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

PamW

(1,825 posts)
28. If you think I've made a scientific error - Please point it out...
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 10:45 PM
Oct 2013

madokie states
I say you are less than truthful when you say you are a scientist. Pretty intelligent person I can accept but a true scientist, no, I can't. I base this on the many mistakes I've seen in your screeds both factual and typographical.

If you think I've made a factual or scientific error - by all means; tell me what error you think I've made.

I would be more than happy to explain the facts or scientific principles that you believe are in error.

Many scientific principles are quite counter-intuitive. Each year one of the scientific societies gives a test to non-scientists as to what they think is the correct scientific answer. In many cases, the results have the majority of non-scientists not only giving the incorrect answer; but they are very sure that their answer is correct.

Evidently, you take my insistence on good science as being too strident; and would prefer a tone that invites discussion. The problem comes when one has a law of science that is crystal clear as to what it says. If someone says, "Let's discuss whether or not the efficiency of a heat engine can exceed the Carnot efficiency"; that isn't something that can be debated. The Carnot limit on efficiency has been known for over a century; and there is over a century of good science that validates it. There really can't be any discussion on that. It's like asking to debate whether Congress has the power to levy taxes. It's really a settled issue.

I donate plenty to various causes; and will take your suggestion under advisement.

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

PamW

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Japan on gas, coal power ...»Reply #28