What's new
By:

Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

jimmy eat jazz said:
While I support nuclear energy, or at least looking seriously at it, there is still, however, a risk to it, as we've seen in Russia and now Japan. Just because we may need alternative energy sources does not imply that we must, therefore, accept all alternative sources available without doing proper due diligence on the risk/return tradeoff.
Click to expand...

There are different types of reactors. The large Cold War era ones are for generating power AND fissable material. for use in other areas (like weapons.) Smaller modern reactors are safer and less volatile. Think of the reactors on navy ships. They have tremendously good safety record, and yet we cannot build them in the US because of FUD. Were you aware that the United States, because we are idiots, does not even produce any of its own radioactive medical supplies? Sure would be nice to have some nuclear powered desalination plants about now as well. . .
 
So I read the OP, and I have a succinct response.

Since the AGW/climate change issue is rhetorically constructed to produce a conclusion that we humans must relegate our future into the hands of global fascism, my opposition to it is purely political. I'm not a fascist, and anyone who follows the argument to the conclusion that mandates global fascism is a fascist. /discussion.

Actually, I accept some human component to modification of our weather patterns and the global average temp. I think the rational response to it is educational, and individual conscientious behavioral changes that rationally follow from the facts, whatever they are.

I like the idea of good personal education and good planning of our lives in individually responsible ways, and we just don't need any government supervision or imperative commands.

If you feel differently, I believe you have been indoctrinated with a politically motivated rhetorical schema.
 
Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/glob...

babe said:
So I read the OP, and I have a succinct response....

...I like the idea of good personal education and good planning of our lives in individually responsible ways, and we just don't need any government supervision or imperative commands.

If you feel differently, I believe you have been indoctrinated with a politically motivated rhetorical schema.
Click to expand...

Well the same can be said about Holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers, conspiracy theorists of various stripes and those who generally feel the government ("gubmint") is out to get them.


While I agree with the idea of good personal education and planning and individual responsibility, I don't agree that it negates the need for some degree of government regulation.
 
framer said:
There are different types of reactors. The large Cold War era ones are for generating power AND fissable material. for use in other areas (like weapons.) Smaller modern reactors are safer and less volatile. Think of the reactors on navy ships. They have tremendously good safety record, and yet we cannot build them in the US because of FUD. Were you aware that the United States, because we are idiots, does not even produce any of its own radioactive medical supplies? Sure would be nice to have some nuclear powered desalination plants about now as well. . .
Click to expand...

With the caveat that I know little about nuclear power and nuclear science, I do suspect that much of the US's objection to nuclear technology does stem a bit from irrational fears. I'm all for taking a serious look at developing and using this technology as an alternative to fossil based fuels.
 
Pbs has recently run a show in two parts called "Uranium--Tickling the Dragons Tail". Or something very close to that. I watched it with my kids and we all enjoyed it and learned a few things along the way.

In part 2 the show looks at nuclear reactors. It changed my views of reactors....i am less excited about the technology we have now, but I am hopeful for better science and technology in the near future.

I keep telling myself that Star Wars and Star Trek figured out a way to harness nuclear power, so we also should be able to.
 
moevillini said:
Well the same can be said about Holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers, conspiracy theorists of various stripes and those who generally feel the government ("gubmint") is out to get them.


While I agree with the idea of good personal education and planning and individual responsibility, I don't agree that it negates the need for some degree of government regulation.
Click to expand...

I call "some degree of government regulation" the "middle school hall monitor concept". As a society, my generation turned to "some degree of government regulation" as the preferred way to make everything "normal" and keep personal conduct modulated by "some degree of normalcy", and thus this concept today is equivalent to "normalcy bias". We just can't "see" things being OK without rules saying what everyone must do.

It has gotten so bad, now, that a smart lady radio show conservative, Kathleen Albright (https://www.katherinealbrecht.com/radio-show/), reports that kids today coming out of high school are completely unable to take care of themselves like 18 yr-olds of yore, who were expected to just leave their parents' nest and go out to school or to jobs and live on their own, and solve all their own problems. Our kids today have been conditioned to follow nanny state instruction unquestioningly.

While I believe you have fundamental good sense, and your point has some merit, I just think we need to re-educate the rising generation with a bias towards thinking for ourselves, taking care of ourselves, and rejecting this particular theory of governance, to become a "can-do nation" once again.
 
babe said:
I call "some degree of government regulation" the "middle school hall monitor concept". As a society, my generation turned to "some degree of government regulation" as the preferred way to make everything "normal" and keep personal conduct modulated by "some degree of normalcy", and thus this concept today is equivalent to "normalcy bias". We just can't "see" things being OK without rules saying what everyone must do.

It has gotten so bad, now, that a smart lady radio show conservative, Kathleen Albright (https://www.katherinealbrecht.com/radio-show/), reports that kids today coming out of high school are completely unable to take care of themselves like 18 yr-olds of yore, who were expected to just leave their parents' nest and go out to school or to jobs and live on their own, and solve all their own problems. Our kids today have been conditioned to follow nanny state instruction unquestioningly.

While I believe you have fundamental good sense, and your point has some merit, I just think we need to re-educate the rising generation with a bias towards thinking for ourselves, taking care of ourselves, and rejecting this particular theory of governance, to become a "can-do nation" once again.
Click to expand...

Or we can just work together to solve big problems instead of worrying that every collective action is the equivalent of giving Hitler a *******.
 
It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect....On the contrary, I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably know that humans do or do not cause global warming.
 
tedbundy said:
It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect....On the contrary, I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably know that humans do or do not cause global warming.
Click to expand...


Great reference. I bet most wont get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top