Climate change -- Existential threat to humanity

weather isn't climate

Anthropogenic CC is rubbish, yes. But it does serve the $$$interests$$$ of some very duplicitous characters.

Tony Heller - YouTube

tonyheller (rumble.com)

Correct climate is a consistent weather patterns like consistently seeing tornadoes every December now when they used to be practically unheard of

As for nuclear power, the last nuclear disaster I know of was Chernobyl and that happened because multiple safety protocols were violated

Those leading in this narrative are doing so for one reason. MONEY!
They are getting very rich while not doing any productive work.
Climate is controlled by God, and He has changed it many times through the ages.
I just ignore these foolish people.

Likewise with cars, planes, and trains. They are mostly clean except for the problem of waste!

The plus side of nuclear is that it's not putting out any carbon emissions but the negative side is deciding what to do with nuclear waste that stays radioactive pretty much forever

I am quite the amateur meteorologist (40 years experience), with a major in tornado phenomenon.

And no, tornadoes in December happen very commonly, and have as far back as records exist.

And no, tornadoes today are NOT increasing in frequency or intensity. On the contrary, things have been rather quiet for the last number of years. Tornadoes were probably MORE intense and frequent back in the 50's thru the 70's.

In Europe (especially England), the most intense, devastating tornadoes occurred HUNDREDS of years ago.

TORRO | Research ~ Tornadoes ~ Extremes

Most intense tornado
Three tornadoes in Britain are believed to have reached T8; their antiquated nature necessitated great caution in assigning intensities, so it is possible that they may have been even stronger.

On 23rd October 1666 the most intense tornado on record for the UK (and England) passed through Welbourn, Wellingore, Navenby and Boothby Graffoe in Lincolnshire. The Welbourn tornado has been rated at T8-9 with a reported maximum track width of 200m and a track length of 5km.

Thomas Short writing in 1749 described it as "it came with such Violence and Force, that at Welbourn it levelled most of the Houses to the Ground; broke down some, and tore up other Trees by the Roots, scattering abroad much Corn and Hay. One Boy only was killed. It went on to Willingmore [Wellingore], where it overthrew some Houses, and killed two Children in them. Thence it passed on and touched the Skirts of Nanby [Navenby], and ruined a few Houses. Keeping its Course to the next Town [Boothby Graffoe], where it dashed the Church Steeple in pieces, furiously rent the Church itself, both Stone and Timber Work, left little of either standing, only the Body of the Steeple."

Artist's impression of the St. Mary le Bow tornado
(Credit: Chris Chatfield)
Artist's impression of the Montville tornado
(Credit: Chris Chatfield)
The second, also the UK’s earliest known tornado, occurred on 23rd October 1091. The church at St. Mary le Bow in central London was badly damaged, with four rafters - each 7.9 m long (converted from the reported 26 ft) - being driven into the ground (composed of heavy London Clay) with such force that only 1.2 m (converted from the reported 4 ft) protruded above the surface. Other churches in the area were demolished, as were over 600 (mostly wooden) houses. This has been rated T8? due to the difficulty in estimating an event so long ago and the damage reports having been written over 30 years after the event.

On 14th December 1810, a T7-8 tornado tracked from Old Portsmouth to Southsea Common (Hampshire) also causing immense damage - although no deaths, it is believed. Some houses were completely levelled and many others were so badly damaged that they had to be demolished; chimneys were blown down and the lead on a bank roof was "rolled up like a piece of canvas and blown from its situation".

The most intense tornado on record for Wales was the Dyffryn Dowlais to Bedlinog, Merthyr Tydfil tornado of 27th October 1913 which reached T7.

The most intense tornado on record for Scotland occurred in September 1767 at Blairgowrie, Perth & Kinross rated at T6?.

The most intense tornado on record for Northern Ireland was the 31st December 2006 Ardmore, Co Armagh to Loanends, Co Antrim tornado rated at T4-5.

The most recent T7 tornado was on 8th December 1954 which hit Gunnersbury in London. The most recent T6 tornado was on 28th July 2005 (rated T5-6) which hit Birmingham.

Note following a review in the 2010s the 23rd October 1091 tornado is no longer the most intense on record for the UK.

Across the continent, a number of tornadoes are believed to have reached T10 - although it is always difficult to rate violent tornadoes, especially those at the upper end of the category. Violent (T8-T11) tornadoes have occurred in many countries, although only a few nations have experienced a T10. However, two tornadoes are rated T10-11 with the upper category implying windspeeds close to the 500 km h-1 (311 mi h-1) mark. On 19th August 1845, a violent T10-11 tornado devastated Montville (Seine-et-Maritime) in France. Sources give conflicting information as this lunch-time tornado travelled 15 or 30 km, was 100 or 300 m wide and killed 70 & injured 130 or (less probable) killed 200 people.

At a similar time of day on 24th July 1930, the Treviso-Udine area (Veneto / Friuli-Venezia Giulia) of Italy was devastated by a 80 km long T10-11 tornado, which claimed 22 or 23 lives.

Have you ever considered the amount of fossil fuel used to build, supply and maintain these nuclear plants?

You have NIMBY which is the primary concern. The arrogant think they can build a power plant in NY and then send their waste to New Mexico.

However, recent invention uses nuclear waste from power plants to also generate electricity.

However, fission is not the answer, Fusion will be the answer. Chernobyl is not the only issue we have had with fission, interesting that you would ignore Fukushima.

The problem with Chernobyl is that you had to be an expert on how this thing worked and when you have a very big industry providing energy all over the world that will never be the case 100% of the time. However, with AI that could change. I could see an AI that is an expert on running your nuclear power plant that is also able to read the gauges, that could be a game changer in making Fission safer but it is also proving to be a game changer in Fusion.

Chernobyl happened because some guy had the brilliant idea to do a safety test and take out all but two of the rods from the actorreactor

The problem with Chernobyl was that the reactor design had a positive void coefficient. Among other serious design flaws. It was Soviet era junk.

Someone was performing a safety test and pulled out all but two of the rods that are there to absorb the heat energy

It's a false crisis designed to lure the people into giving up their freedom. Period.

For the past 35 years, the world was going to be 150°F and buried under ocean waters in, oh, 10-15 years. I see Florida, parts of which are BELOW sea level, still has its beaches almost 4 decades later.

It's, how you say... poppycock.

It was more complicated than that. The "brilliant idea" was a requirement for the safety test that they ignored in order to bring it online in a hurry.

The safety test was not the issue, the issue was that they delayed the safety test because they didn't want to shut down the power until midnight. That created a deadly increase in gas in the chamber and it also meant that the night shift would do this, the least senior and the least well trained.

But ultimately the real culprit in the whole thing is that a study had determined that what took place could happen, this study was buried and kept from the guys running the test. All of these guys felt that you had a red shut down button in an emergency and that button turned into a bomb without them ever having been told or warned.

"positive void coefficient"....google it bro. Inherently unstable and dangerous. All of the old graphite moderated reactors were ticking time bombs.

Modern reactor designs do not have this problem.

Generation III reactor - Wikipedia

Generation III+ reactors incorporate extra safety features to avoid the kind of disaster suffered at Fukushima in 2011. Generation III+ designs, passive safety, also known as passive cooling, requires no sustained operator action or electronic feedback to shut down the plant safely in the event of an emergency.

Passive nuclear safety - Wikipedia

Passive nuclear safety is a design approach for safety features, implemented in a nuclear reactor, that does not require any active intervention on the part of the operator or electrical/electronic feedback in order to bring the reactor to a safe shutdown state, in the event of a particular type of emergency (usually overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow). Such design features tend to rely on the engineering of components such that their predicted behaviour would slow down, rather than accelerate the deterioration of the reactor state; they typically take advantage of natural forces or phenomena such as gravity, buoyancy, pressure differences, conduction or natural heat convection to accomplish safety functions without requiring an active power source.

The real culprit is that it was an accident waiting to happen.

I would never want a nuclear reactor that uses fission to be built without a containment shell.

However, the catastrophe could be blamed on a design flaw, but the event was definitely the result of human error and one of the key causes of that is that they were not told that this could happen even though scientists had already determined this.

Another problem is that although the technicians are trained, the people with power in Russia to make idiotic decisions and destroy people's lives that don't follow their idiotic edicts are themselves totally unqualified to make these decisions.

There are two different issues, the event in question, and the reactor.

Even if it were a ticking time bomb that over the next 20 years would have this problem doesn't mean it would have ever happened. There is always the possibility that people would realize this in time and take these reactors offline before they had that event.

The event itself could have been avoided, if only temporarily.

Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

The event was a result of a flawed design that did not accommodate inevitable human error....