you're denying that "it was sometimes said?"
sure it was.
Maybe you didn't say it.
But you say yourself "It was a frequently mis-applied quote"
So you agree that it was said.
No real alternatives to fossil fuels ..
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
you're denying that "it was sometimes said?"
sure it was.
Maybe you didn't say it.
But you say yourself "It was a frequently mis-applied quote"
So you agree that it was said.
Sponsored Links
People say lots of things, but they aren't necessarily note worthy or even true.
Why is quoting something that is wrong seen as a viable thing to bring up in such discussions?
Because you are misapplying it.
Sponsored Links
Apart from those countries that don't have nuclear weapons.
There are 32 countries with nuclear power, and only 9 with nuclear weapons (including Israel).
Another misapplied issue. The majority of climate scientists did not believe there was a coming ice-age even when Time did the article about that in the 70s.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
no, I am saying the truth.
Yet.
Iran, for instance.
Nuclear weapons? No sir, certainly not. No interest in such a thing. Peaceful use only. No need for any sanctions. No development work going on here. No fissile material being extracted for future use. No no no no no.
One more country out of the 23 who have nuclear power but no nuclear weapons. And whether or not we invest in new civil nuclear will make no difference to that issue.
Do you have any actual reason not to use nuclear power to provide the UK with a baseload supply other than fear?
What, that people mis-applied a quote? How does this support anything?
Last edited:
Like most interesting debates, it gets spoiled by the exact same few every time, stopping any light being shone on a topic.
(Thinks privately to self, "Why don't they foxtrot oscar?")
(Thinks privately to self, "Why don't they foxtrot oscar?")
Wobs:
You seem to be relying on later articles and studies which refute the ideas that were stated.
Subsequent proof that something was/is wrong or was misunderstood in no way removes the fact that they were stated in the first place.
I assure you that we were promised what I said regarding electricity prices and was taught in school that a new ice age was coming.
I repeat: That both turned out to be wrong does not alter what we were told.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter
"The phrase was coined by Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, who, in a 1954 speech to the National Association of Science Writers, said:
It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter,"
You seem to be relying on later articles and studies which refute the ideas that were stated.
Subsequent proof that something was/is wrong or was misunderstood in no way removes the fact that they were stated in the first place.
I assure you that we were promised what I said regarding electricity prices and was taught in school that a new ice age was coming.
I repeat: That both turned out to be wrong does not alter what we were told.
"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter
"The phrase was coined by Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, who, in a 1954 speech to the National Association of Science Writers, said:
It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter,"
From the link you quoted:
"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet."
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Like I said, the idea that we were entering an ice age was picked up by Time magazine, and this lead people to think that was the scientific consensus at the time, but it wasn't.
And Lewis Strauss was involved in fusion. The speech you refer to was the only time someone made that claim. It has since been quoted many times to infere it was about fission.
Maybe, but 1970 is quite a while after 1954.
What was the proportion in 1958 when I started Grammar School.
You are baselessly disputing what I/we heard and was/were told - be it right or wrong.
The fact that there are articles disputing the ideas must prove that they were said.
What was the proportion in 1958 when I started Grammar School.
You are baselessly disputing what I/we heard and was/were told - be it right or wrong.
The fact that there are articles disputing the ideas must prove that they were said.
Sponsored Links