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

LouisvilleDem

(303 posts)

12. Study != Proof

Reply to kristopher (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:34 PM

Jan 2016

I don't know any simpler way to say it.

I'm sure NNadir could provide dozens of other 'studies' that say exactly the opposite of what yours do. The bottom line is until someone goes and actually builds what you claim is possible, it remains speculation.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Support for Nuclear == Denial [View all] LouisvilleDem Dec 2015 OP

I've had this argument so many times, I needed this article. Thank you! Gregorian Dec 2015 #1

It's evidence of the formation of camps in the environmental movement GliderGuider Dec 2015 #2

Nuclear isn't as carbon-free as we would like AtheistCrusader Dec 2015 #3

You could try opening a scientific paper on the subject of LCA... NNadir Dec 2015 #6

Nicely stated. eom whitefordmd Dec 2015 #7

I think the enemy is a delusional regulatory environment cprise Dec 2015 #4

It is denial - nuclear isn't needed at all. bananas Dec 2015 #5

What if you are wrong? LouisvilleDem Dec 2015 #8

Your beliefs are false. kristopher Dec 2015 #9

Your reasoning suffers severe deficiencies LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #10

Nope. kristopher Jan 2016 #11

Study != Proof LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #12

No, he can't. kristopher Jan 2016 #13

You don't get it LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #14

No, it isn't different. kristopher Jan 2016 #15

Response LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #16

And that returns us to the "denier" label kristopher Jan 2016 #18

Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #17

What - specifically - is your point? kristopher Jan 2016 #19

You asked for science OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #20

And how do you interpret that statement... kristopher Jan 2016 #21

Well, interpreting the statement would be in the context in which was written. OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #22

"those probably will not be renewable...." kristopher Jan 2016 #23

As you can see, renewables do not play much of a role OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #24

So you insist on ignoring real world events, eh? kristopher Jan 2016 #25