Why I Don't Fall for Manmade Global Warming

[Weatherman2020]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

it's a troll thread.

he has no interest in actually discussing the issue. and it wasn't stated in the manner you suggest.

so no, his troll isn't worth discussing. maybe if the thread were by a rational person. *shrug*

Speaking of trolls, take one look at your posts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Plus it takes a special kind of narcissist to claim the current global climate is the optimum. 15,000 years ago the Great Lakes did not exist. 15,000 years ago I have no doubt the glacier that filled Yosemite valley was beautiful. But it sure is nice having places like Chicago and Yosemite.
And neither Halliburton nor I had anything to do with those changes.

15,000 years ago there was a lake in the West that exceeded any two of the Great Lakes put together. And there were several more very large lakes in Oregon.

However, it took a stable climate like that in the present interglacial to allow us to develop agriculture. And the stability of that climate is now threatened at the same time we have over 7 billion people to feed.

But go ahead and flap your ignorant yap. You guys are going to win, in that we will find out how bad it will get.

 

[Old Rocks]

my entire career has been in science

Being the janitor at a science laboratory might qualify you to make that claim but no one who posts the ludicrous drivel that you do would ever pass peer review in a legitimate scientific environment.

Your OP topic is 100% subjective and has zero substantiation. Genuine scientists would laugh at loud at your claims.

Show me evidence of any Gorebal Warmer believing in it. Not in telling ME what to do, but how they have changed their lives. Game Over. They all still use fossil fuels and happily enjoy their lucrative life styles in the global warming scam.
Al Gore still heats and cools his mansions and the leftist leadership in Calif has destroyed the solar market. Pelosi even killed a solar project in the desert with a lame excuse it would harm turtles, as if they can't crawl under panels.
Start dancing to the song you sing then and only then do you have a right to ask us to join.

My, but you are a dumb ass, aren't you. Solar and wind no longer need subsidies at the utility scale.Both are substantially less costly to install than even dirty coal or natural gas.

 

[Old Rocks]

my entire career has been in science

Being the janitor at a science laboratory might qualify you to make that claim but no one who posts the ludicrous drivel that you do would ever pass peer review in a legitimate scientific environment.

Your OP topic is 100% subjective and has zero substantiation. Genuine scientists would laugh at loud at your claims.

I'm certain that more than 80% of the items claimed in the OP can be easily substantiated. In Fact -- informed folks already know they are true..

And yet when you try to substantiate those claims they turn out to be false.

Google

Nope.. Lemme give ya a few googling tips.. ALWAYS use the "time span" qualifier if you're looking for news and not just a jumble of ads and history..


California Utilities and Solar Companies Battle Over Electricity Prices

Pacific Gas and Electric is proposing an overhaul of the way customers are charged for electricity, which the utility says would be more fair for many customers. But solar companies see it as a direct attack, because the changes could make installing solar panels less appealing.

The debate is just one more battle in a slow-simmering war between electric utilities and solar companies.

“We have far and away the most customer solar,” says Jonathan Marshall, a spokesman for PG&E. One-quarter of all rooftop solar systems in the country are found in PG&E’s service area.

Marshall says PG&E isn’t against solar. The problem, as he sees it, is that solar customers aren’t paying their share of keeping up the electric grid.

“In fact, they use the grid more than almost anyone,” he says, “because they’re selling power back into it.”

Confirmed 2 of the OP assertions right there and could dig deeper..

Now you try it ---- what is the current political battle in Cali over solar subsidies??

Well now, I see a real problem for PG&E. If they wish to continue this, those installing solar can buy batteries from Tesla, and tell PG&E to get their goddamned lines off the property.

 

[flacaltenn]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The only problem with nuclear waste is political. It's the only technology that will power your home for a year with just 0.7 ounce of solid containable waste. Waste that IS capable of being recycled and used again..

Save it captain.. It's the get of GW free card you've been looking for..

 

[flacaltenn]

my entire career has been in science

Being the janitor at a science laboratory might qualify you to make that claim but no one who posts the ludicrous drivel that you do would ever pass peer review in a legitimate scientific environment.

Your OP topic is 100% subjective and has zero substantiation. Genuine scientists would laugh at loud at your claims.

I'm certain that more than 80% of the items claimed in the OP can be easily substantiated. In Fact -- informed folks already know they are true..

And yet when you try to substantiate those claims they turn out to be false.

Google

Nope.. Lemme give ya a few googling tips.. ALWAYS use the "time span" qualifier if you're looking for news and not just a jumble of ads and history..


California Utilities and Solar Companies Battle Over Electricity Prices

Pacific Gas and Electric is proposing an overhaul of the way customers are charged for electricity, which the utility says would be more fair for many customers. But solar companies see it as a direct attack, because the changes could make installing solar panels less appealing.

The debate is just one more battle in a slow-simmering war between electric utilities and solar companies.

“We have far and away the most customer solar,” says Jonathan Marshall, a spokesman for PG&E. One-quarter of all rooftop solar systems in the country are found in PG&E’s service area.

Marshall says PG&E isn’t against solar. The problem, as he sees it, is that solar customers aren’t paying their share of keeping up the electric grid.

“In fact, they use the grid more than almost anyone,” he says, “because they’re selling power back into it.”

Confirmed 2 of the OP assertions right there and could dig deeper..

Now you try it ---- what is the current political battle in Cali over solar subsidies??

Well now, I see a real problem for PG&E. If they wish to continue this, those installing solar can buy batteries from Tesla, and tell PG&E to get their goddamned lines off the property.

 

[flacaltenn]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The siting on the original 60's era plants was very poor.. They were positioned like any coal plant. We're 50 years smarter about siting. A lesson that Big Wind has yet to learn..

Fukashima was a bigger disaster than the loss of a nuclear plant. And WHAT ABOUT 3 mile Island? That all ya got?

New gen plants require A lot less water and Don't have to plopped on a riverbank.. 60 years of technology and innovation just WAITING to be fielded. But I know you don't trust technology, engineering or science unless it's to YOUR advantage..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The only problem with nuclear waste is political. It's the only technology that will power your home for a year with just 0.7 ounce of solid containable waste. Waste that IS capable of being recycled and used again..

Save it captain.. It's the get of GW free card you've been looking for..

Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized, way more so than solar and wind.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)

Nuclear requires billions in upfront investment costs and then there are the ongoing storage costs of the used fuel rods.

There is a constant danger of a nuclear accident that can huge areas unfit for human habitation.

Those same billions spent on wind energy have immediate paybacks and no storage costs or threats against human habitation.

Utilities all across this nation are investing in wind power rather than nuclear plants because they know that it makes more sense both financially and environmentally.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Plus it takes a special kind of narcissist to claim the current global climate is the optimum. 15,000 years ago the Great Lakes did not exist. 15,000 years ago I have no doubt the glacier that filled Yosemite valley was beautiful. But it sure is nice having places like Chicago and Yosemite.
And neither Halliburton nor I had anything to do with those changes.

15,000 years ago there was a lake in the West that exceeded any two of the Great Lakes put together. And there were several more very large lakes in Oregon.

However, it took a stable climate like that in the present interglacial to allow us to develop agriculture. And the stability of that climate is now threatened at the same time we have over 7 billion people to feed.

But go ahead and flap your ignorant yap. You guys are going to win, in that we will find out how bad it will get.

Lol

When did the climate suddenly become stable, 1856? 1901?

I'm laughing out loud on the train over your post!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The only problem with nuclear waste is political. It's the only technology that will power your home for a year with just 0.7 ounce of solid containable waste. Waste that IS capable of being recycled and used again..

Save it captain.. It's the get of GW free card you've been looking for..

Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized, way more so than solar and wind.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)

Nuclear requires billions in upfront investment costs and then there are the ongoing storage costs of the used fuel rods.

There is a constant danger of a nuclear accident that can huge areas unfit for human habitation.

Those same billions spent on wind energy have immediate paybacks and no storage costs or threats against human habitation.

Utilities all across this nation are investing in wind power rather than nuclear plants because they know that it makes more sense both financially and environmentally.

That's a political statement from UCS.. Not even a statement of reality. There ARE no energy projects that are not given tax breaks and loan considerations. The cap on liability is a REASONABLE cap and does not cost anybody a thing. There's a cap on the liability of the US GOVT to operate a nuclear fleet and carry nuclear arms in this country..

Wind will NEVER be a backbone reliable generation source. And it's maintenance and lifetimes are gonna eat operators alive. There is NO f-ing comparison of what you get for the investment.

Sixty years of vastly improved technology is WAITING for application here. China and the rest of the world is not waiting. Reactors can be scaled down to recyclable units. There is NO COMPARISON with the 60 year old plants that STILL SAFELY and RELIABLY supply 20% of the power in this country.

You want SCAREDY --- Cat?? Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Get the govt to provide the waste facility that they PROMISED 40 years ago. That's all they need to do..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

 

[Crick]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Well, my entire career has been in science. I hold a US patent in blood analysis equipment, the A350 is taking off and landing from my work, etc etc. You can pretend people are anti science because they don't parrot YOUR masters, that is your problem.

If you think the wee rant you gave is a valid reason to reject global warming, you don't know science from a fucking hole in the ground.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind turbines are great eagle, hawk and bat whackers. The Varmet Cong love wind turbines.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

Nuclear is as green as green can be. Cheaper than any other green source too. Safe too. Half our Navy has reactors on ships.
Remember the old saying - more Americans have died in Ted Kennedys car than in a nuclear power plant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

How many days a year do you think the wind field produces ANY significant energy? Are you that dense??

 

[Weatherman2020]

Plus it takes a special kind of narcissist to claim the current global climate is the optimum. 15,000 years ago the Great Lakes did not exist. 15,000 years ago I have no doubt the glacier that filled Yosemite valley was beautiful. But it sure is nice having places like Chicago and Yosemite.
And neither Halliburton nor I had anything to do with those changes.

15,000 years ago there was a lake in the West that exceeded any two of the Great Lakes put together. And there were several more very large lakes in Oregon.

However, it took a stable climate like that in the present interglacial to allow us to develop agriculture. And the stability of that climate is now threatened at the same time we have over 7 billion people to feed.

But go ahead and flap your ignorant yap. You guys are going to win, in that we will find out how bad it will get.

I can't believe anyone thinks the earths climate has been stable at any time. First time for everything.
Now go look up the Maunder Minimum climate period and get back to is with a correction to your position.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

Nuclear is as green as green can be. Cheaper than any other green source too. Safe too. Half our Navy has reactors on ships.
Remember the old saying - more Americans have died in Ted Kennedys car than in a nuclear power plant.

Your ignorance is so transparent!

List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities. These involved nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, radiotherapyaccidents and other mishaps.

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[9]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident.

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[16][17] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted whenuranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated

• 17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[18][19]
• 13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[20]
• 11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[21]
• 10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[22]
• 10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from cobalt-60 source.[19][23]
• 9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[19]
• 8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[21]
• 8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[24]
• 7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[19][23]
• 5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[19]
• 4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[25]
• 4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[26]
• 4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
• 3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
• 3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[27]
• 2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[28]
• 2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[29]
• 1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[27]
• 1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
• 1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
• 1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
• 1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[30]
• 1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
• 1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
• 1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[29]
• 1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[29]

 

[Weatherman2020]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Well, my entire career has been in science. I hold a US patent in blood analysis equipment, the A350 is taking off and landing from my work, etc etc. You can pretend people are anti science because they don't parrot YOUR masters, that is your problem.

If you think the wee rant you gave is a valid reason to reject global warming, you don't know science from a fucking hole in the ground.

Poor baby.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

Nuclear is as green as green can be. Cheaper than any other green source too. Safe too. Half our Navy has reactors on ships.
Remember the old saying - more Americans have died in Ted Kennedys car than in a nuclear power plant.

Your ignorance is so transparent!

List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities. These involved nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, radiotherapyaccidents and other mishaps.

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[9]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident.

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[16][17] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted whenuranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated

• 17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[18][19]
• 13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[20]
• 11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[21]
• 10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[22]
• 10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from cobalt-60 source.[19][23]
• 9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[19]
• 8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[21]
• 8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[24]
• 7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[19][23]
• 5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[19]
• 4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[25]
• 4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[26]
• 4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
• 3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
• 3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[27]
• 2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[28]
• 2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[29]
• 1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[27]
• 1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
• 1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
• 1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
• 1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[30]
• 1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
• 1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
• 1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[29]
• 1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[29]

You forgot to list the Hirishima and Nagasaki victims in your rant. Ted Kennedys car still wins.