going to occupy the space it needs to and other clean energy sources are not going to catch up in time.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 14:17

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Cingulate posted:

what's left is hoping Elon Musk invents American Bald Eagle-shaped solar cells hand-assembled by red-blooded Texans within the next 3 years?

Incentivize green manufacturing plants in traditionally conservative areas with high unemployment? That's not a terrible idea.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 14:33

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Going all in on nuclear would be a great way to minimize emissions, but public support is continually eroding:

It's actually interesting to see how support for using nuclear power was above 60% in 2011, ie it's not correct to say "everyone hates atoms". Then Fukushima happened and natural gas got really cheap and that was that.

However as already mentioned the real problem with nuclear is it's high relative cost:

The only way to add nuclear capacity at this point is through direct subsidies or a public utility, or to implement carbon prices that make it cheaper relative to natural gas. Both involve raising taxes or decreasing profits so.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 14:36

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

As long as money is more important than human life, there's pretty much no way anyone's going to take substantive action on climate change, it's simply too expensive.

By the time money less important than human life global human civilization will already be gone, so it won't matter much by then.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 14:49

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Orange Sunshine posted:

Conservatives in the U.S. refuse to address climate change because they believe that liberals will attempt to implement large numbers of unreasonable proposals as ways of dealing with climate change. And they have successfully managed to confuse large numbers of people into thinking that climate change may not be a real thing, to the point that doing anything about climate change becomes controversial and difficult.

The solution to this (if you don't have a liberal controlled government that can just ram through any legislation it wants) is to divorce issues of climate change from politics altogether, and look at solutions that everyone would find to be reasonable. It has to be an American cause, not a liberal cause. People wishing to smash the patriarchy or end global capitalism or impeach Donald Trump should not mix these activities with trying to counteract climate change.

You argue that conservatives resist climate change because they fear liberals will implement unreasonable mitigation measures, but provide no evidence.
Here is some relevant US-specific polling data:

Republicans generally think the threat of climate change is exaggerated, are divided on the scientific consensus and the majority believe it's not caused by human activities. Conservatives aren't resisting climate change mitigation because they're worried about liberals, it's because they don't believe in it or don't think it's important. But prove me wrong! Where's your evidence that it's fear of liberal over-reach that makes clear-minded conservatives hesitant to address what they believe is a serious issue (your actual claim itt).

Also for some reason you believe that conservatives have misled people about the reality of climate change. However it's conservatives themselves who are divided on whether climate change is happening and the underlying causes. Liberals/Democrats/progressives/whatever are well aware it's a serious issue.

Additionally the Republicans are currently fully in charge of the Federal govt and a significant majority of state governments. At this crucial time they are free to implement reasonable climate change mitigation measures without having to worry about Democrat interference. What have they done about climate change using this freedom?

Totally agree it would be great if climate change could be a non-partisan issue, but that ship sailed >20 years ago.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 15:21

Orange Sunshine: May 10, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Nocturtle posted:

You argue that conservatives resist climate change because they fear liberals will implement unreasonable mitigation measures, but provide no evidence.
Here is some relevant US-specific polling data:

Republicans generally think the threat of climate change is exaggerated, are divided on the scientific consensus and the majority believe it's not caused by human activities. Conservatives aren't resisting climate change mitigation because they're worried about liberals, it's because they don't believe in it or don't think it's important. But prove me wrong! Where's your evidence that it's fear of liberal over-reach that makes clear-minded conservatives hesitant to address what they believe is a serious issue (your actual claim itt).

Also for some reason you believe that conservatives have misled people about the reality of climate change. However it's conservatives themselves who are divided on whether climate change is happening and the underlying causes. Liberals/Democrats/progressives/whatever are well aware it's a serious issue.

Additionally the Republicans are currently fully in charge of the Federal govt and a significant majority of state governments. At this crucial time they are free to implement reasonable climate change mitigation measures without having to worry about Democrat interference. What have they done about climate change using this freedom?

Totally agree it would be great if climate change could be a non-partisan issue, but that ship sailed >20 years ago.

Of course I have no evidence of this. How could I? It's not like I'm going to produce a secret document from a shadowy cabal of top Republican leaders showing that they all covertly agreed to push an anti global warming message which they knew was false.

And of course a large percentage of republicans question the validity of global warming, they've been told by various influential conservatives for some time now that it's not real.

It comes down to common sense. Either you think that conservatives are so incredibly stupid that they can't figure out that the science behind it makes sense, or you think, "maybe they're doing this on purpose".

What I see is that conservatives in the U.S. have utterly outmaneuvered liberals on this issue, and they've done such a good job at it that liberals don't even realize they've been played. So here liberals are, thinking they're the clever ones for being the only ones to see the great powerful truth of global warming, and patiently or not patiently trying to teach everyone the science behind it. Meanwhile, their conservative opponents continue to throw up their smokescreen, following up every bit of carefully laid out evidence with more nonsense rebuttals and "Where's the data?!?!" and "Oh yeah, then howcome it snowed last night? Global warming disproved!", combined with the occasional bit of data or evidence which might be opposed to the global warming idea if taken out of context.

My proof of this is the fact that conservatives are winning on this issue in the U.S., and if you think your opponent is only beating you because he's so stupid, probably he's not the stupid one.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 16:42

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

The issue with nuclear power isn�t public opinion it is that grid planners don�t want to spend billions to build a plant that might break and be ruined and cost them the whole plant. Look at SONGS and Crystal River for examples of that.

But in the USA we�ve been licensing new plants, like the 2 new licenses for Turkey Point that just were approved at $10+B each and scheduled to come online no earlier than 2031. See they�re waiting to see how overcost Vogtle is before they actually start.

Give a wind or solar company $20B dollars and let�s see how much they can install before 2031.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 16:55

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Orange Sunshine posted:

Of course I have no evidence of this. How could I? It's not like I'm going to produce a secret document from a shadowy cabal of top Republican leaders showing that they all covertly agreed to push an anti global warming message which they knew was false.

No, it's not contentious that people in power lie to maintain their wealth and power. The contentious thing is "conservatives are lying to retain their wealth and power not because they think anti-environmentalism is personally advantageous to them, but because they are afraid of environmentalist overreach".

# ? Apr 11, 2018 17:06

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Orange Sunshine posted:

My proof of this is the fact that conservatives are winning on this issue in the U.S., and if you think your opponent is only beating you because he's so stupid, probably he's not the stupid one.

Uh, what? Neither party has done literally anything substantive to combat climate change. I'm not counting promises or attending summits.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 19:55

Spiking: Dec 14, 2003

Lol at the guy who argues for paragraph after paragraph to only say at the end "of course I have no evidence!!"

# ? Apr 11, 2018 19:58

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Nocturtle posted:

You argue that conservatives resist climate change because they fear liberals will implement unreasonable mitigation measures, but provide no evidence.
Here is some relevant US-specific polling data:

Republicans generally think the threat of climate change is exaggerated, are divided on the scientific consensus and the majority believe it's not caused by human activities. Conservatives aren't resisting climate change mitigation because they're worried about liberals, it's because they don't believe in it or don't think it's important. But prove me wrong! Where's your evidence that it's fear of liberal over-reach that makes clear-minded conservatives hesitant to address what they believe is a serious issue (your actual claim itt).

Also for some reason you believe that conservatives have misled people about the reality of climate change. However it's conservatives themselves who are divided on whether climate change is happening and the underlying causes. Liberals/Democrats/progressives/whatever are well aware it's a serious issue.

Additionally the Republicans are currently fully in charge of the Federal govt and a significant majority of state governments. At this crucial time they are free to implement reasonable climate change mitigation measures without having to worry about Democrat interference. What have they done about climate change using this freedom?

Totally agree it would be great if climate change could be a non-partisan issue, but that ship sailed >20 years ago.

These two things aren't actually different. Conservatives don't like the implications of climate change for public policy, therefore they don't believe arguments that climate change is true. Motivated reasoning is real and strong and it's not your friend.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:02

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Cingulate posted:

Du und ich, in agreement?????

The Human brain may be incredibly complex, but by now we have filled the world with 7 billion plus of us, so occasionally, zwei Dumme, ein Gedanke.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:10

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Lol so WP today is reporting that the Atlantic current is slowing down.

Get owned western Europe

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:12

Morbus: May 18, 2004

Cingulate posted:

Sooooooo is there any group in the world with a realistic plan for getting nuclear fission into the debate and eventually policy again? I assume the hurdles would be
- literally everyone hates nuclear
- it takes decades to put up a reactor

So while I love disagreeing with literally all my friends by saying actually, atoms are good, has this ship not realistically sailed and what's left is hoping Elon Musk invents American Bald Eagle-shaped solar cells hand-assembled by red-blooded Texans within the next 3 years?

Fission has been gradually written out of policy mostly due to the nuclear industry being chronically unable to even remotely deliver on Gen III/III+ projects over the last ~20 years.

At this point, things are not going to change unless either A.) someone demonstrates an ability to build these things in a reasonable amount of time, without going hugely overbudget, and without it being a pile of poo poo at the end or B.) someone demonstrates an inherently more economical and scalable reactor design, that does not require a huge up front capital cost to demonstrate, gets funded, and doesn't gently caress it up. Some small modular reactor designs could potentially satisfy B.) but I'm not optimistic.

The nuclear industry by itself probably does not have what it takes to un-gently caress itself, and funding them directly in any effort to do so would probably be throwing cash into a fiery pit.

And at the end of the day, if you look at the way costs are trending for renewables and storage, it's an extremely tough sell to justify funding new nuclear projects as opposed to spending even a fraction of that amount on wind/solar/storage projects, like Trabisnikof says.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:13

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Environmentalists functionally don't exist on the political stage in the US, to such an extent where when people blame 'greens' in the US for the lack of nuclear, I suspect that they're not American at all.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:19

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

call to action posted:

Environmentalists functionally don't exist on the political stage in the US, to such an extent where when people blame 'greens' in the US for the lack of nuclear, I suspect that they're not American at all.

Now let's be fair, they could also be idiots

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:24

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Morbus posted:

Fission has been gradually written out of policy mostly due to the nuclear industry being chronically unable to even remotely deliver on Gen III/III+ projects over the last ~20 years.

At this point, things are not going to change unless either A.) someone demonstrates an ability to build these things in a reasonable amount of time, without going hugely overbudget, and without it being a pile of poo poo at the end or B.) someone demonstrates an inherently more economical and scalable reactor design, that does not require a huge up front capital cost to demonstrate, gets funded, and doesn't gently caress it up. Some small modular reactor designs could potentially satisfy B.) but I'm not optimistic.

The nuclear industry by itself probably does not have what it takes to un-gently caress itself, and funding them directly in any effort to do so would probably be throwing cash into a fiery pit.

And at the end of the day, if you look at the way costs are trending for renewables and storage, it's an extremely tough sell to justify funding new nuclear projects as opposed to spending even a fraction of that amount on wind/solar/storage projects, like Trabisnikof says.

I mean I've been saying for a long time that the solution to climate change crises does not exist in a system where the profit motive is king, and private interests are still a part of the equation in any way.

Energy production obviously would have to be nationalized, the current market forces and circumstances of nuclear power make it unfeasible in the system we currently operate in. This is a problem with the system and institutions that exist right now, not a problem with the physical capabilities of nuclear power.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:31

Orange Sunshine: May 10, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Spiking posted:

Lol at the guy who argues for paragraph after paragraph to only say at the end "of course I have no evidence!!"

If you think that's something, try reading any thread on philosophy, religion, economics or politics.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 20:52

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Orange Sunshine posted:

Of course I have no evidence of this. How could I? It's not like I'm going to produce a secret document from a shadowy cabal of top Republican leaders showing that they all covertly agreed to push an anti global warming message which they knew was false.
...

I was genuinely curious about why'd you'd want to argue conservatives/Republicans aren't addressing climate change because they're worried about unreasonable mitigation efforts spearheaded by "liberals". It's just so much simpler to explain their resistance as a desire to not pay for decarbonization and mitigation efforts that won't directly benefit them. You've provided no real evidence to support your overly complicated interpretation or even defined what mitigation efforts you/Republican voters/the conservative cabal think are unreasonable, so there's no reason to pay attention to you.

It's not news to anyone that climate change action has been more or less stymied in the US, in no small part due to conservative voters. It's the state of affairs all the depressives in this thread are lamenting.

Morbus posted:

Fission has been gradually written out of policy mostly due to the nuclear industry being chronically unable to even remotely deliver on Gen III/III+ projects over the last ~20 years.

At this point, things are not going to change unless either A.) someone demonstrates an ability to build these things in a reasonable amount of time, without going hugely overbudget, and without it being a pile of poo poo at the end or B.) someone demonstrates an inherently more economical and scalable reactor design, that does not require a huge up front capital cost to demonstrate, gets funded, and doesn't gently caress it up. Some small modular reactor designs could potentially satisfy B.) but I'm not optimistic.

The nuclear industry by itself probably does not have what it takes to un-gently caress itself, and funding them directly in any effort to do so would probably be throwing cash into a fiery pit.

And at the end of the day, if you look at the way costs are trending for renewables and storage, it's an extremely tough sell to justify funding new nuclear projects as opposed to spending even a fraction of that amount on wind/solar/storage projects, like Trabisnikof says.

If I understand the EIA reports correctly, natural gas + CCS might already cheaper than nuclear. If this is true it seems like there's even less incentive for the private sector to build any new nuclear projects. Of course this is assuming natural gas plants actually use CCS as opposed to making more money...

# ? Apr 11, 2018 21:10

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

I really don't think there's any future for nuclear power in a world driven by profit.

I also really don't think there's any future for a world in which everyone insists on what we would consider a decent standard of living in which nuclear power is not widely employed in regions where other options are not feasible.

# ? Apr 11, 2018 21:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 08:39

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

ChairMaster posted:

I mean I've been saying for a long time that the solution to climate change crises does not exist in a system where the profit motive is king, and private interests are still a part of the equation in any way.

Energy production obviously would have to be nationalized, the current market forces and circumstances of nuclear power make it unfeasible in the system we currently operate in. This is a problem with the system and institutions that exist right now, not a problem with the physical capabilities of nuclear power.

Ok, but if we�re talking about restructuring everything why restructure everything to rely on fewer more complex plants rather than restructuring everything for more numerous, smaller, and distributed fuel-less plants instead?

Solar thermal + storage and PV + battery are already price competitive with nuclear for new build. I�d wager that under many alternative evaluation schema that holds true (since price and profit are your initial issue and I agree on that).

# ? Apr 11, 2018 21:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »