Congressman Joe Barton: Science Master. From EarthsHott.com. he Barton' s Hi My Scientific Ex of Wind Emachines and Global arming Elli - net my earth net my pro politics global warming Satire wind power Alternative Ener liberal conservative
Upload
Login or register

Congressman Joe Barton: Science Master

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
he Barton' s Hi My
Scientific Ex of Wind Emachines
and Global arming
Elli - net my earth net my problem . tum
mighty winds blow acr' tbs the earth, keeping
the planet emf
wind turbines stop the cooling flow,
warming the earth
...
+812
Views: 31128 Submitted: 08/30/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (226)
[ 226 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#1 - nagasadow
Reply +199 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
#8 to #1 - lumayoshi
Reply -18 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
If we were to build as many wind turbines as it is needed to produce a sufficient amount of energy for the human race, the turbines would effect the wind speed. Maybe the guy is retarded otherwise but this statement is correct. No energy source is infinite.
User avatar #25 to #8 - sciencexplain
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You ****. Wind is created when the sun heats the surface of the Earth in an uneven, jagged pattern. For as long as this Earth has sea and land, and the Sun exists, wind will happen. It is finite as the Sun is. No sun = No wind, Earth is not fixated on an orbit. Don't be a faggot.
User avatar #84 to #25 - greyhoundfd
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
The thing that you're forgetting is that the wind is not infinitely present, and its presence can be reduced. You will never run out of wind so long as the sun keeps heating the Earth, but you can reduce its presence in an area to the point where it will affect the environmental conditions. In other words, the more wind in an area that is saturated and used by wind farms, the less will be available to cool the area. It's not going to light the Earth on fire or some **** like that, but it's going to **** up the transfer of heat between regions if we oversaturate areas with wind farms.

This is why nuclear energy is better.
#89 to #84 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
OH LOOK....ANOTHER ******** TRYING TO BAIL THAT RETARDED REPUBLICAN OUT

GIVE ONE EXAMPLE OF A PLACE HEATED AND RUINED BY WINDFARMING

I'LL WAIT...BUT MORE LIKELY IS YOU'LL MAKE YOURSELF SCARCE
User avatar #90 to #89 - greyhoundfd
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
God you're such a ******* faggot

I'm not saying that this is happening right now, I'm saying that this is a reason that we can't power an entire country on purely wind energy. Oversaturation is a serious issue, and there have been studies posted in the comments here showing that this actually does happen.
#133 to #90 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
WHO POSITED...OTHER THAN YOU...RETARD...THAT YOU CAN POWER AN ENTIRE COUNTRY OFF WIND POWER...

**** YOU AND YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENT...
BUTTHURT REPUBLICAN FAGET ALERT
User avatar #138 to #133 - greyhoundfd
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
The only one being a retard here is you. And no one has posited it, I'm just saying that he's right, but the issue he's talking about occurs on an entirely different scale.

Also, even with cruise control you still need to steer.
#153 to #138 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
#158 to #153 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, am I supposed to care about what an anon says?
I'm sorry, am I supposed to care about what an anon says?
#142 to #138 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Okay now youre just being tedious and splitting hairs with outrageous laughable scenarios in order to defend an incredibly moronic statement...and youre doing it like its your moral responsibility or something bizarre...
How many millions of these windfarms would have to exist to ******* stop the wind you titanic ********???? While we're in the realm of theoreticals... which is what youre clinging to desperately to defend your father, joe barton
User avatar #96 to #84 - hydraetis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You do make a decent point, however nuclear energy is still not entirely green like people seem to think. While it is admittedly much better than coal burning in pretty much every aspect, the waste it produces is still a major problem. Plus until electric motor designs catch up to standard fuel-based motors, the fossil fuel industry is going to stay in control.
User avatar #97 to #96 - greyhoundfd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Actually, one of the ignored facts is that coal-burning actually produces a background radiation that, in total, is far more dangerous than that produced by the waste made by nuclear plants. Also, we should consider how much easier it would be for us to fund waste storage plans when we don't have to continually pay to fix damage caused by growing carbon dioxide levels.
User avatar #98 to #97 - hydraetis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
But the thing is, we can't just keep storing it. Just like our garbage, we're going to run out of land to place it.

Also, I did say that I know nuclear > coal.
User avatar #129 to #98 - slashtrey
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
We can start shooting nuclear waste into outer space.
User avatar #224 to #129 - hydraetis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
Which would require quite a bit of fuel.
User avatar #111 to #98 - greyhoundfd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I know, I was just saying that using the "Radiation are dangerous" point doesn't work when research shows that the background radiation already occuring from the fuel we're using is already significant.

Also, by the time nuclear waste containment becomes an issue, it's likely that we'll have access to forms of nuclear fusion and more advanced fission reactors capable of highly efficient fuel use. Besides, we're already looking at technologies that could reduce the danger of waste. Allowing us to make them become harmless in thousands or hundreds of years instead of millions.
User avatar #44 to #25 - lumayoshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I'll take your word for it
User avatar #43 to #25 - lumayoshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Right, so wind won't slow down if it hits something?
I guess you learn something every day, thx fj community
#29 to #8 - leadstriker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
>knowledge
User avatar #172 to #8 - jukuku
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Just a friendly reminder to never vote, ever, you ******* dumb ass.

Thank you.
#10 to #8 - nagasadow
-5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #12 to #10 - lumayoshi
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Right, all I'm saying is that the statement is true. Take it any way you want
#14 to #12 - anon id: f0d40ee4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
The wind's gonna blow whether there's 100 turbines or 0. Wind still blows in New York even though there's tonnes of skyscraper's. Do the skyscrapers effect the wind blowing? No it doesn't, and neither will the turbines.
User avatar #45 to #14 - atomschlumpf
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Of course the skyscrapers effect the wind. It presses against them, moving them thus giving away energy. It may be a tiny fraction but it happens and it's the same with wind turbines. You can't generate energy out of nothing, Wind Turbines take the energy out of the wind and behind the turbines there will effectively be less wind
User avatar #51 to #45 - lumayoshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Well, that's what I said, but scinecexplain says that I'm wrong so our words mean nothing.
#76 to #51 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
WHY ARE YOU TRYING SO HARD TO BAIL THIS RETARDED TEXAN ASSHOLE OUT?
Are you one too?
User avatar #77 to #76 - lumayoshi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
No, he can be the most retarded person on this planet, I couldn't care less. I just expected the fj community to use logic and realise that wind turbines do slow down the wind. Someone linked this, read this www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fyi-do-wind-farms-make-it-less-windy
#152 to #77 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Keep it all theoretical

Theoretically...you could get laid.... but you don't
User avatar #95 to #76 - atomschlumpf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
MAYBE IF I USE ALL CAPSLOCK PEOPLE WILL TAKE ME SERIOUS
#139 to #95 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
So i need to be worried about too many wind farms lest america be turned into an overheated windless wasteland...?


I think youre seriously ****** in the head and joe barton is your dad and your mom is his sister . And youre from texas
#140 to #139 - atomschlumpf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
try harder ******
try harder ******
#143 to #140 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I LIKE HOW YOU TRIED TO BE FUNNY BUT DIDNT ADDRESS THE QUESTION AT ALL
USE MORE MEMES...YOULL BE COOLER BRO
#144 to #143 - atomschlumpf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
as you wish, Cpt. Capslock
User avatar #53 to #51 - atomschlumpf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Well, no, because scienceexplain probably didn't even read what you said
#2 to #1 - anon id: e64488c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
IS IT REALLY ANY SURPRISE THIS IDIOT ******** IS A REPUBLICAN, WHITE AND FROM TEXAS???

Republicans, texans..., balls in your court, *********
#35 to #2 - anon id: 7468455b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Ironically, Texas has the highest number of Megawatts produced via wind energy than any other state in the US.
User avatar #115 to #35 - blokrokker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Now that's just silly. gg Barton
#32 to #1 - anon id: 66bf969a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You've got to question how people like this have any sort of influence.
User avatar #46 to #32 - bodyrokr
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
"Rep Joe Barton (R-TEXAS)"
#156 to #32 - swagbot
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Because the rest of us don't stand up and declare that they have no control over out lives.

Vote 'Nobody' for Congress.
> Nobody will be honest with you.
> Nobody will improve your economy.
> Nobody will keep their campaign promises.
#213 to #156 - junknstuff
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
>Nobody will hear your complains
>Nobody represents you
>If you don't fight for your rights, Nobody will!

>Nobody CARES about you!

If you vote for Nobody, everyone will be better.
User avatar #166 to #32 - jacobclabough
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
"It is not the loudness of my enemies that disgust me, but the silence of my allies"-MLK I think
#48 to #1 - andovaredoras
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #70 to #48 - nagasadow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Not a joke...
#55 to #48 - anon id: d8eb6b2b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #65 to #55 - andovaredoras
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Well i guess the transfer of energy part makes sense. But it still seems a bit over-exaggerated with the wording ''harnessing it --'' considering we are already harnessing it. It would probably make more sense if the wind turbine field was huuuge.

But who am i to say. I'm not an expert when it comes to wind energy.
#78 to #65 - anon id: d8eb6b2b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
they can get pretty bg
User avatar #168 to #54 - jukuku
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Yes but the net energy output (which is driven by convection) is unaffected.

The argument is akin to saying that because I am absorbing the sun's energy that I am depleting the sun. The expense and what drives it are unaffected.

TL;DR: That guy is still a ******* retard.
#147 to #54 - alexanderh
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
So, the surface temperature increases, but the overall temperature is unchanged?
User avatar #170 to #147 - jukuku
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
There is a turbine converting wind into kinetic energy and into electrical energy with a turbine, this is going to have some heat dissipation but it is absolutely not enough to cause any significant warming.
#3 - anon id: e64488c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Yes Canadians, euros, aussies... 'mericans (especially texans), really are this stupid and ignorant
User avatar #4 to #3 - therealtjthemedic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
thas rood
#13 to #3 - slias
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Dude really? We have some extreme weather here in Australia, we know full well that climate change will make this country almost entirely uninhabitable. There's a very small conservative/reactionary minority within this country that denies climate change, unfortunately they made it into power.
#17 to #3 - anon id: 1af041a1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
found the angry eurofag
User avatar #33 to #17 - xxbutthurtxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
can you even read?
#42 to #3 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
This is confirmation that inbred whitetrash cousin ******* are on FJ...see these thumbdowns
Butthurt republican *********....**** all of you



User avatar #154 to #3 - qdmin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
whoa buddy, ill have you know Arizona is pretty close to texas and we have some wind turbines. We just dont have enough wind or funding to make more here
User avatar #195 to #3 - volksunion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
especially texans

it depends really on where in texas
the NE part of texas like dallas and fort worth arent a stereotypical southern area
places like the SW and the northern area are
User avatar #212 to #3 - kristovsky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
Then how ******* stupid and ignorant is the rest of the world that those places are the most developed?
User avatar #6 to #3 - kiaserzerg
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
im from east texas, waco is that inbred son we keep in the basement. its like stupider texas, dont lump us with them.
User avatar #5 to #3 - aSARendarsFJWINWIN
Reply +110 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Please don't use the south as a representation for the rest of us.
-Sincerely,
The North

P.S.
Those faggots will never rise again.
User avatar #20 to #5 - aisforawsome
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Please don't use those inbred rednecks as a representation for the rest of us.
-Sincerely,
The South
#81 to #20 - murpmurp
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Please don't remember texas as the south, they're more west.
Please don't remember texas as the south, they're more west.
User avatar #209 to #81 - sinonyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
texas is literally the most south state in the USA
User avatar #217 to #209 - murpmurp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
or the most west
User avatar #218 to #217 - sinonyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
what
User avatar #219 to #218 - murpmurp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
yes
User avatar #220 to #219 - sinonyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
agreed
#207 to #81 - anon id: 1667d785
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
texas

more like

******* secede already we don't want you
User avatar #184 to #81 - geothermal
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Lets just say the stereotypical view of America stems entirely from Lousiana (except katrina-ville), Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina.
#202 to #184 - murpmurp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
Us Georgians are rather tame, except the mountain folk and the rowdy negros.
Us Georgians are rather tame, except the mountain folk and the rowdy negros.
#26 to #5 - dwarfman
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You I like. Besides if they rise again, Sherman will rise from the grave and force their surrender.
User avatar #135 to #26 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Too bad most of the military comes from us and the Midwest...
#164 to #135 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You got the numbers on that, or just going of your "Federacy **** yeah! Mentality?
User avatar #171 to #164 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
If you did per capita it would make be an even bigger difference.
User avatar #169 to #164 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
First column.
User avatar #163 to #135 - smokedmeatlog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Im fine with reducing our military; gives us more money to spend on education and healthcare like we should be doing.

Too bad you cant privitize those or the rich would flock to its "aid", but thats a different argument entirely.
User avatar #165 to #163 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I'm fine with cutting down on both public and military spending. But I also think we need to keep a decent sized military (large air force, our carrier groups) if we wish to keep our economic dominance. Otherwise everything is going tos tart costing a lot, lol.

We should just do a bond thing for education, each kid gets a certain amount of money, picks a school (this is the parrents). Good schools do good, bad schools do bad.

Healthcare is **** because of government interference. I don't want triage ******** like those other countries. I like not losing my limbs to gangrene as well.
#214 to #5 - onyxleigion
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
Please don't use this asshole as a representation of all Americans.
-a normal American who realizes that there are people of every kind in every place and that the fact that one idiot gets out doesn't mean everyone there is that stupid.
#180 to #5 - suborbital
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
What he said, eh!
User avatar #105 to #5 - jacksowrd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Don't generalize the south, we are most of your military

-The South
p.s. the reason we "rose" in the first place was mainly the north's massive tariffs on the south. Slavery was a much smaller reason.
User avatar #106 to #105 - jacksowrd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
also the only ones who want to "rise" are the inbred rednecks. please don't lump us in
#134 to #5 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
**** off with y'alls **** choice of politicians and policies. Texas will be here attracting international business and expanding the port of Houston for the new panamax. Midwest/ Northern Plains is cool though. They're just as similar to us as the rest of the south, maybe more.
**** off with y'alls **** choice of politicians and policies. Texas will be here attracting international business and expanding the port of Houston for the new panamax. Midwest/ Northern Plains is cool though. They're just as similar to us as the rest of the south, maybe more.
#145 to #134 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Yeah...thats due to geography not texans being smart
User avatar #146 to #145 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Teas Instruments, Space X, Sense to not raise corporate tax rates to exorbitant levels. Ya **** off kiddo.
#157 to #146 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
A fair point but it wasnt as overwhelming as you hoped
Did u high five yourself?
User avatar #160 to #157 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
No.
#93 to #5 - anon id: e8ab3341
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
As someone who 's lived in the south for 24 years, no one here thinks the South will rise again. We just laugh that you Yankees think we do.
#38 to #5 - anon id: 10f5a0cf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
florida also disowns the rest of the south
User avatar #88 to #38 - fedegon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
There's North
There's South
There's Florida
A state worth a lot.
User avatar #155 to #88 - reginleif
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
>a state worth a lot.

A state that is otherwise known as "Florida man...."
#11 - nsfwanon
Reply +48 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Why are people like that allowed into positions of power? ******* hell...
User avatar #19 to #11 - surial
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Welcome to democracy, where your IQ does not matter and everyone is corrupt!
#41 to #19 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You mean welcome to 'merica
#92 to #11 - mamaluweegee
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
because money
User avatar #24 - kanadetenshi
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
And this is why politicians should not be allowed to have a voice in regards of scientific issues.
User avatar #28 to #24 - alhemicar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
it's not a scientific issue, because in science it's obvious, but a political one. Things like these need to be considered by the legislature in order to protect the people from any possible negative outcome.

Of course that doesn't make anything he said less retarded, he just had a reason to say it.
#40 to #24 - anon id: 10f5a0cf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
for the advancement of science, i need to study the effects of sexual trauma on children by having sex with 40 children a week.
#57 to #24 - anon id: d8eb6b2b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
#108 to #24 - jakesauros
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
And why not rather have politicians who actually have a basic knowledge of how things work in the real world? Let's say High School education, at least. Wouldn't it be nice not to have our world run by people who don't even understand the basic laws of nature?
#80 - orelse
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
It's distressing to the extreme that these individuals are actually elected.
To be fair it is we who vote them in, but we could do with an effective filter of some sort.
User avatar #136 to #80 - amuzen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You can't just say that the average american is to dumb to vote intelligently so we shouldn't even bother. If you're going to act under the presumption that the general populace is to stupid to think for themselves you might as well just scrap the whole democratically elected president concept in the first place.
User avatar #150 to #136 - malific
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
It's not a matter of people being too dumb to think for themselves, it's a matter of they have no idea who they're voting for. To 90% it's just a name with (R) or (D) next to it, and they have no idea what issues are involved or where that candidate stands on them.
User avatar #223 to #136 - amuzen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
my response was to anon13 but it ****** up and went here instead
User avatar #222 to #136 - orelse
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
I...never said any of that.
If anything I simply stated that a great deal of transparency and honesty are a necessity if we are to elect competent leaders.
User avatar #225 to #222 - amuzen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2014) [-]
Funny junk's been ******* up for me, this this is the third time I've said this but here goes again see if it gets to the right person this time, I was saying that in response to anon13.
User avatar #192 to #136 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
implying that people, smart or stupid, actually make a difference

voting is rigged
User avatar #116 to #80 - amuzen
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Like a series of tests filled with generalistic questions aimed at measuring their knowledge and problem solving skills whose results would be made public to the general populace before elections, that would be pretty cool IMO.
User avatar #131 to #116 - thatguyontheright
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
The problem is, the intelligent do not want to run for public office and the people don't want the intelligent to run.
User avatar #120 to #116 - Anonomousthirteen
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
But who controls the test? What organization decides the standard? What if some biased party begins custom-writing the standard to keep themselves in power?

These are the concerns that prevent this reality. Just vote smart, it's really the only thing we can do.
User avatar #126 to #120 - amuzen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
it wouldn't have standards they'd be a series of open ended questions, it wouldn't have scores it would just be a way for the general public to figure out how the various runners measure up.

I'm not talking something like a multiple choice math quiz I'm talking something closer to an aptitude test.
User avatar #128 to #126 - Anonomousthirteen
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Do you think the majority of Americans have the intellectual capacity to understand the results of an aptitude test?
User avatar #130 to #128 - amuzen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
not the results they'd see the lists of questions and answers, there wouldn't just be a static number at the end.
User avatar #132 to #130 - Anonomousthirteen
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
See previous comment.
#47 - tealcanaan
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Not saying I agree with this guys statement, but wind energy is horribly inefficient and is a huge polluter when taking into account production, raw materials, and maintenance.   
   
Nuclear energy, IMO, would be the best alternate energy source. Stuff like the advancements in Thorium reactors, and the major advancements France and the U.S. Navy are making in fusion technology is making the world's future look quite bright.   
   
But go ahead and keep chasing a pipe dream with these solar panels and wind turbines while overusing the limited amount of rare earth metals. As well as creating cancer villages in the Congo and China so as to make it cost effective.
Not saying I agree with this guys statement, but wind energy is horribly inefficient and is a huge polluter when taking into account production, raw materials, and maintenance.

Nuclear energy, IMO, would be the best alternate energy source. Stuff like the advancements in Thorium reactors, and the major advancements France and the U.S. Navy are making in fusion technology is making the world's future look quite bright.

But go ahead and keep chasing a pipe dream with these solar panels and wind turbines while overusing the limited amount of rare earth metals. As well as creating cancer villages in the Congo and China so as to make it cost effective.
#82 to #47 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Republican?
User avatar #94 to #82 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Conservative, not neocon.
User avatar #99 to #47 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
so radioactive material is not rare?

and why would you need rare materials for wind energy?
User avatar #101 to #99 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You can make one without rare earth metals, it breaks down a lot though.
User avatar #103 to #101 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
ever heard of iron? or steel?
User avatar #100 to #99 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
The large magnets used in the turbines. There is a lot less regulation on the metals used in these turbines as well, and arguably creates more radioactive material. Read the article I posted below.
User avatar #102 to #100 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
wow, you are retarded
you always need magnets to create electric energy unless you do it with solar panels
User avatar #104 to #102 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
No **** Sherlock, but these are large, industrial strength magnets meant to last more than a ******* week.
User avatar #107 to #104 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
whut? and the magnets in wind turbines are not??
why shouldnt they be "industrial strength magnets"?
User avatar #110 to #107 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
"Manufacturing wind turbines is a resource-intensive process. A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals."

"As the wind industry grows, these horrors will likely only get worse. Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study. The more wind turbines pop up in America, the more people in China are likely to suffer due to China’s policies. Or as the Daily Mail put it, every turbine we erect contributes to “a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China.”"
User avatar #112 to #110 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Yeah, thats upsetting.
I hope they make nuclear fusion energy efficient soon enough.
User avatar #113 to #112 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Ya, France had a positive reaction and the Navy has had a program for years.
User avatar #118 to #113 - blargusknarpus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Giant microwaves ftw !!
^^
#127 to #118 - blargusknarpus
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #109 to #107 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
and wouldnt it be better to use magnets of lower qualitiy? (lower qualitiy --> less rare)
User avatar #114 to #109 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Not cost effective I guess.
User avatar #117 to #114 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
i thought you meant they would use magnets with lower quality for wind turbines:

"but these are large, industrial strength magnets meant to last more than a ******* week"
User avatar #122 to #117 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I was saying that they needed these powerful, reseliant magnets.
User avatar #123 to #122 - blargusknarpus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
ah ok, misunderstood you then
User avatar #124 to #123 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
It's coolio mah nego.
User avatar #125 to #124 - blargusknarpus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
: D

<3
#175 to #47 - slesbian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
There is only 1 problem with wind turbines ATM and that is that the wind is not always blowing when you want it to be and there is no method of storing the energy efficiently atm apart from as liquid air.
User avatar #176 to #175 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
..and the pollution/ maintenance requirements.
#178 to #176 - slesbian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Pollution from making them? That is far far far less than the resources that go into a nuclear power plant. Not to mention the radioactive waste that is left after the power plant is finished with it. Nuclear is a good solution, but its not the only one.
User avatar #179 to #178 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
"To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.

For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States."

instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
#182 to #179 - slesbian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I did not know that, but you cannot ignore the fact that wide spread use of nuclear energy does have some very serious long term implications. With an energy storage system, wind and solar become far more viable and nuclear and coal/gas/oil power plants become far more efficient.
User avatar #183 to #182 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Not really, nuclear facilities last longer and produce more energy, while doing near negligible damage to the environment, baring melt downs. While solar and wind take up way to much space for what they produce, even if you could store it. As well as being severely susceptible to breaking down, requiring near constant maintenance.
#185 to #183 - slesbian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
They may last longer but they are very expensive to build. They really do not take up such a huge amount of space and the beauty of story the energy is that you do not need as many.
User avatar #187 to #185 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Ya, solar and wind for any decent sized population would take up a ******** of space. Where all the space is here is called ******* tornado alley. Thorium is actually pretty cost effective, that's why everyone is going on about it. Nuclear produces a huge amount of time and is operational for a long time, more than makes up for cost, we'll see how solar and wind stations hold up after 10-15 years, lol.

>Biggest joke of the year
>Solar roads
pick two
Many laughs were had at the expense of retarded hipsters.
User avatar #188 to #187 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
*huge amount of energy
User avatar #201 to #47 - tylosaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
Well, most people aren't happy about having an efficient nuclear reactor in their country, should it happen that something went wrong. The few times it happened is enough for people to not want it. Also, I suppose the nuclear waste will become a problem if they make those nuclear reactors.
User avatar #203 to #201 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2014) [-]
Well we could change peoples minds through a nice ad campaign, just like they did in the 80's to make people dislike them so much.
User avatar #49 to #47 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I can't go into my backyard and set up a nuclear reactor, I could setup a wind turbine with old coil wire and a few magnets with some sheet metal. What are you talking about.
User avatar #50 to #49 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Ya, but we're talking about on a global scale here. At best you could supplement your power consumption with htose devices, unless you live frugally. Also the pollution is still there. Did you read the whole post, or are you just being contrarian?
User avatar #56 to #50 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Send me some source links? I have never heard of cancer villages resulting from wind power, but you are the one who brought up solar panels right? If the problems are mainly from solar, then The argument has changed.
User avatar #60 to #56 - tealcanaan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

You can do turbines with out rare earth metals, they would break down more though.
User avatar #61 to #60 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
reading now thank you
User avatar #64 to #61 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #72 to #64 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I have to say, that the negative consequences from nuclear power, outweigh the negative consequences from wind power. Condeming a large area of land for thousands of years is worse I believe.
User avatar #74 to #72 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
IDK, a ton of land in northern china will be useless for a few hundred years now because of the arsenic. But another thing about nuclear is how much more energy you get out of it, as apposed to wind energy.
User avatar #68 to #64 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
checking
User avatar #189 to #47 - atrocitustheking
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
If you've got arguments and evidence, then present that evidence. That's how it should work, but that is not what this guy is doing.
User avatar #191 to #189 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Who? Me? I linked a few articles below.
User avatar #193 to #191 - atrocitustheking
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
No, no, the politician featured in the content. He's the one who is an idiot who isn't presenting evidence or fact. He's coming up with a hair-brained theory with no understanding of how science works.
User avatar #194 to #193 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Ya, lol.
User avatar #58 to #47 - sliferzpwns
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Nuclear power would still utilize these rare and precious earth metals.
User avatar #62 to #58 - tealcanaan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
But they would last much longer and require a lot less maintenance. On of the booming jobs in my degree field is maintenance engineers for these turbines.
User avatar #67 to #62 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You know of Chernobyl and Fukishima? the damage caused by these accidents overshoots the damage done by wind energy.
User avatar #71 to #67 - tealcanaan
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
True, but those were poorly managed or poorly funded old reactors. We have made great strides in nuclear safety up to now. Thorium is my favorite one they are exploring now, just based on how safe it really could be. The one downside that could be a problem consistently is water pollution in the form of excess heat.
User avatar #73 to #71 - sliferzpwns
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Hey this discussion was fun I will leave you to your opinion have a nice day I have to go.
User avatar #75 to #73 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You too m8, have a good one.
User avatar #151 to #47 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Solar and wind are good for where there is lots of empty space and lots of sun or wind, but it's far from a panacea. Thorium nuclear reactors are where it's at and is where we should invest our money. Safer, more efficient, less waste, they are an environmentalists wet dream.
User avatar #159 to #151 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Exactly.
User avatar #161 to #159 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
It's why I don't understand other people who claim they are environmentalists who don't support nuclear. No, it's not perfect and no, it's not perfectly safe, but it's a damned sight better than what we have now, so I will take it until if and when we get cold fusion down.
User avatar #162 to #161 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
True, it may have something to do with things like thermal pollution and storage of waste, but we have a great system here for that. Plus we make tank DU rounds and armor with it, lol!
#87 - khalidh
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
our Barton is just as smart
#21 - princessren
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
who is stupider
the idiot politician or the idiot people who voted them in

I realize their are some dumb politicians and people are right to be mad about it, but at the end of the day it is kinda our fault or atleast some of us
#27 to #21 - axxein
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
This is why i don't vote. I don't know any of these people so i don't trust them, because i just know, one week after they get voted into office, they will feel comfy. They will have settled in. They will then put on a cape, and spout the true definition of stupid.

And when it happens, i don't want to be the one facepalming, saying "And i'm the dumbass that voted for that ************."

TD;LR

>Politicians
>smart

Pick one.

Unrelated pick because i never get to use it.
User avatar #69 to #27 - wimwam
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
This is why I vote for independent parties. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but until we dismantle the 2 party system, it will always be tweedle dee vs tweedle dumb. When people can stand on their own two feet without a mob behind them, then you get smart politicians elected
User avatar #30 to #27 - princessren
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
I don't know how to tell you this
but your picture is super tiny
User avatar #36 to #21 - thenewgizmobox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
every day i spend on the internet the phrase "a sucker is born every minute" becomes more and more true.
#83 to #21 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Are you trying to be deep or something. .. try harder mmkay...thanks
#228 to #83 - subadanus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/04/2014) [-]
k
#174 to #21 - splitalterego
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
The politician. They are in the business of looking their best to the public eye so less desirable traits can be harder to find. People also don't always have a easy choice when it comes to candidates. Sometimes its a choice between dumb candidate A and dumb candidate B.
#79 - liberalgodess
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Y'all can literally watch it happening
#148 to #79 - anon id: 4745f6be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
#16 - learmy
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Christians. Never fail to amuse people with their stupidity.
User avatar #18 to #16 - ruinsage
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You misspelled politician

Not that I disagree with your statement
#63 to #18 - anon id: 8dd8c723
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
You misspelled "agree"
User avatar #66 to #63 - ruinsage
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/30/2014) [-]
Your name is a misspelling for "idiot"