So still not in a giant money vault then?

From your own linked article:

So direct radiation deaths are less than 200 from 1944 to 2000. From the articles on Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl, you're looking at a couple hundred likely deaths due to radiation induced cancers per event. No matter how you add this up, you get to maybe 1000 directly attributable deaths due to radiation over the last hundred years. Multiply that by 10 if you'd like because I'm a biased idiot and you're up to 10k which is still a tiny fraction of the crack pipe number you are claiming.

Not sure why I keep responding to your bullshit trolling, but there have been at least 7 dam failures in the last 100 years that have killed more than 1000 direct and immediate deaths per event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No other power generator has as high of safety standards as nuclear either. All of the nuclear limits are set extremely conservatively compared to the safety requirements for other power generators.

Also if we are looking at risk to the public, hydro is by far the most dangerous power source. Your 20 mile evacuation zone is nothing compared to the hundreds of miles of floodplains downstream from some of the bigger dams in operation. And a dam failure can cause a lot of deaths very quickly vs that nuclear exclusion zone with mildly increases the risk of some cancers. Yet we have dams everywhere...

Do you have any pictures of the money vaults? I'm curious where they are located.

Pretty sure rich people tend to have their money in investments be they bank accounts (which make the money available to lend to other people), stocks (which provide capital to businesses to operate and expand), bonds (which make money available to governments to keep spending money they don't have) or other investments. I guess they do probably have a decent store of value in real-estate, property, and otherwise, but they probably paid someone to give those to them in the first place.

6. I understand different chemicals in the atmosphere can have a huge impact on the earth in very small quantities. I am all for banning CFCs, leaded gas, and other things that are known to cause measurable damage. But CO2 is not toxic in any quantities present or possibly present in the atmosphere. It causes no direct and immediate impact to life forms. It does affect the climate to a certain degree, but that degree is not precisely measurable or predictable. You can scream science from the top of your lungs, but projecting future effects based on small scale models is not science unless it's been tested and shown that the model has accurately predicted experimental results on a consistent basis to validate the hypothesis.

7. Yes, crops will need to be adjusted over time. This is true with or without AGW. Climate changes, land use changes, nutrients change. Planning to use the same agricultural land for the same crop for generations is not practical and should not be considered the norm. I also ask you, which is a more effective solution to this problem? Stopping several billion people from burning cheap and plentiful fuel when they have no affordable alternative or genetically engineering crops to be more heat resistant and water shortage tolerant? And that genetic engineering would be beneficial even if AGW is stopped. Seems like we should be sinking more money into genetically engineering better crops than trying to curtail human nature...

9. Your spreadsheet idea is just as bad as the doomsday "science". On the spreadsheet, why are you not including the value of land that is currently too cold to use and will become more valuable? Why not include the increase in value of land further inland? Why not include the value of new cropland that will be available? Oh, because you didn't consider any single positive effect of a warmer climate... Yeah, that's not science.

I am in agreement we should reduce pollution as much as possible. CO2 isn't a pollutant any more than water vapor is.

The only reason you think there are 0 sites with a safe storage plan is because the goal posts for "safe" keep moving. The chances of anyone being harmed by burying waste in Yucca Mountain is infinitesimal compared with the risk of literally every other form of power generation. But it's still not good enough. A shitty concrete sarcophagus hastily built by conscripts in the Soviet Union has actually been a reasonably safe way to store waste way worse than anything a power plant is supposed to create. The exclusion zone is primarily still there because of the stuff that was released before the cask was built.

But your goal post is that zero radioactive material is released over 100,000 years into a desert with no population anywhere close to it? Nothing humans can construct can meet that standard. Meanwhile coal power plants dump tons of coal ash into big ponds held back from populated areas by questionable dirt mounds. But yeah, the government won't approve Yucca Mountain because it's not safe... Never mind the fact that that same government already irradiated and contaminated huge areas of Nevada with open air and underground nuclear tests.

Nuclear waste isn't risk free, but it's a hell of a lot less risk than just about any other source of power. But for some reason we are storing the waste in more risky locations because the best location isn't good enough. Good grief.

They don't show up to the town hall meetings, but they sure show up at the gas station and use their gas heaters and stoves... Oh, they would prefer that the extraction and refining happen elsewhere so they can get the benefits and not see the consequences? I guess they can at least get the consolation of the extra revenue that fracking brings to their community in the form of jobs, commerce, and taxes.

I'm up for that too. Sadly again the government here is the entity preventing this from occurring. The government only allows spent power plant fuel to be held "temporarily" on site because they haven't approved any other options for it.

Probably because the President doesn't control the federal budget, taxes, or regulation...

Also because Republicans are just as fiscally insane as the Democrats. They just have differences on what to waste money on.

The owners of nuclear waste (primarily the government) have no way to bury their waste safely and securely because the government determines where they are allowed to do that and have exactly 0 sites licensed to do so. The sites that we've already built to safely and securely bury the waste are not able to be used because of the government being stupid. Nuclear plant operators want to do the right thing, but it's the government that is the problem. The Green New Deal should have included immediate opening of the Yucca Mountain storage facility and that would be a good first step.

But they were more concerned about buying more Chinese solar panels...

The damage corporations are causing? Energy companies aren't fracking because they enjoy drilling and polluting. They are doing it because CONSUMERS DEMAND IT. Those families who you claim will suffer and die are the ones using the fossil fuels and continuing to do so. Don't blame it all on the corporations for giving the people what they want.

I think you are missing a few followup questions though:

6) The effect of the CO2 concentration increase from 200-300ppm to 400+ppm makes a significant impact to the Earth's chaotic and multi-variable climate system. Testable? Only in long term experiments with no control available. Could anyone devise a test? No, we can only observe the single Earth we have.

7) A warming climate will have more negative consequences for civilization than positive benefits. Testable? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? No, but observers can look at how civilizations perform in warmer climates vs colder climates. Civilizations have tended to be more successful in warmer climates.

8) Alternatives to fossil fuel based energy are a net positive for the environment and climate systems. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Probably. So far the biggest contributor to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has been switching from coal to natural gas (methane) in power plants.

9) The cost to switch from fossil fuels to alternatives is the most effective way to address the negative consequences of climate change. Testable? Probably. But it is hardly proven.

AGW is a fact. How significant it will be is not. A climate change catastrophe is not. Switching away from fossil fuel based energy to stop it is not.

Ride share actually complements public transit for that last mile. Many people I know Uber/Lyft to the nearest transit station because transit underserves a lot of areas. I know I've used it several times because there is either no public transit option or the public option runs so rarely it isn't practical.

Yes, that's still a choice. The choice is to work for Uber/Lyft instead of any of the other jobs they could find. Or being on welfare.

Just because the alternative is poverty doesn't mean there isn't a choice. Otherwise you can justify theft because poor people don't have a choice.

I know everything that happened between the old movies and the new too, and that's why the new movies have ruined the old movies.

The end of Episode 6 was a triumphant victory. All our characters came together and defeated the enemy.

The start of Episode 7 was a smack in the face where:
-The Emperor was defeated, but there is basically a new emperor with a new Darth Vader terrorizing the galaxy with a new Empire, new fleet, and new super weapon
-Han and Leia turned out to be a shitty couple that got separated and their child pretty much abandoned.
-Han, despite his character development, turned back to being a smuggler. Also somehow lost his ship and didn't go get it.
-Luke sucked at training new Jedi, turned his own nephew into a wannabe sith, and then abandoned everything and everyone he worked so hard to save.
-Leia didn't accomplish building a new republic, and didn't manage to train anyone else to lead as she's ancient and still in the same position 40 years later.

Why am I supposed to like the new movies? Because of the new characters that I don't really care about because they have no real backstory or development? Or am I just hater because I'm a lonely man neckbeard who hates progressive values, women, and minorities?