Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative

Originally posted by googlefudge
I live in the UK, we don't get NBC here.

I don't know the quality of their reporting.

However what you just highlighted is a potential bias, the news organisation
was owned by a company that builds/runs nuclear power plants.

Twhitehead was asking me about how you can get reliable unbiased information
that you can trust without becoming an ex ...[text shortened]... often
lie and or distort the truth [often unwittingly, again incompetence rather than intent].

"I live in the UK, we don't get NBC here."

Fine, tell me which UK news organizations are biased against nuclear power.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Pay attention to this sentence in that article in the link you posted:

"Whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural, the end result is indisputable"

It is nice to know that the writer of the article does not take sides on this issue. The author does not claim it is anthropogenic. Do you read these articles you post?

I wasn't showing YOU the link and wasn't making a point but merely putting a link of scientific interest here for the SCIENTISTS and laypeople with genuine scientific curiosity (that excludes you ) here to see. Not everything here is just about YOU.

But now you bring it up: here is my quote from my other thread that just happens to be an appropriate response here:

"Actually, it doesn't matter whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural! That is because, even if, say, only 10% of its cause is anthropogenic, 10% means we still will cause 10% of the sea level rise and, presumably, something like 10% of the damage (from global warming and therefore also sea level rise ) and that includes something like 10% of the many thousands if not millions of human deaths.

I say that here because I have noticed that many of the least reasonable man made global warming 'skeptics' (like the one here ) often baselessly assert we are not the cause because 'most' of the cause is natural. But, what they fail to comprehend is that, even if that baseless assertion were by coincidence to be true, it would be totally irrelevant because that still wouldn't mean we are not causing and therefore responsible for many (at least thousands ) of human deaths (plus other damage ). In fact, even if only 1% of the cause was man made, we will still be responsible for thousands of deaths.
It would be just like you deliberately murdering someone and then idiotically say it doesn't matter you murdered someone and it is not crime because the fact remains that more than 99% of human deaths are not due to murder! -same 'logic' as those 'skeptics'."

well?

Originally posted by humy
I wasn't showing YOU the link and wasn't making a point but merely putting a link of scientific interest here for the SCIENTISTS and laypeople with genuine scientific curiosity (that excludes you ) here to see. Not everything here is just about YOU.

But now you bring it up: here is my quote from my other thread that just happens to be an appropriate r ...[text shortened]... than 99% of human deaths are not due to murder! -same 'logic' as those 'skeptics'."

well?[/b]

"Actually, it doesn't matter whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural!"

LOL! That was some serious back peddling! I never thought I could get you to admit that. I am on top of the world now. 😀

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I live in the UK, we don't get NBC here."

Fine, tell me which UK news organizations are biased against nuclear power.

Being stupid you miss the point.

Tell me where I said that their were news organisations biased against nuclear power.

Show me where that's at all relevant to the point I was and am making.

The fact that you misread peoples posts and then go off on wild tangents is one
very good reason not to debate with you.

Can you even tell me what the point I was making is?

I'll bet you can't.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Actually, it doesn't matter whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural!"

LOL! That was some serious back peddling! I never thought I could get you to admit that. I am on top of the world now. 😀

You should have called yourself "missing the point"

It would have been apt.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Actually, it doesn't matter whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural!"

LOL! That was some serious back peddling! I never thought I could get you to admit that. I am on top of the world now. 😀

You have taken that quote out of context. Lets see how that continuous shall we? :-


"...That is because, even if, say, only 10% of its cause is anthropogenic, 10% means we still will cause 10% of the sea level rise and, presumably, something like 10% of the damage (from global warming and therefore also sea level rise ) and that includes something like 10% of the many thousands if not millions of human deaths. ..."

Originally posted by humy
You have taken that quote out of context. Lets see how that continuous shall we? :-


"...That is because, even if, say, only 10% of its cause is anthropogenic, 10% means we still will cause 10% of the sea level rise and, presumably, something like 10% of the damage (from global warming and therefore also sea level rise ) and that includes something like 10% of the many thousands if not millions of human deaths. ..."

You are considering the possibility that 90% of warming is natural. That makes me laugh, but not as much as you still thinking a bunch of people will die because of it. That is hilarious! Do you really believe such nonsense?

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
Being stupid you miss the point.

Tell me where I said that their were news organisations biased against nuclear power.

Show me where that's at all relevant to the point I was and am making.

The fact that you misread peoples posts and then go off on wild tangents is one
very good reason not to debate with you.

Can you even tell me what the point I was making is?

I'll bet you can't.

"If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't."

Which news media outlets are you accusing of misrepresenting the truth about nuclear? Simple question.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't."

Which news media outlets are you accusing of misrepresenting the truth about nuclear? Simple question.

It's a simply stupid question as it assumes something I haven't done.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's a simply stupid question as it assumes something I haven't done.

"If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't."

So you are saying the news media is not telling us the truth in general and nuclear has nothing to do with it? Seriously...what are you saying? It appears that you are denying implying exactly what you were implying. Is this another feeble evasion tactic because you have no confidence in defending your position anymore?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't."

So you are saying the news media is not telling us the truth in general and nuclear has nothing to do with it? Seriously...what are you saying? It appears that you are denying ...[text shortened]... another feeble evasion tactic because you have no confidence in defending your position anymore?

Context my dear blithering idiot is everything.

The media are not reliable, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Thus when twhitehead asks who to believe about nuclear safety when both
governments and corporations have been known to lie and are not impartial
I respond by saying I don't have a good answer, but that the answer should
be that you can trust unbiased reliable reporting from the media, but you
can't because they are not unbiased or reliable.

I've watched [as an example] BBC news coverage of the Fukashima accident
in which they got basic facts wrong, mixed up terms, and contradicted themselves
because they had nobody in charge or on air who had the faintest clue about
nuclear power/physics or basic skeptical reasoning. However the same BBC
has also produced programs where they got it right and had experts on who
didn't make these mistakes and presented a balanced and fair view.

I can tell the difference, because I did study physics, and have a strong interest in
nuclear power. But I have the same problem in fields in which I don't have that knowledge.
And as I know how often they get stuff I do know wrong, how am I supposed to
trust them on stuff where I don't know the answer.

They are not reliable, and thus cannot be trusted to be accurate.

That is my point.

None of that requires that they be 'biased' against nuclear power, although I would
wager that some of the left leaning papers are. But then I wouldn't be surprised if
others are biased for nuclear power, which may be the side I support but it still makes
their reporting suspect.


This problem is by no means limited to nuclear issues, it applies generally.

It's probably worse in science areas as there are comparatively so few science editors
who know anything about science... But you can find bad reporting everywhere, because
they don't have any strong mechanisms for ensuring good reporting.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Context my dear blithering idiot is everything.

The media are not reliable, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Thus when twhitehead asks who to believe about nuclear safety when both
governments and corporations have been known to lie and are not impartial
I respond by saying I don't have a good answer, but that the answer should
be that you can t ...[text shortened]... porting everywhere, because
they don't have any strong mechanisms for ensuring good reporting.

"I've watched [as an example] BBC news coverage of the Fukashima accident
in which they got basic facts wrong"

I noticed facts were wrong, but it was mostly to downplay the dangers of the meltdown, deny the fuel rods had left the building and minimize the area not safe surrounding the reactors. You know, to prevent panic since that can be bad too.

Which specific facts did they get wrong that you are talking about?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I've watched [as an example] BBC news coverage of the Fukashima accident
in which they got basic facts wrong"

I noticed facts were wrong, but it was mostly to downplay the dangers of the meltdown, deny the fuel rods had left the building and minimize the area not safe surrounding the reactors. You know, to prevent panic since that can be bad too.

Which specific facts did they get wrong that you are talking about?

Who cares. It's utterly irrelevant to the point.

This discussion is done.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Who cares. It's utterly irrelevant to the point.

This discussion is done.

Run forrest, run!

YouTube

Originally posted by Metal Brain, but in reply to googlefudge too
"I've watched [as an example] BBC news coverage of the Fukashima accident
in which they got basic facts wrong"

I noticed facts were wrong, but it was mostly to downplay the dangers of the meltdown, deny the fuel rods had left the building and minimize the area not safe surrounding the reactors. You know, to prevent p ...[text shortened]... ince that can be bad too.

Which specific facts did they get wrong that you are talking about?

How do either of you know that the reports you saw were deliberately untrue?

The first point is that while the events were unfolding what they could report were the press releases from TEPCO and the Japanese government. They didn't have access to the plants themselves and were not able to do an inspection. So if TEPCO or the Japanese government were lying to them then, unless they had very good reason to believe they were being told falsehoods, they had little alternative but to repeat the information they had been given.

The second point is that beyond reporting that it happened the news people will have regarded technical details as secondary. What they really want to do is to report the political response and peoples' emotional responses - they assume that their viewers only want a simple explanation of what happened.

Point three is that, with a few exceptions such as the BBC, the media exist to sell advertising. It is the advertisers who are the customers and what they seek to do is to please them. Most of their advertisers couldn't care less either way regarding nuclear power, they do care about viewing figures. So if there is a detectable bias in either direction they could hurt their viewing figures and lose revenue.

Unless you can point to a substantial misrepresentation, which must either have originated with the media or have been obvious as a falsehood to them when they received it off TEPCO then I think neither you nor googlefudge are in a position to claim bias one way or the other. I don't think it is particularly in the media's interests to take a position on this issue.

As an aside, from memory alone I really should check this but can't be bothered, the Fukishima reactors were boiling water reactors where the rods had to be lifted (and not dropped as in the reactors we have here) into the core. The containment looked pretty flakey to me. The main difference with 3 Mile Island is that the containment held there, which it didn't for Fukishima or Chernobyl (which didn't have any thanks to cost cutting).