Leaderboard

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them.

IIRC Canada and Australia are two of the countries with the biggest uranium reserves, and we're cool with them. Aside from the climate change aspects, we should phase out fossil fuels just because not burning a fuckload of hydrocarbons will reduce air pollution. Also, I'd have to crunch the numbers, but the environmental footprint of uranium mining is almost certainly less than that oil drilling (it's no contest against coal). (Inherently more energy dense fuel = less shit getting dug out of the ground).

The thing is, the issue is settled. There is a broad consensus amongst climate scientists that, you know, returning all that carbon from the carboniferous era into the atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. And, as we don't have too many ways to plausibly stuff it back into the ground, most are now talking about mitigation and adaption rather than prevention. I'm an optimist, in that I think that it might be a good thing in the long term to have lots of CO2 around for photosynthesis (so long as we don't end up like Venus). But then I also like the idea of dragonflies the size of eagles.

The Type 62 is hilarious after the matchmaking change (it got better matchmaking like all the other light tanks, but its stats stayed the same).

"I fucking love science" has very little to do with actual science and just latches onto whatever headline is the most sensationalist.

Reminds me of the time I used to follow the Facebook page of the website "I Fucking Love Science" until about last October. They published an article talking about how we've basically hit the point of no return on climate change. There's no more hope to be had. It's a done deal and we'll all have to live with the consequences. Since the issue was now "settled", I thought now was a good a time as any to unsub from that page.

Did anyone here by any chance have anything to do with this? http://exposingwot.com/gsh-another-nazi-clan-protected-by-wargaming/

T-64B with panoramic sight -80s - http://btvt.info/img/2017_t64_panorama.jpg http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt1988_4_t64_panorama.htm

I guess I am confused by this because the giant bugs were a result of high oxygen levels, not carbon dioxide.

There is indeed. Worse yet, it's the most ineffective or counterproductive ventures that get rewarded. And this is a legitimate criticism of how the global warming/climate change conversation played out: that the organisations and individuals which took it upon themselves to evangelise it as a cause also invariably used it as a fund raising cause rather than sincerely trying to engage power structures. That they had entrenched opposition (which have now joined and helped to co-opt the whole concept) does not excuse playing these sorts of games with important topics.

We're not just talking about a single community here. Damn the idiots on their own merits, but don't use their idiocy to paint an entire field. This should be something that gun folk recognise, tbh.

There are a bunch of topics in science that are large, complex and subject to controversy amongst experts in the field around their margins. Only a few seem to generate this attitude of "well I'm sure you're right about some of it, but there's controversy so I'm going to act as if the whole thing is wrong" amongst the general public. As for people getting het up about it, what do you expect people to act like when their understanding (which, again, is well within the consensus) is that this is the KT boundary all over again? Climate change might be the biggest existential threat to our civilisation besides nukes and angry space rocks - so I'd imagine that people would get a bit upset at the response of society to the issue.

The issue is "sort-of-settled". There are a lot of things that are real facts, and a lot of things that are speculation, and a lot of things that are obvious bullshit. That's pretty much "science as usual", though. The problem has come because of the politicization of the issue and the way they've tried to sell the public on it. I mean, sure, there's some culpability to assign to the climate skeptics' equivalents of anti-vaccers (not all climate skeptics qualify as this, though), but a lot of this skepticism was a self-inflicted wound. I mean, for one thing, the climate change folks' narrative has dramatically changed multiple times within a lot of people's lifetimes. It was an impending ice age, then global warming, then "climate change" (a noncommittal euphemism that sure is perhaps more technically accurate but still sounds like a weaselly copout to literally everyone). Throw in the fact that you can't even ask questions about it anymore* without people jumping down your throat and calling you anti-science, and yeah. Anyone who doesn't sexually identify as a scientist sees a huge steaming load, here. That doesn't mean that climate change is actually a huge steaming load (though there are still some pretty compelling reasons - like climate models - to think maybe it is at least a little bit), but it does mean it's being sold the same way a steaming load is sold. *I don't mean "ask questions" as in "ask smarmy retarded questions" I mean literally "where's the restroom" type stuff, nor by "people" do I mean "random idiots". I once recall watching a video from Veritasium, and commenting something like "I am not a climate expert; could you point me to resources that show the link between human activity and warming patterns?" and him chewing me out as a retard for asking. When you get a welcome like that, well, it's not too far a jump to think maybe they have something to hide.

Maybe if the Left in our country hadn't spent the last 5 decades protesting nuclear power, western medicine, vaccines, GMOs and most of the technological progress of the 20th Century, then maybe we wouldn't have an atmosphere where everyone feels the right to question "scientists". That's not to say that Republicans and their foot soldiers in the Religious Right haven't contributed their fair share. But the last I checked, Republicans generally aren't the sort to wrap themselves in the flag of SCIENCE! in order to use it as a rhetorical argument while posting OBNOXIOUS Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking or Bill Nye quotes on social media. Here's another photo. Yeah. How DARE a politician run on a platform of bringing back American prosperity like the sort which we experienced in the 1950s when the median household only needed one bread winner and a high school graduate could afford to buy a house AND a new car based on the earnings from that single union job. The 1950s btw when Americans unquestioningly had confidence in "scientists" and pop culture was filled with images like this. It's like these people WANT to lose elections.

We had a lot of winners marching in Seattle today. During the Emerald City’s march, we asked protesters one simple question: why are you marching for science today? Emi Montenegro: “To raise awareness for the fact that science is a very patriarchal institution. And a lot of the progress – or so-called progress – that comes out of science comes at a really high cost, especially for marginalized communities and people of color and indigenous people.”

CVH-B(?), a proposed Helicopter-carrier for the JMSDF from the late 1950s

Ah, I remember when we started posting on WoTLabs and the mods told us they didn't want any of this "history" nonsense on there.

Some Photos of Gripen E production

rifling bit for 16 inch guns.