Most Ready for "Green Sacrifices"

[Darth Wong]

And Sheps virginity with men or women has what to do with the point at hand? Do you fancy shep or something, I really wish you'd just get it on with him your angst bores me? Every thread Shep makes an appearance in you appear not to soon after baratting him for being a virgin, if this was a playground in a school, you'd be pushing him over or pulling his hair.

Do you honestly feel that Shep's contributions in this thread constitute arguments of sufficient quality to merit anything more?

[Lord Pounder]

I guess I'm just tired of IP running after every one of sheps comments barating him for being a virgin, one would wonder of the vandetta rule was violated in some way.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Secondly, I love the entire "serf/cannon fodder" argument. If things get so bad that they're reduced to using me as cannon fodder, where's that going to leave Mr economics major? At least Lonestar can live high off the reams of classified paperwork that will be generated post-peak oil....

I'm not just an economics major, dipshit. And even if I were, at least I got some accredited education and am trying to realistically prepare for the future and therefore could sensibly acquire additional, more useful education. Or any other mitigation or preparative measures. And that places me worse relative to you, who just sing la la with your fingers in your ears? And unlike you, this is of greater meaning to me because I am going to have a wife and family.

And even if Lonestar is better off than me, he's also older, and that makes any of my points wrong...how?

[Darth Wong]

I guess I'm just tired of IP running after every one of sheps comments barating him for being a virgin, one would wonder of the vandetta rule was violated in some way.

Why? There's no rule against flaming someone if he's trolling, which is what Shep is doing in this thread. Hell, someone who's trolling should count himself lucky that the only thing he gets is flames.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I guess I'm just tired of IP running after every one of sheps comments barating him for being a virgin, one would wonder of the vandetta rule was violated in some way.

Why don't you just say "please hurt IP! I don't like him! He not play way I like on playground!" I'm sure since Mike's read my posts in many threads he can make up his own mind without your hand-holding. Maybe.

[Lord Pounder]

It's Mikes board so consider it dropped, though I notice you didn't have the balls to defend yourself before Mike came down on yourside. Maybe I hit a wee bit close to the mark, you do have a wee crush on Shep. If you fancy a dude but he turns you down does it still make you gay?

[Gil Hamilton]

Interestingly enough, I just saw on the tube Douchebag Tucker (conservative stooge in a bowtie) talking about oil running out and then he had the co-founder of Greenpeace on who was saying that we need nuclear power and lots of it, that it's very clean energy and has never harmed a single American, and that one of his organization's greatest mistakes was not differentiating between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

It was damn weird viewing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It's Mikes board so consider it dropped, though I notice you didn't have the balls to defend yourself before Mike came down on yourside. Maybe I hit a wee bit close to the mark, you do have a wee crush on Shep. If you fancy a dude but he turns you down does it still make you gay?

I'm sorry I didn't manage to get the post off within the minute that Mike posted. Oh my, the cowardice. Why don't you post on topic instead of cheerleading, or find a thread that suits you?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Interestingly enough, I just saw on the tube Douchebag Tucker (conservative stooge in a bowtie) talking about oil running out and then he had the co-founder of Greenpeace on who was saying that we need nuclear power and lots of it, that it's very clean energy and has never harmed a single American, and that one of his organization's greatest mistakes was not differentiating between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

It was damn weird viewing.

Yeah, I think he's really influential in the Environmentalists for Nuclear group. We're going to need more than just nuclear power. Every major resource is going to be hard-pressed, especially if we're serious about avoiding aggrivating climate change with coal use.

Does anyone know if carbon sequestration is useful or credible?

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly enough, I just saw on the tube Douchebag Tucker (conservative stooge in a bowtie) talking about oil running out and then he had the co-founder of Greenpeace on who was saying that we need nuclear power and lots of it, that it's very clean energy and has never harmed a single American, and that one of his organization's greatest mistakes was not differentiating between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

It was damn weird viewing.

So how does this pigfucker plan to atone for his mistake?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Does anyone know if carbon sequestration is useful or credible?

Carbon Sequestration, on a large scale, is INSANELY expensive. Not only would you have to build multiple large, building-sized scrubbers in every urban area, but you'd have to set up the infrastructure for removing the carbon FROM the scrubbers and putting it in a safe location.

The best storage location I've heard so far is dumping it in an intert form in seafloor trenches, but God knows what could happen if we start putting ridiculous ammounts of CO2 into the bedrock. Sequestration would be a good idea to try, but only after we've significantly reduced our emissions.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah, I think he's really influential in the Environmentalists for Nuclear group. We're going to need more than just nuclear power. Every major resource is going to be hard-pressed, especially if we're serious about avoiding aggrivating climate change with coal use.

Well, Tucker himself was being a douchebag because Clinton was the one who suggested it in an ad, but one of the panelists was saying that nuclear power and lots of it was good, but the future will likely be not relying on nuclear power but a broad spectrum, including solar and wind and biofuels where appropriate.

I've been seeing this more and more in the media from the weirdest places, where environmentalists and conservatives are seeing eye to eye with each other and other sorts of "human sacrifices, dogs and cats - living together, mass hysteria" things. It's somewhat hopeful that at least radical changes are at least starting to become somewhat mainstream in conversation. Whether they become mainstream in practice, I don't know.

[Kanastrous]

It's like Wal-Mart. Everyone says they hate it, yet they will still go there if they need something cheap.

Not me. I hate Wal-Mart, and have been places where it wasn't just buy it at Wal-Mart and save some $$$, it was buy it at Wal-Mart or don't buy it. And it was a matter of hungry/thirsty, cold-and-needed-a-jacket, and I didn't buy it.

I don't hold anything against people for whom the savings of the few dollars are a make-or-break issue, and Wal-Mart's a place where they can save those few dollars.

But for my part I'd rather be hungry, than buy so much as a packet of peanuts from those bastards.

Maybe I'm pointlessly stupidly crazy on the issue, but I doubt that I'm alone.

[Kanastrous]

But people need their gas-guzzling retard cars to drive for an hour through traffic to work in the morning.

Gives 'em a comfortable seat from which to observe me zipping along between lanes, at 45mpg, and getting there 40 minutes faster...

...come to think of it, that's probably why so many of those malignant fucktards are always trying to kill me...

[Kanastrous]

My car gets 16 MPG at best. I love it.

Does your car's model name start with "M-"?

[Gil Hamilton]

So how does this pigfucker plan to atone for his mistake?

I don't have the foggiest, other than now he's pushing for alot of nuclear power plants being built and that unlike way people were saying (read: his people in particular), nuclear power hasn't even harmed a single American, let alone killed one, which is an unparalleled safety record in terms of power generation.

Of course, what that doesn't make up for is Greenpeace publishing as recently as this year a report saying that nuclear power is too complex and unsafe to be used to combat global warming. He was silent on that.

I was more commenting on the surreality of the discussion. Believe me, I'm no fan of Greenpeace and less so of the Sierra Club, even if the latter does periodically send young women in low cut shirts to my door with petitions and attempts to illicit donations from me.

[Guardsman Bass]

Interestingly enough, I just saw on the tube Douchebag Tucker (conservative stooge in a bowtie) talking about oil running out and then he had the co-founder of Greenpeace on who was saying that we need nuclear power and lots of it, that it's very clean energy and has never harmed a single American, and that one of his organization's greatest mistakes was not differentiating between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

It was damn weird viewing.

So how does this pigfucker plan to atone for his mistake?

Was it Patrick Moore? He's been a big advocate for nuclear; he's gone before Congress to make statements in favor of using nuclear power, in addition to the above kind of stuff.

[MKSheppard]

Does your car's model name start with "M-"?

It's a Mercury Sable. I think with a V-6.

[MKSheppard]

Excuse me. Shep ran in here tossing grenades just to be a little bitch

Saying that my car gets 16 MPG is a grenade? It's a nice car and I like it. It drives well, and doesn't overheat and seize when I cough on it, like my previous car; a 1987 Toyota.

Plus, the damn sunroof doesn't leak like a bitch whenever it rains slightly; and it has working air conditioning and heating that doesn't make the windows fog up like a bitch.

Now, if I had said that I drove a car with a 427 cubic inch engine as a daily driver, and it gets 7 MPG; that would be a grenade.

As it is 16~ or so MPG is what my car computer says is the average MPG; which isn't bad; considering it's about five years old, and as new, had 19/27 MPG, and I don't do lots of highway driving.

Then rather than take the offer of debating why he thinks these concerns are stupid, he replies with the worthless drivel from that I'm a "lost youngster."

Except that you are.

Your response to my "I have a car that gets 16 MPG" shows this clearly.

I can't wait til you're a fucking serf or cannon fodder.

He's got the exact same mindset that the "Rapture Ready" crowd or the hard core survivalists do.

To them, they imagine a future, where due to them being prepared, they end up after The Rapture/Nuclear War/Peak Oil being on top of other less prepared people, as the new Lords of the post-apocalyptic future.

This is a much more appealing future than the reality:

Reality
1.) Gets up at 6 AM, and eats breakfast, before driving 30-45 minutes to a 9 to 5 job which sucks the soul and life out of him.
2.) Comes home to Family Angst Hour! where his youngest daughter wants to wear a hideously revealing outfit to a school function. His wife will demand he do something about it; so he'll try a compromise, which ends up pissing both wife and daughter off.
3.) Logs onto SDN and putters around for 30 minutes to an hour before logging off.
4.) Watches some TV in bed with the wife before turning off the TV and going to bed.
5.) Go to Step 1, and repeat for 20 more years.

I should know, I was for a time pooping around like that, albeit instead of Peak Oil it was something else.

I really do want to see this supposed evidence that he alludes vaguely to in several threads when one does manage to coax a claim out of him that Siberia has endless oil and nothing is wrong, but never puts it up.

You're confusing me with Stuart, he's the one with the Siberian claim.

In fact, doing a SDN search for Username: MKSheppard and Siberia; there's only one oil related post by me; and it has more to do with ALASKAN-SIBERIAN TUNNEL CONNECTOR, than with oil and gas.

Link

I believe Marina quickly took it over with her train love.

I'm the one who wants to do massive exploratory drilling in ANWR and off the Virginian and Floridan coasts to see exactly what it is we DO have under there; we won't know for sure until we do the exploratory drilling.

[Kanastrous]

Does your car's model name start with "M-"?

It's a Mercury Sable. I think with a V-6.

It's funny; I missed your earlier post where you mentioned that, and (from your avatar, I guess) I figured that your 16 MPG ride was some kind of armored vehicle...

[SCRawl]

Does your car's model name start with "M-"?

It's a Mercury Sable. I think with a V-6.

It's funny; I missed your earlier post where you mentioned that, and (from your avatar, I guess) I figured that your 16 MPG ride was some kind of armored vehicle...

They actually rate their mileage in "gallons per mile". No shit.

[[R_H]]

Was it Patrick Moore? He's been a big advocate for nuclear; he's gone before Congress to make statements in favor of using nuclear power, in addition to the above kind of stuff.

Yeah that's him. Here's an opinion article he wrote for the Washington Post

By PATRICK MOORE
Guest colunnist
Posted on Mon, May. 01, 2006

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my
compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first
voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on,
my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs
to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy
source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the
United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions - or nearly 10
percent of global emissions - of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas
responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale,
cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while
continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can
do so safely.

I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium.
"The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing
else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though
the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in
fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.

And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of
nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban
every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing
mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed
to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and
Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in
"The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in
which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two
weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at
Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of
anguish throughout the country.

What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was
in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just
what it was designed to do - prevent radiation from escaping into the
environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no
injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile
Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy
generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away
from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear
plant ordered up since then.

Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20
percent of America's electricity. Eighty percent of the people living
within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including
the nuclear workers). Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I
am now squarely in their camp.

· CHANGE OF VIEW

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing
my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock,
father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way
to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the
"Whole Earth Catalog," says the environmental movement must embrace
nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such
opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear
priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and
director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the
group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church
newsletter.

There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the
staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate
meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the
question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to
reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an
aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric,
geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace
spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I
expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with
much of what I said - not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a
clear feeling that all options must be explored.

Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they
are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big
baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a
fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to
risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources
are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only
viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.

· THE PROBLEMS

That's not to say that there aren't real problems - as well as
various myths - associated with nuclear energy. Each deserves careful
consideration:

· Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least
expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing
nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per
kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in
technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

· Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a
success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was
not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model
of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad
design, and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N.
Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly
attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns
suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they
pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur
worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident
in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And
although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation
exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem
was long ago corrected.)

· Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40
years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it
had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call
it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained
in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has
removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that
energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment
and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in
the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far
behind.

· Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The
six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the
contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo
jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor
would not explode. There are many types of facilitiEs that are far more
vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and
numerous political targets.

· Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the
most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most
difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because
nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to
ban its use.

Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools - the machete -
has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more
than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings
combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars.
If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never
have harnessed fire.

The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons
proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda and to
use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or
terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends. And new
technologies such as the reprocessing system recently introduced in
Japan (in which the plutonium is never separated from the uranium) can
make it much more difficult for terrorists or rogue states to use
civilian materials to manufacture weapons.

The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2
annually - the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million
automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal
plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26
percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These
pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid
rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.

Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States avoid
the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually - the
equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles.
Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20
percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from
nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should
support a move in that direction.

Mr. Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of
Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs
of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy
Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy. He wrote
this column for the Washington Post.