Slashdot Mirror

When were you diagnosed with your mental condition?

You speaking to your bathroom mirror?

This is what the pipelines are being built to prevent:

Uh, no. Pipelines are about increasing profit margins for oil companies, not safety. Because pipelines leak all. the. time.

Anyone who supports the status quo over the much safer pipelines is for environmental damage. If you would prefer the numerous train derailments that lead to massive oil spills, then keep protesting every pipeline trying to protect the environment from oil spills, it really increases your enviro-cred!

Corporatist false dichotomy is false.

Well, there are over 3600 jobs from Indiana alone going overseas that he isn't doing anything about. This includes 350 lost at Rexnord that Trump had tweeted about it not happening and then the company heard nothing from him.

Why are people blaming everything on Trump?

Several reasons. 1) He's an asshole and an easy target. 2) Every president gets both too much credit and too much blame. Trump will be no exception. 3) Trump has said some terrifying and ignorant and irresponsible shit in regards to nuclear weapons which is relevant to this discussion.

He wasn't even elected or running when they started the development on this project.

No but he's the guy who got elected and so his actions and opinions now matter.

You have to assume benevolence as a default

That certainly is a good rule — indeed, a very "Thanksgivingly" one.

And yet, there are certain signs and indicators, which give justified grounds for suspicion in the case of Climate Science.

One such is a conflict of interest. A scientist coming to a conclusion, that global warming is not a big deal, risks his very livelihood — the rest of us will politely thank him for his past work and eliminate funding for more of it. America's spending on climate research, for example, has about tripled since 1993 — is it unreasonable to suspect, that the vast body of people may be at least partially concerned about their careers and mortgages? Would they not frown on and denounce anyone breaking ranks, regardless of whether he is correct or not?

We dismiss judges and jurors because of the conflict of interest — and we are right. But a replacement juror unrelated to suspect is easy to find, whereas finding an independent group of scientists in the era of government paying for 100% of research is impossible...

The above is why we can — should! — question their collective sincerity. But what about their competence? Try as you might to find an actual scientific prediction made by these folks, that turned out to be true, and you'll fail...

Few people realize this, despite me posting this challenge on Slashdot every once in a while. Try it yourself. A valid citation would include a pair of links, one to prediction, the other — to its confirmation:

1. The prediction must be publicly made — you'll need to include a link to it.
2. A separate link should point at the confirmation of the predicted events happening or values achieved (within, say, 20% of the predicted).
3. The prediction and the confirmation publications must be a few years or more apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
4. The prediction needs to be marginally useful — claiming, it will get either colder or hotter next year is not acceptable

Could you come up with two or three such citations? Don't you think, after spending tens of billions of dollars on it, we are entitled to expect some such results from climate scientists? And, if they can not come up with anything, begin suspecting their competence and sincerity?

Add to that the growing calls by these scientists (not just their hangers-on) to criminalize skepticism, and our suspicion ought to develop into a full blown alarm!

LOLWUT? When the hell did Hillary threaten war with Russia?

Also the idea of this crazy motherfucker being safer than Clinton is hilarious.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

Look at the vile hatred that was spewed from one side in particular.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

The vast majority of people on either side are completely peaceful. But when you look at the retoric that was spewed by one candidate in particular, it's not hard to see why people are angry.

Also, what happened to the whole "rigged election" thing? Seems like the ol' Trumpster clammed up on that subject right around November 8th, didn't he?

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

Honestly guys, put down the Guardian pipe. It's a matter of time before these figures, both the exaggerated "reductions" and the exaggerated amount of investment get exposed as the lies they are. Only doe-eyed libtards believe this Chinese propaganda.

Even "progressives" acknowledge that Chinese CO2 numbers are fictional, when they aren't themselves trying to use those lies as leverage over Western nations. Communists lie. They lie about their achievements and they lie about their failures, and the fact that they've got fellow travelers in the Western Media parroting their lies is not novel.

The greenhouse effect may only be a part of the problem http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

And getting worse may mean carbon (arctic soil) or methane (ocean floor) release from permafrost, two greenhouse gases that may drop the ecosystem into a self-reinforcing carbon release, the mankind focused on electing a dancing president in the meantime .

http://thinkprogress.org/clima... the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm] https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Carbon dioxide is 'driving fish crazy'

http://thinkprogress.org/clima... the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm] https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Carbon dioxide is 'driving fish crazy'

More to deny http://thinkprogress.org/clima... the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm] https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Carbon dioxide is 'driving fish crazy'

Corrupt liars may like elevated CO2 levels at voting booths. "the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm]"

http://thinkprogress.org/clima... "the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm]"

All right.

https://thinkprogress.org/excl...

In Virginia it is a felony to steal items with a combined value of more than $100. The laws are very harsh in VA. I have two acquaintances who did just that - made a bad decision and stole a couple video games. They could not get out of the felony charge due to the total amount, but served no time. That is ridiculously harsh given the crime. OTOH, I know someone here locally with not one but two DUIs, who lost their license for YEARS, then had to install a breathalyzer in their vehicle to be able to drive. Yet both DUI charges were only misdemeanors.

The laws in VA are harsh and antiquated. Sodomy laws were in affect in VA until 2014, when a supreme court ruling finally invalidated VA's law, and they were repealed by the VA legislature. https://thinkprogress.org/virg...

So I disagree that felons should lose the right to vote, especially given the draconian laws still in affect that results in individuals becoming felons.

What other parts of the Constitution is it time to 'get rid of'???

The first amendment, apparently. Maybe a little of the second amendment. The pesky fourth still needs some trimming, and the fifth gets in the way of mandatory death sentences. Since we're making edits, why not tweak the sixth amendment too?

If you don't provide a link to actual evidence of wrongdoing, any bald claims of wrongdoing are no better than lies. Meanwhile, nothing can change Trump's idiocy, such as his repeated denials of global warming, which reveals both his ignorance and his parochialism (that is, if the USA isn't experiencing excess warming, then it ain't happening anywhere else, right?). And then there are claims by Trump about resources and scarcity, which completely destroy his professed goal of "making America great again" --that is, Trump doesn't seem to realize that abundant resources was exactly what allowed America to become great in the first place. Nowadays anything that hasn't been used up is locked down by wealthy owners --is Trump, who wants wealthy Republicans to support him, going to take those resources away from them, so that the majority of Americans can benefit? Hah!

If there were less people like you, the goal would be realistic.

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

"the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm]"

This!

We're already past 400 ppm ... and that's measured in open spaces. The concentrations in classrooms tend to be much higher.

Presumably the same is true for boardrooms.

So, as the CO2 issue becomes worse, we're going to become less capable of dealing with it. Climate deniers really shouldn't keep kicking the can down the road.

What about atmosphere that does not make drowsy.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... "the exposure-response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used” (500 ppm - 1500 ppm)
There is >400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 already.

If there were less people like you, the goal would be realistic. http://thinkprogress.org/clima... "the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm]"

Or the slashdot brain feels drowsy already thanks to elevated CO2 levels.
 

I don't know, and I don't care

Is your brain sedated?

According to recent research, CO2 increases blood acidity and strongly decreases brain performance at 1000 ppm if not less.

There is not ratified treaty, there is nothing beyond a gentlemen's agreement that other people won't behave badly. It is not often you find agreement between such idealogically disparate organizationshttps://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/pitfalls-unilateral-negotiations-paris-climate-change-conference or https://thinkprogress.org/no-the-paris-climate-agreement-isnt-binding-here-s-why-that-doesn-t-matter-62827c72bb04 or even http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/01/un-paris-climate-pact-remains-non-binding-meaningless/

as for the laws of nature, suckers stop chanting and start running now. Zika forever. http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/zika-virus-travel-brazil-male-infertility-sterility-south-america-central-america-caribbean-a6834091.html

And here is Exhibit B, human nature and Exhibit C, the reason people are refusing to work

> Entitled? What if you grew up there; lived there all
> your damn life.

Actually, what's going on is that other states are "dumping" their homeless on California in general, and San Francisco and San Diego in particular (LA used to be a popular one too, but they engaged in their own anti-dumping battle a while back when "skid row" became unmanageable.). Most recently, Nevada was caught red-handed shuffling their mental patients off to California with one-way Greyhound tickets:

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...
https://thinkprogress.org/neva...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/new...

Im not sure what the solution is. But the reality is that there really is a metric crapton of unpopulated land in the US where people could be housed cheaply. It's hard to believe until you do a decent amount of cross-country travel. But I've flown from SF to Kansas a number of times for work these last few years. And, aside from Denver, there's very little in-between. And, for that matter, Kansas has all of one city of any note; and they share that one with Missouri. The rest is a whole lot of nothing. It's kind of ironic that it's Nevada that was caught doing the most recent round of bussing; because they're one of the states with the most empty land.

https://thinkprogress.org/afte...

http://billmoyers.com/story/go...

It is no coincidence that 17 states have enacted new voting restrictions just in time for the 2016 presidential election — or that 22 states have toughened access to the ballot box since 2010. Here are those 17 states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

It’s also no coincidence that 16 of these 17 states (save only Rhode Island) have legislatures that are dominated entirely by Republicans. NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice calls this “part of a broader movement to curtail voting rights, which began after the 2010 election, when state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote.”

In North Carolina — home to perhaps the most gerrymandered legislature in America — the judges were even more emphatic as they connected the dots between the GOP-implemented voter-ID laws and the desire on behalf of Republicans to tamp down the turnout of minority voters unlikely to cast ballots for conservatives. Their ruling painstakingly dismisses any problem with voter fraud in North Carolina, and compiles voluminous evidence that “the ‘problem’ the majority in the General Assembly sought to remedy was emerging support for the minority party.” The legislature, according to the ruling, “unmistakably” sought to “entrench itself” by “targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party.”

sure sounds like fraud to me.
the real kind.

and then there was Wisconsin shutting down dmvs or changing their hours, to make them difficult to access.
Georgia has moved polling places out of poor and/or black neighborhoods, switching peoples polling places from across the street to 3 buses across town.
your party is blatantly deceitful, guilty of blatantly rigging the vote, yet you call democrats the party of deceit?

and now you idiots are calling for the 19th amendment to be repealed, because if woman couldn't vote, trump would easily win?

let me spell it out for you jack: the party of voter fraud is the republican party

My bad, he actually didn't carry out the hack himself, he just incited it:

https://thinkprogress.org/lesl...

CO2 at 1000 ppm affects intellectual performance, smilar effect demonstrated lately in fish. One team found an impact on the brain at 600 ppm already.

Nobody?

CO2 at 600 ppm already sedates the brains, decreasing its performance.

Similar effect demonstrated lately in fish.

I was in my teens for Reagan and the start of the first Bush administration, so my memory of what was said about them is pretty fuzzy. But i don't recall a big deal being made about nuclear war being made, and that certainly wasn't my biggest concern during either the election for Bush 1's 2nd term or either of Bush 2's terms.

But Trump has said that he's okay with using nuclear weapons offensively:
https://thinkprogress.org/9-te...

Trump has also said that he won't guarantee defending our allies, which is potentially a very destabilizing action:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

He said during the first debate that attacking an Iranian ship would not start a war. (To be fair, doing so wouldn't _definitely_ start a war, but almost identical actions have been considered acts of war in the past and could easily be considered so again, so saying that it definitely wouldn't is 100% wrong.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And i can find any number of references for the off the wall stuff Trump has posted on twitter at 3am, in fact there has been analysis presented here on slashdot about the emotional tones of his tweets then vs when his staff is in charge:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Now normally i wouldn't say "this person acts unhinged on twitter, therefore they'll end civilization." However he has stated himself that he's willing to cause turmoil among our allies, which will lead to politically unstable situations, he's said himself that he's willing to preemptively use nuclear weapons, and he's said things that seem to indicate he doesn't know what is and is not an act of war.

If you combine that with the kind of temper and tendency to get unhinged when he feels he's been attacked or insulted that he's demonstrated both in real life and in his late night twitter sessions, i feel that it's reasonable to be very concerned.

Well, we only have his word that he does. But he could be lying.

Just in case someone thinks KeensMustard is exaggerating, I will just leave this right here.

See here for why. Oh, and if by "anyone else" you don't include George Bush Jr (22million emails deleted) then you might be getting closer to the truth. Still way, way the fuck off it, but closer.

Go read this. There's plenty of good reason not to prosecute Hilary. Not the least of which is that a conviction was virtually impossible.

Another person on this thread made a good point. What Hilary did was basically speeding. Just about everyone in gov't does it. If there wasn't a right wing hate machine pumping stories about her misdeeds non-stop you wouldn't have even noticed. They've been after her for 20 years because they don't want her to be president. Think about that. A lot of very wealthy, very powerful folks with a long history of being shmucks don't want her to be president. If that's the the most ringing endorsement I've ever heard I don't know what the fuck is. You wanna stick it to somebody? Vote Hilary. You'll piss off way more people and who are way more powerful than you or I'll ever be.

We can prosecute Hilary for a few emails right right we finish sentencing Dick Cheney for war crimes, the thousands of dead American Soldiers and the hundreds of thousands (look it up, it's a hard number to believe) number of civilian Iraqi deaths.

Also, go read this while your at it. Say what you will, but no jury alive would convict Hilary save for one hand picked by Karl Rove, and even then I'd give even odds.

You mean like this?

TRUMP for PRISON 2016

Since you don't use the police ...

Domestic law-enforcement is a tiny fraction of tax expenditures. So tiny, bringing it up is a misnomer. Even public schools cost more ($620 billion ) than police in the US (under $200 billion) — and parents still need to add hundreds of dollars on top of it. Which about matches the 640 billion spent collectively on Medicare.

But schools aren't the highest expenditure either — welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion every year (that's just the Federal government spending, BTW), for example, which is 10 times the spending on police by both Federal and local governments.

Military, the usual lighting rod of Leftists, is expensive too, but those expenditures (along with law enforcement) are explicitly in the government's care according to the Constitution. Nothing else is...

To even bring up "police" in any tax-discussion is dishonest. One can always tell a Statist by it.

Even if we don't have runaway conditions, we still need to keep our CO2 levels in check. Human cognition is significantly negatively impacted the higher it gets... Harvard Study

That may be, but there is now evidence that CO2 concentrations at 1000ppm or higher negatively impact human cognition by a very noticeable amount... once you get to that point, it decreases human cognition on average by about 21%! I don't know about you, but that scares the shit out of me.

Harvard Study

Actually if you look at the math in this paper temperature anomalies of the 20th century were not in any way unusual fom temperature anomalies in the previous 8100 centuries:

http://multi-science.atypon.co...

Think about it, pick any two points on a line and you can show a positive, negative or zero slope and "prove" anything if you pick the two points correctly. For example using the noaa data post 2K you can show warming, cooling or no change *depending on what points you pick*. (The NOAA has a graphing calculator you can play with to prove this to yourself - if you can prove your opponents point with this tool as well as yours maybe the methodology was meant for demonstration to the public and not mathematical rigor, eh?

The fact they play fast and loose with the math is not confidence inspiring. Recall the statement "each of the past 10 years has been the hottest on record" - the president has actually said this (and you'll note has never used the word "pollution") but the numbers clearly show that 1989 was the hottest year and each year from 200o to 2009 was colder than the previous one. A clear decadal cooling period but still hot years this making the statement true, despite the fact it got cooler each year not warmer as they tried to infer. That's not science, that's marketing. If you have to lie about it, it's probably not true or you wouldn't need to lie you's just explain the facts. The facts are it stopped warming and we were wrong about CO2. Overall it has a positive effect, not negative and it created by an increase in temperature not vice versa. Only 4 billion years of fossils show this, argue with CERN and NASA if you disagree.
.

http://climate-math.science/.i...
http://climate-math.science/.i...

Here's ALL the temperature data all 4.5 billion years of it, so there's zero chance of cherry picking. The other point that kills the agw argument is there's no discernable human signature of warming in the thermal record. If you think there is, please point it out - it will be recognizable as a sharper slope than has ever occurred in the thermal record before.

http://climate-math.science/.i...

Co2 stopped rising years ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

It was higher (by 40 ppm) 200 years ago:
http://climate-math.science/.i...
(See Beck 2008).

Articles keep saying "global warming" as if it were true. It's never actually been proved true, that was a hypothesis based on some incomplete models and now have 75% error between predicted and measured temperature. Even when CO2 ose temperature declined (2000-2009) for a decade, every year being colder than the previous despite CO2 rising sharply:

In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.'
https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Harvard study

CO2 increases blood acidity and strongly decreases brain performance at 1000 ppm

You really are trying to ignore reality here, aren't you. Now you are trying to defend your position by bringing up "statistical sampling", after I point out that that is the exact problem with your argument.

I saw your website, and saw that it had a major flaw in its reporting. Another article from the same website shows that your argument is completely false. Here are the real results you want to ignore.

Notice that the states didn't test many recipients, for various reasons. You are so concerned with "valid sample size", so here are the actual numbers:
Arizona, 5683 recipients, 3 tested, 0 positive
Kansas, 5541 recipients, 260 tested, 66 positive
Maine, 1811 recipients, 2 tested, 2 positive
Michigan, 58 recipients, 0 tested, 0 positive
Missouri, 31,336 recipients, 293 tested, 38 positive
Mississippi, 12,074 recipients, 175 tested, 10 positive
N Carolina, 7,600 recipients, 150 tested, 21 positive
Oklahoma, 3,864 recipients, 1,328 tested, 138 positive (with it large pool of 'tested', this may be the most accurate)
Tennessee, 24,471 recipients, 325 tested, 28 positive
Utah, 4,225 recipients, 460 tested, 18 positive

So, let's do the math. In these ten states, there are a total of 96,663 recipients, with only 321 testing positive for drugs. That is a rate of 0.33%, near the range you claimed above, and others in this topic have stated.

However, that only bears if every one of the recipients was tested, which clearly was not the case. There were only 2,996 tested, so 321 of that group amounts to about 10.7%, which is exactly where you claim the general population is at.

You will certainly claim that the magic number is 96,663, since that is how many people are in the welfare programs, and the states screened the 'most likely' to be tested. So the 0.33% number is accurate based on screenings. But notice that anomaly of Oklahoma. Using the same screening procedure, the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), one third of recipients were flagged, rather than 1-5% in most other states. Of that one third, 10% tested positive.

At the very least, the percent of "welfare recipients on drugs" in Oklahoma is over 3.5%, as opposed to your 1%. Certainly there are some drug users in the remaining two thirds that were not tested, although maybe not at the same 10% rate. Maybe the average comes out to 5%. That's still a far cry from your insistence that only 1% or less use drugs.

So, you want to pin your argument on statistical sampling, and valid sample size? Fine. I give you Oklahoma, with its 3.5% to 10% of welfare recipients on drugs.

Would you be willing to stake your life on whether your argument would hold up if the other states also tested such a large portion of their welfare pool? Or, even if all states tested every welfare applicant for drugs? Would 100% be a valid sample size in your world? I would be willing to stake my life that my argument is much closer to the truth than yours in such a situation.

So, far from me trying to be a smart-ass, and which of those features I have abundance of, you are trying to spread distortion about a very simple subject, and will go any lengths to stop a real discussion on the matter. Just because objective reality doesn't support your political beliefs.

They did a mandatory drug testing program for people on welfare. Turns out that only 1% had illegal drugs in their system, as opposed to 10% of the general population.

Take your own advice. Quit making the poor into something they are not.

Yes, it is complicated and there is much FUD. There is also a lot of good research.
Here is a good article which tries to correct some of the misinformation:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
In particular for this conversation, there is a discussion and nice graphic of the cost of the latest and greatest nuclear plant (Hinckley C) from EDF, the Chinese, etc. which shows that it is projected to have 126% greater cost than current base load.
It also discusses the falling cost of battery storage and the role of wind.