Slashdot Mirror

Russ R.
April 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
You gotta read beyond the headline.
First: 5.2% was a weighted average collective target for all participating developed nations. The US target was 7%.
“The 5.2% reduction in total developed country emissions will be realized through national reductions of 8% by Switzerland, many Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will achieve its target by distributing differing reduction rates to its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%.”

Second, while the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990 (or 1995 for certain GHGs).
“The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. If compared to expected emissions levels for the year 2000, the total reductions required by the Protocol will actually be about 10%; this is because many industrialized countries have not succeeded in meeting their earlier non-binding aim of returning their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and their emissions have in fact risen since 1990. Compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without emissions-control measures, the Protocol target represents a 30% cut. The Protocol should therefore send a powerful signal to business that it needs to accelerate the delivery of climate-friendly products and services.”

So, if I’m going to nitpick details 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.

But that doesn’t take away from the main point that the US has indeed reduced emissions substantially in the last 5 years, thanks to a shale gas boom and an economic bust.

Also... https://www.theguardian.com/en...

Good I hope they take the planet destroying a*holes to the cleaners. That industry has known since 1959 when that left wing loon Edward Teller told them that their product was likely to lead to climate change https://www.theguardian.com/en... and by implication millions of deaths and the destruction of large parts of the planet. Their response - carry on selling the poison.

Product labels. As in what they are named.

I buy Muenster cheese in the US from a variety of sources. The misspelling is intentional. Its history is interesting.

But in Europe, I wonder if you can buy muenster cheese. At least one, the EU tried to prevent that.

This is all protectionism, aka copyright/trademarking, aka interference. Sometimes that's useful, sometimes not. In the EU, we do not see an unfettered protectionist state yet, but it is still ruled by cross-border disputes. Melting pot indeed.

1. Tu quoque.
2. The Democrats are late to the party and as such the Republicans have benefited significantly more from the practice: https://www.theguardian.com/us...
3. But yes, gerrymandering is terrible and should be banned. Redistricting should be an entirely apolitical process.

Actually most people who read the news likely knew about it. That story was covered all over the place when it happened.

Just a sampling:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
https://nypost.com/2017/10/16/...
http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com....

One would have to be fairly ignorant to not have run across it on some news website after it happened.

Give it time, the EU is working on it.

Quotas mean by definition that at some point you will be forced to hire a person based on something other than their qualification. Do you have any idea how insanely difficult it is to get a woman in the IT security field? They are really few and far between. I'd guess we're talking 1:10 and when you get out of the academic field and research it gets even worse.

Imagine a quota in this area. This would essentially mean that I'd be forced to hire unqualified people just so I can hire more qualified people.

Zero tolerance policies are how Damore got fired in the first place. Sounds like you're a hell of a lot more right-wing than you say you are. You certainly don't agree with left-wing core concepts.

When you say you don't see race, youâ(TM)re ignoring racism, not helping to solve it.Our justice system is built on the idea that being blind is the same thing as being fair; our courts use portray justice as a blindfolded goddess, to symbolize the objectivity we equate with being unaware of appearances. She, too, is supposed to be colorblind â" but, given the disproportionate number of men of color in our prisons, and the tendency to prosecute them at disproportional rates, thatâ(TM)s not exactly true, either.

> RACE ONLY MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOU LET IT MATTER.

Jim Crow
Jim Crow 2.0
Red-lining
Red-lining 2.0
Sundown Towns
Tuskegee Experiment
School Segregation
School Segregation 2.0
The War on Drugs specifically targeted blacks
Driving While Black
Walking While Black
Debtor's Prison 2.0

Give back to the people who worked for the corporations you drove out of business with illegally anticompetitive business practices, Bill. Give back to the people who had to clean up after your deliberate attempts to sabotage Linux. Give life back to the people that your investments have killed. Give back the tax revenues you've avoided paying even though you're one of the biggest beneficiaries of the system. Let us have back control of education. Please, Bill. Give Back.

Expensive = Starvation for the poor...

Nobody gives fuck number one about "the poor." We deliberately burn literal mountains of food because Al Gore. We apply huge multipliers to the cost of everything — housing, vehicles, energy and on and on — to assuage the endless anxieties of the comfortable. We don't hesitate to freeze our poor elderly to death on behalf of these anxieties. No one will be swayed by arguments with this basis.

Not sure I can argue with you... We literally burn millions of bushels of corn in our cars every year as "renewable" "Green" fuel as one example. Which is pretty darned stupid given the huge impact that farming all that corn has on the environment and the fuel needed to till, plant, harvest, transport, ferment and distill all that corn into motor fuel. We also pay billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax incentives to all the people involved to make it reasonably cost effective and pushing up the cost of corn.... All to the determent to the poor people who depend on cheap corn to stay alive...

Expensive = Starvation for the poor...

Nobody gives fuck number one about "the poor." We deliberately burn literal mountains of food because Al Gore. We apply huge multipliers to the cost of everything — housing, vehicles, energy and on and on — to assuage the endless anxieties of the comfortable. We don't hesitate to freeze our poor elderly to death on behalf of these anxieties. No one will be swayed by arguments with this basis.

The reason we aren't using more solar and wind is because they are both technologically and economically inferior to existing methods

Exactly the opposite : renewables have taken off in a massive way precisely because they are technologically and economically superior. That's why renewables generated three times as much power as coal in the UK in 2017. That's why last year the UK had its first coal-free day since the industrial revolution.

The reason we aren't using more solar and wind is because they are both technologically and economically inferior to existing methods

Exactly the opposite : renewables have taken off in a massive way precisely because they are technologically and economically superior. That's why renewables generated three times as much power as coal in the UK in 2017. That's why last year the UK had its first coal-free day since the industrial revolution.

Alcohol below the 'hangover' level is about as bad for you as sugar.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth — 2009, 7.5 million views

The Hacking of the American Mind with Dr. Robert Lustig — 2017

John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar — 2014

If you look up Robert Lustig on Wikipedia, nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig's views were funded by Coca-Cola.

Many serious people now believe that excess fructose (which is metabolized in the liver through much the same pathway as ethanol) is the largest single causal component to the metabolic syndrome epidemic, which is itself one of the largest single causes of runaway healthcare costs in the United States.

Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us by Michael Moss — 2013

He interviewed hundreds of current and former food industry insiders — chemists, nutrition scientists, behavioural biologists, food technologists, marketing executives, package designers, chief executives and lobbyists.

What he uncovered is chilling: a hard-working industry composed of well-paid, smart, personable professionals, all keenly focused on keeping us hooked on ever more ingenious junk foods; an industry that thinks of us not as customers, or even consumers, but as potential "heavy users".

How the Food Makers Captured Our Brains — 2009

As head of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. David A. Kessler served two presidents and battled Congress and Big Tobacco. But the Harvard-educated pediatrician discovered he was helpless against the forces of a chocolate chip cookie.
...
Foods rich in sugar and fat are relatively recent arrivals on the food landscape, Dr. Kessler noted. But today, foods are more than just a combination of ingredients. They are highly complex creations, loaded up with layer upon layer of stimulating tastes that result in a multisensory experience for the brain. Food companies "design food for irresistibility," Dr. Kessler noted. "It's been part of their business plans."

Sugar is the tongs and the hammer.

As Lustig once said (from memory): given the choice between sugar and alcohol, I'll take alcohol, because you can only drink yourself under the table once a day.

I guess one part of the problem is that americans usually completely ignore science from other parts of the world.
"Eat more carbs", sorry never heard about that advice. And I'm not aware of publications with that message in Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/so...

Edward Teller, also known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, and an unimpeachable conservative messenger (he got Oppenheimer's security clearance revoked for being a commie) was warning about the oil industry's effect on the climate. In 1959 he presented that info to the heads of all the big oil companies. They weren't interested.

If I bought a car with X horsepower, and suddenly something was found wrong with it and it had to be modified to work, and was suddenly X - 10%, I'd expect compensation.

Funnily enough people are bringing a class action lawsuit for exactly this against Volkswagen after a fix to the emissions cheat reduced the power of their cars.

Even if your uncited assertion is true, its not as if terrorism - in reality violence the US doesn't approve of - is limited to suicide bombers. And you didn't answer the question. For something that is cited, the USAF knows that drone strikes are a major recruiting tool for Al Queda.

I read that fish in the oceans are eating plastics. They must want it, so why not just feed the plastics to the fish?

Study retracted.

It increases the wealth of the top fraction of a percent, and degrades the wealth of everyone below that.

And yet, if you read the links I posted here

https://pastebin.com/JU3exgXL

1. Share of taxes of richest decile
    2. Share of market income of richest decile
        3. Ratio of shares for richest decile (1/2)
 
Sweden
26.7 26.6 1.00
 
United Kingdom
38.6 32.3 1.20
 
United States
45.1 33.5 1.35

That last ratio is (share of total taxes paid of richest decile)/(share of market income by richest decile). You can actually make an argument that the rich in the US - which has lower personal tax rates than the UK pay more of their fair share. Similarly the UK has lower personal tax than Sweden, and yet rich people pay more of their fair share.

I.e. on a plausible model of fairness US>UK>Sweden even though in terms of personal tax rates Sweden>UK>US.

And the Laffer curve hasn't been refuted - the HMRC for example use it, and you'd expect them to know what they're talking about.

What is disputed is Taxable Income Elasticity which determines what shape the curve is. If you search the HMRC pdf I linked to for 'Laffer' you can see what happens to the curve as TIE varies and they also make some progress on determining the TIE for the UK and thus the optimal top tax rate. Basically that report was instrumental in the case for reducing the top personal tax rate from 50% back to 45% because a 50% tax was generating extra revenue.

And of course in France they experimented with high tax rates and then eventually rolled them back.

The Guardian is far left and supported high taxes on the rich but even they had to admit it didn't raise money and that's why it was dropped

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Finance ministry studies showed that despite all the publicity, the sums obtained from the supertax were meagre, standing at €260m in 2013 and €160m in 2014, and affecting 1,000 staff in 470 companies. Over the same period, the budget deficit soared to €84.7bn.

The decision to drop the tax is a personal blow for Hollande and only one of a number of government U-turns since he was elected, fuelling criticism that he is indecisive and lacking presidential authority.

And if you look at the data I posted it's actually rather obvious that the US has personal taxes about right and that higher taxes than that will reduce revenue.

What it didn't have right was corporation tax, at least until the recent GOP tax cut.

If I've said it once.... I've said it a hundred times.

Our technology is evolving faster than our species.

• 
  Suicides of teen girls in the USA are up due to cell phones and social media.
  Cell phones are killing our necks.
  In addition to carrying a personal tracking device, governments are using and abusing any and all technology to spy on citizens
  The Sun could wipe out our power grid with a direct hit from a geomagnetic storm, and utilities aren't doing anything to mitigate the risks.
  5 Countries are destroying the ocean with plastics and covering the earth with asbestos.
  And let's not forget about the Doomsday clock and Nuclear Weapons. We still have a cold war posture that could end badly.
  We have governments with cheap gene editing tools CRISPR/CAS9 working to make designer pets that glow in the dark and super biological weapons
  Video Game Addiction is rampant
  The Internet is a Pandora's box of garbage and porn, bad behavior are shaping your minds through YouTube and other video streaming sites.
  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There will be a tipping point and this will lead to global unrest.

We can truly say it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. If we could all just grow up and use our technology for good, but we can't. Just like light and dark, yin and yang, the good of technology is always accompanied by the evil dark side.

My prediction for 2018 is that AI and machine learning are going to be applied to hacking. AI's will be trained to write code to exploit all things and the exploits will be endless. Humans won't even be able to understand the exploit code as the AI software churns them out. Further I predict human cloning will happen this year and that China/Russia/North Korea will test some pretty nasty hacks on Americas Banks, Stock Market, Telecommunications, and/or gas/electric/water. I also predict that US drug usage will continue to increase (opioids, weed, alcohol) and the life expectancy will continue to decrease and suicide rates will continue to increase. I also predict that based on an increased energy in the atmosphere that storms will continue to grow in intensity. I also predict there will be a war in North Korea due to an error in a rocket test hitting a US ally. Further I predict Russia will take over another ex-Russian republic and China will continue to flex it's military muscle.

7 billion people on the planet. Technology everywhere, and we still can't figure out to behave and share.

I was watching TV with a little child and she was horrified by the war videos on the news and she asked me, "Why is there war? Why are they fighting?"

My answer, "Because, Sharing is hard."

To all reading this, in 2018 do a better job of sharing, loving your neighbor, and using less plastic.

Happy New Year!

I'm genuinely curious about this analysis. Iran had an election in 2013 where the moderate candidate won with just over 50% of the votes with the US and UK reacting relatively positively and neither denouncing the election as unfair.

This makes Iran one of the most democratic countries in the Middle East (admittedly, it's not up against stiff competition for that title). Certainly, when you compare it to our "ally" Saudi Arabia who promote terrorism in Europe, fight alongside al Qaeda in their brutal war in Yemen and has an appalling record of human rights abuses, Iran does not appear to be the greatest threat.

Could it be because "the Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous US administration"? (Note that Trump is no better).

If Iran pumped billions into the US and UK economy, they might not be quite so high on our shit list.

Your coherence is pretty low. But I think you are making a smugly ignorant rebuttal. Not unlike the alcoholic who says driving drunk is perfectly safe because he's never crashed his car, yet.

To which I reply that there are more than a couple (public) stories of Armageddon avoided by the slimmest of margins. And that was when highly competent and informed people were running things, not idiot hot-heads like today.

For example:

Soviet officer who averted cold war nuclear disaster
Stanislav Petrov was on duty in a secret command centre outside Moscow on 26 September 1983 when a radar screen showed that five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched by the US towards the Soviet Union.

Red Army protocol would have been to order a retaliatory strike, but Petrov – then a 44-year-old lieutenant colonel – ignored the warning, relying on a “gut instinct” that told him it was a false alert.

World War Three, by Mistake
President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was asleep in Washington, D.C., when the phone rang. His military aide, General William Odom, was calling to inform him that two hundred and twenty missiles launched from Soviet submarines were heading toward the United States. Brzezinski told Odom to get confirmation of the attack. A retaliatory strike would have to be ordered quickly; Washington might be destroyed within minutes. Odom called back and offered a correction: twenty-two hundred Soviet missiles had been launched.

Brzezinski decided not to wake up his wife, preferring that she die in her sleep. As he prepared to call Carter and recommend an American counterattack, the phone rang for a third time. Odom apologized—it was a false alarm. An investigation later found that a defective computer chip in a communications device at NORAD headquarters had generated the erroneous warning. The chip cost forty-six cents.

A similar false alarm had occurred the previous year, when someone mistakenly inserted a training tape, featuring a highly realistic simulation of an all-out Soviet attack, into one of NORAD’s computers. During the Cold War, false alarms were also triggered by the moon rising over Norway, the launch of a weather rocket from Norway, a solar storm, sunlight reflecting off high-altitude clouds, and a faulty A.T. & T. telephone switch in Black Forest, Colorado.

From someone in a country with proper gun control:

Looks like an assassination.

The guy is SO FAR from everything, he has no clue you're referring to him. He's opened his door, there's a bunch of bright lights all down the streets hundreds of yards away. People are yelling and shouting, he can't tell what's being said. Nobody is close enough to do anything BUT snipe him from a distance, so they can't judge what he's doing anyway.

Hint: Innocent people do things that you might not want them to do. "HEY YOU! DON'T MOVE!" (turns behind himself, turns back with his finger pointing to his chest, shakes head, shrugs shoulders, maybe takes a step or two back.)

Aggressive stance, my fucking arse, you can't see a thing and neither would the cop have (don't forget, you can analyse and replay!). Unless he clearly pulled an object and aimed, any other police force in the world would be knocking the shooter off active duty immediately and probably pressing charges / initiating internal action. There's literally no way to tell what's going on from that distance. There's no way a shot should even have been fired, even a warning shot, certainly not a killing shot.

I've seen UK police deal with the same - but actually a genuine shooter - situation in a residential area. They turn up. They're told there's hostages and a shooter. They clear the street, back further than those police cars are parked. And the knock on the door of the house. And they are by the door and up close unless they have specialist weaponry prepared way in advance (e.g. very prolonged incident). Nobody just pulls a pistol and shoots from that kind of range, you have no idea the guy is even the shooter and not a hostage or - gosh - random innocent civilian as in this case.

And you don't put people in the position where they have a choice about complying. You are feet from them, with a weapon, aimed at their body, and three others are walking up behind before they know what's going on. For God's sake, America, stop the shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude of your police.

Hell, let him get a shot off. Nobody's near, right? You're all behind cover. Let him actually fire, or turn back to the house before you think about pulling a trigger.

I literally cannot find bodycam footage of an armed incident with UK police that isn't close-up and personal. And for them, "armed" more usually means a guy with a knife, guns are rare so dealing with them is even more unusual and unexpected.

But you don't just shoot a guy from that range with any weapon... you have literally NO IDEA what he's actually doing. Horrible situation, to have to approach someone potentially dangerous? Gosh, if only we had a force of people expressly trained to do just that.

You guys SERIOUSLY need a full review of police procedure and re-training, with weapons taken from anyone who fails it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

That was: Suicide vests, height of multiple other attacks, knives, vehicles, potentially any other weapon, attacks on civilians actively in progress and confirmed, civilians trying to distract / fight the attackers, major incident, middle of central London. Three armed officers, in, within feet, close enough to touch them, take them all down, no police hurt, nobody else hurt except those with weapons.

"By law, the police shooting of suspects has to be independently investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission."

By law. For every single shot. You pull the trigger only to kill. That's it. A guy on a porch 100 yards away with nobody else visible isn't someone to kill without question.

Statistics:

50 shots fired one innocent, unarmed man in the US compared to 100 shots fired in a whole year in Germany.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

That was one (!) incident.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

About 2 years of training for most low profile policeman in Germany vs. 6 months in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://work.chron.com/long-tra...

Yay statistics.

Could international slashdotters from other civilized countries find statistics for their police?

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one.

We have problems in Germany, I won‘t deny it. But a trigger happy, undertrained police force is not one of them.

Your crime rate was historically low, which accounts for the police slackness and the baleful attitude toward self-defense. The legal theory is that fighting crime is not an amateur activity and should be reserved for law enforcement professionals. But in recent years the crime rate has been rising fast, including for murder:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
Ours reached a peak in the Eighties and has been declining since as concealed carry spreads from state to state. As with those Cold War missile silos, thugs are less likely to attack people who could be armed, even though most of us are not.

Of course climate science is falsifiable.

Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia, nor according to this professor concurring with this blogger (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire).

It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.

No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.

Well, deadly mistakes also happen in other countries. But there seem to be a real problem in the states about how the police handles this kind of situation. When between 15 and 35% of the people killed by the police are unarmed, you know you have a problem. The police forces really ought to be trained in a different way... and maybe also there needs to be work done on the way the investigations are made after those accidents, and on the consequences faced by trigger happy officers. Do you know if there is any work related to this currently going on ?

I disagree with you. It turns out a lot of scientists disagree with you as well. The Dutch also disagree with you.

The leading 100% renewable plan has been debunked by the national academy of science. It is not feasible with current technology. Energy storage is expensive. Yes nuclear is expensive as well, but 4th generation reactors can be factory built. The Dutch are innovating in that technology.

We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a reason the world's leading climate scientists have repeatedly said nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change

Also Germany tried what you did and they have failed. Only 34% of German electricity is clean. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and their electricity is 10x dirty then their neighbor France. Scroll to the third graph comparing Germany and France. You will notice that Germany emits 560 grams of CO2 per kWh and France emits 58 grams of CO2 per kWh. That is almost 10x.

I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.

Nope. His sin was being a lying bullshit spewer, which lead to him becoming a criminal, your sin, of course, was to believe him. Repetitively.

Any prosecutor dumb enough to allow such a taint into a trial, well, no wonder incompetence is rampant.

But hey, keep relying on them, it's a big sign that you've got less than nothing.

I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.

Nope. His sin was being a lying bullshit spewer, which lead to him becoming a criminal, your sin, of course, was to believe him. Repetitively.

Any prosecutor dumb enough to allow such a taint into a trial, well, no wonder incompetence is rampant.

But hey, keep relying on them, it's a big sign that you've got less than nothing.

Because 'creators' love to suck their own cocks like Steve Bannon.

It probably won't topple North Korea, but that technique appears to have had some limited success. South Koreans regularly send balloons of choco pies over the border, since that particular snack was banned in NK as a symbol of capitalism. From what I've read, it may have contributed to at least one guard defecting to the South, though he had to mostly dodge a hail of gunfire to do it. When he woke up in the hospital after surviving being shot five times, he asked for a choco pie, so the manufacturer sent him 100 boxes of them as a welcoming present.

    https://www.theguardian.com/te...

    I'd say pretty evil shit. This is just the worst I could come up with off the top of my head in which they've admitted.

You mentioned wifi routers hurting dna. I was not attacking a strawman argument because I was attacking the exact argument you made.

You're attacking AN argument I made, you're ignoring the rest of it, which is how dogmatically ignorant your nuclear advocacy is. I think you thought that if you attack this one part of my argument you dismiss the entire argument.

Case in point of how ignorant, the IAEA itself produced one of the reports supporting my point, since you will require a citation to a paper you won't read. I'll point out that 2.4 Ghz is the same microwave spectrum that wi-fi routers use.

It shows how poorly prepared you are to make any arguments for unclear power because it demonstrates how poorly informed you are.

And of course if we do nothing about climate change millions will die. I want to stop that from happening. According to the world's leading scientists. nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change.

You're not even equipped to make an argument about the case for nuclear power, you have to use someone else's argument. I can argue your side of the argument better than you can.

The puff piece you referred me to has so many holes in it's reasoning it's like reading a slashdot post from a nuclear advocate posted 10 years ago, propagating the nuclear ideology again. They are top scientists in climate change, show me their peer reviewed work in Nuclear power systems.

Repeatedly, their arguments have been covered well before you ever posted here, let me guess, about 18 months, maybe two years ago? The same old problems that exist for nuclear power still exist and still haven't been resolved. Here is a few to start with:

• Despite decades of assurances from the nuclear industry that spent fuel containment issues would be solved, they haven't.
• We know a decommissioned Nuclear reactor has too cool for at least a decade and costs billions to demolish offsetting trillions of dollars of expenditure to future generations.
• You can't even design a nuclear reactor that has more than 40 years of safe service life because of the way neutron bombardment makes the pressure vessel of the reactor core containing the fuel brittle and prone to failure.
• Every form of uranium extraction is becoming more energy intensive to support the current "once through" fuel cycle
• The only viable alternative nuclear technology was canned due to oil and coal industry lobbying.

and it goes on and on and on. Every time, guys like you answer with some sort of SyFy reactor technology that has *all the answers*. Any time you're ready to present some fresh argument that hasn't been heard before, please do so. As usual you are unable to answer these points, you'll call them bullshit because you are willfully ignorant.

So yes it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.

That's what you believe. You believe it because you project your idealism about nuclear power onto reality. You're an idealist and your nuclear advocacy is an ideology based in an ignorance of the facts. I know this because once you examine the facts and become educated about the Nuclear Industry you see how much effort it puts into avoiding responsibility whilst relying on the ignorance of people like you to defend it. You're one of their "useful idiots".

All you are interested in doing is push your idealism because you are arrogant enough to think you know better, you don't. Since the only thing you have left to argue with is rhetoric, you've decided to attempt to delude yourself that you are fighting a moral fight by attempting to box people into that argument. Typically, you will continue to falsify your reality to maintain your ideology when co

When the West does IT?.
"British army creates team of Facebook warriors" (31 Jan ‘15)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
"Is America Prepared for Meme Warfare?" (Feb 1 2017)
https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
"So, Why Does the Air Force Want Hundreds of Fake Online Identities on Social Media?" (Feb 19, 2011)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s...
"BBC World Service gets funding boost from government" (23 November 2015)
http://www.bbc.com/news/entert...
The new "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You mentioned wifi routers hurting dna. I was not attacking a strawman argument because I was attacking the exact argument you made. And of course if we do nothing about climate change millions will die. I want to stop that from happening. According to the world's leading scientists. nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change. So yes it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.

Sure, let me DuckDuckGo that for you:

a href='https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html'>NY Times? Guardian? BBC?

Why should one take seriously an article that starts out with rightout lies from the start?
Borders between Schengen states had been dissolved since ages, Merkel never suggested external borders to be dissolved.

It's a reference to her decision to admit "Syrian refugees". Who were mostly not Syrian and not refugees.

Only 46.7% were Syrian, which means the rest were not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the top three nationalities of entrants of the over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals between January 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%).[17]"

Six of of ten were economic migrants and not refugees

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

And most of the statements made were over the fact that EVERYONE had signed international agreements about refugees.

You mean like the 1951 Refugee Convention? Japan signed that too, they didn't accept let in a million people who are mostly economic migrants simply because they turned up.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Merkel didn't have to do what she did.

"Russia could cut off internet to nato countries british military chief warns" 2017 DEC 14
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Peach’s warning came against a background of proposed cutbacks to the UK’s armed forces, including a reduction in the number of marines from 7,000 to 6,000 and the scrapping of two amphibious landing ships as part of a Cabinet Office security review scheduled to be announced early next year.

and courtship. They also can't afford places to have sex. Besides the 20 year recession Japan's wealth inequality is worth than the states.

So yeah, cookie cutter socialist solutions are _exactly_ what's needed here, at least if they actually want to solve the birth rate problem. Or I guess they could do what the States does and get religion and ban birth control. But barring that it's either socialism or Japan goes away as a country. The South has much higher rates than the North and Western states, but they've also got crazy levels of poverty to go with it.

What I'm saying is, there is no way to solve this problem that doesn't make people's lives worse except socialism. You either distribute the benefits of civilization more equitably or you shrug your shoulders and live with the social distortions that come from not doing that.

Both sides ran unpopular candidates. It's not like Trump had mass market appeal either, and in fact he lost the popular vote.

What screwed the Democrats was playing defence. They tried to defend Clinton, but Trump and the far right never do that. They always attack.

When someone points out a lie, they turn it around by accusing them of being fake news or attacking someone else unrelated (what-about-ism). They make it about someone else, look like the are winning.

This is a great example from today: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

That's how you make an unpopular candidate win.

Or alternatively, let something else do the driving.

That would require someone do a multivariate analysis. And they won't do that because it would show civil war, oppressive governments etc are more strongly correlated to refugee flows than climate.

Actually one big driver was getting rid of people like Gaddafi who stopped migrants coming to Europe. The EU had a deal with Gaddafi. Then France and the UK toppled him and Libya became essentially a failed state.

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Turkey also uses refugee flows as a foreign policy tool - they turn on the tap when they want more money from Europe.

https://www.euractiv.com/secti...

So how much is climate a cause? Not much. Weather probably does have some impact though - mainly because if you're going to cross the Med or walk across Europe you'd be better off doing when it's not freezing cold. But weather and climate are not the same thing.

Nuclear is already far too expensive. Running nuclear plants as peakers makes this even worse.

BTW: nice article in the guardian on nuclear power and its economics (and where the myh its economical comes from):
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...

Good. Why should a bunch of foreigners come over here and take our jobs away or become citizens just because they had a baby with an American. Go to Israel or China with that stuff. You'll be sterilized.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

The only way this would work is to scan everyone at the airport.

It's an idea. Apparently the Chinese have already gone much further than that.

... and leak water
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Those numbers are sorely incomplete. There is no current tracking of this information. Police are self-reporting because no other agency has access to the data. Consider the number of injuries caused by police -- whether with or without a weapon -- and the number of times someone isn't killed but permanently injured. Your numbers also exclude those people.

In my area, a day doesn't go by without news of someone shot or killed by police. And that's just one area. You'd have to ignore mathematics and reach some pretty bizarre conclusions to say it's not happening in other places too.

Because of the lack of information publicly accessible, some organizations are trying to get more info, for instance https://www.theguardian.com/us... .

How Syria's White Helmets became victims of an online propaganda machine

Syria : White Helmets ... EXPOSED!

White Helmets' bizarre ‘mannequin challenge’ in Syrian warzone

Brilliant! Unedited, fake White Helmets 'rescue' video

Fake News Alert: CNN Finally Admits “White Helmets” Staged Fake Video

White Helmets”and the winnner isanything but truth

Meet The Man Behind The Propaganda Rami Abdul Rahman

The Truth Behind The Oft-Quoted Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights run by immigrant from his UK home

The rubber babies of Aleppo