# Simple Science



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 2, 2019)




----------



## Sheriff Joe (Nov 2, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


>


Facts and science are not about consensus.

That’s gonna leave a mark.

3%er


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 2, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Facts and science are not about consensus.
> 
> That’s gonna leave a mark.
> 
> 3%er


How did you like the examples of those that stuck to the science.  The consensus folks crack me up.  Greta to the rescue!!


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Nov 2, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> How did you like the examples of those that stuck to the science.  The consensus folks crack me up.  Greta to the rescue!!


No arguing those facts.
Too bad the lib crowd won’t listen to it.
Science is a matter of convenience to them.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 2, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> No arguing those facts.
> Too bad the lib crowd won’t listen to it.
> Science is a matter of convenience to them.


Gretaʻs Goonies


----------



## nononono (Nov 2, 2019)

*Bruddah.......Thank you oh soooooooooo much for posting Dr. Patrick Moore....!!*
*
It's refreshing to see that YOU understand enough of the FALSE PREMISE that
has been put forth to catch the subtleties he presents that absolutely destroys the 
ignorant/lemming talking points they spew/regurgitate....
I have laughed at many an idiot that tried to sell me the Carbon " Footprint "
koolaid.....especially when that is my foundation....

Al Gore should be in JAIL for the crap he did with his junk science premise
that ended up being a Ponzi scheme to extort monies from Nations......
Not many people caught on to the fact that he did it to AMERICA specifically
and I strongly feel he did it as retribution for losing the election....
Does that statement sound familiar.......of course it does...
*
*Climate Change LIES....
Russian Collusion LIES.....*

*Where's the connection.....The Filthy Clinton's ( The Modern Day Plague ! ).....!*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 2, 2019)

nononono said:


> *Bruddah.......Thank you oh soooooooooo much for posting Dr. Patrick Moore....!!*
> 
> *It's refreshing to see that YOU understand enough of the FALSE PREMISE that
> has been put forth to catch the subtleties he presents that absolutely destroys the
> ...


They are anti-human flourishing.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Nov 3, 2019)

*Where Are the Real Scientists?*
Gil Gutknecht | Nov 03, 2019 12:01 AM






_Source: AP Photo/Sam McNeil_
About 45 years ago, a handful of climatologists surrendered to new evidence and switched sides. They moved from predicting a coming ice age to warning of the dangers of impending global warming. With the promise of a flood of federal grants, they were joined by a growing chorus of academics. They began chirping the warming alarms like a house full of defective smoke detectors. Today that theory has become so mainstream in academia that anyone who even questions it will be banished from the campus. 

Without much empirical evidence, they assigned the blame for their predictions of the coming atmospheric calamity. It was CO2. More to the point, it was human activity in general and American’s insatiable demand for fossil fuel energy in particular. Never mind the fact that carbon dioxide makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. They had their computer models, hockey stick charts and of course, a consensus. Most experts are willing to concede that carbon dioxide levels have been increasing. Many even agree that human activity contributes to this. Historic data concerning the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels is less conclusive. 
Missing from a serious discussion of these matters is the role that plants play in mitigating any CO2 increase. It is well understood that plants consume carbon dioxide and express oxygen. As carbon levels in the atmosphere increase, so will plant growth. Everyone who grows things in hot houses knows this. 
After a decade of data which did not support the warming theory or their hockey stick predictions, the alarmists again pivoted. Alarmists dismissed this as a pause. They conveniently replaced “global warming” with “climate change”. If there wasn’t evidence to support their hockey stick chart, there was daily evidence of change. The same people who tell us not to confuse climate with weather are the first to rush to the microphones whenever there is a wild fire, flood or hurricane on the horizon. All as if discerning people wouldn’t notice. Some of us noticed. Americans became more skeptical. So did a small group of scientists who were brave enough to start asking serious questions and reviewing the data. 

Not that long ago, that was what most scientists did. 
One such skeptic is Tony Heller. He is not a climate scientist. (Neither is Al Gore or Bill Nye, the Science Guy.) Heller is a computer scientist who enjoys digging into data. He has a website, realclimatescience.com. His YouTube video _My Gift to Climate Alarmists_ is well worth the watch. In it, he demonstrates just how charts are manipulated by the climate alarmists. By selectively setting the beginning or ending date of a particular graph or chart, it can be made to fit their narrative. It is deliciously deceptive. 
One such example is a chart that demonstrates rising sea levels. Since the end of the last ice age, sea levels have risen by 400 feet. Somehow life on earth adapted. Alarmists claim that the rate of this rise has increased in recent years due to climate change. But, Heller points out that if you simply extend the chart back to the time of Abraham Lincoln, you will see that sea levels, as measured at Battery Park on lower Manhattan, have increased at a fairly steady 2.84 millimeters annually. He also shows how sea ice charts are being manipulated. Heller has even developed a software program so that you can debug the alarmist’s charts at home.
Dr. Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace and remains a self-described environmentalist. He too has become a healthy skeptic of the climate alarmists. In his book Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, he uses some of the same charts as Heller. Dr. Moore puts the climate hysteria into some perspective. As the Left is want to do, he has been personally maligned by the alarmists. They seldom challenge his facts. The facts, like the skeptics, are not their friends. 

The real question is where are the real scientists? The ones who claim to believe in the scientific method where theories were meant to be challenged. The ones who believed that_ science by consensus_ was an oxymoron. 
Peer pressure may be powerful. But never forget, so are facts.


----------



## messy (Nov 3, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


>


He loves chlorinated water and nuclear power. He's perfect for Huckabee and the idiots who pay attention to him.
Have you read what the internationally respected science community says about this crackpot? LOL!


----------



## espola (Nov 3, 2019)

messy said:


> He loves chlorinated water and nuclear power. He's perfect for Huckabee and the idiots who pay attention to him.
> Have you read what the internationally respected science community says about this crackpot? LOL!


"Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace."






						Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore
					

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance.  He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell...




					www.greenpeace.org


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 3, 2019)

messy said:


> He loves chlorinated water and nuclear power. He's perfect for Huckabee and the idiots who pay attention to him.
> Have you read what the internationally respected science community says about this crackpot? LOL!


Yes.  And I respect and encourage that science communities choice to consume as much fossil fuel as they choose.  While they cite each others work.  Lol!


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 3, 2019)

espola said:


> "Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You anti-science folks crack me up.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 3, 2019)

Nuclear powered Submarines, Cruisers, and Aircraft Carriers.  It seems to have worked well for over 40 years.  Maybe we should plug them in while in port.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Nov 3, 2019)

messy said:


> He loves chlorinated water and nuclear power. He's perfect for Huckabee and the idiots who pay attention to him.
> Have you read what the internationally respected science community says about this crackpot? LOL!


The 97%?
Wise up.


----------



## espola (Nov 3, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Nuclear powered Submarines, Cruisers, and Aircraft Carriers.  It seems to have worked well for over 40 years.  Maybe we should plug them in while in port.


Maybe we should make the commercial reactor operators run them like the Navy does - three watches around the clock, with rotating 90-day tours where the operators sleep in the reactor building.


----------



## nononono (Nov 3, 2019)

espola said:


> "Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Show definitive PROOF ....Ya Proven LIAR.*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 3, 2019)

espola said:


> Maybe we should make the commercial reactor operators run them like the Navy does - three watches around the clock, with rotating 90-day tours where the operators sleep in the reactor building.


If the goal is CO2 reduction.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

How many Nuclear Energy deaths have occured in the U.S.  You know?  So we can move on and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere like the U.S. Navy has been doing for the last 40 plus years


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 4, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> How many Nuclear Energy deaths have occured in the U.S.  You know?  So we can move on and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere like the U.S. Navy has been doing for the last 40 plus years


The response that e post should be entertaining...


----------



## espola (Nov 4, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> How many Nuclear Energy deaths have occured in the U.S.  You know?  So we can move on and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere like the U.S. Navy has been doing for the last 40 plus years


It's not danger that will delay the inevitable growth of nuclear power in the US.  It's politics.

And  managerial incompetence, as we witnessed at Chernobyl and to a less dangerous (but economically devastating degree) at San Onofre.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

espola said:


> It's not danger that will delay the inevitable growth of nuclear power in the US.  It's politics.
> 
> And  managerial incompetence, as we witnessed at Chernobyl and to a less dangerous (but economically devastating degree) at San Onofre.


Tell us about the economics of San Onofre and why economics is important given the CO2 barrel weʻre looking down.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

Multi Sport said:


> The response that e post should be entertaining...


Nuclear not as dangerous as messpola thinks or doesnʻt think.  Economics?  I canʻt wait for the specifics.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

Funny though.  Nuclear energy too political for everyone but the government.  The U.S. has 82 total nuclear power plants patroling the oceans of the world without a Red October to speak of.


----------



## espola (Nov 4, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Tell us about the economics of San Onofre and why economics is important given the CO2 barrel weʻre looking down.


The bungled replacement of the steam generators at San Onofre Units 2 and 3 caused the abandonment of power generation at the facility.  Politicians and lawyers are arguing who will pay the cost - ratepayers, shareholders, Mitsubishi (who built the failed replacement parts), insurance companies?  Maybe taxpayers will be stuck with bailouts and cleanup costs?


----------



## espola (Nov 4, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Funny though.  Nuclear energy too political for everyone but the government.  The U.S. has 82 total nuclear power plants patroling the oceans of the world without a Red October to speak of.


Red October was fiction.


----------



## Booter (Nov 4, 2019)

It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile.


----------



## nononono (Nov 4, 2019)

espola said:


> It's not danger that will delay the inevitable growth of nuclear power in the US.
> It's politics.
> 
> And  managerial incompetence, as we witnessed at Chernobyl and to a
> less dangerous (but economically devastating degree) at San Onofre.


*Managerial incompetence = Ignorance

Like the " State " idiots who sent THEIR plans to 
Mitsubishi and then closed San Onofre due to 
THEIR design flaws and blamed it on Mitsubishi...

A perfectly good generating plant that just needed 
upgrades....Oh we can't afford the upgrades because
we have to attempt to fill that bottomless financial hole
 in the California Pension Plans that are literally insolvent.
So they couple with the Climate Change/Global Warming/
Green Peace crowd and condemn the Nuclear Power Plant
on pure unadulterated Idiocy and Butt poor financial planning........

Go outside and " Blow " into the wind and help with Warren
and Sanders " Green New Deal " that will ruin the energy
sector for good............Go on " Blow " and contribute...
*


----------



## nononono (Nov 4, 2019)

espola said:


> Red October was fiction.


*So are 99 % of your posts.............
The pictures are 1 %..........*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

espola said:


> The bungled replacement of the steam generators at San Onofre Units 2 and 3 caused the abandonment of power generation at the facility.  Politicians and lawyers are arguing who will pay the cost - ratepayers, shareholders, Mitsubishi (who built the failed replacement parts), insurance companies?  Maybe taxpayers will be stuck with bailouts and cleanup costs?


Thatʻs not economics


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

espola said:


> Red October was fiction.


So is catastrophic global warming caused by CO2.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

Booter said:


> It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile.


The truth is that the U.S. has 82 nuclear power plants on 72 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers without a single accident.


----------



## espola (Nov 4, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> The truth is that the U.S. has 82 nuclear power plants on 72 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers without a single accident.


Thresher was lost after a reactor scram, according to the last few messages received.  No one knows what happened to Scorpion, although the Navy has been able to determine when and where.  NR-1 was built with only partial shielding around the reactor, restricting all personnel to the forward part of the vessel and requiring special handling and docking procedures in port.  The SL-1 accident in Idaho killed all three operators present in the building at the time, although that was an Army reactor, not Navy.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 4, 2019)

espola said:


> Thresher was lost after a reactor scram, according to the last few messages received.  No one knows what happened to Scorpion, although the Navy has been able to determine when and where.  NR-1 was built with only partial shielding around the reactor, restricting all personnel to the forward part of the vessel and requiring special handling and docking procedures in port.  The SL-1 accident in Idaho killed all three operators present in the building at the time, although that was an Army reactor, not Navy.


CO2 is the more imminent danger.  Is it not?


----------



## espola (Nov 4, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> CO2 is the more imminent danger.  Is it not?


More imminent than what?


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Nov 5, 2019)

Share| Twitter

| Facebook

|

	
	
		
		
	


	



255 Comments
November 4, 2019
*Another scientist challenges Darwin's theory*
By John Dale Dunn

_Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose_, by Marcos Eberlin 170 pp; softcover, $11.96; ISBN 13-978-1-936599-65-3 (Discovery Institute Press: Seattle); 2019





Dr. Marcos Eberlin, a physical chemist who specializes in spectrometry and supervises a large lab in Brazil that has produced hundreds of doctoral-level scientists, is former president of the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation and author of more than 1,000 research papers.  He has written a book that makes a strong case for another nail in the coffin of Darwin's theory of evolution of species.
In the late 1960s, when I went to medical school, the histologists (cellular-level anatomists) had received a great new instrument, the electron microscope, that provided an order of magnitude's improvement on studying and recording the microanatomy of living cells.  I still have on my shelf my electron microscopy book, published in 1966, a big picture and text book, _Ultrastructural Aspects of Disease:_ _The First Atlas of Fine Structure on Pathology_, edited by King (1966) — 22 authors, 100 contributors, an amazing exposition on the ultrastructure of normal and pathological specialized cells of the human body, bone, liver, kidney, brain, muscle, heart, lung.  You get the picture.  The detail showed that cells of the body are not only diverse, but internally exceptionally complex — much more complex than anything man-made.  It's complex anatomy supporting complex functionality.
Dr. Eberlin is involved in spectrometry.  He studies the molecules that make up those really small things — one more level down into the make-up of cells, to the biochemical level of anatomy and the level at which atoms and molecules combine to make more complex molecules that have biochemical roles in the physiology of the cell.  Is that a mouthful?
Eberlin studies complex chemical chain reactions facilitated by enzymes of amazing size and complexity, and the whole thing managed by the nucleus of the cell that has genetic material essential to manage all the cell's anatomy and physiological/chemical functionality to keep the cell alive and reproducing.  Of course, if that cell were a part of a multicellular organism, the genetic material also determined the role of that cell in the larger organism.

As an example, membranes keep the cell intact but also allow nutrients and waste to go in and out, while protecting against toxins.  Think of manufacturing and retail "just in time" inventory — a living cell is a "just in time" complex functional unit of life, directed by genetic material, DNA, that Bill Gates said "is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Darwin knew little about cellular anatomical and physiological complexity.  Certainly, he knew less about the multicelled and the higher forms of living things that display not only complex cellular functionality, but also incredible cellular diversity.
Dr. Eberlin writes in 172 pages of energetic prose about the artful solutions to major engineering, chemistry, and biology in living cells of living things that are evidence of a factor of foresight and intelligence.
Dr. Eberlin runs through a wonderful series of discussions that make his case for design and not chance (Darwin's theory is built on chance and random events):

 The complex functionality of membranes.
The ideal components and proportions of the atmosphere.
The genius make-up of genetic material, DNA and RNA.
Gene controls — operons.
The magic of enzymes — they are made to work.
Chaparones and chaparonins that modify and maximize protein synthesis and benefits.
The special activities and makeup of bugs, bacteria, and carnivorous plants.
Birds and their sense of direction.
The extraordinary nature of bird eggs and bird gestation.
The special provisions that are essential for human reproduction.
Special provision for sight.
Chemicals don't have a brain, can't organize complex functionality; they just get pushed around by electric magnetic physical forces.  It is silly to propose that random chemical changes that occasionally find a survival benefit can create complex functionality of the magnitude described in any cell, much less the many living single to multi-celled and of course the higher forms of life.   
The evolutionary theory of incrementalism that results in changes that are advantageous assumes too much.  The chicken-egg question is an example of the circular causality question: if an advanced function is required, how does the organism get there?  Do molecules know what they're doing?  Do they know how to improve themselves?
It is magical thinking to propose that random genetic mutations or changes (Darwin knew nothing of genetics) occurring over eons are going to produce essential large complex molecules (Darwin knew nothing of molecules) that arrive at the right place and right time to interact with other large, complex just-right functional molecules when all the molecules have to have all their hundreds of amino acids in the right order and the proper right-left orientation (all amino acids are right or left) to produce functional advantages to survival for the organism. 
There is no excuse for ignoring what is apparent, as the author points out: "This book has pointed out many clever mechanisms of life. But they are not merely clever.  They are not just advantages. . . they are 'primordial musts,' features needed from the start for the organisms possessing them to survive and thrive. Think about it next time you hear some Darwinist waxing eloquent on how random variations can produce a complex functionality that cannot be duplicated by men." 
My horses and dogs prove Darwin's theory a real stab in the dark—we are all, no doubt composed of mostly carbon compounds and water, but we are incredibly complex and yet functional, so it sure isn't something that happens by random chance and luck.  No, tornadoes in a junk yard are not going to make a living thing.  Such creations must have a really detailed, perfect plan, and then execute it.  Even our smartest humans can't even know where to start.   My dogs are perfect, so are my horses and also the deer in my pasture, the hummingbirds, the painted buntings -- the evidence of some really remarkable planning is everywhere.  Who and how -- don't ask me -- I just know a well planned and executed project when it see it.


----------



## messy (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> The truth is that the U.S. has 82 nuclear power plants on 72 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers without a single accident.


Wrong. What a surprise.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> More imminent than what?


non-CO2 producing nuclear energy.


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> non-CO2 producing nuclear energy.


Circle.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Wrong. What a surprise.


Not really.  25 years after serving on the Nimitz and my glow is good.  Actually I am right.  Not a single accident on any of the 82 nuclear powered submarines or carriers.  Your knowledge of the nuclear Navy just like your knowledge of finance.  Inert.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> Circle.


Lol!


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Not really.  25 years after serving on the Nimitz and my glow is good.  Actually I am right.  Not a single accident on any of the 82 nuclear powered submarines or carriers.  Your knowledge of the nuclear Navy just like your knowledge of finance.  Inert.


The largest Navy reactor in use, the A4W reactors on the Nimitz class carriers, delivers about half the power of a typical US commercial reactor (550 MW compared to 1100 MW for the shutdown San Onofre reactors, and all the newer us commercial reactors are bigger).  The Navy has given up using nuclear power on any ships other than carriers and submarines because of operational and training difficulties.


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Not really.  25 years after serving on the Nimitz and my glow is good.  Actually I am right.  Not a single accident on any of the 82 nuclear powered submarines or carriers.  Your knowledge of the nuclear Navy just like your knowledge of finance.  Inert.


You were on the Nimitz for three years (or was it more?).  And most of your time was on the flight deck (based on your stories about your Navy life).  How much reactor operator time does a recruiter get?


----------



## nononono (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> You were on the Nimitz for three years (or was it more?).  And most of your time was on the flight deck (based on your stories about your Navy life).  How much reactor operator time does a recruiter get?


*You can try as hard as you want but you no longer have the advantage of*
*pushing down the TRUTH.....You're just a nuisance troll at this point.
*
*You are going to embarrass your self silly here real quick. *


----------



## messy (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Not really.  25 years after serving on the Nimitz and my glow is good.  Actually I am right.  Not a single accident on any of the 82 nuclear powered submarines or carriers.  Your knowledge of the nuclear Navy just like your knowledge of finance.  Inert.


Wrong again, sailor.


----------



## messy (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Not really.  25 years after serving on the Nimitz and my glow is good.  Actually I am right.  Not a single accident on any of the 82 nuclear powered submarines or carriers.  Your knowledge of the nuclear Navy just like your knowledge of finance.  Inert.


Keeping your streak alive...never right about anything. I commend your consistency.
It’s one thing for me to know so much more about finance and economics than you (and to have so much more), but I also know more about the military. Send someone else up here, dummy.

SUBSAFE was devised after the loss in 1963 of the _USS Thresher_, the lead ship of a more advanced successor to the _Skipjack _class. An apparent rupture in her pipes allowed saltwater to spray into the vessel, causing a chain reaction leading to a reactor shutdown, a failure of the air flasks used to surface, and the progressive flooding of the submarine. The _Thresher_ sank with 129 aboard—amounting to the deadliest submarine accident ever.


----------



## nononono (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Wrong again, sailor.





messy said:


> Keeping your streak alive...never right about anything. I commend your consistency.
> It’s one thing for me to know so much more about finance and economics than you
> (and to have so much more), but I also know more about the military.
> Send someone else up here, dummy.
> ...



*" Messy " " Messy "......why do you set yourself up like this....*

*Let's just infer that BI retired 25 years ago ( which I'm pretty sure he didn't...! )
So that would be 1995/ Late 1994..
25 years earlier would be 1970/late 1969....he wasn't even wet 
when " that " happened ya idiot....

By the way the USS Nimitz was " Commissioned " in 1975..

So 1975 + 25 = 2000
If we go backwards....
2019 - 25 = early 1995/late 1994.........

No matter which way you add/subtract ....yur an idiot " Messy ".... *

*So I'll ask the question you should have initially asked....

Bruddah, what years did you serve on the USS Nimitz....
Thank You for you response.*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> You were on the Nimitz for three years (or was it more?).  And most of your time was on the flight deck (based on your stories about your Navy life).  How much reactor operator time does a recruiter get?


Probably more than a reservist.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> The largest Navy reactor in use, the A4W reactors on the Nimitz class carriers, delivers about half the power of a typical US commercial reactor (550 MW compared to 1100 MW for the shutdown San Onofre reactors, and all the newer us commercial reactors are bigger).  The Navy has given up using nuclear power on any ships other than carriers and submarines because of operational and training difficulties.


How many households does 1100 MW power?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

nononono said:


> *" Messy " " Messy "......why do you set yourself up like this....*
> 
> *Let's just infer that BI retired 25 years ago ( which I'm pretty sure he didn't...! )
> So that would be 1995/ Late 1994..
> ...


94-96.


----------



## nononono (Nov 5, 2019)

*Almost 100,000 tons of Diplomacy !*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Keeping your streak alive...never right about anything. I commend your consistency.
> It’s one thing for me to know so much more about finance and economics than you (and to have so much more), but I also know more about the military. Send someone else up here, dummy.
> 
> SUBSAFE was devised after the loss in 1963 of the _USS Thresher_, the lead ship of a more advanced successor to the _Skipjack _class. An apparent rupture in her pipes allowed saltwater to spray into the vessel, causing a chain reaction leading to a reactor shutdown, a failure of the air flasks used to surface, and the progressive flooding of the submarine. The _Thresher_ sank with 129 aboard—amounting to the deadliest submarine accident ever.


Hanapaa!  I knew you wouldnʻt notice that the 82 nuclear power plants that are currently active Navy boats are accident free.  I knew I would spool you two clowns with this.


----------



## messy (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Hanapaa!  I knew you wouldnʻt notice that the 82 nuclear power plants that are currently active Navy boats are accident free.  I knew I would spool you two clowns with this.


Trying to claim accident-free nuclear subs. You were wrong. Have you ever been right?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> You were on the Nimitz for three years (or was it more?).  And most of your time was on the flight deck (based on your stories about your Navy life).  How much reactor operator time does a recruiter get?


BTW, how much reactor operator time do customers of Nuclear power plants get?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> Trying to claim accident-free nuclear subs. You were wrong. Have you ever been right?


Yes 82 times. Reeeeead.


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> How many households does 1100 MW power?


The default average "household" used in utility planning is 1 kw, or 24 kwh/day.  Our little apartment users much less.


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Hanapaa!  I knew you wouldnʻt notice that the 82 nuclear power plants that are currently active Navy boats are accident free.  I knew I would spool you two clowns with this.


Why do you persist in ignoring Thresher and possibly Scorpion?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> The default average "household" used in utility planning is 1 kw, or 24 kwh/day.  Our little apartment users much less.





Bruddah IZ said:


> How many households does 1100 MW power?


How many?  Lol


----------



## messy (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> Why do you persist in ignoring Thresher and possibly Scorpion?


He hasn't admitted to being wrong ever; but he's never right! It's just fun reminding him what a dummy he is.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> Why do you persist in ignoring Thresher and possibly Scorpion?


Because AOC wants her zero CO2.


----------



## nononono (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> He hasn't admitted to being wrong ever; but he's never right!
> It's just fun reminding him what a dummy he is.


*" Messy " ......you're the lady.*







*And you're still feelin it.*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> He hasn't admitted to being wrong ever; but he's never right! It's just fun reminding him what a dummy he is.


You spolas donʻt read.  Too easy


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> How many?  Lol


You just confirmed something we discovered long ago - you can't do simple arithmetic.


----------



## messy (Nov 5, 2019)

nononono said:


> *" Messy " ......you're the lady.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I admire the way you stupid people stick together. Thankfully there's so few of you people in California.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> You just confirmed something we discovered long ago - you can't do simple arithmetic.


Math requires reading and we know you Spolas don't read.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> I admire the way you stupid people stick together. Thankfully there's so few of you people in California.


I'm glad you smart people are so against CO2 free energy.


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Math requires reading and we know you Spolas don't read.


I'll give you a head start - 1 MW is 1000 kw, and 1100 is one thousand, one hundred times 1.  Are you still keeping up?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> I'll give you a head start - 1 MW is 1000 kw, and 1100 is one thousand, one hundred times 1.  Are you still keeping up?


How many small apartments like yours?  Lol!


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> How many small apartments like yours?  Lol!


Over the first three years here we averaged about 12.5 kwh/day.  I haven't figured out this year yet, but it is probably less since we didn't need to use the A/C all summer (I turned it on once to make sure if worked, but fans were sufficient in even the hottest days).


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> Over the first three years here we averaged about 12.5 kwh/day.  I haven't figured out this year yet, but it is probably less since we didn't need to use the A/C all summer (I turned it on once to make sure if worked, but fans were sufficient in even the hottest days).


But you're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere


----------



## nononono (Nov 5, 2019)

messy said:


> I admire the way you stupid people stick together.
> Thankfully there's so few of you people in California.


*How little YOU do know.....*

*You have shown how " Stupid " operates.....just look at your posting history.
It's a case study of Stupidity......
Now about that " Few " you refer to, you might want to start rethinking your
complacency stance you've stupidly taken.....You'll wake up one day
very soon and the shock will be enough to floor you.....
YOU ARE THE MINORITY " WHITE BOY " !*


----------



## espola (Nov 5, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> But you're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere


We're working on that.  Today at about 1PM the largest source of California electricity was Renewables, and combined with Large Hydro and Nuclear amounted to more that 50% of the supply.  





__





						California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook
					

View real-time and historical data on generation resources, including renewables, currently on the system.



					www.caiso.com


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 5, 2019)

espola said:


> We're working on that.  Today at about 1PM the largest source of California electricity was Renewables, and combined with Large Hydro and Nuclear amounted to more that 50% of the supply.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But what does it all really mean?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 8, 2019)

Renewable = Unreliable


----------



## espola (Nov 8, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Renewable = Unreliable


----------



## espola (Nov 8, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Renewable = Unreliable




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192424904773263360


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 8, 2019)

espola said:


>


Come out of where?  Lol!


----------



## espola (Nov 8, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Come out of where?  Lol!


See above.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 8, 2019)

espola said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192424904773263360





espola said:


> See above.


And the wind?


----------



## espola (Nov 8, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> And the wind?


Ah, yes - the wind.  Sometimes it blows so hard in the various wind farms in California that they have to shut them down to protect the machines.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 8, 2019)

espola said:


> Ah, yes - the wind.  Sometimes it blows so hard in the various wind farms in California that they have to shut them down to protect the machines.


So shut down happens when there is not enough wind or too much wind.  That's a lot of windmills to shut down.  It's a good thing non- CO2 producing Nuclear Power plants on 82 naval warships are accident free and provide perfect models for the U.S.  That is if we are serious about CO2 reduction.  You know?  Food for the plants?


----------



## espola (Nov 8, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> So shut down happens when there is not enough wind or too much wind.  That's a lot of windmills to shut down.  It's a good thing non- CO2 producing Nuclear Power plants on 82 naval warships are accident free and provide perfect models for the U.S.  That is if we are serious about CO2 reduction.  You know?  Food for the plants?


Is there some place you can name in California where the plants need more CO2?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 8, 2019)

espola said:


> Is there some place you can name in California where the plants need more CO2?


No.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 9, 2019)

If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.


----------



## espola (Nov 9, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.


Coocoo???


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 9, 2019)

For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two _hours_ of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 9, 2019)

If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.


----------



## espola (Nov 9, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.











						The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking | Manhattan Institute
					

Progressive policymakers promote the idea that America is on the verge of a green revolution that will eliminate hydrocarbon use within the near future—but in reality, this is not possible.




					www.manhattan-institute.org


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 15, 2019)

espola said:


> The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking | Manhattan Institute
> 
> 
> Progressive policymakers promote the idea that America is on the verge of a green revolution that will eliminate hydrocarbon use within the near future—but in reality, this is not possible.
> ...


The power of "If".


----------



## nononono (Nov 16, 2019)

*DEMOCRATS = CRIMINALS*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 23, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> "Facts and science are not about consensus."


The extremist take comfort in con$en$u$.  Nutters naively think that there is no way the 97% could be on the take.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 25, 2019)

https://fee.org/articles/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/
*Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally*
A closer look at solar panels opens a wide array of questions that need answers.
*Monday, November 18, 2019*

_Stanford Magazine_ also points out that solar energy has a higher carbon footprint than wind and nuclear energy. Ray Weiss, a professor of Geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains that a number of solar panels release nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a chemical compound 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. As recently as 2015, he explained that many manufacturers were still struggling to figure out how to contain its release into the atmosphere.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 25, 2019)

*Question the Narrative*

Energy policy is not a place for emotion or action based on instinct. We throw around a lot of buzz words that lead us to the belief that one energy supply is "cleaner" than the other. The reality is that human action and interaction require a constant supply of energy. All forms of energy production have an impact on the environment.

*Questioning certain narratives regarding the eco-friendliness of those classified as "renewable" but do not live up to an environmental standard that reasonable people could support is essential to both innovation and environmental protection.*


----------



## espola (Nov 25, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> https://fee.org/articles/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/
> *Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally*
> A closer look at solar panels opens a wide array of questions that need answers.
> *Monday, November 18, 2019*
> ...


From the Stanford Magazine article you didn't bother to read --


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 26, 2019)

espola said:


> From the Stanford Magazine article you didn't bother to read --
> 
> View attachment 5760


Lol!  So nuclear then.


----------



## espola (Nov 26, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Lol!  So nuclear then.


Overall, the Stanford Magazine article was spoke favorably of increasing the solar photovoltaic infrastructure.

Did you  think no one was going to read it, or were you just passing along FEE's ignorance?


----------



## messy (Nov 26, 2019)

espola said:


> Overall, the Stanford Magazine article was spoke favorably of increasing the solar photovoltaic infrastructure.
> 
> Did you  think no one was going to read it, or were you just passing along FEE's ignorance?


“Fee.org...media for the new America. Really dumb but proud of it.”


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 26, 2019)

espola said:


> Overall, the Stanford Magazine article was spoke favorably of increasing the solar photovoltaic infrastructure.
> 
> Did you  think no one was going to read it, or were you just passing along FEE's ignorance?


What did FEE ignore that you obviously did?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 26, 2019)

messy said:


> “Fee.org...media for the new America. Really dumb but proud of it.”


Speaking of proud.


----------



## espola (Nov 26, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> What did FEE ignore that you obviously did?


Why is fee.org so opposed to the development of the American solar power industry that they are willing to lie to their loyal clients?

An even more personal question (for you) is why you keep on biting on their bait and then displaying your gullibility in public?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 26, 2019)

espola said:


> Why is fee.org so opposed to the development of the American solar power industry that they are willing to lie to their loyal clients?
> 
> An even more personal question (for you) is why you keep on biting on their bait and then displaying your gullibility in public?


Your ignorance for one.


----------



## Hüsker Dü (Nov 26, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Your ignorance for one.


Your blind allegiance is duly noted.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 26, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> Your blind allegiance is duly noted.


Your handler must be proud.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Nov 27, 2019)

*CalSTRS faces calls to divest from fossil-fuel investments*

At CalSTRS' recent investment committee meeting, a large group that included about 40 school children armed with signs, banners and stuffed animals, urged the committee to divest from fossil fuels and to add divestment as a tool in the California State Teachers' Retirement System's governance policy. Speakers, including many of the students whose comments were not broadcast by CalSTRS to protect their privacy, urged CalSTRS to divest, according to videos posted on the website of Fossil Free California. 

https://www.pionline.com/esg/calstrs-faces-calls-divest-fossil-fuel-investments?ad_id=23844107402120781&adset_id=23844107402110781&campaign_id=23843850781960781&ad_name=Sacrificing+Retirement+for+Politics+-+Copy&adset_name=Sacramento,+San+Diego,+Bay+Area,+Riverside,+San+Bernadino+(Updated)&campaign_name=CA+-+Opt+Out+-+TeacherEmpowered&advendor=a2pllc&fbclid=IwAR2PrLt5PZ_w5zGlyScDiPZIi_OdmLkQ7o57NuHvP3OIztKjHNUvPLZYJb8


----------



## nononono (Nov 27, 2019)

espola said:


> Is there some place you can name in California where the plants need more CO2?


*Everywhere meathead......it's a regulating function of this - 6CO2 + 6H20 + (energy) → C6H12O6 + 6O2  *

*Prove me wrong with a detailed breakdown and explain why a higher % is detrimental at the current levels 
of Nitrogen 78 % as opposed to the .03 % of CO2 in the atmosphere....
Remember to calculate the 65 - 80 % dissolving of CO2 into the Oceans of the Earth over multiple years...
Remember to calculate the total output of ALL generators as opposed to losses....*

*Have at it LIAR.....*


----------

