• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by olofscience

  1. If I'm remembering correctly, a Bell 212 is pretty dependent on hydraulics for control. Lose the hydraulics, and you don't have any control of the aircraft whatsoever, since the rotor loading is such that it takes more than human strength to move the cyclic and collective controls. Not sure what newer helicopters do now for better redundancy.
  2. I was joking, I was referring to the debate some time ago when the Trump campaign emblem looked like the Nazi eagle and Coreece defended it very vigourously.
  3. We can always rely on @Coreece for an explanation for this, right?
  4. Thanks, I stand corrected! There appears to be quite a lot of publication bias on this which that study appears to debunk. There is however a hypothesized "Westermarck Effect" for humans which appears to result in low pairings in people who have been raised together as children. I stand by my point though - we don't need religion for morals anymore.
  5. Nah, it'll be 2 and 5. (5.5 modification - "I never said the climate wasn't warming, but it's GOOD for us") He's like a broken record with his "record food production/CO2 greening" thing.
  6. Nice broad brush you're carrying there. Paedophilia will ALWAYS be stigmatized and those who want to destigmatize it (like some conservatives do) will always be in the minority. Why always? Because of our biology where our brains take a SIGNIFICANT time to develop after birth. Natural human inhibitions can usually be traced back to biological reasons - incest, for example, increases the chances of genetic defects. Any animal breeder knows that if you raise two non-biologically related animals (of a certain intelligence) as "siblings" they will be reluctant to mate. The stigma against paedophilia is more complicated but has similarly deep roots. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in many animals, and none of those animals have also been observed punishing the homosexual behaviour of others like humans do.
  7. Not really... Source: Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back
  8. Then there's also the security and politics (nonproliferation) aspect - if thieves steal a wind turbine, they have a bunch of carbon fibre and gears. If they steal solar panels, they have some glass, silicon and aluminium. But if someone steals a nuclear fuel shipment? That already makes a big difference in costs if you need a small army to escort one shipment, and to secure the actual power plant site. Then the paperwork to make sure no nuclear material goes missing... And we know Iran (and many other not-so-friendly entities) would love to get their hands on that stuff. But, I guess this is all too complicated for them, much easier to just blame the liberals and those hippie environmentalists, right?
  9. This is fake news, and just shows how Winsor doesn't know anything about nuclear power plants. Nuclear has NEVER been cheap. Even China, with its lax safety regulations, prefers to build coal power plants (hi Brent!) and solar (uh oh) than Nuclear power plants. Saves him from thinking, as over-simplifying it to "these woke snowflakes made nuclear expensive" is easy on the ol' brain. And his anecdote from the 70s gives him that nice warm feeling that he's superior to those "bright eyed, bushy tailed Liberal Arts types". Predictable, though - look what a 4-year old article says:
  10. This actually shows your insecurity a lot - BillV wasn't bragging, because he was just saying it was improving California's air quality. He was just stating a good thing. It was you who suddenly turned it into a dick-measuring contest on which state had the better air quality. (Which no one was disputing, but you started it with such a silly argument that has now backfired on you) Looks like we've hit your one-variable limit again. That's okay, we welcome people of all abilities. You started this particular line of discussion, then got so thoroughly owned so I guess we should let you change the topic again to save yourself more embarrassment.
  11. And you keep failing to address my argument - it's not the existence of farms, highways, trucks, cars, and SUVs. It's HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUEL each state burns. It seems numbers are just too difficult for you.
  12. You: 2023 won't even be in the top 5 warmest years Me: Brent will ignore my question on where San Diego's air pollution comes from You're STILL proving me right
  13. Actually I get it now, why Brent keeps calling wind turbines "windmills"! Those wind turbines aren't generating electricity, they're milling grain! And that milled grain dust is causing all the particulate pollution in San Diego!
  14. That's even worse, you've just said that San Diego's air pollution comes from diesel generators, then provided a quote saying that diesel generators in the Bay Area are starting to become a problem. Which means, you actually STILL haven't answered my question on where the air pollution in San Diego comes from
  15. I'm sure I do: "The majority (42 percent) of the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation in San Diego County come from tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles." (Source: https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/san-diego) Emphasis changed because Brent's getting confused about what he said.
  16. Still no numbers there, just because someone says they're a problem doesn't mean they're THE main source. "The majority (42 percent) of the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation in San Diego County come from tailpipe emissions from MOTOR VEHICLES." (Source: https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/san-diego) Emphasis added again since reality doesn't seem to be getting to you.
  17. So...you couldn't resist and just came up with complete bullshit "The majority (42 percent) of the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation in San Diego County come from tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles." (Source: https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/san-diego)
  18. Still ignoring my question as predicted you're so easy to figure out...
  19. This is one of the instances where per capita basis SHOULDN'T be used since air quality isn't divided per capita. So you suddenly gain the ability to divide numbers when they twist the narrative And as I predicted, you ignored my question on where the air pollution was coming from
  20. Clear enough that you're misleading and lying, yes. I said, what affects air quality is mainly how much fossil fuel is burned. Number of coal power plants doesn't mean that PA burns more fossil fuel than California, which has 3x the population. Which means approximately 3x the number of vehicles, 3x the amount of energy consumption. Hopefully you can handle that number... You'll probably ignore this question, but where do you think San Diego's air pollution is coming from? Solar panels?
  21. I'll try to explain it as simply as possible - you specifically mentioned "the heart of coal and fracking country". Just mining coal and fracking doesn't affect the air quality as much as burning the stuff. As to your inability to understand the difference in San Diego's and PA's air quality, here's a clue: it doesn't depend on merely the existence of fossil fuel burning, but rather how much is burned. But I don't really need to explain further, because we know how you are with numbers.
  22. But you didn't answer my question. Do those power plants burn ALL the coal and gas mined in PA?