MOAR TRUMP

Firstly, I'm sorry.

Secondly, Trump has apparently issued a questionnaire to government climatologists designed to back them into a corner.

The Article

The Questionnaire

Thoughts? Any other relevant info?

Not particularly surprising considering his own strange beliefs on climate change not existing, and that he put an oil lobbyist climate change denier in charge of the environmental protection agency.

It's definitely worrying that they're asking the "theoretical" question on what they'd cut first if they needed to downsize by a 1/10th of their budget

I dont trust Occupy Democrats because not only are they incredibly biased, but they are extremely untrustworthy. The stuff they post throughout social media are often misleading or lies. This specific article seems truthful because its definitely something Trump would do. According to the article, what he is doing is legal, and I think it would uphold in a court because the 1st Amendment is a negative liberty and the freedom of association for a government job is clearly a positive liberty (unless someone can show me a court case that created a precedent for this case).

I dont know if Trump would have the power to fire employees of the DoE because its very, very, very hard to fire public employees. I have a book with a section on this if you guys want the stats, but its crazy how difficult it is to fire people with government jobs. Almost impossible.

BadSheep said:

I dont trust Occupy Democrats because not only are they incredibly biased, but they are extremely untrustworthy. The stuff they post throughout social media are often misleading or lies. This specific article seems truthful because its definitely something Trump would do. According to the article, what he is doing is legal, and I think it would uphold in a court because the 1st Amendment is a negative liberty and the freedom of association for a government job is clearly a positive liberty (unless someone can show me a court case that created a precedent for this case).

I dont know if Trump would have the power to fire employees of the DoE because its very, very, very hard to fire public employees. I have a book with a section on this if you guys want the stats, but its crazy how difficult it is to fire people with government jobs. Almost impossible.

Click to expand...

Yeah even as a lefty I don't trust Occupy Democrats, they're the left wing version of those idiotic "______ and PRoUD" groups you get that just make stories up all the time.

Here's one from NPR if anyone would rather have that.

It's hard not to see it as a witch hunt, as a way to gather "dirt" on anyone at the department so that they can be overlooked/fired/otherwise made powerless. They're looking for any small mistake or badly worded response that they can blow out of proportion to make it look bad for anyone who doesn't agree with a pro-coal stance or whatever and discredit people who (rightly) believe in human-generated climate change.

It's a goddamn disgrace. These people are working to try to minimize the detrimental impact of a proven meteorological phenomenon that has already been linked to human activities and now they're being hunted down one by one like dogs because of immature politicians, news writers, and ideologues who turn to faith as part of their everyday life and cover their eyes and ears when actual evidence is presented to them going "lalalalalalala no listening lalalalalala."

Look, I get it, fellow countryfolk. You were trained all your life to be able to mine coal and drill oil. GET NEW FUCKING SKILLS. It's not that hard. Push for green alternatives that even people without degrees can get a job producing and distributing. Instead of wishing for old things to come back, learn new things. That's how humanity got this far; we didn't experience a population boom by wishing things remained the way we remember them.

And if you're too old to do anything, then quietly sit down and wait to die. I can't wait for the Baby Boomer generation to die off. Your medieval notions of what "makes America great" are a delusion. Get over yourselves and stop making things worse for your planet and your grandchildren by electing a demagogue who plugs his ears, calls his lawyer, and breaks out Twitter trash posts whenever someone doesn't agree with him.

On Nuclear Power:

Nuclear power is actually one of the best alternatives, I feel. People seem to think it's some kind of super demon but if treated properly. I'm much for looking into it as a way to wean off of oil. Nuclear is rather clean and nigh limitless. People like to bring up Chernobyl but failed to realize and understand as to why that incident happened. Poor management and a "Tis fine comrade, much be just test" sent the reactor core into a spiraling meltdown. And is it any wonder that we have yet to experience something like it since? Aside from natural disasters, such as Japan's tsunami prone countryside (i.e. everywhere) we haven't really seen a nuclear disaster like it since the 80's.

We do see several instances of oil leaks, spills and cover ups but we always hear about how nuclear power is the big bad wolf. The creator of the GAIA Hypothesis actually supports nuclear power, so that might help some understand why it isn't the absolute worst form of energy.

Nuclear power works off of solely heat generated by fission rods. The heat is then harnessed and turned into electricity. That's a crude explanation but there it is. Out of all our options, I feel that natural gas is actually more damaging than Nuclear power in terms of damage to the environment. It corrupts the earth and poisons the land, while Chernobyl, the site of the worst nuclear incident in existence is rife with natural life, albeit six-legged life. Chernobyl was bad for people, not necessarily the actual environment. There have been springs and surges in life not thought possible within the reaches of the incident.

We can also argue that Chernobyl's nuclear incident actually preserved the surrounding natural area. How? Let's think for a moment. Animals run well within the radiation radius deemed hazardous and life threatening for humans. Would you as, say a logger, feel the need to go collect trees from the forest bordering Pripyat? I highly doubt anyone is well paid enough to enter a natural environment that has been seeded with radiation. Trees, plants, animals, insects and nearly everything else still thrives within the 'lethal' area of Pripyat.

Radiation is clean and safe if well maintained. The problem arises when people become lax and ignore the nuclear plant. Accidents happen when people grow lazy and unfortunately, this will never change. The nuclear field needs to be on a tight leash with exacting standards. It will need to be monitored by both man and machine, which most plants are now, I believe. Much of it is now more of being vigilant, and not complacent.

If you don't believe me, you can look it up for yourself. No acid rain or greenhouse side effects have been detected using nuclear power.

JDJacket said:

On Nuclear Power:

Nuclear power is actually one of the best alternatives, I feel. People seem to think it's some kind of super demon but if treated properly. I'm much for looking into it as a way to wean off of oil. Nuclear is rather clean and nigh limitless. People like to bring up Chernobyl but failed to realize and understand as to why that incident happened. Poor management and a "Tis fine comrade, much be just test" sent the reactor core into a spiraling meltdown. And is it any wonder that we have yet to experience something like it since? Aside from natural disasters, such as Japan's tsunami prone countryside (i.e. everywhere) we haven't really seen a nuclear disaster like it since the 80's.

We do see several instances of oil leaks, spills and cover ups but we always hear about how nuclear power is the big bad wolf. The creator of the GAIA Hypothesis actually supports nuclear power, so that might help some understand why it isn't the absolute worst form of energy.

Nuclear power works off of solely heat generated by fission rods. The heat is then harnessed and turned into electricity. That's a crude explanation but there it is. Out of all our options, I feel that natural gas is actually more damaging than Nuclear power in terms of damage to the environment. It corrupts the earth and poisons the land, while Chernobyl, the site of the worst nuclear incident in existence is rife with natural life, albeit six-legged life. Chernobyl was bad for people, not necessarily the actual environment. There have been springs and surges in life not thought possible within the reaches of the incident.

We can also argue that Chernobyl's nuclear incident actually preserved the surrounding natural area. How? Let's think for a moment. Animals run well within the radiation radius deemed hazardous and life threatening for humans. Would you as, say a logger, feel the need to go collect trees from the forest bordering Pripyat? I highly doubt anyone is well paid enough to enter a natural environment that has been seeded with radiation. Trees, plants, animals, insects and nearly everything else still thrives within the 'lethal' area of Pripyat.

Radiation is clean and safe if well maintained. The problem arises when people become lax and ignore the nuclear plant. Accidents happen when people grow lazy and unfortunately, this will never change. The nuclear field needs to be on a tight leash with exacting standards. It will need to be monitored by both man and machine, which most plants are now, I believe. Much of it is now more of being vigilant, and not complacent.

If you don't believe me, you can look it up for yourself. No acid rain or greenhouse side effects have been detected using nuclear power.

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to concede that in the short term nuclear fission is definitely a cleaner alternative than oil/coal. But you seem to ignore that there's also the issue of nuclear waste. We have no efficient ways of getting rid of nuclear waste, we can only store it and we have a finite amount of locations that are safe for storing it.

Then there's safety. As Japan regularly proves, we just need one tremor or tornado in the wrong spot and an already dangerous situation becomes infinitely worse. It doesn't just have to be the reactor this happens to either, we run into a similar problem if the waste we have stored leaks.

Again though, you're right that this is less dangerous than Trump's endorsement of coal or other climate delusions. I just think that we really need to not put all our eggs in the basket of nuclear power either.

gimmepie said:

I'd be willing to concede that in the short term nuclear fission is definitely a cleaner alternative than oil/coal. But you seem to ignore that there's also the issue of nuclear waste. We have no efficient ways of getting rid of nuclear waste, we can only store it and we have a finite amount of locations that are safe for storing it.

Then there's safety. As Japan regularly proves, we just need one tremor or tornado in the wrong spot and an already dangerous situation becomes infinitely worse. It doesn't just have to be the reactor this happens to either, we run into a similar problem if the waste we have stored leaks.

Again though, you're right that this is less dangerous than Trump's endorsement of coal or other climate delusions. I just think that we really need to not put all our eggs in the basket of nuclear power either.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I ignored it. I thought it common knowledge, my apologies. Again, with radioactive material or 'nuclear ash' we have very little ways of disposing it other than the ways we have now, however, the effects are not as detrimental as one would think. I would argue using it as a way to prevent further development and destruction of the natural environment by utilizing said waste as a pseudo barrier.

In terms of longevity though, I believe that Nuclear is the clear choice. Of course, this doesn't mean that we'll dismantle everything else, but the output is astronomical in comparison with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and coal. Nuclear emissions are only beat out by wind (and solar I believe, but I'm not 100% certain). In terms of actually damaging the natural order of things, humans would probably suffer a lot more damage than the surrounding wildlife. As wildlife has shorter birth cycles than humans, it's not a stretch to say that nature will bounce back faster than humans.

In terms of cost. Cost is an issue, however, if we look at the current cost and output of the world's largest solar power plant, Ivanpah solar, the cost far outweighs the output. I'm not saying we shouldn't look into furthering solar technology, far from it. Any energy that we can grab that produces minimal affects needs looking into. Hydro electric isn't necessarily a safe bet in long term. The Hoover dam has seen a drop of over 30M in less than a decade. As more people pop up, more power is required and the strain placed on hydro plants is staggering.

Nuclear power remains above the rest in terms of used materials and energy output. It's far more sustainable than many other sources of energy that actively damage the earth's atmosphere and natural landscape. Of course, not all energy sources are damaging such as crude oil and coal.

I would also like to point out that nuclear fission is not the only type of nuclear energy available. Although fusion hasn't seen much returns, I believe that if enough people pay attention to it and there is an interest, we'd see an influx of new minds and eyes into the field.

Have you seen a fission reactor? Fascinating. They're a lot smaller than you'd expect. Of course, as you say, safety is much of an issue; but there are always concerns in every energy field regardless of where it comes from. I just so happen to believe that we can make more improvements on already proven technology and not rely so much on other sources. Nuclear power is at the base in terms of percentage used (I believe natural gas might be lower, but I'm not certain) but the output nearly overshadows solar and wind combined.

If we can ever figure out fusion, that's the ticket we should go with.

gimmepie said:

I'd be willing to concede that in the short term nuclear fission is definitely a cleaner alternative than oil/coal. But you seem to ignore that there's also the issue of nuclear waste. We have no efficient ways of getting rid of nuclear waste, we can only store it and we have a finite amount of locations that are safe for storing it.

Then there's safety. As Japan regularly proves, we just need one tremor or tornado in the wrong spot and an already dangerous situation becomes infinitely worse. It doesn't just have to be the reactor this happens to either, we run into a similar problem if the waste we have stored leaks.

Again though, you're right that this is less dangerous than Trump's endorsement of coal or other climate delusions. I just think that we really need to not put all our eggs in the basket of nuclear power either.

Click to expand...

It's not just a safety thing. Coal is running out, fast. Same as oil. Nuclear may be our best short term answer. It might sound stupid but is there no way we can dump the waste into space/on the moon? I know it's wildly irresponsible but, like you said, we are running out of space to dump it here.

If we ever figure out fusion I'd 100% agree with you. Far cleaner and safer than just about anything else and with a higher output to boot.

Anyway, I think we need to steer this back towards the politics side.

Nuclear power is, day-to-day, cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels, but if it fails it fails in a big way. Fukushima is the best example of this. There were some mismanagement issues there, yes, but a natural distaster like an earthquake, flood, or tsunami could have the same effects even on a well-maintained and regulated nuclear plant.

On a related note, Trump is probably picking Rick Perry to lead the Department of I Forget, I mean, Energy. Perry, who wanted to get rid of that department entirely. On top of picking an oil CEOs to be our top diplomat Trump really shows he either doesn't understand the importance of energy in all areas of government or he doesn't care.