Page 5 of 5
HEY this IS ON!
Quote by Saint78
That's forever imprinted in my brain in Dwight's voice. Seriously.

Voted UG's best threadstarter 2014.
I'm so behind on this show. Can't wait to binge on them in July
My God, it's full of stars!
Quote by Dreadnought
I'm so behind on this show. Can't wait to binge on them in July


I'm hoping that after the series airs, we'll be able to get a proper version that isn't cut all to shit for commercials.
It's very well done; a fine tribute to the original and fearless as well. Most of us in the skeptical community were afraid they'd shy away from certain things... Not so.
This one is probably gunna be good
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
I hadn't seen that solar guy a long time ago. The Egypt guy. It's like come on!
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
It was a good hour on the topic, and it did a good job illustrating the greenhouse effect. The two complaints I have are that there was no attention paid to what has been done, and why nations like China and India cannot/will not follow our lead. The other is that there once again wasn't any talk about nuclear energy.
Quote by Rossenrot
The other is that there once again wasn't any talk about nuclear energy.

That's not good. They had a platform to discuss nuclear energy and aid in the acceptance of valuable energy source, and they just didn't?

Could have been time restraints or something and they'll fit it in elsewhere. It's better than the alternative which is that it's too taboo to praise on a national platform. It could be the producers or network too.

From what I've read, Neil Degrasse Tyson accepts Nuclear Power isn't an imminent danger, but prefers solar energy. It's a reasonable response, but not one I agree with.

Quote by excerpt from interview
C: Speaking of the utilizing of natural resources for energy, those sort of things – and since it’s topical, do you have any opinion, you know – because of the nuclear situation in Japan, Switzerland and Germany have announced they’re decommissioning a lot of their reactions – what’s your position on that particular topic?

N: There’s a news story that wasn’t written, because it didn’t happen. That news story is: magnitude nine earthquake strikes Japan, tsunami follows causing nuclear meltdown, two million people dead.

C: Right, instead of-

N: That story did not happen. Earthquake happens, power-plant okay, one million people dead from tsunami. That did not happen. Japan is an industrialized nation, they know they’re living in the Ring of Fire, they’ve had earthquakes before, so, we can lament and mourn the 15,000 or so deaths that took place, but let us not forget that a magnitude seven earthquake, 1/1,000th the release of energy, though it happened to be under the city, but nonetheless, 1/1,000th the release of energy, hits Haiti, Port-au-Prince Haiti, and a quarter million people die. No one is looking at the Japan incident, as a triumph of architecture and a triumph of design. I am.

So that’s point one. Point two is a general question about the safety of nuclear reaction. I don’t know why, for the last 150 years, there have been major movements about the safety of coal mines, because hundreds of thousands of people have died in coal mines, that number might actually be in the millions, I looked at numbers recently – and if you look at the total number of people who died from failed nuclear reactors, that number is a small fraction of that total. We’re not trained to evaluate risk in a rational, level-headed way. We end up managing to fear, rather than to data. I understand that, because that’s what drives people’s behaviors. But I can’t help but wonder, if we weren’t a little more scientifically literate as a culture, that we would make decisions differently regarding these risks.

Look at how we reacted to September 11, 2001: about three thousand Americans died that day, and, that’s more than who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor. So, one of the most devastating days in American history since the Civil War. Understood, people are pissed off. We want blood. So, we go into Afghanistan, and we would later go into Iraq, and war would be conducted – I remember people kept track of when American servicemen died, and there was the date where more American servicemen died, than who died on September 11, and that was kind of an interesting milestone, to compare, but we just pushed on, and so now many more Americans died in those wars than have died – and countless others died, local citizens. But apart from that, count thirty days from September 11. Thirty days after – by then, in those thirty days, more Americans had died on the highways in car accidents than who died on September 11. Not only that, that number keeps dying every month. So, there’s no outcry for people dying on highways – there is locally, we fixed our drunk driving laws, and there’s enforcement [that’s] very high and taken very seriously in all our public consciousness, but if deaths of Americans is what you care about and protecting the lives of people is what you care about, and you rank all ways Americans die, then terrorist attacks is not high on that list. It’s high on the list because we fear them, because it’s a terror factor, but because of the actual numbers.

So, your question was nuclear power plants: I think we should using solar power, just because it’s free. It’s there. That’s the reason why we shouldn’t use nuclear, because solar is out there, and we’re not putting enough energy to get it. I’m much less concerned about the safety of solar power than others who point to the singular disasters that have taken place, without pointing to the fatherless homes of coal miners and to the deaths that have resulted from the pollutants that have gone into the atmosphere that have gone into the atmosphere from burning coal – you want to add that to the numbers, that’s worse than any secondary or tertiary cancers you might be citing from nuclear power plant leaks. It wins in every context, plus there’s places like, in France, they’ve had nuclear power forever, and it’s not a big deal there. So, alright, you don’t build it on a fault line, and you do some smart things, but the solution to that is not safer nuclear power plants, the solution to that is solar power. And by the way, hydro-electric is solar power. You know, you don’t get water at the top of the dam without the evaporative energy of the Sun. That’s solar power – plants are solar power. Solar power is much broader than people are thinking it to be.
Really good post man, it looks like Dr. Tyson chose to selectively push his philosophy regarding solar and wind energy. I hope that he will in the future use his tremendous influence to help ease some of the paranoia regarding nuclear energy, and maybe propose solar-wind-nuclear as a three pronged approach, rather than just two. Surprisingly enough, many top officials in the Obama administration are pro-nuclear.
I love this show!!!

I think that it is pretty nit-picky to argue about whether the host should have offered nuclear power as a clean fuel option. The main point is that if we don't do anything, and we keep using fossil fuels for decades longer, we hit the "tipping point" of no return, when the feedback loop is so far along that it is objectively impossible to stop another 99% die-off, like the "Great Dying" or perhaps this time we'll go to 100% extinction and we'll become a barren wasteland like Venus or Mars.

To sit around with our thumbs up our asses quibbling whether we should replace fossil fuels with solar or wind or nuclear, is like some one dying of a heart attack and wondering which hospital to drive to... If you don't drive to any, you WILL die, and driving to any WILL save you, so just get in the f-ing car already and head to one!!

The really stupid argument I come across, debating this concern with others, is that I cannot tell them, with 100% certainty, when we will hit the irreversible tipping point, or prove it's impossible that no genius will come along with some magic bullet solution that will suddenly fix the problem by some yet unforeseen mechanism.

Like, if you know that you were poisoned, and the poison is 100% likely to kill you within an hour, and some "liberal, pessimistic, environmental doomsayers" argue that the poison will kill you in 10 minutes... what do you do? If you have a known antidote? Do you wait 9 minutes and 59 seconds to date it? Do you wait 59 minutes on the grounds that, hey, the people saying it'll kill you in 10 minutes may be paranoid nutjobs, and the people saying you have an hour might be right... Do you split the difference and wait 30 minutes because you don't really know which to believe?

F-ck No! You take the antidote THAT VERY SECOND, to give yourself the greatest margin of safety to avoid certain death!

So, we now know we face certain death if we don't take an "antidote" to stop the CO2 / methane poisoning that is going on... People are quibbling whether we need to take that antidote in a matter of decades, or whether we might have longer, as if that matters. With human extinction at risk, we should not be waiting one single decade to reduce carbon emissions to zero, or next to zero. We should be declaring marshall law in every country and mandating that all resources be diverted to building solar and wind power plants, AND nuclear, and hydro, whatever the f-ck we can build to save ourselves.

This is not an over-reaction. This is the sane reaction. Anything short of this is the product of a dysfunctional, brainwashed mind.

Bernie Sanders for President!