Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, Chris Buckley wrote:

1) No, Chris asserted that "human ingenuity" is sufficient to
   provide effectively infinite power from nuclear reactors.

>
NO! This is an outright falsehood. Unhappy at losing arguments despite
his distorting my claims by selectively snipping my text (I've
complained to him close a dozen times about this), Scott now is
inventing my text.  I never said this.
>
How about this:
I hereby promise to donate $1000 to the charity of Scott's choice
if he can show that I said this.  Let's see it, Scott!

Ahhh, so my memory did not deceave me. Thank you for clarifying Chris, I
now remember.

   I maintain that nuclear energy is a vital part of the energy
   mix.  I don't believe it can _replace_ all the other forms of
   energy in that mix.  Note that the world currently consumes
   18TW and only a miniscule portion of that is from nuclear.
>
2) You really need to do your own research rather than parroting
   right wing talking points without understanding the underlying
   physical priciples.

>
Scott, you clearly don't believe that.  How many citations did I give
in this argument? 8? 10? You completely ignored all of them; no signs
that you read them. You gave 2 citations as I remember.  One to your
cherished textbook (see below) which I believe you read, and one to an
estimate of confirmed Uranium reserves which it was obvious you didn't
read (it later went into great detail as to why the confirmed reserves
were much smaller than the actual minable Uranium out there.)  You
don't do your own research/reading, you've just been parroting the left wing
talking points of your textbook.

As bad a human being as I may be from the point of view of
climate-hysterics, it does gives me enormous schadenfreude to see Scott behave in the exactly same way. ;)

   Energy growth _cannot_ physically grow
   forever at the rate it has grown for the last century and a
   half, which is the point of that chapter in the textbook
   referenced above.  I challenge you to read it and then provide
   constructive criticism of the presented physics.

>
Scott, I've read substantial portions of your physics textbook. It's a
mess. It's a self-published screed that has never undergone the
critical review process of an academic publisher. It's meant to be
emotionally disturbing and convince its readers that they must reduce
their standard of living since no single alternative energy source can
replace fossil fuels(!).  It was reviewed by the official journal of
physics educators and completely panned; I've never seen a journal
review of a science book that was that negative. This is the quality
of science that you believe in, Scott?
>
Chris
>
>