3 ms·

The scientific community is wide. You can speak for yourself, and perhaps even the community of nuclear scientists as a whole. It stands to reason a group of

by lwhi 5y ago

The scientific community is wide. You can speak for yourself, and perhaps even the community of nuclear scientists as a whole. It stands to reason a group of scientists working towards developing nuclear power are going to be proponents.

godelski 5y ago
Most of the people I'm referring to are climate scientists. I'm not saying "nuclear scientists believe" I'm saying "climate scientists generally agree that". But again, the rudeness isn't the skepticism, it is that the skepticism is caused simply because you disagree with me. I don't even see what expertise you have to disagree with as you're not even pointing to anything except "la de da." You have no evidence that I'm wrong, and I don't expect you to find any (though of course there are scientists that disagree, but that's not what consensus means. Nothing is absolute. You yourself said this). The DOE has plenty of talks that are public (online and in person), I encourage you to attend one, or several. Mostly because they are interesting and I think anyone interested in climate should. And to clarify, DOE is doing a lot of the climate modeling. Yes, they also handle nuclear, but they do far more than that and it isn't the same teams of people. So either I'm shilling for an industry I'm no longer in, or your preconceived notions are wrong. I'm a bit peeved that your response to me disagreeing with you is to claim that I'm a lobbyist. There is no conspiracy going on here. It doesn't even make sense considering how costly nuclear is and how small of a percentage it is of the power sector. Jumping to conspiracy is a bit odd. You're very vocal in this thread but your comments don't demonstrate basic knowledge of climate nor nuclear technology. Maybe sit this one out and go to a few lectures before coming back. I'm happy you're passionate. This is a subject I deeply care about too. But in science you have to constantly ask yourself if your preconceived notions are wrong. Because frankly nothing is "obvious" as the general public likes to claim. But I don't have anything else to say here. You can continue to believe I'm part of this big nuclear conspiracy theory but I just want you to know how insane that sounds to me and others here. There's much simpler and more obvious explanations that this grand conspiracy. Especially since we're also advocating for renewables. I can't even figure out how your conspiracy theory makes sense (yes, I know you're not the only one that believes this). Like why would a conspirator ask you to get more informed in the general principles like climate and renewable energy? I don't get it and I don't think I will ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- lwhi 5y ago
  I'm one of the few people demonstrating an opposing view. That's not the same as being uninformed. This is not the only route we have available. That in itself is a fact. You seem to believe that without nuclear power we'll have no chance of avoiding climate emergency. This is quite simply incorrect. --- 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
  - godelski 5y ago
    > That's not the same as being uninformed. That's not why I claimed you're misinformed. > This is not the only route we have available. That in itself is a fact. Who said this? > You seem to believe that without nuclear power we'll have no chance of avoiding climate emergency. Ditto, because I sure didn't say that. I said something very different. > 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' Who's salary? Not mine. I've reiterated this 3 times now. Get off your conspiracy theory.

by lwhi 5y ago

godelski 5y ago

Most of the people I'm referring to are climate scientists. I'm not saying "nuclear scientists believe" I'm saying "climate scientists generally agree that". But again, the rudeness isn't the skepticism, it is that the skepticism is caused simply because you disagree with me. I don't even see what expertise you have to disagree with as you're not even pointing to anything except "la de da." You have no evidence that I'm wrong, and I don't expect you to find any (though of course there are scientists that disagree, but that's not what consensus means. Nothing is absolute. You yourself said this). The DOE has plenty of talks that are public (online and in person), I encourage you to attend one, or several. Mostly because they are interesting and I think anyone interested in climate should. And to clarify, DOE is doing a lot of the climate modeling. Yes, they also handle nuclear, but they do far more than that and it isn't the same teams of people. So either I'm shilling for an industry I'm no longer in, or your preconceived notions are wrong. I'm a bit peeved that your response to me disagreeing with you is to claim that I'm a lobbyist. There is no conspiracy going on here. It doesn't even make sense considering how costly nuclear is and how small of a percentage it is of the power sector. Jumping to conspiracy is a bit odd. You're very vocal in this thread but your comments don't demonstrate basic knowledge of climate nor nuclear technology. Maybe sit this one out and go to a few lectures before coming back. I'm happy you're passionate. This is a subject I deeply care about too. But in science you have to constantly ask yourself if your preconceived notions are wrong. Because frankly nothing is "obvious" as the general public likes to claim. But I don't have anything else to say here. You can continue to believe I'm part of this big nuclear conspiracy theory but I just want you to know how insane that sounds to me and others here. There's much simpler and more obvious explanations that this grand conspiracy. Especially since we're also advocating for renewables. I can't even figure out how your conspiracy theory makes sense (yes, I know you're not the only one that believes this). Like why would a conspirator ask you to get more informed in the general principles like climate and renewable energy? I don't get it and I don't think I will ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

lwhi 5y ago
I'm one of the few people demonstrating an opposing view. That's not the same as being uninformed. This is not the only route we have available. That in itself is a fact. You seem to believe that without nuclear power we'll have no chance of avoiding climate emergency. This is quite simply incorrect. --- 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
- godelski 5y ago
  > That's not the same as being uninformed. That's not why I claimed you're misinformed. > This is not the only route we have available. That in itself is a fact. Who said this? > You seem to believe that without nuclear power we'll have no chance of avoiding climate emergency. Ditto, because I sure didn't say that. I said something very different. > 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' Who's salary? Not mine. I've reiterated this 3 times now. Get off your conspiracy theory.