Why Are Trump Supporters Anti-Science.

[Guno צְבִי]

You are truly mentally challenged. And a bigoted racist.

Maybe if weren't retarded and could be educated

 

[RB 60]

A "bigoted" racist? OH NOES! That's the woist kind

Yeah, I tend to agree.

 

[RB 60]

Maybe if weren't retarded and could be educated

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Indeed, American's were "sold down the river." Having become used to it opened the door for a piece of shit like Trump.

100% true.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

We will NEVER get there. The watt density of wind and solar radiation are simply too low. You can never get more power out than you put in. Perpetual motion machines don't exist.

So we shouldn't even attempt to curb usage of fossil fuels?

Coal is dirty. Any industrial process can be dangerous. Nuclear is cleaner and safer than the alternatives.

Except for the part where we have to store dangerous radioactive "waste" for thousands of years because we still haven't figured out what to do with it. He's a robotics engineer for Amazon now, but before that my oldest son was a senior nuclear engineer at the Entergy plant in Baton Rouge, LA. My g-son, his son, works there now. They store the waste on site. They are located next to the Mississippi. Imagine a flood like we had in 1993. Imagine an earthquake similar to those in 1811-1812.

There seems to be those on the environmental Left that think that's all oil is for. They also don't recognize the costs involved in having a small production level versus a mass one.

How do you know that? Sounds like more partisan claptrap.

Wind is becoming a major local contributor to Gorebal warming. Temperatures around wind farms rise as much a 1.5C because of the turbulence and decrease in wind flow down stream of them. Worse, the props used are made from fiberglass. As these wear, they scatter microplastics in their wake creating solid ground pollution.

Again TANSTAAFL. So we shouldn't even try to curb our usage of fossil fuels. *eyeroll* BTW, you left out the beloved science-deniers' mantra of "wind turbines kill birds." lol

Solar contributes significantly on a local scale by creating urban heat islands over and around the plant. These disturb local weather patterns significantly.

I'd love to see your source for this.

No, it isn't. You can only change your appearance and modify your behavior that way. Well, Chernobyl has modified some wildlife near the plant...

Hmm, Chernobyl. Great example of the safety of nuclear energy.

So, you recognize that not all vaccines are highly effective and some might not be worth taking then?

No, they are not all 100% effective. However, even those that do not offer 100% protection do tend to minimize an infection if contracted. The COVID vaccines are a good example of that. Ditto for the yearly influenza vaccines. This doesn't mean we should behave stupidly and quit getting them altogether.

I can agree to that.


On the scale of operation they're at, they are worse, far worse, than burning coal. Wood, even pelletized, is a poor energy source and leaves considerable ash for its weight, more than coal. It is even worse compared to natural gas or even fuel oil. Yet, the greentards are claiming it's carbon neutral using pseudoscience.

Tell that to the EPA. They have been pushing to eliminate pollution by reducing emissions to zero across the board for decades.

Good. I don't think that's feasible or possible, but we need to at least try to keep our air, water, and soil clean.

 

[Jade Dragon]

So we shouldn't even attempt to curb usage of fossil fuels?



Except for the part where we have to store dangerous radioactive "waste" for thousands of years because we still haven't figured out what to do with it. He's a robotics engineer for Amazon now, but before that my oldest son was a senior nuclear engineer at the Entergy plant in Baton Rouge, LA. My g-son, his son, works there now. They store the waste on site. They are located next to the Mississippi. Imagine a flood like we had in 1993. Imagine an earthquake similar to those in 1811-1812.




How do you know that? Sounds like more partisan claptrap.



Again TANSTAAFL. So we shouldn't even try to curb our usage of fossil fuels. *eyeroll* BTW, you left out the beloved science-deniers' mantra of "wind turbines kill birds." lol



I'd love to see your source for this.



Hmm, Chernobyl. Great example of the safety of nuclear energy.



No, they are not all 100% effective. However, even those that do not offer 100% protection do tend to minimize an infection if contracted. The COVID vaccines are a good example of that. Ditto for the yearly influenza vaccines. This doesn't mean we should behave stupidly and quit getting them altogether.



Good. I don't think that's feasible or possible, but we need to at least try to keep our air, water, and soil clean.

The killing of birds by wind turbines is a rarity, but still an issue that's been addressed. They painted the blades black in some places, and it declined to almost nonexistent levels.