natural climate change of course as humans are not affecting it, right?

Why is this relevant?

My denialist position is composed of two parts: the most important is that central planning is not the answer; sadly that is the one that warmists care about the most. The other part is that the political incentives and preferences have essentially made honest research impossible (as in, idk, kiddie sekhs) which is something in plain view and which has created true problems of scientific method in climate research. At least some warmists recognize this, but if they don't abandon central planning it's not very meaningful they recognize it.

It is a minor piece of the puzzle given the ultimate natural solution of the quantum vacuum. Or are you saying that we "hoomins" cannot have access to god powers?

I believe in the quantum vacuum. I even believe we may be able to have it within 100 years time.

I'd rather we don't mess further with habitats before that.

Yeh, so technology can improve all that too.

And I stand corrected.

It's quite good, because although we require vitamin D, sun tanning is rather unhealthy unless you're black skinned, or almost.

I can't wait till we cover Florida under a solar cell!

Nuclear "for now" is ridiculous to promote, I don't care how may LG's flock to your cathedral. It is fucking dangerous beyond any alternatives "for now".

Other energy sources have accidents too. Accidents which also kill and which also pollute. And most known energy sources are more polluting over a facility's lifetime than nuclear. (Solar is the only unquestionable exception)

Your girls would be very upset if you left this world with a bunch of nuclear waste laying around waiting for a tech solution to keep it from slowly, painfully killing them.

Why would I do that?

Nuclear waste is nuclear fuel. The technology we need is how to harness its residual radioactivity. It is dangerous exactly because it is energetic.






Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail