 | Demand Destruction: Myths and Reality | The Oil Drum: Europe | Post peak Italy: Naples submerged by waste |  |
409 comments on New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
409 comments on New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I think the implied suggestion was that you could write a full and detailed article, then post it here on TOD or elsewhere, then every time the "wrong" ideas come up, you can just link them to your article.
I've done that with a few little issues, it saves me a lot of typing and hassle.
It'd also prevent the arguments from simply being, "I think X"
"X is wrong, and you're stupid if you think so."
"Why?"
"It's so stupid I don't even have to refute it."
"Well then, you poopyhead!"
"No, you poopyhead!"
Not terribly informative or useful.
Peak-Oil, Global Warming, Nuclear-Sustainability ... they all suffer from the same problem.
On the face of it they are "scientific" problems to be addressed "scientifically" - but there are just not enough hours in the day, nor enough good-will amongst the combatants, to construct logically watertight cases either way on every point of contention. (At least not before the resources run out.)
There will be exaggeration, incentives, hyperbole, interests, axe-grinding and good-old-fashioned rhetoric, you name it - so long as the method is (entirely) adversarial.
So, as we find (in the microcosm of this thread) that we have to use more than "science". We have to use "wisdom" and the appearance of handle-bar moustaches. Think about it (the value of good-will) and get used to it, quick.
(Interesting article and thread BTW - I must follow-up some of the secondary source references, in order to contribute.)