Themis wrote:WD was just making a strawman argument. Scientists are the ones who have been bringing up these kind of concerns for a very long time. WD ended up showing one of the best parts of academia which is it's self correcting mechanisms because of obvious imperfections of humans who are the scientists. WD is very anti any science he doesn't like. This is not how one is going to gain the best information on how the world works or how to make good decisions that can impact our lives.
No, but that's what you're doing right now. It's not "anti" to merely point out the truth, that your results have a low confidence. I have no feelings about the matter whatsoever. Again, the TBM argument.
by the way, remember my nuclear power arguments, that you all ridiculed? Seems more than a few people agree with me.
We are writing as scientists, scholars, and concerned citizens to warn you of a persistent anti-nuclear bias in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.[1]
While many of the scenarios in the IPCC report call for the expanded use of nuclear energy, the report nonetheless repeats misinformation about nuclear energy, contrasts nuclear negatively to renewables, and in some cases, suggests an equivalency with fossil fuels.
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-ne ... ate-change“The anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to decarbonization than climate denial.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 5ca5c33973