|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Nuclear power stations
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The problem here is that the Greens work on emotion, rather than thought. ... Greens either did not do science, or if they did, overlook such simple rules as there are few votes there.
and yet we are all very happy to accept their "scientific" conclusions when it's climate "science" and not nuclear science.
Eh? What are you talking about? Greens have been right about climate change; it is happening and is seriously bad for current ways of living.
That's exactly what I'm talking about! Thanks for the illustration. There is unchallenging acceptance that greens are right about climate change. But when they start to challenge one of the main alternative sources of energy, suddenly they're being emotional and un-scientific.
(and it's a tangent, but just because climate change is happening, doesn't mean that we understand anything about the mechanisms or causes of it.)
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I thought the point being made was that scientists tell us that the dangers of nuclear power have been greatly exaggerated, and that changes to the composition of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, deforestation etc are going to significantly change the global climate. Some Greens are inconsistent in accepting the scientific consensus re: climate change while simultaneously rejecting the scientific consensus re: the safety of nuclear power.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes. It's about cherry picking. The careful hard work of data collection, examination of processes, reaching provisional conclusions, subjecting these to test and modification, has been applied to research in both areas. If one accepts the results of such activities in one area, why not in the other?
Alan, thanks for the clarification over the risks of nuclear explosions in reactors going out of control. My understanding has been enlarged again!
And please accept my public appreciation for the value of the long link. Maybe I'm a bit nerdy too, but like AFZ I found I got hooked, despite the advert breaks and the length.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It is science that tells us about climate change, giving the data, the conclusions and how you get from one to the other. The Greens don't. Here, they pick up what they want of the conclusions, use that to grab headlines, but offer no answers, no alternatives.
[ 17. February 2014, 20:22: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
