The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What James Hansen really said to Barack and Michelle > Comments

What James Hansen really said to Barack and Michelle : Comments

By Stephen Keim, published 4/2/2009

Professor Hansen warns of tipping points that would take the disastrous trajectory towards an ice free earth out of human control.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It may be a bit late for this thread however, rpg is right, Dickie is passionate and we need more of that in OLO. I didn't provide any links because did not see an open mind, only the need for reinforcement of an existing and seemingly unchangeable view, and that's OK but it won't move the debate into today's reality.

It is vital the we express controlled cynicism of alternate views however, in order to retain some balance we must also subject our own views to the same critical analysis.

I'm not trying to "sell" anyone on Nuclear Energy but, if it is to be an option for humanity we need to look at it rationally. I get so dissapointed at the wealth of real, current and verifiable industry data that exists, but few it seems, are asking the questions, just demanding a link that supports the tired old historical fears and demeaning or even rejecting reality.

Dickie, I appologise unreservedly for not playing by your rules and I thank rpg for taking one on the chin for me.

I'm not going to feed your habit Dickie however, if and when you do go looking for what is in the real world, I am absolutely sure that your energy and quest for information will result in this thread emerging again. Possible with some "questions" from yourself. Enjoy the journey.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 7 February 2009 9:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dickie, I appologise (sic) unreservedly for not playing by your rules and I thank rpg for taking one on the chin for me."

Spindoc

The request for supporting links are not my rules. OLO protocol exists, as it does in other debating forums, where an ethical author's claims are supported by facts - facts which are provided at another's request.

Likewise, in any peer reviewed articles you will see many references, indicating that the author has arrived at a logical conclusion by thoroughly researching the topic.

It is not surprising that the two posters on OLO who have failed at all times to provide links to support their wild assumptions, are the very two here who must resort to ad hominens to mask the rubbish they force-feed to others - namely yourself and fungochumley, who most perceive as wearing a leper's bell and most avoid like the plague.

Your first wild assumption that "China has ordered 100 Nuclear Power Stations from Westinghouse" is a complete and utter fallacy - a figment of your imagination. The rest is similar.

"No spent fuel has been permanently burried (sic), two reasons, the volume is so low after 60 years it is not an imperrative (sic)" is yet another of your pathetic errors and I will not waste my time exposing the rest of your deceitful nonsense.

Deductive and inductive reasoning plus logical conclusions are a prerequisite for sensible debate.

I suggest spindoc that you change your pseudonym to a more inappropriate title. Your deliberate trickery, intended to gain an advantage, has merely corrupted yet another thread.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 7 February 2009 10:17:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am neutral on this issue in that I do not know enough, nor can I find sufficient non-partisan information to make an informed decision.
From what I have seen in this and other debates is name calling, insults, put downs and general dogmatic pig headedness. That does not apply to all the 'debaters' but it does seem to be a trend. All that will lead to is that if we go nuclear or not it will be a case of mob rule rather than informed decision making.
This is an issue where we need informed information. That does not seem to be available at this time, and Wikipedia does not seem to be any worse in this than any other site I have seen. Scientist are the finders of information, but when it comes to how to use that information all are equal. Scientists can be as partisan as any one else and accepting their view because they are a scientist is not valid.
Clever people do things because they can, Intelligent people know when not to. On this issue we need intelligent answers not clever ones.
Please step back and look at the scale of the decision. It is not a petty squabble between school children. We need to get it right.
I have been insulted in other debates for my propensity to err on the side of caution when I am uncertain. So I ask the pro nuclear camp to cut the dogma and rhetoric and show me nuclear can be safe. If you can do that you may just find you can get a lot of support from people such as myself.
Please no more of the 'only 30 people died at Chernobyl' crap from the pro nuclear camp. The ones that died where the lucky ones
Posted by Daviy, Saturday, 7 February 2009 10:18:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is not surprising that the two posters on OLO who have failed at all times to provide links to support their wild assumptions, are the very two here who must resort to ad hominens to mask the rubbish they force-feed to others - namely yourself and fungochumley, who most perceive as wearing a leper's bell and most avoid like the plague"

If nothing else, dickie, you really are good for a laugh.
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 7 February 2009 11:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know Dickie, it might be worse than being a Leper with a bell round my neck, I might "glow in the dark".

The following links will get you started in understanding the Nuclear Energy Industry. The site is both independent and accountable, not opinion, not journalistic comment.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

http://wna.snetglobalindexes.com/

Don't miss "Info. sources" or "Further Reading".

Please don't assume that everything you need to know is on the web in a nicely packaged comment or article. For instance, I "might" have spent the last 40 years in the industry.

All I suggested was that if someone like you is so passionate about truth and facts, it is out there. I also suspected that you don't wish to hear, see or read anything that doesn't fit your entrenched oposition, a closed mind. This is evidenced by the tendency to totally ignore the "content" of of a response to you, yet you react alarmingly to the "emotion" it evokes in you, and the pseudo-acedemic belligerence you spray around does nothing to indicate an open mind.

If you do wish to understand, visit the sites provided, please don't prove me right by trashing it.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 7 February 2009 6:11:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear energy cannot power the whole world economy to the same affluence as we have in Australia for any length of time. This is beside the fact that there’s not enough stuff for every one if we try to maintain and have all people living to the same wasteful way that the capitalist system demands for it to be functional. The matter of safety and cost is immaterial if nuclear energy cannot solve world’s energy demands and able to produce the continues amount of food, water, metals and a host of minerals to our level of need under a wasteful capitalism. If we try to keep global capitalism by using nuclear energy or any other energy source that cannot fulfil those requirements then one must expect wars that can annihilate all of us by setting us on the path of Venues or nuclear war. We will have to abandon centralised systems of capitalism or socialism to survive and to have a better life. (What people think of me is not essential, as I’m not that important to matter.)
Posted by Tena, Saturday, 7 February 2009 6:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy