U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies of pancreatic cancer at age 87

[jehurey 3,228]

29 minutes ago, Saucer said:

The Pope supports the Paris Climate Accord, you religious racist.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/pope-urges-respect-for-paris-climate-accord-says-creation-is-groaning/

 

And you've linked to an abstract for a pilot study. Link me to the full paper. Are you sure you want to do this?

And the Republicans in America don't.

 

Got anymore red herrings?

[jehurey 3,228]

Wait a minute...........right-wing outlets are attempting the "Liberals bashing the Supreme Court Nominee are Anti-Catholic" talking point.

 

..........and he comes Saucer, just so happening to be making that same talking-point at the same exact time.

 

Gee, what a coincidence.

[54212 432]

Jerry's so rattled he's triple posting even though he knows I have his failure-to-launch ass blocked. 😂

[54212 432]

Ginsburg was a selfish bitch for not stepping down when Obama was president. She put her own fun above protecting the seat. Fuck the Jews. Discuss.

[Mr. Impossible 407]

9 minutes ago, Saucer said:

Ginsburg was a selfish bitch for not stepping down when Obama was president. She put her own fun above protecting the seat. Fuck the Jews. Discuss.

Lol you sound desperate. 

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, Mr. Impossible said:

Lol you sound desperate. 

 

Okay Mr. Impossible.

[jehurey 3,228]

21 minutes ago, Saucer said:

Jerry's so rattled he's triple posting even though he knows I have his failure-to-launch ass blocked. 😂

I love that I got him ass-whooped from top to bottom that he doesn't want to respond to my points because he knows he can't beat any of them.

 

He's lost so many steps since he left college and his right-wing book-circle stopped telling him what retorts to make. LOL

[Substatic 420]

On 2020-09-27 at 5:02 PM, Saucer said:

The Pope supports the Paris Climate Accord, you religious racist.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/pope-urges-respect-for-paris-climate-accord-says-creation-is-groaning/

 

And you've linked to an abstract for a pilot study. Link me to the full paper. Are you sure you want to do this?

 

 When I say cult I'm talking about the Trump GOP, not Catholics. I have no issue with an entire religion. Relax and stop being such a snowflake. Also, lol when the Pope is better than you at science.

 

 Yes. I want to do this, lets talk about how your scientifically inept team was wrong about AGW for decades and still is wrong about it.  Yeah turbines kill birds, but not enough to "cancel" them - a pilot study is better than a Trump meme, and I'll continue to link those findings I used in my last post among others (meanwhile no counter-citation will be given proving those comparison numbers wrong).  

 

 

Another one,

 

https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PB-onshore-wind-energy-UK.pdf

 

Quote

In addition to landscape impacts, biodiversity and habitat impacts are also often quoted as a matter of concern, particularly bird fatalities due to collisions with wind turbines. The evidence, however, shows that these are quite low. Worldwide avian fatalities have been reported at between 0.95 and 11.67 per MW per year, and bat fatalities range from 0.2 to 53.2 per MW per year (IPCC, 2011). Assuming that the UK’s onshore wind capacity will rise to 9,100 MW by 2020 (as in ENSG, 2012) bird fatalities could be between 9,600 and 106,000 per year. Although clearly undesirable, this is orders of magnitude lower than other anthropogenic causes of bird deaths. For example, 55 million birds are killed by domestic cats in the UK each year (McKay, 2008). In Denmark, about 30,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in 1997, while 1 million birds were killed by traffic (Andersen, 1998; see Figure 10). It should be noted that Denmark, at the time, had only about one fourth of the UK onshore wind capacity today – about 1,100 MW (Eurostat, 2012) versus 4,800 MW in the UK – and less than one-fifteenth of the vehicles – about 2 million in 1997 versus almost 32 million in the UK in 2008 (Eurostat, 2012). Although it is difficult to extrapolate from these data what the effects would be in the UK, it is clear that there is a significant difference in scale between the impact of wind turbines and of traffic on birds and that, if anything, in the UK this ratio might be even higher.

 

 

Anyway, back to this thread's central topic I hope ABC isn't as stupid and wrong on climate change as the rest of your cult is.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Substatic

[54212 432]

15 hours ago, Substatic said:

 When I say cult I'm talking about the Trump GOP, not Catholics.

 

Verbatim: 

 

Me: "I'll take my chances with the Catholics on this one."
You: "That's a large mistake when looking at all peer reviewed studies on AGW." 
Me: "The Pope supports the Paris Climate Accord, you religious racist."
You: "When I say cult I'm talking about the Trump GOP, not Catholics."
 
You realize you're a silly person, right?

 

15 hours ago, Substatic said:

Yes. I want to do this, lets talk about how your scientifically inept team was wrong about AGW for decades and still is wrong about it. 

 

My team wants to solve global warming mainly using Gen 3 & 4 reactors. Your cult is blocking it and instead--in the true spirit of religious dogma--wants to go with the economic armageddon  of the Green New Deal.

 

15 hours ago, Substatic said:

Yeah turbines kill birds, but not enough to "cancel" them

 

I don't want to cancel them, I want to limit their use until we have good data on their environmental impact, which we currently don't have. You on the other hand, like a religious nut, are content to plow ahead with them based on a pilot study you haven't even read because your clergy told you that's what good boys should support.

 

[jehurey 3,228]

5 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

 

My team wants to solve global warming mainly using Gen 3 & 4 reactors. Your cult is blocking it and instead--in the true spirit of religious dogma--wants to go with the economic armageddon  of the Green New Deal.

 

 

 

 

Which are not feasible to even begin developing for at least two decades.

 

You are not being genuine with your "solution"........its not a solution.

 

its just a bullshit way to complain about liberals are doing by pretending you have a "better" solution.

 

None of your positions are legitimate. You simply try to peddle them because you're just a simple "anti-lib". While pretending that you have more progressive-thinking ideas. Which they're not, because they're even realistic ideas to implement at this point.

 

No matter what, we would still have to administer green energy methods right now.

[Substatic 420]

8 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 
You realize you're a silly person, right?

 

 

 

 

In none of these quotes did I call Catholics a cult or insult them as a whole, but If you saw it like that I'm sorry.   I don't see any "religious racism". 

 

 If you disagree, consult a moderator.

 

8 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 

 

My team wants to solve global warming 

 

 

What revisionist history is this, your team didn't even think global warming was real until recently and many still don't. And lets not even get into AGW (which is a fact), which even less conservatives believe in. Including the POTUS at times. Polling shows this. 

 

Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940

 

It's your side that has it wrong on the climate issue as a whole, almost all of the time. 

 

To bring this back on topic, I'm hoping ACB is not one of these insane psychopaths.

 

8 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 

 Your cult is blocking it and instead-- 

 

 

 

I explained I was moderate and support Nuclear Power.  No clear cult member here.

 

8 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 

 

I don't want to cancel them, I want to limit their use until we have good data on their environmental impact, which we currently don't have. You on the other hand, like a religious nut, are content to plow ahead with them based on a pilot study you haven't even read because your clergy told you that's what good boys should support.

 

 

I read both data sets I linked here (including the one you just just skipped). I used them to dismiss your weird bird statement, and that alone.

 

https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PB-onshore-wind-energy-UK.pdf

https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i6p2241-2248.html

 

These are both valid sources of citation, and you can't find info debunking them. You're calling me out for one of them being a pilot study, while you're literally just used a dumb Trump meme as your citation. Embarrassing.  Refute or concede.

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Substatic

[54212 432]

On 2020-09-29 at 1:46 PM, jehurey said:

Which are not feasible to even begin developing for at least two decades.

 

Why do I click on this shit? It's always the same Dunning–Kruger retardation.

 

Gen 3 reactors have been in operation for 25 years, you idiot. And Gen IV are expected to be ready within 10 years.

 

Quote

"The first Generation III reactor to begin operation was Kashiwazaki 6 (an ABWR) in 1996."

 

https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

 

"An international task force is sharing R&D to develop six nuclear reactor technologies for deployment between 2020 and 2030. Four are fast neutron reactors."

 

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx

 

You're literally the dumbest person I've ever met. 

 

 

[54212 432]

On 2020-09-29 at 3:50 PM, Substatic said:

In none of these quotes did I call Catholics a cult or insult them as a whole, but If you saw it like that I'm sorry. 

 

You said they can't be trusted to deal  with global warming, you racist.

 

On 2020-09-29 at 3:50 PM, Substatic said:

I explained I was moderate and support Nuclear Power.

 

That's not how the dumb game you set up works. If you politically disagree with someone, they're either a Nazi or a Commie. There are no moderates. 

 

You hate nuclear power, Commie. 

 

 

[jehurey 3,228]

2 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

Why do I click on this shit? It's always the same Dunning–Kruger retardation.

 

Gen 3 reactors have been in operation for 25 years, you idiot. And Gen IV are expected to be ready within 10 years.

 

 

You're literally the dumbest person I've ever met. 

 

 

 

You literally posted a WIkipedia "article"...............that is two sentences in length as your source.

 

Wow. You really are stupid.

 

Gen 4 reactors are not even remotely is any development stage by ANY country in the world.

[jehurey 3,228]

2 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

You said they can't be trusted to deal  with global warming, you racist.

 

 

That's not how the dumb game you set up works. If you politically disagree with someone, they're either a Nazi or a Commie. There are no moderates. 

 

You hate nuclear power, Commie. 

 

 

WHich is hilarious, because a nuclear power plant in the united states would have be an almost entirely US taxpayer funded project, in other words socialism.

 

No private entity will put up the investment for a nuclear reactor power plant on their own.

 

Its hilarious how you do not know a single thing. Which only gives away the fact that you are only taking this position to be anti-lib. Since "da libs" have taken possession of green energy sources, you have to find something else to pretend that its a better solution, without looking like an idiotic right-winger.

 

And you are now left defending nuclear technology that its more than obvious you just skimmed a couple of reddit posts on the Yang subreddit and now think you're an expert.

 

it really if funny watching you even attempt this.

[Mr. Impossible 407]

Saucer got served. 

[nitric 472]

[Goukosan 2,249]

1 hour ago, nitric said:

"Don't ever use the word smart with me" 

[jehurey 3,228]

18 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

"Don't ever use the word smart with me" 

I wish Biden had said "I don't think anybody uses the word smart when they're around you" during that moment.