What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[Dreamless]

Yes, but compared to the benefits of using nuclear power, I'd much rather use it than be scared of what "could" happen.

The majority (if not all) of nuclear disasters have been caused by humans.....being humans. Not nature, the most notable exception I suppose, would be Fukushima in Japan, and that only happened, because of loss of cooling to the reactor, due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Think about it, that was already an old reactor, and it was nearly impregnable (It took a tsunami, and a earthquake that was around 8 on the richter scale [depending on the source] to cause loss of power to the machines that provided cooling, the reactor itself didn't really sustain damage from the earthquake/tsunami, it was only because the cooling had been knocked out that the disaster happened). A more modern reactor, with zealous regulations should have little to no troubles or incidents at all, we just need to figure out how to make it harder for human behaviour to cause nuclear disasters. (Some say that there were also lack of regulations at the fukushima plant that were partially responsible for the disaster, something to do with getting the information that the power generators for the cooling machines wouldn't be able to sustain certain environmental conditions [like the ones that happened to cause the disaster] and not doing something about it, I believe one of the managers is in some deep shit because of that from the government).

Nuclear power has some risks yes, but they can be minimalized to such an extent that there wouldn't really be any chances of disaster, save for a human doing something incredibly stupid, and then we could reap the benefits of nuclear power. (Which, it is quite clean, compared to coal) And there are things that can be done to the spent fuel that can reprocess it and use it in different reactors, creating somewhat of a cycle for using it, Japan does this already.

The Fukushima plant did have its reactor housing cracked, so it wasn't just a cooling failure.

But the problem was massively made worse by human failure - protocols were not followed which resulted in it being nearly impossible for them to properly shut down the reactor quickly. It's been a while, but if I remember rightly they had improperly handled fuel rods.

But that being said, it is important to reiterate that modern fission reactors are extremely meltdown-resistant, and fusion reactors simply will not be capable of undergoing meltdown.

[starlord]

The majority (if not all) of nuclear disasters have been caused by humans.....being humans. Not nature, the most notable exception I suppose, would be Fukushima in Japan, and that only happened, because of loss of cooling to the reactor, due to the earthquake and tsunami.

what makes you think humans will stop being humans?

[Kraenen]

Just because I can't name them doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration.

wikipedia is your friend!

[Spectral]

wikipedia is your friend!

I feel like you're shitting me. Are you shitting me?

[SirPiken]

Just because I can't name them doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration.

LOL. I love how you keep pitching them out there and they consistently sail over his head.

[Kraenen]

I feel like you're shitting me. Are you shitting me?

you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?

[starlord]

Nothing makes me think that, what I do think though, is that enough safeguards can be put in, so that there can be little chance of human action causing a drastic failure, and there already is that to some extent, due to the very few amount of very major nuclear incidents.

all it takes is a little corruption.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

[Magpai]

Actually there's a lot they could do. Throngs of people are dissatisfied with both parties, but simply choose the lesser of two evils. I know I do.

They're actually in a really good position to take back a massive amount of power and influence if they play their cards right.

The fact that you have a thread with this title about the Party that currently controls the House of Representatives is proof that there's a certain amount of denial on the parts of the electorate that no future Republican Party will ever overcome.

[LilSaihah]

you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?

i'm not sure whether this is falling on deaf ears or not but when you present a statement you also have to present all your evidence to support that statement.

[Spectral]

you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?

Are you saying that when someone says "hundreds of others", what they really mean is half a dozen or so incidents in the 50s and 60s in the Soviet Union?

[Wells]

The fact that you have a thread with this title about the Party that currently controls the House of Representatives is proof that there's a certain amount of denial on the parts of the electorate that no future Republican Party will ever overcome.

They've maintained the house largely due to gerrymandering. They still lost the popular vote over all in the House, lost seats in the Senate and and pretty handily lost a presidential race that was theirs to win.

Its silly to pretend that the GOP doesn't have a serious problem right now.

[Dreamless]

you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?

There have been very few nuclear disasters. Only two in history which fall in to the category of major disasters; Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There have been a small number of serious disasters, less than a dozen of varying degrees of damage.

And again, these are all a result of old-style fission reactors, the kind of which are no longer built.

Modern fission reactors are very resistant to meltdown, and fusion reactors will not meltdown.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The fact that you have a thread with this title about the Party that currently controls the House of Representatives is proof that there's a certain amount of denial on the parts of the electorate that no future Republican Party will ever overcome.

There's only two parties. The fact that they currently control the house doesn't impress me much. Especially when their members can't even receive the majority of votes in the process.

If you don't think the current Republican party has a serious problem right now, you've been living under a rock.

[oblivionx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2012

You have a problem with being wrong on just about every issue and never admitting it even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It seems the problem you have is that you didn't get enough hardcore crazy gerrymandering to offset what the census created.

[Kraenen]

i'm not sure whether this is falling on deaf ears or not but when you present a statement you also have to present all your evidence to support that statement.

yes i know. but this has nothing to do with the truth of the statement, and all to do with whether you should believe me or not. i don't much care if you don't believe my own accounts, the answer is right there on wikipedia. the question is: do you want to risk questioning your beliefs?

[Vyxn]

Provide sources for your claims that climate change has been exaggerated and 'every year more and more scientists are questioning the studies.'

Because climate change is an accepted scientific fact. Anthropogenic climate change is also accepted scientific fact, through a preponderance of evidence.

The fact that the earth goes through warming and cooling trends is a red-herring entirely. While it's true that it does, these trends are nowhere near as sudden as what we've been experiencing.

Also; 'unproven theory' demonstrates you just don't know what you're talking about. A theory is by definition proven.

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,"


A peer reviewed survey of over a thousand scientists revealed that 64% do not believe that human activity is causing the planet to heat up. A mere 36% march to the mantra of cataclysmic warming, according to Forbes. It appears that a new consensus is forming that does not support the claims of the alarmists’ so-called consensus that the science is settled.

Wall Street Journal posted an article on global warming and carbon dioxide that was signed by 16 noted scientists.

The article states:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle.

Some of the most famous scientists in US history have joined forces to denounce the man made global warming hoax.

From Washington Examiner…


In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists–including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center–claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media.

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.

NASA had no immediate comment.

In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled,” they wrote.

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation

signed by 141 well renowned climate scientist

[Wells]

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,"

How is this relevant?

I mean did you poll cardiologists as well?

[starlord]

Indeed, though I don't really find that example to be relevant, given the circumstances under which it was operated (World War II to end of Cold War, so it was under some significant pressure), and the age of it, mainly the age though.

Regulations and safety precautions are a hell of a lot better now a days than they were in a plant operated in the 1940s-1970s?, and especially a plant that was the leading research plant under the threat of World War II and the Cold War.

im sure they said that back then as well.

i just dont feel comfortable putting that kind of disaster potential to the test of murphys law.

its only cleaner than coal if nothing goes wrong.

[Dreamless]

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,"


A peer reviewed survey of over a thousand scientists revealed that 64% do not believe that human activity is causing the planet to heat up. A mere 36% march to the mantra of cataclysmic warming, according to Forbes. It appears that a new consensus is forming that does not support the claims of the alarmists’ so-called consensus that the science is settled.

Wall Street Journal posted an article on global warming and carbon dioxide that was signed by 16 noted scientists.

The article states:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle.

Some of the most famous scientists in US history have joined forces to denounce the man made global warming hoax.

From Washington Examiner…


In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists–including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center–claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media.

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.

NASA had no immediate comment.

In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled,” they wrote.

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation

signed by 141 well renowned climate scientist

It's funny how you cite 'peer reviewed' sources without actually providing them.

The 'climategate' thing was entirely fabricated by climate change deniers. Much of what was reported was deliberately taken out of context, and comprised an exchange of ideas and not conclusions.

You don't even name the supposedly 'noted scientists' who sign the things you try and cite, just assert that they are 'noted.'

[Korgoth]

I'd tell the Republican leaders 4 things.

1. You lost on Gays, the liberal media through TV shows like Modern Family has indoctrinated far too many people for your view to ever gain ground on it. So give it up.
2. You lost on Abortion, see above. Give it up.
3. You seem to agree on Immigration for the most part, so yeah. Do Something.
4. You have not lost on the benefits of personal freedom and responsibility and the ills of big government; but having lost the first 2 points, and being unable to see that and keep trying to push it, you can't make headway here.

Make the immigration deal, remove the social issues from the party, and champion personal freedom, responsibility and an effective efficient smaller government.