Nuclear Power? (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

'Nats future' is an oxymoron.

I read some dude writing that they needed to distance themselves from the liberal party and brand themselves as a conservative social and economic party. Socialist economics, old fashioned christian values. Howard esque economic policy plainly does not fit with what the nats are about.

Sounded about right.

 

[Iron]

What, because we support civil rights over social conservatism?

Haha, youre with them?? Had no idea. I just dont see any point to the Greens, other than being a thorn in the side of srs parties and making the job of governance more difficult and unrealistic.
Hotbed of postmodern filth which must be stamped out before they bring us all down with them

 

[Lentern]

Haha, youre with them?? Had no idea. I just dont see any point to the Greens, other than being a thorn in the side of srs parties and making the job of governance more difficult and unrealistic.
Hotbed of postmodern filth which must be stamped out before they bring us all down with them

Sometimes I really don't like you.

 

[Iron]

ok

 

[yoddle]

even though adopting it would let us EASILY meat our kyoto targets for 2020 or whatever

lolololz.

This is factually incorrect. The report released in 06 said that it would be 20 years before the first plant could be operational. That would be 2026.

Nuclear energy may be OK. But it's not OK to the immediate problem of climate change.

 

[loller]

pfft why is that the case

if we tried we could have one running very quickly

we have the technology and if we had the capital it would be simple

Edit: i take your report and i raise you one suckmydick

 

[JonathanM]

Sometimes I really don't like you.

Worryingly, sometimes I feel myself drawn to Iron in a way that would make both of us uncomfortable.

Srsly though <_< erm, disagree with the Nationals comment, I think as long as the left grow stronger, the right will become more extreme and in their own right, more popular as many become (rightfully) scared of some of the values which the left represent.

 

[walkahz]

1. We should have nuclear power there is no logical reason to not have it. We have hundreds of square kms where there is nothing but barren desert to bury the shit in

And yes i would have one in my backyard (good luck but cause i live on the edge of a mountain)

2. Global warming is political b.s. The earths climate is in a cycle which is largly unaffected by humans. The earth has had ice ages and other climatic events for its entire life and it is still here (fuck me do you think people screamed global warming coming out of an ice age!!!!)

 

[loller]

climate change denier alert

 

[ekoolish]

whoever voted no is a paint huffing moron who wishes nothing but complete destruction of earth through global warming

just sayin

Edit: opposition=neutralised

i voted yes, but you do know Global warming is bs?

 

[Lentern]

Worryingly, sometimes I feel myself drawn to Iron in a way that would make both of us uncomfortable.

Srsly though <_< erm, disagree with the Nationals comment, I think as long as the left grow stronger, the right will become more extreme and in their own right, more popular as many become (rightfully) scared of some of the values which the left represent.

It's not a case of left v right. The nats don't have the grounding their "right" wing votes are gradually being swallowed up by dry liberals simply because the liberal party are better at politics and unlike the greens the nats can't actually attack the main parties from the flank.

 

[loller]

i voted yes, but you do know Global warming is bs?

lol

 

[ekoolish]

lol

now i know why you call yourself the loller.

You're one of those douche bags that follow Al gore aih?

Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change.

Statistics have been bs'ed and in many areas sea levels are actually dropping.
So lol at you.

 

[loller]

now i know why you call yourself the loller.

You're one of those douche bags that follow Al gore aih?

Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change.

Statistics have been bs'ed and in many areas sea levels are actually dropping.
So lol at you.

plz to be providing citations now eh

 

[yoddle]

now i know why you call yourself the loller.

You're one of those douche bags that follow Al gore aih?

Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change.

Statistics have been bs'ed and in many areas sea levels are actually dropping.
So lol at you.

You're never going to get a hundred per cent of people to agree on anything. If we wait for a "scientific consensus" (that's a flawed term anyway) we'll be waiting forever. The debate has not been stifled. Scientists like Ian Palmer (is that his last name) can be proved wrong on the most elementary levels. E.g. he takes one year in which global average temperatures went down as claims this disproved the theory of climate change, while completely ignoring the fact that the overall trend since the turn of the twentieth century has been the warming of the climate. Did you not see him get slaughtered by Tony Jones on Lateline?

Also the shit the Australian published (thankfully as opinion, not as fact) on sunspots was also proved to be bullshit after the most pedestrian analysis by actual climatologists.

No, Al Gore may not be a scientist, but he's still allowed to campaign. It helps if you have people who aren't specialised in a particular field contributing to discussion. E.g. if we let economists and only economists run the country, then social and environmental costs of economic growth would be largely ignored and it would not result in a good outcome.

Of course the opinions of experts must contribute enormously to discussion but it is necessary for others to contribute also.

 

[JonathanM]

Statistics have been bs'ed and in many areas sea levels are actually dropping.
So lol at you.

Pretty sure all the islanders immigrating to Australia due to rising sea levels would have something to disagree with you on there :/

 

[walkahz]

preety sure the islanders are migrating to australia because their islands are misgoverned shitholes.

 

[ekoolish]

You're never going to get a hundred per cent of people to agree on anything. If we wait for a "scientific consensus" (that's a flawed term anyway) we'll be waiting forever. The debate has not been stifled. Scientists like Ian Palmer (is that his last name) can be proved wrong on the most elementary levels. E.g. he takes one year in which global average temperatures went down as claims this disproved the theory of climate change, while completely ignoring the fact that the overall trend since the turn of the twentieth century has been the warming of the climate. Did you not see him get slaughtered by Tony Jones on Lateline?

Also the shit the Australian published (thankfully as opinion, not as fact) on sunspots was also proved to be bullshit after the most pedestrian analysis by actual climatologists.

No, Al Gore may not be a scientist, but he's still allowed to campaign. It helps if you have people who aren't specialised in a particular field contributing to discussion. E.g. if we let economists and only economists run the country, then social and environmental costs of economic growth would be largely ignored and it would not result in a good outcome.

Of course the opinions of experts must contribute enormously to discussion but it is necessary for others to contribute also.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

It is a known fact that the Earth is warming, but it is not due to Climate change.

The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.

The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases.
Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.

Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

Politician's like Al Gore are politician's and nothing more. His efforts have nothing to do with his 'dream' of saving the world from destruction. Anyone who believes that is simply a retard.

 

[loller]

preety sure the islanders are migrating to australia because their islands are misgoverned shitholes.

id find it hard to govern a nation that is slowly being submerged too lol

 

[yoddle]

walkhaz: Oh without a doubt. Their poor public administration skills pushed the sea level in the Pacific Ocean up. That is such a realistic explanation! Thank you for your intelligent input.