Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

PamW

(1,825 posts)

20. I don't know about you..

Reply to madokie (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 19, 2013, 07:26 PM

Oct 2013

madokie,

I don't know about you; but EVERYTHING I say comes from my own scientifically accurate critical thinking.

I don't get "talking points" from anyone to tell me what to know and believe.

I make up my own mind using my own scientifically trained intellect.

I do quote other scientists; because that's how one supports one's opinions.

I can't prove to anyone here who I am, and that I have the scientific credentials that I say I have.

However, I can quote people like Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab, a renown scientific leader whose scientific credentials are unquestioned.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Japan on gas, coal power building spree to fill nuclear void [View all] GliderGuider Oct 2013 OP

winning! phantom power Oct 2013 #1

No worries, eh? pscot Oct 2013 #2

Japan seems to have had no short term options except to jump from the frying pan into the fire. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #3

There was at least one much better option phantom power Oct 2013 #4

The domain of "short term options" is defined by political as well as technical feasability. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #5

Nuclear isn't at all compatible with renewables. kristopher Oct 2013 #8

So, the solution is...more coal-fired plants? NickB79 Oct 2013 #11

Interesting article from the Grauniad, thanks! GliderGuider Oct 2013 #12

You can build coal plants optimized to support variable generation. kristopher Oct 2013 #13

Where the economics clash, the plants shut down NickB79 Oct 2013 #14

"Where the economics clash, the plants shut down" is not a given. kristopher Oct 2013 #15

Its not so much radiation that people are terrified of madokie Oct 2013 #17

We frack here dbackjon Oct 2013 #6

Great example of why spending on nuclear is counterproductive to fighting GHG emissions kristopher Oct 2013 #7

Sure, sure... PamW Oct 2013 #9

That is pretty simplistic thinking that ignores many dimensions of the issue kristopher Oct 2013 #10

You know and I know that doesn't matter to this poster who you are replying too madokie Oct 2013 #18

I don't know about you.. PamW Oct 2013 #20

Pam you can be anyone or anything you want to be, I don't really care madokie Oct 2013 #21

I never understand... PamW Oct 2013 #23

Its the way you present madokie Oct 2013 #25

If you think I've made a scientific error - Please point it out... PamW Oct 2013 #28

Scientifically WRONG!!! again PamW Oct 2013 #19

There you go again madokie Oct 2013 #22

The animals are doing fine.. PamW Oct 2013 #24

The animals aren't doing fine, thats bullshit madokie Oct 2013 #26

The reason is that animals are thriving... PamW Oct 2013 #29

Mainly because animals have short lifespans NickB79 Oct 2013 #31

You really don't see what you say, do you? kristopher Oct 2013 #27

BAD nonscientific assumption being made. PamW Oct 2013 #30

No DrGreg, I didn't make a bad assumption. kristopher Oct 2013 #32

Lets talk about this a little bit madokie Oct 2013 #16