So long as it's just "believe" and not "know"

Jeff, while I'm proud of you for finding one example of an advancing glacier, I don't suppose you could be troubled to explain the many receding ones. Or perhaps the ice fisherman in Greenland are just a bunch of big whiner babies, and the polar bears that are drowning just need to visit the local Y. (The rangers that came aboard during our cruise must be full of **** as well).

I really would like to borrow those rose-colored glasses of yours- I think you have a much more pleasant view of the world than I. (Future generations be damned, eh?)

Now, tell me how much better the people in Kiev and it's environs are these days and maybe I'll change my mind on nuclear energy as well.

Selective facts, and I believe Jeff deserves some mojo for being able to sift thorugh the reams of documentation to the contrary to establish his 'fact'.

I appreciate any attempt to back up an argument, but snarky comments are just.......sad.

You would honestly compare the nuclear technology employed at Chernobyl to current nuclear technology? Palo Verde here next to Phoenix was built in the late 1970s and is the largest nuke plant in the US. The tech there is old, and yet there hasn't been anything close to an incident. Modern nuclear tech is incredibly safe and building more plants is a necessity.

Not to be "snarky", but as someone who seems to be pretty sure on her scientific knowledge related to global warming, you are pretty uninformed about nuclear power and are making a pretty rash judgement.

I posted a link earlier in this thread about the intimidation many in the scientific community feel when they come out with evidence disputing the "common fact" of man caused (please note the "man caused") global warming. Not unlike Galileo and the whole round earth thing.

I'm not any more sure on my global warming info- just not willing to dismiss information or conclusions simply because a majority of scientists happen to believe it. As far as nuclear reactors, might I remind you where I live, dear? Washington state? Site of WPPs and Hanford? I may not be completely up to date as to technology now being employed in the field of nuclear energy, but I am cautious about it for a reason.

The day I see no snarky comments from the denizens of this forum, then I might be willing to acknowledge that pedestal some people choose to pronounce from.:rolleyes:

Why not just admit that MY snarky is what you call sad, and other people being snarky to me is what you call wit.

That's an interesting way to put it.

I thought so. Very accurate as well.

I'll fess up to that - Nephy's snarky is sad, my snarky is wit.

:cheers:

The statement applies to any snarky comments centered around the topic at the time. I freely admit to this, and am willing to back it up with facts. (In order to avoid the appearance of snarkiness, of course).