Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest
- Thread starter circle-5
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
bobbymike said:
I was watching some show the other day, and in one scene, off in the background, was a massive wind farm staining the landscape. All the blades were motionless. I wonder how much green power they produce when the wind isn't blowing.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 1,022
bobbymike said:
Here's what Delingpole says, interspersed with what Prof. Harold Browman says in his 'paper review'
Delingpole: "Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject."
Browman: "In this introduction, I present a brief overview of the history of research on OA"
Delingpole: "contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher"
Browman: "As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish. "
Delingpole: "The methodology used by the studies was often flawed"
Browman: "Further, the mechanisms underlying the biological and ecological effects of OA have received little attention in most organismal groups, and some of the key mechanisms (e.g. calcification) are still incompletely understood."
Delingpole: "His verdict could hardly be more damning."
Browman: "OA research has clearly matured, and is continuing to do so."
Delingpole: "There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.
Browman: Neither quote is found in his paper http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/3/529.1.full?sid=a6b58339-f1cd-4430-9fc7-853150a3cf42
Delingpole wrote: 'Unfortunately for the doom-mongers, we sceptics have just received some heavy fire-support from a neutral authority.' As can be seen above, what little he wrote about this 'heavy fire-support' is wrong, twisted, or both.
If you consider that Delingpole is forced to use non-expert, non-peer reviewed work to provide the meat of his article, it's pretty obvious that there is little support for him from Prof. Browman
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,987
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wind-energy-permits-raise-kill-limit-bald-eagles/story?id=38881089
Environmentalists want to kill the economy of the country why not the symbol of the country at the same time? :'(
Environmentalists want to kill the economy of the country why not the symbol of the country at the same time? :'(
bobbymike said:
What a load of crap! Any bird that dies due to a wind turbine such as these was probably best removed from their gene pool.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
bobbymike said:
Nuclear power would bail us out for a considerable time if only somebody could get the luddites onboard. Their completely irrational fear of it has led to so much red tape being put in place though it's almost impossible.
bobbymike said:
They *should* be taken seriously. In much the same way you should take seriously people who want children to stop getting vaccinated.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 1,022
Kadija_Man said:
A very poor article, from a very fishy site! Lots of wacky stuff about chemtrails, HAARP, cellphone radiation, etc.
And for radiation effects, what do we have: the one photo every kook posts about Chernobyl, without attribution or information. You'd think with all the deformities they'd be able to vary their pics every now and then? The same for Kazakstan, no information provided that would allow someone to actually investigate the story.
And most of the other stories, hype, suggestions, no hard facts, no scientific analysis.
We have the Irish Sea, apparently so polluted, but no noticeable affect on the surrounding population.
Fukushima? I live 60 miles from the plant and have heard nothing of radiologically-induced illnesses from friends and family.
A website not worth the electrons that make it.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435448/obamas-pajama-boy-menagerie
The money shot:
"Recently Ben Rhodes — “Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting,” and author of the president’s Cairo speech and the Benghazi talking points — confessed to the New York Times that he salted bogus talking points about the Iran deal among the field of novice wannabe Washington–New York foreign-policy “experts,” on the expectation that Pajama Boy journalists on the make (“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing”) would lazily draw on these pseudo-experts to complete the circular con (“We created an echo chamber. . . . They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say”). Because the postmodernist Rhodes (who says he drives a “Beamer”) is cynical and contemptuous of the value of traditional first-hand experience and classical education, he feels he can construct almost any reality he wishes, such as a manufactured reformist Iranian wing reaching out to the U.S. to offer concessions on a nuclear deal:
“In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he says. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project, and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked. . . . We drove them crazy.”
Ben Rhodes gloats over misleading the American people about the conditions that led to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and how the Obama administration sold the “We drove them crazy” deal as a non-treaty that could be rerouted around Senate approval. But after Rhodes follows other 30-something Obama speechwriters to Hollywood, who cleans up the mess of an Iran blackmailing the Middle East with nuclear-tipped missiles?"
The money shot:
"Recently Ben Rhodes — “Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting,” and author of the president’s Cairo speech and the Benghazi talking points — confessed to the New York Times that he salted bogus talking points about the Iran deal among the field of novice wannabe Washington–New York foreign-policy “experts,” on the expectation that Pajama Boy journalists on the make (“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing”) would lazily draw on these pseudo-experts to complete the circular con (“We created an echo chamber. . . . They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say”). Because the postmodernist Rhodes (who says he drives a “Beamer”) is cynical and contemptuous of the value of traditional first-hand experience and classical education, he feels he can construct almost any reality he wishes, such as a manufactured reformist Iranian wing reaching out to the U.S. to offer concessions on a nuclear deal:
“In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he says. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project, and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked. . . . We drove them crazy.”
Ben Rhodes gloats over misleading the American people about the conditions that led to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and how the Obama administration sold the “We drove them crazy” deal as a non-treaty that could be rerouted around Senate approval. But after Rhodes follows other 30-something Obama speechwriters to Hollywood, who cleans up the mess of an Iran blackmailing the Middle East with nuclear-tipped missiles?"
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,987
So for 13 years we were told Bush lied about and made up intelligence about Iraq and WMDs to justify a war even though the journalist closest to and the most thorough investigator of the "Iraq decision" Bob Woodward says this;sferrin said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQqxb1m0-U
Yet we now have an administration that ACTUALLY manipulated/made up intelligence about ISIS
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html
Lied about a 'Youtube video"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/enough-white-house-lies-on-benghazi/article/2547973
Lied about the Iran nuclear deal - as sferrin's post shows
And an added chaser for this administration speechwriters laugh about lying to the American public on Obamacare ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQt4BLK7nbc
We knew the lies from before but now they openly laugh about it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-thanks-to-jonathan-gruber-for-revealing-obamacare-deception/2014/11/17/356514b2-6e72-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shocking as all this is and lying us into an Iran nuclear deal is to me the most shocking there doesn't seem to be much journalistic outrage or investigations instead we see the NY Times Magazine attacked seemingly to dare write the piece in the first place.
Now a thought experiment let's pretend all these stories were about the "George Bush/Dick Cheney Administration" I wonder what would be happening inside the DC/NY journalist 'bubble'? How many stories would have been written, how many times would impeachment been called for?
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
The Bush administration manufactured a cassis belli about the invasion of Iraq. It found and promoted false evidence about Iraqi nuclear activities and WMDs. These were all revealed by the UN investigation into the Iraqi WMD programs. Don't you think it's about time that you stopped trying to back a losing horse? It has bolted. It's too late to bolt the door. Bush and his administration lied to you about what was his reasons for invading Iraq. No WMD programs were discovered. No Terrorist links were discovered. Saddam Hussein was innocent of those charges. Bush invaded for the wrong reasons.
That doesn't deny that some good came from his decision. It does however make it clear that Bush was dedicated to manipulating American public opinion to his own agenda post 11 September 2001 and that included yourselves.
That doesn't deny that some good came from his decision. It does however make it clear that Bush was dedicated to manipulating American public opinion to his own agenda post 11 September 2001 and that included yourselves.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,614
bobbymike said:
A classic example of root causes of the current malaise in the US political system.
Arranging "facts" to try to fit in with the narrative you believe in and are emotionally committed to; everyone consciously or unconsciously does this.
However zealots can only see their reflection in this regard; I'm the truth teller, if you disagree you must be lying. And the echo chamber of the US culture war (only talk to your own side and shout across the divide strengthens the zealots.
The decision to invade Iraq was a an example of coming to believe your own propaganda; I think most participants believed there was WMD programmes but no one believed that these programmes had suddenly become more of a threat. Actual hard intelligence on the WMD programmes was weak and was fuelled by the Iraq regimes own bluff re: the threat these could possess and "opposition" voices with their own agendas. So claims that Bush intentionaly lied probably not entirely true; he believed his lies to be true.
And dragging a completely unrelated issue (Obama-care) into a nuclear weapons protest discussion because of your own political prejudices and based on the flimsiest irrelevant "evidence"; shame on you bobbymike, shame on you - are you unable to see the parallel to those you are so eager to critique, those accusing Bush of lying?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
bobbymike said:
“A certain number of points in that study are not based on technological realities,”
Yeah, you pretty much HAVE to do that to make "green" "renewables" plausible. If you stick to reality you hit a brick wall face first pretty quick.
"Renewables are en vogue in Europe these days, with Germany’s energiewende supposedly setting some kind of “green” precedent (despite the fact that Berlin’s massive subsidization of wind and solar energy has perversely led to a sizable increase in consumption of dirty lignite coal),"
LOL
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
bobbymike said:
http://forumonenergy.com/2013/07/22/the-pro-nuclear-environmentalist-movement-a-qa-with-dr-patrick-moore/
"I do not put much faith in the term “green.” It is not technically or scientifically definable. Rather, it is more a marketing or political term. I prefer “sustainable” (will last a long time at present rate of use) and “clean” (relatively non-polluting). “Renewable” is all well and good, but it is possible to use a renewable resource at a rate that is biologically unsustainable, as in the case of over-fishing, or economically unsustainable, as is the case with wind and solar energy. On the other hand, many non-renewable resources are so abundant that they are sustainable for many centuries. Iron, silicon, uranium and thorium, among other “non-renewable” elements, will still be available thousands of years from now."
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,987
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/21/icymi-after-frying-thousands-of-birds-worlds-largest-solar-farm-catches-fire-n2166718?utm_content=buffer2ed24&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
Are we seeing a repeat of this? This time, the target is the Green movement, renewable energy and sustainable living it seems.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 1,022
Kadija_Man said:
Despite being more to the Left of the political spectrum than the Right, I have to be suspicious of a story which makes apparent solid statements of fact about an act 45 years ago, based on a interview 22 years ago, with a person who died 17 years ago.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 1,022
Kadija_Man said:
For me the "scare factors" are:
The lack of understanding encompassed in statements like "we must build renewables as fast as we can", with no thought to the grid reinforcements needed, nor the storage requirements.
The mendacity of renewable proponents who give the output of power projects in "capacity", with the actual production being either brushed over, or briefly mentioned with little focus.
The insanity of the broad Green Movement, which proclaims that Climate Change is the biggest threat to humanity (I agree), but has its number one goal asridding the world of nuclear power!
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,987
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-selling-of-the-iran-deal-cont./article/2002582/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=20160531_TWS-mag-selling-of-iran-deal-5_facebook.com&utm_content=TWS
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
starviking said:
And let's not forget their desire to destroy the economy in the name of green. Not one single "green" proposal is remotely affordable at the levels required. Facts don't matter, it's all about the feels. And note how he leaps right to "scare". Clearly we're all just cavemen afraid of new technology, it couldn't possibly be that, oh, I don't know, we like to keep our money, and we're a little more in touch with reality.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,987
bobbymike said:
You think facts will keep liberals from gutting our economy in the name of green? Please.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/07/clinton_and_sanders_plan_to_destroy_10_million_jobs_130801.html
It's depressing seeing the uneducated putting people in power who are actively destroying our country.
- Status
