Pff, rightoids don't believe in (((postmodern))) pseudo-science like evolution or global warming. That's just for plebbit. They're more interested in the nitty-gritty of REAL science and research statistics from a 1920's study that proves how the negroid has a lower IQ than the white man due to his inferior skull shape.
I have a question... if your marriage was arranged without your knowledge does that mean your parents and in-laws just did some mad-cap zany shit like in Jeeves & Wooster or something? Or were you just horribly drunk, like most Pajeets at their wedding?
if your marriage was arranged without your knowledge does that mean your parents and in-laws just did some mad-cap zany shit like in Jeeves & Wooster or something?
It's just a theory. I married the daughter of a good friend of my mother. She's from the next town over, but from the same church. So we know each other pretty much for our whole life. After graduating high school I moved about 3000 km to another province for university. When I came back for Christmas in the first year my mother informed me that this girl will also move cross country to the same city to go to university and she asked me if I could "take care" of her.
like most Pajeets at their wedding?
Pajeets aren't white enough to believe that the Earth is just 6000 years old.
Ah, if you came from some Pentecostal prairie-folk community where John Lithgow banned all the dancing, then your marriage must have been arranged: God knows what you're thinking when you stare at Cousin Beth.
The MELANINATED race has always shown to be superior. If it weren't for the WHITE man, the CHOCOLATE AMERICANS of Earth would have created WAKANDA by now.
What's next, you only posted there on weekends? You can't even keep your story straight when you write it twice on the same page and you're talking about other people being unintelligent. IT'S RIGHT THE FUCK THERE LIKE 3 POSTS DOWN.
It's either IQ is statistically significantly different between races, with blacks dumber than whites, and whites dumber than asians and jews, and whites should roll over for their superior IQ masters, or it's that IQ is not statistically significantly different, and you're just one or two standard deviations away from 100, and not three or four.
do you know about the test they use on children where they put a chocolate on the table in front of them and tell them "you can eat this one chocolate now, or if you wait 2 minutes you can have 2"
man my old shit got banned like 1 day after the shooting and ive outright announced who i was a bunch of times what are you even talking about you nerd
Pff, rightoids don't believe in (((postmodern))) pseudo-science like evolution or global warming. That's just for plebbit. They're more interested in the nitty-gritty of REAL science like researching statistics from a 1920's study that proves how the negroid has a lower IQ than the white man due to his inferior skull shape.
Abstract
Using data from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), autopsy, endocranial measurements, and other techniques, we show that (1) brain size is correlated with cognitive ability about .44 using MRI; (2) brain size varies by age, sex, social class, and race; and (3) cognitive ability varies by age, sex, social class, and race. Brain size and cognitive ability show a curvilinear relation with age, increasing to young adulthood and then decreasing; increasing from women to men; increasing with socioeconomic status; and increasing from Africans to Europeans to Asians. Although only further research can determine if such correlations represent cause and effect, it is clear that the direction of the brain-size/cognitive-ability relationships described by Paul Broca (1824-1880), Francis Galton (1822-1911), and other nineteenth-century visionaries is true, and that the null hypothesis of no relation, strongly advocated over the last half century, is false.
Oh and by the way, that "debunked, racist, skull measuring pseudoscience" you referred to? It was actually re-examined by modern scientists and it was confirmed that the original findings were actually correct after all. You are shooting yourself in the foot when you bring it up and you don't even realize it
In the 19th century, American anthropologist Samuel George Morton reported that whites had the greatest average cranial capacity, followed, in descending order, by Native Americans and blacks. Stephen Jay Gould argued in 1978[17] and in his subsequent book the Mismeasure of Man that Morton unconsciously misrepresented his data and that when it was properly interpreted, it showed no significant racial differences in cranial capacity. This claim was criticized in a 2011 paper, which concluded that Morton did not manipulate his results, unconsciously or otherwise based on their remeasurments of about half the skulls in Mortonâs original set.[18]
I can't believe everyone just mindlessly upvoted your retarded post without noticing your username
Sorry little buddy, I know this post was painful for you to read. Maybe you should just keep your emotional, wishful thinking-based beliefs to yourself in the future u less you run into someone like me who is actually willing to objectively fact check your cope worldview
Scientists have also looked specifically at the effects of rising CO2 on agricultural plants and found a fertilization effect. âFor a lot of crops, [more CO2] is like having extra material in the atmosphere that they can use to grow,â says Frances Moore, an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis. She and other experts note there is an exception for certain types of plants such as corn, which access CO2 for photosynthesis in a unique way. But for most of the other plants humans eatâincluding wheat, rice and soybeansââhaving higher CO2 will help them directly,â Moore says. Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels, she adds, does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent.
A lack of nitrogen or other nutrients does not affect agricultural plants as much as wild ones, thanks to fertilizer. Still, research shows plants âget some benefits early on from higher CO2, but that [benefit] starts to saturateâ after the gas reaches a certain level, Moore saysâadding, âThe more CO2 you have, the less and less benefit you get.â And while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, Moore also emphasizes any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. âEven with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,â she says. âThere are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.â On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
Rising CO2âs effect on crops could also harm human health. âWe know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,â notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. â[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zincâand grains [also] lose protein.â Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-centuryâaround 550 parts per millionâcould make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers.
Summary: Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2 than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities.
Did you even read what was linked? The paper you just linked does not at all conflict with what I linked. Which leads me to believe you didn't actually read anything I copy pasted and just found a paper confirming what I copy pasted said and thought it refuted me.
lmao that's just sad, you are so dumb you don't even read the retarded shit you post which I directly refuted with my Nature (most prestigious academic journal) article and its citations. Just admit you are a smoothbrain who fell for a hoax and I will let you go..
And what I'm telling you is that the paper you cited doesn't conflict with what I linked.
Nobody denied that increased co2 would be "good for plants" in isolation. What's retarded is ignoring everything else that comes along with increased co2 levels, like, for example, rising temperatures.
i have proven to you that global warming has a net positive effect on plants
it is literally a good thing
in fact, i use my car to go to work instead of bus to contribute towards co2 production
Yeah, you're not good at this. The only reason you fly under the radar for as long as you do in most cases is because rightoids are so dumb there's nothing you can say that wouldn't seem normal for a rightoid.
Why would I do that? Plenty of scientists themselves admit that we are very uncertain what is happening. Only the alarmists with political reasons are the ones pushing the âscience has been settled and the earth is being destroyedâ card.
Here's the consensus on Global warming. I fully expect you to pretend to be an expert and claim it supports what you're saying due to cherry-picking of data.
I would like to interject myself into this discussion to mention that more plants = larger insects so your discussion about the supposed benefits of extra CO2 is useless anyway because there are none. Seriously /u/IDFSHILL lay off your pro CO2 tirade as nobody wants to deal with the house sized plants you're ranting and raving about.
You know what I love about imbeciles like you. Youâre willing to accept all sorts of terrible consequences of climate change, the sort of stuff that hasnât been tested yet but when you come across something we have actually observed in a lab, youâre like - hold up, even if, itâs not really, because you see, etc.
Just fuck off with your eschatological bullshit, the world is not ending, weâve had to deal with much tougher shit to get here.
He does this all the time. Someone will make a joke about gas taxes and he will quote from an engineer's 93 point plan to save bridges in Wyoming and then tell you you're mentally deficient if you don't agree with him.
The best part is when he tells other people they are too dumb to argue with him and he brags about how much he argues on Reddit and no one ever beats him and how he applies it to his personal life
Some people are good at arguing and rhetoric. But they are also insufferable faggots 99% of the time
They have the mental illness to debate anything and everyone to prove that their convictions are correct. Basically just looking for fights or will seek a fight when something is posted that they will start a fight over
Right now in another thread he's demanding data that will prove Trump will win in 2020 because some guy meme'd him with it and saying he's won this argument.
A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one.
the quote is from life magazine, not time (which i guess was some random US weekly) and i'm not sure the photo was even published with the article. it seems to be related to some CIA conspiracy shit.
That's the beauty of the bay area. All the pollution blows inland, leaving clean skies for the real people. All the rednecks in the central valley have some serious asthma problems due to it. Sucks to suck
We live in the weirdest of times. Righties who believe global warming is a Chonger scam want to build nuclear plants which would actually reduce CO2 and the lefties who think we have 10 years to stop global warming want to run Los Angeles off good vibes and biofarts.
Righties are the ones fundamentally misunderstanding what a point of no return is. This results in drama, which is fun to mock. The majority of the left doesn't actually think the world is going to physically end in 10 years, because most the people on the left know the difference between a point of no return and the final conclusion.
The majority of the left don't produce the drama though.. we need to get the vocal minority screaming about nuclear power again for the good of drama coin.
The unironical climate change doesn't exist in any way whatsoever Righties are basically just the antivaxers or flat earther r-slurs. The drama is good but it is already peaking.
Literally anyone saying "I thought the world was supposed to end in ten years, huh? What happened to that??" is a dumbass with no basic understanding of a point of no return vs. the ultimate consequences.
Well no, they haven't been wrong. Unless you are one of the people who falsely believe people like al gore said the world would literally end in 2000 or whatever.
I agree with you honestly. We should kill every living human in Africa (what's the point of them? Their resources are all that matter). India needs to be irradiated. China we'll have to use subtlety, but in coalition with the europoors we can probably get them to make another great leap forward and cull their population.
people said all sorts of dumb shit would happen, its always been presented that way
for the record i think its an actual issue but that theres no point crippling the west to make up for what the third world is going to continue to do regardless
like people here in aus bitch about it but even if we went 0% carbon emissions the world would be at best 1% better off and wed all be poor
meanwhile china would pick up the slack
so tbh im not doing shit fuck everyone else im high enough above water level
No, the right wing is misrepresented what people have said about what would happen. The actual predictions have been pretty darn accurate so far. Every single time someone trots out a list a failed predictions, it's always lame rephrasing of what was actually said.
I'm 31, can confirm it's been the same doom and gloom since I was in at least 1st grade, the first time I was told there is no planet B. Somehow we're 2 years away from extinction every 5 years, yet here we are.
The end results have never been predicted to take place this decade or the last, or the next. The point of no return, however, has arguable been passed.
the lefties who think we have 10 years to stop global warming hate nuclear
I don't think this is true.
I mean, they're still retarded, but not because they hate nuclear. They want nuclear, but are held hostage by retarded candidates that do have an irrational hate for nuclear power, and therefore lefties have to remove the whole topic from their minds.
There are pro-nuclear candidates. Jay Inslee said his #1 topic is climate change and he's pro-nuclear. He won't get anywhere because the Democratic rank and file would rather have our oceans boil over than concede this issue.
I'm super left, and I am not a huge supporter of nuclear not because I think it's super dangerous, but because I think that's the cost advocacy is uncertain. It takes incredibly long time to build a plant, faces huge financial hurdles, and while they aren't Dangerous by themselves, it takes a lot of work in constant maintenance even after the plant is closed to be safe.
I think we should continue funding Advanced nuclear technologies, but we shouldn't rely on it today while we have other cheaper and faster establishing green power tech.
. It takes incredibly long time to build a plant, faces huge financial hurdles, and while they aren't Dangerous by themselves, it takes a lot of work in constant maintenance
None of this has stopped any Democrat before on literally any other policy.
What just on this one issue you expect me to believe Lefties don't want to spend money?
the issue of killing the planet? You losers used to lambast Bush jr for this what happened.
There is a pretty big difference between spending money on what appears to be an only option (or a particularly effective option) and spending money on something when a better option exists.
Or in a way you could understand: do you spend money on a hooker that you still have to go and find or do you spend money on your cousin rn in the bed already?
There is a pretty big difference between spending money on what appears to be an only option (or a particularly effective option) and spending money on something when a better option exists.
Right now's the time to pinch pennies, when literally all of humanities future is on the line
Or in a way you could understand:
Classic downtalking to the working class from the bourgeoisie
Well there is also the little problem where you typically have to build them next to bodies of water, not really a place you want to be during rising sea levels and worsening storm surges. And climate change has some pretty big implications on nuclear waste storage.
Nuclear power (in its current form) has some real problems if you are considering long-term realities. I think we should be hyper-funding research, but we can be popping up solar and batteries en masse in the meantime.
It takes incredibly long time to build a plant, faces huge financial hurdles
If you focus on any form of green energy/climate change prevention in terms of its financial costs/effect on the economy then you're going to lose because the amount of money and resources it would take to stop climate change are going to be huge no matter what form of energy you're talking about. I don't understand why we can't treat this like we treat the military; nobody even expects it to turn a profit or not be a huge money sink and most people think that a military is necessary for protection. Same should go for green energy and shit
When it comes to nuclear power, even for the government it becomes a kind of gamble if you go with currently available technology. There are a lot of new types of nuclear power that are being developed and may be extremely effective, but investing in an incredibly expensive plant using modern and available tech means diverted resources that could have gone to something that was ready to go right now.
Plus, there are other problems with nuclear power when you consider long-term outcomes and the impacts of a now rapidly changing climate, ie the fact you have to put them by huge bodies of water which are increasingly dangerous as they rise and storm surges become even more dangerous.
Despite the amount of time it takes, nuclear plants require a shitload of concrete; concrete production is terrible for CO2 emissions, so you're shooting yourself in the foot by relying on nukes to solve the CO2 issue
Practially everything humans build require a shitload of concrete. It's used in Hydro, and it's almost certainly used in the foundations of wind power. I doubt the up-front cost of the concrete in the nuke plant means shit when compared to 50 years of operations.
Industrial sized solar panelling will need to sit on concrete pads. Itâs not as significant as a nuclear cooling tower for sure but there will still be plenty of concrete involved if solar power is to be scaled up.
Ok come on. We use concrete all over the world for a ton of stuff, like housing, roads (concrete roads > asphalt), a ton of factories and others. Don't fucking tell me concrete needed to build nuclear plants is a significant polution.
And in the end my main issue with solar is the godawful density and the need to cover for drops (either ton of massive battery packs... or fossil fuels) which literally nobody who promotes solar ever talks about đ¤
mean, they're still retarded, but not because they hate nuclear.
It's true and they do, it's why Oregon lost our Nuclear Power Plant that provided 12% of the electrical generation capacity of Oregon. and we still haven't built a new one. People was so proud of their victory over it finally when it had a crack and they tore it down.
They also like to talk about how great they are for the environment than change the recycling laws because it turns out money>saving the world and now I have to throw all this perfectly recyclable shit in the garbage.
Recycling is a fucking scam. Whatever idiot thought up that buying glass from China, shipping it to a bottling plant, shipping it to a store, shipping it back to China, melting it down and then shipping it back to a bottling plant is green was a marketing genius.
Don't fucking @ me, I know about the National Sword program.
The National Sword program was China restricting the degree of contamination of hard waste they accepted. It basically meant that recycling could no longer be exported to China.
His entire premise is based around opportunity cost, which doesn't exist because nuclear or solar is not a binary choice and resources granted to one doesn't necessarily come from the other.
Basically his premise is built like you were playing a computer game, say Civilization or something, and you can only build one thing at a time in your city queue.
Well, to get nukes built in a fashionable and cheap fashion, the government basically has to fund the entire thing. Even then it'll take half a decade or more until it's built.
As of now, without massive government intervention, nuclear is economically dead when it comes to building new plants.
Anyone who wants old currently running nuclear plants to shutdown can suck my ass
OK then have the government intervene and fund the entire thing, with the confidence that half a decade or more will actually occur. Climate change needs to be addressed but this panic about how any solution shouldn't be tried unless the results are instant is counterproductive.
Climate change needs to be addressed but this panic about how any solution shouldn't be tried unless the results are instant is counterproductive.
It's also moronic to worry about the up-front monetary costs when the costs caused by the effects of climate change will be so much higher. Worrying about the short-term monetary losses for something that'll prevent global instability is peak boomer
You'll notice that this kind of thinking only applies to nuclear power. It's the exact same miserly "we can't afford it" logic that conservatives use with solar and wind, except applied to a technology liberals hate for reasons that could not possibly actually be related to money.
the problem with that is that nuclear reactors are specialized for all plants which means there isn't economics of scale until we create standardized nuclear reactor
You say that like building the cheapest form of energy didn't bankrupt Westinghouse and leave state governments with non functional concrete shells at a cost of billions of dollars.
Modern solar panels only lose 80% of their efficiency after 20-35 years of service. Plus you can recycle solar cells although that is a recent idea considering most solar plants, even the ones built 40 years ago, are still producing electricity.
15 years? There are solar panels far older than that, that are still going very strong and the vast majority of them are rated to be 80% effective at 20 years, even cheap Chinese panels
Not only that but the old panels are usually recyclable.
Honestly the whole subject sucks because no matter how reasonable your position some partisan fuckwad is gonna think you're the devil for not agreeing 100% with their dogma. Which of course is a great way to motivate people to action politically I'm sure, just turn an entire subject into a political wasteland, that's how we'll solve the problem.
Yeah it's honestly insane. Nuclear energy would at least out a stopper in climate change but the lefties got high jacked by PETA and Greenpeace. Hell the Soviets were pretty pro nuclear too until Chernobyl.
I have no evidence at all to back this up, but I think Chernobyl caused global warming. After Chernobyl, the anti-nuclear shit gained suppand halted the further development of nuclear energy, which made us dependent on fossil fuels.
yeah that just sounds like some grade A /r/conspiracy shit right there. It's been well know that human have been causing climate change for the past 100 years
I might not have worded my previous correctly because I whole heartedly agree that nuclear power would have avoided a lot of the shit we're seeing now.
no it still would because electricity generation only accounts for 1/4 of all total global emissions. Just because electricity is clean doesn't mean that transportation, industry, and agriculture are clean
I don't think you're very informed on why we haven't fully switched to nuclear and why we likely can't fully switch to nuclear.
Hint: it's the cost. Nuclear power plants are absurdly expensive and require very tight regulations. The entry cost is just so crazy fucking high it takes a long time to switch to nuclear power.
This isn't even getting into the fact that yes, while nuclear plants today are very safe, all it takes is 1 accident to cause catastrophe. I actually support nuclear energy, but the people that show up and start claiming "we should totally just go nuclear" don't seem to have much awarenesss of why we haven't or why it isn't that easy.
I don't think nuclear energy is a panacea. I think Nuclear power should form the form the backbone of our energy portfolio and be supplemented by solar, hydroelectric, etc. to meet the actual power need. I think the left gets a lot of flack over nuclear energy because they claim to be concerned about the concerned about climate change but so many REEEEEEEEEE at the thought of nuclear energy because it's spooky even though it could deal with a significant portion of the issue. I think a lot of the REEEEE isn't the chance of a melt down but because many people, across the political and autism spectrum, think that radiation is a ghost that comes in and strangles your baby in their crib.
I'll agree that they're not friendly, but I don't think they're significantly less friendly than the left. There have been a host of shit left supported laws that have stymied nuclear power. Also, much of the left is ideologically anti-nuclear power, while the right is only against it because it's not oil. You'd find a lot less right leaning politicians protesting a nuclear power plant than left leaning ones.
Republicans continue to be more likely than Democrats and independents to be in favor of nuclear energy. Still, support for the use of nuclear energy among Republicans and Democrats has declined in comparison to 2015. A slight majority of Republicans, 53%, are in favor of nuclear energy, down significantly from 68% last year. One in three Democrats, 34%, favor it, down from 42% in 2015. Independents' support is essentially unchanged from last year, but is down from the high Gallup found in 2010.
Gas prices seem to be the primary factor in deciding how much of the US supports nuclear energy.
The west should have adopted nuclear decades ago, but i'm not sure I like the idea of China and India going full on nuclear. It's the sort of thing you want a bit of quality control with.
Stratospheric aerosol injection is literally rolling coal in the sky. Geoengineering is the centrist take of the future. Don't need to kill the economy, stop the Earth from warming, and its some science shit. Yeah the reefs will still die, but it pisses off the religious and retard environmentalists. There is literally no downside.
And in the end it doesn't matter what either side does because even if America lessened its impact on the environment to 0%, India and China will continue to do enough damage to ruin the planet all on their lonesome.
Lefties at least know climate change exists but they are really hurting the cause by denying overpopulation is a thing and that nuclear is better than coal.
Yes because making people do something is so much better then educating them and making them want to do something. All hail the authoritarian u/itssugar
Daily reminder this sub itself is dumb, gimme that global warming shit and make it spectacular, one Greta is not enough, I need armies of spergs screeching about how weâre destroying their future. Just fuck off, I had to shit all my childhood without a smart phone, fucking zoomers will get a much better planet to inherit than what they deserve.
Stfu leftoid swine. If you were an actual centrist you would be able to easily call out all the fuckin agendaposting leftist bitches are getting away with after the downfall of the desolate wasteland of CA
"Global Warming is caused by humans" - Its happening
"The world is going to end in 12 years" - Nah dumbass.
The US has decreased it's carbon emissions every year for a few years, but China and India don't seem to give a single fuck, but since they're minority types they're completely unassailable.
here in aus were even higher per capita than americans and i outright refuse to curb any of my behaviour just so some shit brown people can burn more plastic
id rather stop developing countries by force than change my own habits
Global warming is a huge problem but they're right that environmentalists have been saying the world will end in 12 years since the 60s and it never happens.
I was at earth day 1990, whichever one was at UoI.
Same shit different hippies.
I had a young commie try to convince me that nuclear power was adding to global warming. Only reason I was there was to score with a visiting hippie chick I met that night before. Jesse Jackson was the keynote speaker which was ironic as he was kicked out of the school for cheating as a student apparently.
I did not score with the hippie either. Needed one more night to seal the deal but they were going back that afternoon.
So I didn't get laid AND got up early to hear fucking Jesse Jackson. Worst day ever.
Everybody knows that oil is infinite. Whenever we get close to running out Jesus just time travels back and makes more dinosaurs. That's why we keep discovering new species.
I once heard a conservative talk radio in bumfuck nowhere claim that oil didnât come from dinosaurs because âthe dinosaurs are all dead and we keep on making more oilâ
You'll notice on that page not a single mention of a single legitimate credential. You'll also notice a very impressive list of all the media exposure she gets, as well as pictures with celebrities including the Obamas.
Climate scientists have the same problem. Even worse, because quack nutritionists don't publish things like 97% of nutritionists agree that Subway bread is made of rubber.
If you spent a day or two researching it (back then it was a bit harder than google), you found out oil companies were discovering new reserves every year in quite significant quantities. If you did a bit more research, you found that they were discovering new reserves faster than they were drilling known reserves.
You heard it here first. Oil is infinite and will never run out no matter how much we use or how large our population grows.
i think carbon emissions affecting climate is real, but i'm just not sure sending whatever western manufacturing jobs still remain to china will solve it.
318 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-04-26
It's the same teenager racism hate cult that MDE was all about. It's just another boring /pol/ offshoot for lonely edgelord losers.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 byobombs 2019-04-26
Fuckin gottum snappy
1 ScarletBaphomet 2019-04-26
Damn are we sure that's not a real person?
1 ScarletBaphomet 2019-04-26
But it's cold outside - Libtards owned.
1 ScarletBaphomet 2019-04-26
But it's cold outside. Libtards = owned.
1 prince_of_prussia1 2019-04-26
It snowed in april where i live
Libtards: owned. đ
1 Osterion 2019-04-26
Wow, those guys are really cringe bro
1 NormanImmanuel 2019-04-26
>67% upvoted
Build a fucking wall.
1 JumbledFun 2019-04-26
they are seething per usual. It's their perpetual state of being
1 Spysix 2019-04-26
And throw you over it.
1 LeninistSkynet 2019-04-26
Pff, rightoids don't believe in (((postmodern))) pseudo-science like evolution or global warming. That's just for plebbit. They're more interested in the nitty-gritty of REAL science and research statistics from a 1920's study that proves how the negroid has a lower IQ than the white man due to his inferior skull shape.
1 Andlat_Vard 2019-04-26
According to the most scientifically accurate book in the world the earth is 2019 years old
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
"Nobody can be 100% sure that the Earth isn't just 6000 years old."
1 le_epic_xd_part_2 2019-04-26
Ok Borat
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
Don't make me sing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
1 TrapNekoLoli 2019-04-26
It's your fault for marrying a foid.
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
Peer pressure and I'm like 90% sure it was arranged.
1 TheChinchilla914 2019-04-26
I have a few questions
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
I don't see any questions.
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2019-04-26
I have a question... if your marriage was arranged without your knowledge does that mean your parents and in-laws just did some mad-cap zany shit like in Jeeves & Wooster or something? Or were you just horribly drunk, like most Pajeets at their wedding?
1 ThatsNotDemocratic 2019-04-26
Why did you answer your own question?
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
It's just a theory. I married the daughter of a good friend of my mother. She's from the next town over, but from the same church. So we know each other pretty much for our whole life. After graduating high school I moved about 3000 km to another province for university. When I came back for Christmas in the first year my mother informed me that this girl will also move cross country to the same city to go to university and she asked me if I could "take care" of her.
Pajeets aren't white enough to believe that the Earth is just 6000 years old.
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2019-04-26
Ah, if you came from some Pentecostal prairie-folk community where John Lithgow banned all the dancing, then your marriage must have been arranged: God knows what you're thinking when you stare at Cousin Beth.
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
Lutheran. Pretty close.
1 NNewtoma 2019-04-26
Whatâs it like being married to a toddler?
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
Great. I not only have to pay less taxes for being married, but I also get child benefits for her.
1 detroitvelvetslim 2019-04-26
L I B E R T A R I A N
1 BeingofUniverse 2019-04-26
But she consented.
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-04-26
If he was a real ancap he would have purchased her, or gotten a long-term lease
1 BeingofUniverse 2019-04-26
Long-term leases are a rip, everyone knows they're no good after 10.
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-04-26
woah, double-digits! are you sure you're really an ancap and not a minarchist?
1 detroitvelvetslim 2019-04-26
Lmao you married one
1 Ranilen 2019-04-26
It's over for epistemology-cels.
1 bussy_queen 2019-04-26
Le put a ring on it !!!
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2019-04-26
Is she hot?
1 Think_Once 2019-04-26
đĽđĽđĽ
1 Shootemout 2019-04-26
you're fuckin stupid AMERICA just turned 2019...
1 bearshark713 2019-04-26
Want to ask how I know you live in a majority mayo gated community?
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
but they do have a lower iq
1 prince_of_prussia1 2019-04-26
CAutists OUT
1 d4ddyd54m4 2019-04-26
You realize this dumbass point has been disproven again and again. Go get a tan white boy
1 superswellcewlguy 2019-04-26
The MELANINATED race has always shown to be superior. If it weren't for the WHITE man, the CHOCOLATE AMERICANS of Earth would have created WAKANDA by now.
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
No it hasn't wtf are you tards on about
1 d4ddyd54m4 2019-04-26
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
hurr mentioning obvious statistics means you're a nazi
1 d4ddyd54m4 2019-04-26
I specified CAnimal
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
i dont post there
1 DefectiveDelfin 2019-04-26
O U T
N O W
1 wfwfwfqwfqwef 2019-04-26
Done.
1 Ranilen 2019-04-26
What's next, you only posted there on weekends? You can't even keep your story straight when you write it twice on the same page and you're talking about other people being unintelligent. IT'S RIGHT THE FUCK THERE LIKE 3 POSTS DOWN.
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
wow biggest busted moment in history
1 Ranilen 2019-04-26
Pretty salty for an illiterate.
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
o t h e r
f a c t o r s
1 Dead_Rendezvous 2019-04-26
WE
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
ate
1 wfwfwfqwfqwef 2019-04-26
Deported.
1 Unkill_is_dill 2019-04-26
CAfugee spotted!
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
hurr i posted there maybe once, youre denying facts leftoid retard
centrism doesnt care about your feels
1 signedint 2019-04-26
OUT
1 Logan_Pauler 2019-04-26
Eww, go away
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
nice foid mannerisms
1 Logan_Pauler 2019-04-26
Suck my feminine dick
1 teamsprocket 2019-04-26
It's either IQ is statistically significantly different between races, with blacks dumber than whites, and whites dumber than asians and jews, and whites should roll over for their superior IQ masters, or it's that IQ is not statistically significantly different, and you're just one or two standard deviations away from 100, and not three or four.
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
60 iq post
1 florida_navy 2019-04-26
whites are dumber than jews and most asian countires
what now
1 JumbledFun 2019-04-26
Not lower than yours tho
1 taytaybraps 2019-04-26
So does this mean that Jews are the master race?
1 OnePercentOfMonster 2019-04-26
Do you believe Jews have a higher average IQ?
1 Xzow 2019-04-26
yes
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
Imagine still drinking the global warming koolaid in 2019 xD
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-04-26
Life fuel for phenerologycells
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
phrenology is accurate and the only reason the mainstream rejects it now is that it exposed too many jews
literally lower than a sign language gorilla lmao
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
you know gorilla are evaluated by infant standards right
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
infants cant do sign language and this particular gorilla was measured as you would an adult
to be fair it was an exceptional gorilla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)
meanwhile in africa
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/thieves-fry-kenya-power-grid-fast-food-2014122884728785480.html
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
wrong
to be fair, she was given 1 infant test, 1 preschool test, 1 retard test and 1 all-ages test in fluid abstract reasoning
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
oh yeah black people are also literally incapable of abstract reasoning or the concept of linear time
like the idea "hey maybe i shouldnt do this thing right now because itll make my future worse"
hence the incarceration rate and stuff like that article about africans destroying electrical infrastructure i posted
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
do you know about the test they use on children where they put a chocolate on the table in front of them and tell them "you can eat this one chocolate now, or if you wait 2 minutes you can have 2"
guess what happens 100% of the time
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
Isnât that an autism test?
1 taytaybraps 2019-04-26
hi priapism, not taking the ban well I see?
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
man my old shit got banned like 1 day after the shooting and ive outright announced who i was a bunch of times what are you even talking about you nerd
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-04-26
Here's what a geneticist has to say about race
Here is a more recent study on cranial capacity
1 YoureRuiningAmerica 2019-04-26
Manlets
1 RapistWithAPlan 2019-04-26
Nice try chapo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24214801/
Oh and by the way, that "debunked, racist, skull measuring pseudoscience" you referred to? It was actually re-examined by modern scientists and it was confirmed that the original findings were actually correct after all. You are shooting yourself in the foot when you bring it up and you don't even realize it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size
I can't believe everyone just mindlessly upvoted your retarded post without noticing your username
Sorry little buddy, I know this post was painful for you to read. Maybe you should just keep your emotional, wishful thinking-based beliefs to yourself in the future u less you run into someone like me who is actually willing to objectively fact check your cope worldview
1 LongPostBot 2019-04-26
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Joeybada33 2019-04-26
Make eugenics great again.
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
Reminder that Global Warming is literally good
More CO2 in the air -> Better plant growth
Higher temperature -> More kinetic energy and faster growth
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
A reminder that this is absurdly false just in case some of our native retards read this and think it sounds good:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
1 LongPostBot 2019-04-26
đ´đ´đ´
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
based brainlet, is this the first popsci article that showed up on google?
Here's an actual study: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
Did you even read what was linked? The paper you just linked does not at all conflict with what I linked. Which leads me to believe you didn't actually read anything I copy pasted and just found a paper confirming what I copy pasted said and thought it refuted me.
You're a real brainlet, aren't you?
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
lmao that's just sad, you are so dumb you don't even read the retarded shit you post which I directly refuted with my Nature (most prestigious academic journal) article and its citations. Just admit you are a smoothbrain who fell for a hoax and I will let you go..
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
And what I'm telling you is that the paper you cited doesn't conflict with what I linked.
Nobody denied that increased co2 would be "good for plants" in isolation. What's retarded is ignoring everything else that comes along with increased co2 levels, like, for example, rising temperatures.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm
You are completely retarded and seem to be suffering from dunning-kruger.
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
>skepticalscience
đ¨ BRAINLET ALERT đ¨
typical plebbitor
>Y-YOU ARE JUST IGNORING STUFF, WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO PLANTS IN LABS, IT'S GONNA BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT OUT THERE
uhhh, you lost this debate bucko, just take your pills and move on
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
Is this satire?
To be clear here, you believe everything else that comes with rising co2 levels, those aren't bad for plants?
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Gfuel_Alex is retarded
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
based Kevin is still stalking me
​
do you want an autograph Kev?
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
i have proven to you that global warming has a net positive effect on plants it is literally a good thing in fact, i use my car to go to work instead of bus to contribute towards co2 production
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
Yeah, you're not good at this. The only reason you fly under the radar for as long as you do in most cases is because rightoids are so dumb there's nothing you can say that wouldn't seem normal for a rightoid.
1 Gfuel_Alex 2019-04-26
FYI I burn 100kg of coal in my backyard everytime you reply to me
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
what does realizing global warming is full of bad science and fear mongering have to do with right wing politics? Telling the truth?
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Yea keep on telling yourselves you're the real experts you proselytizing dingleberry
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
Why would I do that? Plenty of scientists themselves admit that we are very uncertain what is happening. Only the alarmists with political reasons are the ones pushing the âscience has been settled and the earth is being destroyedâ card.
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Oh cool the "lots of peoole are saying" fallacy.
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
Is that the, ignore evidence that doesnât fit your narrative fallacy?
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Notice you have yet to share any of your so-called evidence and have the balls to accuse anybody of confirmation bias.
You are a mongoloid.
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
reread my post :)
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Burden of proof is on you, dummy
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Since you are the one that made the initial claim.
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
In other words, you donât have any evidence because you yourself know there is NO CONSENSUS. Bye retard
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Please kill yourself
1 DickNiggerMan 2019-04-26
yeah but Hawkeye goes dark after witnessing his family get dusted in Avengers Endgame lol
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
You do yourself too
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Lol there is no God you idiot.
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Here's the consensus on Global warming. I fully expect you to pretend to be an expert and claim it supports what you're saying due to cherry-picking of data.
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
1 Kevin_Burnfluff 2019-04-26
Pwned
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
nice downvote within 3 seconds. I have deeply sinned against your religion
1 HP_civ 2019-04-26
New snappy quote right here!!
1 ethicsssss 2019-04-26
I would like to interject myself into this discussion to mention that more plants = larger insects so your discussion about the supposed benefits of extra CO2 is useless anyway because there are none. Seriously /u/IDFSHILL lay off your pro CO2 tirade as nobody wants to deal with the house sized plants you're ranting and raving about.
1 ItsSugar 2019-04-26
Literal Gaymer calling people 'retards'
https://i.imgur.com/8a0tdQZ.jpg
1 nothuggedasachild 2019-04-26
Hehehe.
You know what I love about imbeciles like you. Youâre willing to accept all sorts of terrible consequences of climate change, the sort of stuff that hasnât been tested yet but when you come across something we have actually observed in a lab, youâre like - hold up, even if, itâs not really, because you see, etc.
Just fuck off with your eschatological bullshit, the world is not ending, weâve had to deal with much tougher shit to get here.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
climate denier makes wild claim by taking scientists out of context.
Someone responds with the actual scientists telling them why they're wrong.
Climate deniers call other people imbeciles.
Rightoids.
1 nothuggedasachild 2019-04-26
Show me on the dolly where the rising CO2 level touched you
1 Rabbit-Punch 2019-04-26
LOL. Stop you are going to make him send more science!!!
1 snallygaster 2019-04-26
imagine your belief system getting cucked this hard by oil lobbyists
1 nothuggedasachild 2019-04-26
Imagine your belief system getting cucked this hard by a 93 y/o senile and a 16 y/o autist.
1 oneshot989 2019-04-26
When Pizza makes more sense than you, you absolutely know you are completely beyond retarded
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
You're just now figuring out that people do this here?
1 xlhat 2019-04-26
You'd have thought he'd have figured it out, given that the long post bot gets more updoots than his post.
1 JumbledFun 2019-04-26
It was impressive he put out such a wall in response to two dumbass orange man bait bites
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
He does this all the time. Someone will make a joke about gas taxes and he will quote from an engineer's 93 point plan to save bridges in Wyoming and then tell you you're mentally deficient if you don't agree with him.
1 prince_of_prussia1 2019-04-26
Im in awe of idfshills mental illness
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
The best part is when he tells other people they are too dumb to argue with him and he brags about how much he argues on Reddit and no one ever beats him and how he applies it to his personal life
Just oof
1 prince_of_prussia1 2019-04-26
Some people are good at arguing and rhetoric. But they are also insufferable faggots 99% of the time
They have the mental illness to debate anything and everyone to prove that their convictions are correct. Basically just looking for fights or will seek a fight when something is posted that they will start a fight over
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
You remember who we are talking about right.
Right now in another thread he's demanding data that will prove Trump will win in 2020 because some guy meme'd him with it and saying he's won this argument.
1 AI_WAIFU 2019-04-26
We're already a long way down that road. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
We should all switch to soylent tbh.
1 taytaybraps 2019-04-26
It's in threads like these that we need you the most <3
1 A7_AUDUBON 2019-04-26
brawndo make da plants grow!
1 G_reth 2019-04-26
Rightoids just denying chinas existence now
1 Spysix 2019-04-26
TIL the province of china is in the US.
1 G_reth 2019-04-26
Nothing in that picture mentions the US
1 Spysix 2019-04-26
Its referring to the earthday photo from time magazine in 1970 saying we will all be wearing gas masks by 1985.
Also, if china has an air problem, why are we supposed to punish ourselves in the US through public policy?
1 fandabidozie 2019-04-26
the quote is from life magazine, not time (which i guess was some random US weekly) and i'm not sure the photo was even published with the article. it seems to be related to some CIA conspiracy shit.
1 Spysix 2019-04-26
oh okay, it was life my bad, to me shit mags are indistinguishable.
1 fandabidozie 2019-04-26
i mean the quote is real, just making sure the sterling factual rep of drama is maintained
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-04-26
I wonder what changed in that time period? đ¤
1 Spysix 2019-04-26
We also had the The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, but we still never see the end of fearmongering of obnoxious doom scenarios.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-04-26
The 1970 iteration was the really strong one. Electing Nixon was not a mistake.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
Everything everywhere and always refers to the US of A Eurotrash
1 betazoom78 2019-04-26
SOON
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-04-26
The State tyvm
1 JumbledFun 2019-04-26
That's the beauty of the bay area. All the pollution blows inland, leaving clean skies for the real people. All the rednecks in the central valley have some serious asthma problems due to it. Sucks to suck
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
all you have to worry about is discarded syringes and human feces
ahhh california
1 JumbledFun 2019-04-26
It's called dont go to the hood? It's very easy to avoid the tenderloin in sf
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
i mean youre on the verge of having the plague and thats a little harder to avoid
1 JumbledFun 2019-04-26
I see you're reading silly things again
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
nah its just fun to poke fun at and joke about really
1 deere442 2019-04-26
SF cope
1 Creator_of_OP 2019-04-26
As a SoCal born resident of the Central Valley, the whole place is a shit hole of heat and smog.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
We live in the weirdest of times. Righties who believe global warming is a Chonger scam want to build nuclear plants which would actually reduce CO2 and the lefties who think we have 10 years to stop global warming want to run Los Angeles off good vibes and biofarts.
1 Galax-e 2019-04-26
More nukes = more drama. Lefties think the world is ending current year + 10 perpetually. The tits are already milked to capacity on that side.
1 wow___justwow 2019-04-26
It's this lunacy that the linked comic is mocking. I don't get why people here seem to think it's wrong to mock this?
1 Galax-e 2019-04-26
Because then the galaxy brains always make the most noise saying that the climate is literally unaffected whatsoever by humans.
1 Patyrn 2019-04-26
Imagine believing the chad climate could ever be affected by virgin humans.
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
Righties are the ones fundamentally misunderstanding what a point of no return is. This results in drama, which is fun to mock. The majority of the left doesn't actually think the world is going to physically end in 10 years, because most the people on the left know the difference between a point of no return and the final conclusion.
1 Galax-e 2019-04-26
The majority of the left don't produce the drama though.. we need to get the vocal minority screaming about nuclear power again for the good of drama coin.
The unironical climate change doesn't exist in any way whatsoever Righties are basically just the antivaxers or flat earther r-slurs. The drama is good but it is already peaking.
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
I heard 5g causes tranny cancer
1 Patyrn 2019-04-26
Is there a downside?
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
pretty sure they understand it, just that they think youre wildly inaccurate in predicting it
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
Literally anyone saying "I thought the world was supposed to end in ten years, huh? What happened to that??" is a dumbass with no basic understanding of a point of no return vs. the ultimate consequences.
Are you one of those people?
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
its less that and more the fact that youve been alarmists this entire time preaching apocalypse scenarios that havent happened
so people think youre crying wolf for influence
also the fact remains that we cant do shit about climate without basically wiping out the entire third world
which personally? im not opposed to but i doubt the usual bleeding heart has thought about it too hard
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
Well no, they haven't been wrong. Unless you are one of the people who falsely believe people like al gore said the world would literally end in 2000 or whatever.
1 Patyrn 2019-04-26
I agree with you honestly. We should kill every living human in Africa (what's the point of them? Their resources are all that matter). India needs to be irradiated. China we'll have to use subtlety, but in coalition with the europoors we can probably get them to make another great leap forward and cull their population.
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
africans produce jack shit per capita in pollution
you might have a point about india tho
1 Patyrn 2019-04-26
For now. Gotta nip that in the bud
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
people said all sorts of dumb shit would happen, its always been presented that way
for the record i think its an actual issue but that theres no point crippling the west to make up for what the third world is going to continue to do regardless
like people here in aus bitch about it but even if we went 0% carbon emissions the world would be at best 1% better off and wed all be poor
meanwhile china would pick up the slack
so tbh im not doing shit fuck everyone else im high enough above water level
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
unironically believing in capitalism
india ainât the third world btw
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
capitalism is great because it lets me live a life of luxury compared to 99.9% of people for 99.9% of history
meanwhile communism would mean i have to moderate and concede certain things to be "fair" to people who dont know how to use a condom
so no ty ill just vote to bomb them instead
its just shorthand for shitty undeveloped countries now
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
lol no it doesnât. industry does that.
you have to do that under capitalism too, just in a really stupid, after-the-fact way
communismâs boring though, syndicalismâs where the real fireâs at
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
No, the right wing is misrepresented what people have said about what would happen. The actual predictions have been pretty darn accurate so far. Every single time someone trots out a list a failed predictions, it's always lame rephrasing of what was actually said.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
are you really going to sit there and pretend the entire genesis of the global warming/climate change movement hasnt been alarmism
cmon dude im old its been the same since the 90s
1 RealJackAnchor 2019-04-26
I'm 31, can confirm it's been the same doom and gloom since I was in at least 1st grade, the first time I was told there is no planet B. Somehow we're 2 years away from extinction every 5 years, yet here we are.
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
So you don't know the difference between a point of no return and the final Extinction point. Maybe you should have paid more attention in school
1 RealJackAnchor 2019-04-26
Both have been predicted for decades, yet here we are.
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
The end results have never been predicted to take place this decade or the last, or the next. The point of no return, however, has arguable been passed.
1 ErictheRedding 2019-04-26
China makes all the shit you buy, fruit pie. They wouldn't have even started doing it if we hadn't basically paid them to.
The temptation to insult you is nearly overwhelming. Please try to put together the pieces on this stuff.
1 ItsSugar 2019-04-26
I don't think this is true.
I mean, they're still retarded, but not because they hate nuclear. They want nuclear, but are held hostage by retarded candidates that do have an irrational hate for nuclear power, and therefore lefties have to remove the whole topic from their minds.
Kind of like evangelical rightoids and Trump.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
Last poll I saw was something like 35% of Dems in favor of nuclear energy and 65% opposed.
1 ItsSugar 2019-04-26
The majority of democrats are retarded ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Look at Sanders's base, though. Ask them what they think about nuclear power, and watch them become wind-powered from all the internal spinning.
1 UmmahSultan 2019-04-26
There are pro-nuclear candidates. Jay Inslee said his #1 topic is climate change and he's pro-nuclear. He won't get anywhere because the Democratic rank and file would rather have our oceans boil over than concede this issue.
1 grungebot5000 2019-04-26
he sure gets a lot of visibility on facebook tho
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
I'm super left, and I am not a huge supporter of nuclear not because I think it's super dangerous, but because I think that's the cost advocacy is uncertain. It takes incredibly long time to build a plant, faces huge financial hurdles, and while they aren't Dangerous by themselves, it takes a lot of work in constant maintenance even after the plant is closed to be safe.
I think we should continue funding Advanced nuclear technologies, but we shouldn't rely on it today while we have other cheaper and faster establishing green power tech.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
None of this has stopped any Democrat before on literally any other policy.
What just on this one issue you expect me to believe Lefties don't want to spend money?
the issue of killing the planet? You losers used to lambast Bush jr for this what happened.
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
There is a pretty big difference between spending money on what appears to be an only option (or a particularly effective option) and spending money on something when a better option exists.
Or in a way you could understand: do you spend money on a hooker that you still have to go and find or do you spend money on your cousin rn in the bed already?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
Right now's the time to pinch pennies, when literally all of humanities future is on the line
Classic downtalking to the working class from the bourgeoisie
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
Well there is also the little problem where you typically have to build them next to bodies of water, not really a place you want to be during rising sea levels and worsening storm surges. And climate change has some pretty big implications on nuclear waste storage.
Nuclear power (in its current form) has some real problems if you are considering long-term realities. I think we should be hyper-funding research, but we can be popping up solar and batteries en masse in the meantime.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
Lol the Ocean powered buoy plan would cause a environmental holocaust but no one cared about that.
Why don't you compare how much electricity that plant provided to oregon to the split we have now
https://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy-oregon/pages/electricity-mix-in-oregon.aspx
that's why we shoot it into space duh
too bad no one else in the party agrees with you.
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
No tard. We just get off our asses, say "fuck you" to NIMBYs, and send it to Yucca mountain.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
Hey i'm arguing with guys who think we can power carriers and submarines with windmills and solar panels some retardation is going to rub off
1 snallygaster 2019-04-26
If you focus on any form of green energy/climate change prevention in terms of its financial costs/effect on the economy then you're going to lose because the amount of money and resources it would take to stop climate change are going to be huge no matter what form of energy you're talking about. I don't understand why we can't treat this like we treat the military; nobody even expects it to turn a profit or not be a huge money sink and most people think that a military is necessary for protection. Same should go for green energy and shit
1 ztoundas 2019-04-26
When it comes to nuclear power, even for the government it becomes a kind of gamble if you go with currently available technology. There are a lot of new types of nuclear power that are being developed and may be extremely effective, but investing in an incredibly expensive plant using modern and available tech means diverted resources that could have gone to something that was ready to go right now.
Plus, there are other problems with nuclear power when you consider long-term outcomes and the impacts of a now rapidly changing climate, ie the fact you have to put them by huge bodies of water which are increasingly dangerous as they rise and storm surges become even more dangerous.
1 Cycloptichorn 2019-04-26
Despite the amount of time it takes, nuclear plants require a shitload of concrete; concrete production is terrible for CO2 emissions, so you're shooting yourself in the foot by relying on nukes to solve the CO2 issue
Source: know stuff about things
1 Patyrn 2019-04-26
Practially everything humans build require a shitload of concrete. It's used in Hydro, and it's almost certainly used in the foundations of wind power. I doubt the up-front cost of the concrete in the nuke plant means shit when compared to 50 years of operations.
1 Cycloptichorn 2019-04-26
Or you build a shitload of solar, which takes pretty much zero concrete
1 Patyrn 2019-04-26
Solar is not in competition with nuclear until someone invents a way to stop the sun from setting.
1 Leocat91 2019-04-26
Industrial sized solar panelling will need to sit on concrete pads. Itâs not as significant as a nuclear cooling tower for sure but there will still be plenty of concrete involved if solar power is to be scaled up.
1 Woolgun 2019-04-26
Ok come on. We use concrete all over the world for a ton of stuff, like housing, roads (concrete roads > asphalt), a ton of factories and others. Don't fucking tell me concrete needed to build nuclear plants is a significant polution.
And in the end my main issue with solar is the godawful density and the need to cover for drops (either ton of massive battery packs... or fossil fuels) which literally nobody who promotes solar ever talks about đ¤
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
It's true and they do, it's why Oregon lost our Nuclear Power Plant that provided 12% of the electrical generation capacity of Oregon. and we still haven't built a new one. People was so proud of their victory over it finally when it had a crack and they tore it down.
They also like to talk about how great they are for the environment than change the recycling laws because it turns out money>saving the world and now I have to throw all this perfectly recyclable shit in the garbage.
1 Hemingwavy 2019-04-26
Recycling is a fucking scam. Whatever idiot thought up that buying glass from China, shipping it to a bottling plant, shipping it to a store, shipping it back to China, melting it down and then shipping it back to a bottling plant is green was a marketing genius.
Don't fucking @ me, I know about the National Sword program.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-26
China is melting down our scrap to make swords like the Japense did?
I know it
1 Hemingwavy 2019-04-26
The National Sword program was China restricting the degree of contamination of hard waste they accepted. It basically meant that recycling could no longer be exported to China.
1 dirtysundae 2019-04-26
âThere is no such thing as a zero or near-zero-emission nuclear power plantâ The excessive construction times of nuclear plants compared to wind and solar mean attempts to decarbonize using nuclear result in increased fossil reliance in the mean time.
1 detroitvelvetslim 2019-04-26
brainlet tier: "nuclear power is dangerous/too hard"
Galaxy brain: not if we remove all regulations
1 VidiotGamer 2019-04-26
That's hysterically stupid.
His entire premise is based around opportunity cost, which doesn't exist because nuclear or solar is not a binary choice and resources granted to one doesn't necessarily come from the other.
Basically his premise is built like you were playing a computer game, say Civilization or something, and you can only build one thing at a time in your city queue.
1 my_name_is_worse 2019-04-26
Exactly nuclear is a good choice for baseload power while we donât have good energy storage tech.
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
Well, to get nukes built in a fashionable and cheap fashion, the government basically has to fund the entire thing. Even then it'll take half a decade or more until it's built.
As of now, without massive government intervention, nuclear is economically dead when it comes to building new plants.
Anyone who wants old currently running nuclear plants to shutdown can suck my ass
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
Why don't we subsidize the nuclear power plants and confiscate the wealth of conservative Boomers to do it?
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
Sure, I don't see why not.
1 HP_civ 2019-04-26
Because then you would be France, and fuck that
1 UmmahSultan 2019-04-26
OK then have the government intervene and fund the entire thing, with the confidence that half a decade or more will actually occur. Climate change needs to be addressed but this panic about how any solution shouldn't be tried unless the results are instant is counterproductive.
1 snallygaster 2019-04-26
It's also moronic to worry about the up-front monetary costs when the costs caused by the effects of climate change will be so much higher. Worrying about the short-term monetary losses for something that'll prevent global instability is peak boomer
1 UmmahSultan 2019-04-26
You'll notice that this kind of thinking only applies to nuclear power. It's the exact same miserly "we can't afford it" logic that conservatives use with solar and wind, except applied to a technology liberals hate for reasons that could not possibly actually be related to money.
1 informat2 2019-04-26
The same was true with wind and solar until the government subsidized the shit of they and economies of scale kicked in.
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
the problem with that is that nuclear reactors are specialized for all plants which means there isn't economics of scale until we create standardized nuclear reactor
1 Hemingwavy 2019-04-26
You say that like building the cheapest form of energy didn't bankrupt Westinghouse and leave state governments with non functional concrete shells at a cost of billions of dollars.
1 betazoom78 2019-04-26
Daily reminder solar panels have to be replaced frequently and when they get replaced, they old panels are usually stuffed full with heavy metals.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
um excuse me sweaty but aluminum and silicon spring up from the ground already formed into a panel and are totally renewable okay
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
Modern solar panels only lose 80% of their efficiency after 20-35 years of service. Plus you can recycle solar cells although that is a recent idea considering most solar plants, even the ones built 40 years ago, are still producing electricity.
1 betazoom78 2019-04-26
Yet uranium still operates at almost 100% at around 20-35 years. It's over for solarcels.
1 I3P 2019-04-26
Daily reminder people have to be replaced frequently, and this requires heterosexuality đ đŠđŤđ¨ đ
1 Cycloptichorn 2019-04-26
Yeah, you don't know what the fuck yer talking about mate
1 betazoom78 2019-04-26
đ¤ checkmate libtard
1 Cycloptichorn 2019-04-26
15 years? There are solar panels far older than that, that are still going very strong and the vast majority of them are rated to be 80% effective at 20 years, even cheap Chinese panels
Not only that but the old panels are usually recyclable.
Source: reality
1 betazoom78 2019-04-26
It's over for solarcels.
1 onlyonebread 2019-04-26
What's stopping us from keeping our solar panels for 9 billion years? It's not like they magically vanish after 20 years.
1 RealJackAnchor 2019-04-26
Degradation?
1 Zeriell 2019-04-26
Honestly the whole subject sucks because no matter how reasonable your position some partisan fuckwad is gonna think you're the devil for not agreeing 100% with their dogma. Which of course is a great way to motivate people to action politically I'm sure, just turn an entire subject into a political wasteland, that's how we'll solve the problem.
1 lannister_stark 2019-04-26
Yeah it's honestly insane. Nuclear energy would at least out a stopper in climate change but the lefties got high jacked by PETA and Greenpeace. Hell the Soviets were pretty pro nuclear too until Chernobyl.
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
I have no evidence at all to back this up, but I think Chernobyl caused global warming. After Chernobyl, the anti-nuclear shit gained suppand halted the further development of nuclear energy, which made us dependent on fossil fuels.
1 lannister_stark 2019-04-26
yeah that just sounds like some grade A /r/conspiracy shit right there. It's been well know that human have been causing climate change for the past 100 years
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
You ain't bright son. Had we transitioned to nuclear power even in the 90s, global warming wouldn't have been a massive issue.
1 lannister_stark 2019-04-26
I might not have worded my previous correctly because I whole heartedly agree that nuclear power would have avoided a lot of the shit we're seeing now.
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
đđđ
Owned by my FACTS and LOGIC.
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
no it still would because electricity generation only accounts for 1/4 of all total global emissions. Just because electricity is clean doesn't mean that transportation, industry, and agriculture are clean
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
1/4 is significant.
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
1/4 is significant but it wouldn't stop climate change being a huge issue was the point I was making
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
I disagree.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
I don't think you're very informed on why we haven't fully switched to nuclear and why we likely can't fully switch to nuclear.
Hint: it's the cost. Nuclear power plants are absurdly expensive and require very tight regulations. The entry cost is just so crazy fucking high it takes a long time to switch to nuclear power.
This isn't even getting into the fact that yes, while nuclear plants today are very safe, all it takes is 1 accident to cause catastrophe. I actually support nuclear energy, but the people that show up and start claiming "we should totally just go nuclear" don't seem to have much awarenesss of why we haven't or why it isn't that easy.
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
I don't think nuclear energy is a panacea. I think Nuclear power should form the form the backbone of our energy portfolio and be supplemented by solar, hydroelectric, etc. to meet the actual power need. I think the left gets a lot of flack over nuclear energy because they claim to be concerned about the concerned about climate change but so many REEEEEEEEEE at the thought of nuclear energy because it's spooky even though it could deal with a significant portion of the issue. I think a lot of the REEEEE isn't the chance of a melt down but because many people, across the political and autism spectrum, think that radiation is a ghost that comes in and strangles your baby in their crib.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
And my argument is that the right is more anti-nuclear than the left is in terms of party platform.
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
I'll agree that they're not friendly, but I don't think they're significantly less friendly than the left. There have been a host of shit left supported laws that have stymied nuclear power. Also, much of the left is ideologically anti-nuclear power, while the right is only against it because it's not oil. You'd find a lot less right leaning politicians protesting a nuclear power plant than left leaning ones.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-26
It's much closer than you think. A majority of the US is "against" nuclear power.
For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx
Gas prices seem to be the primary factor in deciding how much of the US supports nuclear energy.
1 LightUmbra 2019-04-26
I think it's close. I just think lefties are more ideological about it.
1 SPAMRAAM_ 2019-04-26
Thatâs literally not a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies there was some sort of motive, you know, a conspiracy.
1 -Dionysus 2019-04-26
The west should have adopted nuclear decades ago, but i'm not sure I like the idea of China and India going full on nuclear. It's the sort of thing you want a bit of quality control with.
1 ry8919 2019-04-26
Centrist take:
More nuclear plants but mandate rolling coal.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-04-26
Based and disgusting truckpilled
1 boundary_condition 2019-04-26
Stratospheric aerosol injection is literally rolling coal in the sky. Geoengineering is the centrist take of the future. Don't need to kill the economy, stop the Earth from warming, and its some science shit. Yeah the reefs will still die, but it pisses off the religious and retard environmentalists. There is literally no downside.
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-04-26
Then choose the side that will actually lower emissions instead of the side that just loves bitching about things.
1 LobotomistCircu 2019-04-26
And in the end it doesn't matter what either side does because even if America lessened its impact on the environment to 0%, India and China will continue to do enough damage to ruin the planet all on their lonesome.
1 tschwib 2019-04-26
Lefties at least know climate change exists but they are really hurting the cause by denying overpopulation is a thing and that nuclear is better than coal.
1 AwesameWEIGH 2019-04-26
Makes you think, don't it.
1 ItsSugar 2019-04-26
Ah, yes, the fabled self-regulated world of lolbertarians.
Of course this retarded take could only come from the hopeless, hellish winter wasteland that is western New York.
1 taytaybraps 2019-04-26
As a New Yorker I'd be overjoyed if we just cut the rest of the state off.
1 billswinthesuperbowl 2019-04-26
Please do
1 ItsSugar 2019-04-26
Unironically.
1 billswinthesuperbowl 2019-04-26
Yes because making people do something is so much better then educating them and making them want to do something. All hail the authoritarian u/itssugar
1 nothuggedasachild 2019-04-26
Daily reminder this sub itself is dumb, gimme that global warming shit and make it spectacular, one Greta is not enough, I need armies of spergs screeching about how weâre destroying their future. Just fuck off, I had to shit all my childhood without a smart phone, fucking zoomers will get a much better planet to inherit than what they deserve.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-04-26
cry moar retard
1 Spysix 2019-04-26
uh, no?
1 betazoom78 2019-04-26
Ever heard of a oil glut?
1 Mrtheliger 2019-04-26
Why do we need this reminder when all this sub has been the past few days is pathetic leftie agendaposting
1 NiggazWitDepression 2019-04-26
Seetheicus Maximus
1 Mrtheliger 2019-04-26
You should've dropped the third "e" in seethe dumbo
1 NiggazWitDepression 2019-04-26
You don't know Latin like I do geek
1 Mrtheliger 2019-04-26
It's about aesthetic Socrates
1 taytaybraps 2019-04-26
out
1 Mrtheliger 2019-04-26
Stfu leftoid swine. If you were an actual centrist you would be able to easily call out all the fuckin agendaposting leftist bitches are getting away with after the downfall of the desolate wasteland of CA
1 Gilwork45 2019-04-26
"Global Warming" - Its happening
"Global Warming is caused by humans" - Its happening
"The world is going to end in 12 years" - Nah dumbass.
The US has decreased it's carbon emissions every year for a few years, but China and India don't seem to give a single fuck, but since they're minority types they're completely unassailable.
1 sirgaygrin 2019-04-26
Except in per capita terms US is still miles ahead of China and Russia.
Get daddy's cock out of your mouth and read the minimum amount needed before you post amateur boy.
1 Gilwork45 2019-04-26
I'm going to use two straws next time just because of your insolence, good luck dolphins.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
per capita doesnt matter when theres literally billions of them lmao
1 sirgaygrin 2019-04-26
Yeah. Imagine how fucked the world would be if Chinese and Indians started fucking the planet the same way as Ameri-tards
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
here in aus were even higher per capita than americans and i outright refuse to curb any of my behaviour just so some shit brown people can burn more plastic
id rather stop developing countries by force than change my own habits
1 sirgaygrin 2019-04-26
Be kangaroo-cel
All have criminal daddies and granddaddies from Britain
Violence runs in blood
Kill Muslims and live stream it
Oh boi.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
why do people always think australians are english criminals though i never got that
it was like a couple of boatloads before it was a country
from then up until the 70s it was "white people of good character" immigrating
i didnt do that i just thought it was fun to post about
still got memes i cant use
1 GuillotinesNOW 2019-04-26
>white people of good character
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize we were in a fairy tale sub.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
its kind of a redundant description i agree
1 butwhydoesreddit 2019-04-26
Hey if you're being r-slur can you please not mention you're from Australia because it makes us look bad, thanks
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
fyi the australia sub doesnt represent the ideals of any actual australians only nerds from melbourne
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2019-04-26
Nobody that matters gives a fuck about Australia
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-04-26
lol oh no that definitely affects me somehow
1 tubbsmackinze 2019-04-26
US emissions have risen again, quite drastically I may add
1 taytaybraps 2019-04-26
They're literally half of the planet by themselves, you moron.
1 the_uncucked_canuck 2019-04-26
Nothing we can do will even help when China and India are constantly expelling trash into the ocean like dihereha, not to mention the air pollutants.
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2019-04-26
Thank God for fentanyl
1 ClaireBear1123 2019-04-26
global warmingcels shook
1 Cycloptichorn 2019-04-26
'Just as dumb?' They are by a mile the biggest fucking idiots out there
1 Nyroc_ 2019-04-26
Now this is epic.
1 lessens_ 2019-04-26
Global warming is a huge problem but they're right that environmentalists have been saying the world will end in 12 years since the 60s and it never happens.
1 George_Rockwell 2019-04-26
Of all the things to serious post about in /r/drama, climate change is probably the most r-slurred
1 Chicup 2019-04-26
I was at earth day 1990, whichever one was at UoI.
Same shit different hippies.
I had a young commie try to convince me that nuclear power was adding to global warming. Only reason I was there was to score with a visiting hippie chick I met that night before. Jesse Jackson was the keynote speaker which was ironic as he was kicked out of the school for cheating as a student apparently.
I did not score with the hippie either. Needed one more night to seal the deal but they were going back that afternoon.
So I didn't get laid AND got up early to hear fucking Jesse Jackson. Worst day ever.
This genx story brought to you by Fidelity.
1 CarefulExamination 2019-04-26
love 2 hear genx stories
1 ColossalJumboCunt 2019-04-26
I'm sure the average Indian man cares just as much about climate change as your average white liberal.
1 Van-Diemen 2019-04-26
Climate change is real but it's a good thing.
t. Vladimir Smirnov
1 ardasyenden 2019-04-26
this comment section has proven nothing other than we need a Fucking was
1 ErictheRedding 2019-04-26
Eeeesh, peak oil is inevitable because oil is non-renewable.
1 Re_LE_Vant_UN 2019-04-26
Yeah and wasn't peak predicted to be around 2050 anyway? We're still on the upswing.
1 ErictheRedding 2019-04-26
It was predicted to happen way sooner as I recall but we kept discovering new oil fields.
It's crazy to me that the reaction here to not hitting the right date is "well, it'll never happen then!"
1 Re_LE_Vant_UN 2019-04-26
Everybody knows that oil is infinite. Whenever we get close to running out Jesus just time travels back and makes more dinosaurs. That's why we keep discovering new species.
1 Firnin 2019-04-26
I once heard a conservative talk radio in bumfuck nowhere claim that oil didnât come from dinosaurs because âthe dinosaurs are all dead and we keep on making more oilâ
1 Kat_B0T 2019-04-26
Daily reminder C02 being re classified as a pollutant is some serious fuckery
1 bat_mayn 2019-04-26
mother gaia death cult worshipers should be thrown into the fucking sea
1 ab_ra_ca_dabba 2019-04-26
This is called burying your head in the sand.
1 Re_LE_Vant_UN 2019-04-26
You heard it here first. Oil is infinite and will never run out no matter how much we use or how large our population grows.
1 not_yet_shadowbanned 2019-04-26
i think carbon emissions affecting climate is real, but i'm just not sure sending whatever western manufacturing jobs still remain to china will solve it.
1 ReadMyNamePlz 2019-04-26
Imagine actually worrying/caring about climate change.đđđđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł