RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Environmental Progress Founder Takes on Greta Thunberg, Climate Activi - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Environmental Progress Founder Takes on Greta Thunberg, Climate Activi Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,485
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 01 October 2019 - 08:06 PM

Environmental Progress Founder Takes on Greta Thunberg, Climate Activists in Epic Series of Tweets

Leah BarkoukisLeah Barkoukis
Townhall
10/1/19

EXCERPT:

Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, took on 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg’s ignorant tweet about “the climate crisis” and explained why nuclear power is the only way to go.

In a series of tweets, he explained why renewables are "grossly inaccurate" and how the only source of energy that can "radically decarbonize energy supplies" and is the "safest way to make electricity" is nuclear.

"So spare us the hypocritical moralizing & fake denunciations of "climate deniers" & stop attacking nuclear," Shellenberger said, scolding radical environmentalists.

(Full Story)

Pretty epic take down
0

#2 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,367
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 01 October 2019 - 08:41 PM

My, but this is fun! :popcorn:
0

#3 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,539
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 01 October 2019 - 09:23 PM

Nuclear YES! Nuclear via especially "Fast Breeder"and/or certain undisclosed technologies? ? Double-plus YES. YES, YES.

Nuclear via "Pressurized Water reactors", basically '50s technology? Aw, hell no. YES, the "technology" works. The US Navy has PROVEN it. But... it ONLY works in a military context with a rigid command-and-control structure and an unlimited budget to implement it. put it in a civilian context with "cost controls" i.e., "shortcuts"? Not so much.
0

#4 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,485
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 01 October 2019 - 10:37 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 01 October 2019 - 09:23 PM, said:

Nuclear YES! Nuclear via especially "Fast Breeder"and/or certain undisclosed technologies? ? Double-plus YES. YES, YES.

Nuclear via "Pressurized Water reactors", basically '50s technology? Aw, hell no. YES, the "technology" works. The US Navy has PROVEN it. But... it ONLY works in a military context with a rigid command-and-control structure and an unlimited budget to implement it. put it in a civilian context with "cost controls" i.e., "shortcuts"? Not so much.


There have been so many advances in nuclear that it is incredibly safe at this point. Liquid fuel/molten salt instead of solid rods, chains of smaller reactors instead of one giant one, passive cooling systems, reactors using spent fuel, thorium, etc are all technologies we should be investing in as a nation. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see a future in nuclear until my parent's generation dies off. Too many fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
0

#5 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,502
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 02 October 2019 - 07:31 AM

That was a pretty epic takedown. Sadly she's a moron and a pigeon of big money behind her, so she will never learn.

I was a volunteer judge for a program called eCybermission https://www.ecybermission.com/ . Which claimed to promote science etc. But it turned out that every entrant was promoting global warming and "raising awareness" as their project. The concept was to use the scientific method to come up with a solution to any problem. Sadly instead of being science based it became activist based nonsense. I would read 20-30 of these entrants crap every year and initially I as a judge was allowed to grade them from 1-500 and critique their arguments.

I gave a lot of 10-20 point grades to these little idiots. One report was literally like this:
Global warming is bad!
These 10 websites agree!We need to tell everyone that global warming is bad!

I graded that report a 10, and sent it back to them with 10 websites that debunked their position and said if you truly believe that global warming is a problem research both positions and come up with an argument as to why or why not etc.

Apparently I wasn't the only one that did this, so they changed the grading format and don't allow critiques and the minimum points rose to 300 of 500 or something. So sadly this will only get worse as we go further down the rabbit hole of these retarded children.

That's when i left the program and didn't bother. I graded that crap for 5 years, and it only got worse each year. So


0

#6 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,502
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 02 October 2019 - 07:32 AM

View PostModerator T, on 01 October 2019 - 10:37 PM, said:

There have been so many advances in nuclear that it is incredibly safe at this point. Liquid fuel/molten salt instead of solid rods, chains of smaller reactors instead of one giant one, passive cooling systems, reactors using spent fuel, thorium, etc are all technologies we should be investing in as a nation. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see a future in nuclear until my parent's generation dies off. Too many fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.


The Clinton generation seems to be quite robust, they are also the one's causing most of this insanity in just about any problem. If you see these problems they are at the root of them almost every time.
0

#7 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,834
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 02 October 2019 - 01:00 PM

View PostModerator T, on 01 October 2019 - 10:37 PM, said:

There have been so many advances in nuclear that it is incredibly safe at this point. Liquid fuel/molten salt instead of solid rods, chains of smaller reactors instead of one giant one, passive cooling systems, reactors using spent fuel, thorium, etc are all technologies we should be investing in as a nation. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see a future in nuclear until my parent's generation dies off. Too many fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.


Or Fukushima. In that case it was a faulty design and not a hi insight is 20/20 thing either.

The reactor and or design itself was not faulty, what happened is that the Tsunami from the earth quake flooded the back up generators. Meaning of coarse that when they went into emergency shut down there was no power for the cooling pumps. This is made worse by the fact that there where markers in the area noting where a previous tsunami came in (1700's I think) and that they wanted it to be a warning in saying that it can happen again and be prepared. I am not sure, but I also thought I heard that there was also not a battery back up for the pumps either. Had that been in place there would have been power enough to provide for the cool down.
0

#8 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,617
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 02 October 2019 - 01:12 PM

View Postoki, on 02 October 2019 - 01:00 PM, said:

Or Fukushima. In that case it was a faulty design and not a hi insight is 20/20 thing either.

The reactor and or design itself was not faulty, what happened is that the Tsunami from the earth quake flooded the back up generators. Meaning of coarse that when they went into emergency shut down there was no power for the cooling pumps. This is made worse by the fact that there where markers in the area noting where a previous tsunami came in (1700's I think) and that they wanted it to be a warning in saying that it can happen again and be prepared. I am not sure, but I also thought I heard that there was also not a battery back up for the pumps either. Had that been in place there would have been power enough to provide for the cool down.

From what I've read the seawall would have been sufficient for the tsunami surge. Only problem is that the earthquake was severe enough the land the wall was built on subsided about the same depth as the wall was tall, so, effectively no sea wall. All of which is a far cry from Chernobyl.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users