Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your post is (0+ / 0-)

    devoid of anything of use .
    If you have a FACT that you would like to share , cough it up . If not , thats fine .

    l'essentiel est invisible

    by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:03:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Facts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Plan9, enochthered

      And I'll use short phrases for those of you who need their information in sound bites:

      The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in the US has been outstanding since the dawn of the nuclear age 50 years ago.

      The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in France has been outstanding. The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in Germany has been outstanding. The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in Japan has been outstanding (this is in spite of a culture that seems reluctant to admit mistakes. I am not saying that the Japanese nuclear industry is perfect -- but all things considered, their record is still remarkable). I can point to many other places in the world where the performance has been outstanding for an industrial technology.

      These are facts: half a century of facts.

      And you? What do you have to offer, except for ridiculous claims and troll ratings?

      •  Your statements , are your opinion, (0+ / 0-)

        not facts . Thats the problem .
        If you have no FACTS to share .....

        "It's called science. You might want to check it out."
        Science is not just a blowhard spewing opinions .
        In fact , blowhard spewing opinions , could be said to be the opposite of science .

        l'essentiel est invisible

        by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:42:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You say that I am wrong? (0+ / 0-)

          PROVE IT!!!!

          •  Its still on you , (0+ / 0-)

            till you back up your opinions ,
            "learn some facts" , "It's called science. You might want to check it out."

            So far no the fact / science front , you are doing zip zero nada .

            l'essentiel est invisible

            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:09:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tell you what ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview

              Go tackle my claims here and here. I use numbers. These numbers come from the EIA. These are facts. Prove that I'm wrong, and then we can talk.

              Or, you can try to prove that I was wrong earlier in this thread. Your choice.

              I have provided facts, I have provided "proof," or at least I have provided numbers. You have only provided annoying BS. See if you can do better than that.

              •  Your not covering any new ground (0+ / 0-)

                Unless you have some NEW facts , just reposting the same old stuff isn't anything .

                You posted "learn some facts" , I'm still waiting for them , if what you are telling me to learn is old , well then I say your statement is wrong and boring .

                "It's called science. You might want to check it out."
                Still waiting on this also , I was into , doing , etc
                it before you were born , I am still waiting for you to show me something new . So far you have shown me nothing new .

                "You have only provided annoying BS."
                Funny that You should say that .

                l'essentiel est invisible

                by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:46:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not new ground, but it is real. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry

                  It might not be any "new facts", but it is the established scientific case for nuclear energy. The scientific case for nuclear energy, and the body of fact that supports it is nothing new, but it's well founded.

                  When people like you can successfully rebut this scientific case, I might consider the need for "new facts".

                  •  Indycam is being helpful (2+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LIsoundview, bryfry
                    Hidden by:
                    indycam

                    She's deliberately parading her ignorance so that people who have science-based information can rebut her and therefore address lurkers who may be unsure or confused about the risks and benefits of nuclear power.

                    So I say hurray for Indycam and Greenpeace-paid bloggers who show up on NNadir diaries.  They help us illuminate clearly the positives for nuclear power and permit us to repeat, yet again, that we are not opposed to renewable energy.

                    The big problem for the anti-nuclear-power movement people is that the facts are not on their side.  So they are forced to make up stuff, to resort to ancient, debunked "studies" and to otherwise lie and exaggerate.  But then there are the innocent foot soldiers who fall for all this blather and dutifully repeat it.  A little course in the scientific method might help these foot soldiers go AWOL.

                    The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                    by Plan9 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, I must say ... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Plan9

                      that I've had some exercise this time around. You may be right.

                      •  Kos FAQ on troll-rating (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bryfry

                        Dealing with trolls

                        Trolling is a sad reality of internet life. Most trolls tend to be blatant, posting comments or diaries that are clearly intended to provoke an angry response. Other trollish messages are posted simply to disrupt the conversation in a diary. Directly replying to the content of a trollish message is usually a waste of time; trolls tend not to be interested in actual debate.

                        QED.

                        The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                        by Plan9 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  She's deliberately parading her ignorance (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm still waiting for you to bring something new to the table that I have not already read . So far you have brought nothing new . How am I to learn something , as you claim I need to , if you bring nothing new ?

                      l'essentiel est invisible

                      by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh and you have said something (0+ / 0-)

                      absolutely 100% wrong .
                      And I can positively absolutely 100% prove it .

                      l'essentiel est invisible

                      by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 07:07:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  "It might not be any "new facts"" (0+ / 0-)

                    Bingo .

                    "The scientific case for nuclear energy, and the body of fact that supports it is nothing new, but it's well founded."
                    Please try to stay on topic .
                    Has nuke waste ever killed anyone .

                    l'essentiel est invisible

                    by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:59:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no, it hasn't (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bryfry
                      The storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel (most of which is actually NOT waste) from civilian nuclear power has not killed anyone.  (Being extra precise so you don't retreat into mincing words.)

                      The storage of nuclear waste from military operations might kill some people (unlikely in the case of Hanford, more likely in the case of Mayak), and the spreading of nuclear waste from an accident in a military plutonium production facility (Chornobyl) might kill at most 9000 more people (an upper limit based on a discredited, pessimistic theory).

                      So, there you have it.  Now it's your turn to jump up and down and go all PROVE IT, PROVE IT!; but before you do so again, pray tell, what would you consider proof that nobody was ever killed by the handling of used nuclear fuel?  On the other hand, DISproving would be very easy, if indeed somebody was killed by used nuclear fuel.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site