Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
So tell me Pixel, how are your links free of bias?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
I, Global Warming Skeptic
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
So tell me Pixel, how are your links free of bias?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I try to find non political sites, I look at the "about" page to see if they are funded by anyone. Your RC website is totally biased and maintained often times by someone on NASA's clock. If you haven't noticed NASA is not much of a space agency anymore. They have become an environmental group.
On investigation, CO2 is emitted by cars with cats. I stand corrected. But it won't kill me to breathe it. Dihydrogen monoxide on the other hand is extremely deadly if inhaled in sufficient quantity. Thousands die from it every year. Governments pipe it into our homes. It should be banned before it kills again.
PararealitySaint
An Open Minded Skeptic
Gee, I thought it was the Cows that did with all that flatulence....8)
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I see the above quote is still in the opening rant. I guess these types would have no problem with a plate of Fukashima sushi or a nice bowl Chenobyl Borscht.
After 25 years, milk, berries, potatoes and root vegetables in two Ukrainian regions still show unacceptably high levels of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 from the 1986 blast. These regions are also in northwestern Ukraine, outside the so-called “exclusion zone”, where residency is generally prohibited.
BTW: I don't recall seeing an RDA for cesium-137 on my organic cereal ... maybe they should add it in and that would make it OK, sort of like how the government raised the level considered hazardous for radiation after the Fukashima plan went up in smoke.
j.r.
Vote for the best UFO hypothesis here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/8820-What-Is-The-Best-Hypothesis/page3
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Angelo this "Global Warming, Doomsday called off" might be of interest to you since you have very little background on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C012004CB098DE90
---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------
“A change in our climate is taking place very surely. Both heat and cold are becoming moderate within the memory of even the middle-aged, and snows are less frequent and less deep.”
- Thomas Jefferson 1804
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C012004CB098DE90
---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------
“A change in our climate is taking place very surely. Both heat and cold are becoming moderate within the memory of even the middle-aged, and snows are less frequent and less deep.”
- Thomas Jefferson 1804
There are extremely safe modern designs like pebble bed reactors, and thorium reactors. The Fukushima incident is extremely unfortunate, but it was an old reactor design, and an earthquake and tidal wave sent them into that state. It's also very different than Chernobyl in that the Soviet reactor designs were moderated with graphite rods, and zero containment. The graphite caught fire as the reactor got hot and spewed tons of radioactive particulate all over the place. The western world recognized that design was an accident waiting to happen, and we never built any commercial reactors like that.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I see no evidence whatsoever that leads me to even remotely believe that people have the where with all to safely manage nuclear reactors of any design. I'm sorry but we have at least 23 Mark I reactors in the United States, so yes we did build these things in the Western world.
Japan has about 20 reactors worth or nuclear fuel in full meltdown right now and no means whatsoever to deal with it. This is the worst disaster in recorded human history.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
worse than manbearpig?
Terjarv
Skilled Investigator
...you mean what the U.S. government has done since the start of the 20th century?
No, sorry. You're completely wrong. The Chernobyl reactor was an entirely Soviet specific design, and was considered an incredibly dangerous and not just a little bit stupid design. The Mark one is a light water design. And Japan's inability to manage the disaster has a lot to do with the fact that they're also dealing with the aftermath of the enormous *natural* disaster that caused the reactors to fail and wiped out coastal infrastructure for hundreds of miles..
I see no evidence whatsoever that your opinion on whether people have the wherewithal to safely manage reactors of any design has any merit at all. You don't know much about them, and you're obviously terrified because you don't understand how they work, and how the modern designs are exponentially safer.
Terjarv
Skilled Investigator
Not a chance, although China, India, and Pakistan would agree with him. Problem is a lot of the facilities are not built properly (don't build a "nucular" power plant on a damn fault line!)
---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------
Not sure about the "riding to greater wealth and power" part but he certainly has become a bit of a joke, partly because hes gained so much weight (as noted so kindly by John Stewart).
---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------
Agreed sir
P
pixelsmith
Guest
1913 to be exact.
Terjarv
Skilled Investigator
Really? Socialism doesn't work? How about all those small socialist scandanavian countries? Freedom always works? When Yemen has democratic elections and elects a Taliban-like theocracy that harbors terrrorists come talk to me...just ask Condi Rice. All of those points are debatable and could snowball into a massive discussion LOL.
Anyway nice post, it should stir the pot a bit. It brought me out of hibernation.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
those scandinavian countries have not run out of other people's money yet.
And how about all those BIG socialist countries that no longer exist? The ones that killed 150 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. How about Cuba? Ever been there? They're allowed to own cell phones now. But they're still not supposed to be calling their family & friends that managed to float on innertubes across 90 miles of open ocean to escape the wonderful successes of socialism in Cuba.
Terjarv
Skilled Investigator
Yes, all of those countries were totalitarian dictatorships and/or totalitarian nations run by "councils". You can have democracy and socialism but killing your own civilians, that isn't restricted to the type of government you have LOL.
No, I would certainly love to visit Cuba once its fake socialist family dictatorship collapses.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
I think something messed up, because I have never said that. Did you attribute that quote to the wrong person perhaps?
---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 PM ----------
@Terjarv
I didn't write any of those quotes, just to make it clear - It looks like I said all those things and they were in the article I posted. I can't say I agree with everything that was said in it, but I thought it was interesting.
As you can see, it stirred the pot with certain members.
As for socialism, well, many Americans would consider where I live "socialist" because of all the social programs we have. We're doing alright. We even sell some of our wonderful clean energy to the USA! Yay Quebec!
---------- Post added at 10:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 PM ----------
Here in Canada, and in Quebec, we have a lot of programs that would make Republicans and Libertarians in the US cringe. I'm fine with them since I know that if I ever lose my job, or something goes wrong, I won't face financial ruin. Oh yeah, I can't lose my job, my union provides me with job security.
I got six weeks off when we had a child, my wife got to take a year off - all without too many money troubles. We also paid the whopping amount of $0 to have a baby in the hospital.
PararealitySaint
An Open Minded Skeptic
My Theory for why Socialism always fails in Large Countries and in it's "purest form" in any.....
Consider if you will the size of these so called Scandinavian Countries. You could fit nearly all of their population in the State of Texas's alone.
The fact still remains that for the mass and the sheer need of a population/distance and thus size of the United States, A Representative Republic such as ours, is the best overall answer for a government. Socialism fails because any welfare state which mandates a level of equality through a government held or owned bureaucracy, fails within the years it takes to recognize, that not everything is needed equally by everyone, everywhere and thus all the same.
In short, the "universally mandated equal dispersal" theory kills itself, due to the eventuality of the ever changing human need within the various lower level population's "sociological development curve." This is normally seen best by the distances between mass populations in any large country, for instance England, where productive "socialized" representation fails in Parliament, due to distances and the awkward understanding of the different needs, throughout both her central population and her other outlying interests. Even though the mostly majority influencing groups are normally represented well in Parliament, any attempt at equal dispersal of the countries resources, forces one group to accept only a small amount of what it really needs, and a mass amount of what it could better do without... Yet, another "sector", for lack of a better word, could really otherwise use much more of the very same, but is left with an overabundance of exactly what the other part is in fact needing more of.....
Basic Example:
Farm energy allotments/penalties dispersed equally for Sheep's wool between Northumberland and South Somerset. Northumberland, let's say for this example, is mostly agrarian and now finds itself with a perfect level of supplementary funds needed because of a loss of herds, due to a bad recurring disease which killed off most of the population of sheep.
South Somerset (within this social system) must also realize the allotment and penalty situation but never had a sheep problem....in fact, their herds are producing wool extremely well, and their farmers are flooding the market with their hard earned harvests.
In this example, due to the improper way by which social representation fails to fairly use its "nanny" mentality to perform its so called social justice, penalizes Somerset for its production into the market with sheep.....
And on and on.
This very centralized representation is in conclusion unrepresentative of both the overall population's need, as a "whole" country and instead unbalanced and under-represented in one area, overly represented in another, and usually forced to borrow from other countries in order to stay in this perpetual fantasy world of a govt. held "socialized justice."
One of the reasons why the "House of Representatives" developed into what it is today in the United States, is so as to act as a counter balance to the Senate and the sheer power of a loss of representation we'd find ourselves in without it.
"the wonderful successes of socialism in Cuba"
Depends what you mean by success. Cuba has better life expectancy than any country in Central or South America, barely below that of the U.S. Its literacy rate is second highest in the world (behind Georgia). By these traditional measures of national ranking Cuba is a great success.
As a middle-class American, I wouldn't trade my life here for one in Cuba. If I lived in one of the third-world hellholes we tolerate within our own borders (or that we pay to maintain in other places) my opinion might be different.
Depends what you mean by success. Cuba has better life expectancy than any country in Central or South America, barely below that of the U.S. Its literacy rate is second highest in the world (behind Georgia). By these traditional measures of national ranking Cuba is a great success.
As a middle-class American, I wouldn't trade my life here for one in Cuba. If I lived in one of the third-world hellholes we tolerate within our own borders (or that we pay to maintain in other places) my opinion might be different.