Global Warming Fever: Free Speech vs Oppression

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the tension between free speech and the suppression of dissenting views regarding global warming and nuclear energy. It references sociologist Frank Furedi's analysis, highlighting the perceived dogmatic stance of anti-global warming advocates. Participants note that the U.S. has lagged behind other developed nations in nuclear technology, attributing this to a historical stigma against the industry and a lack of new talent entering the field. Concerns are raised about the aging workforce in existing nuclear plants and the downsizing of utilities, which may jeopardize operational efficiency and institutional knowledge. Despite these challenges, some express optimism about the current state of the nuclear industry, suggesting that business is improving and that there are still opportunities for innovation, particularly in nuclear propulsion for space exploration.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
Now that the global warming fever has seriously infected the US, attempting to immunizing itself from the heresy deniers, itt may be an idea to observe the analyzis of sociologist Frank Furedi here about the tension between opressing *dangerous* ideas and free speech:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2792/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Andre said:
Now that the global warming fever has seriously infected the US, attempting to immunizing itself from the heresy deniers, itt may be an idea to observe the analyzis of sociologist Frank Furedi here about the tension between opressing *dangerous* ideas and free speech:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2792/

It is true. The anti-warming position is much like that of church dogma; refusing to recognize the science. But at least they have quit stringing-up the tree huggers, so there is progress.
 
There is no science there; only models fallacies and noble cause corruption (Hockeystick)

But the immediate example of that mechanism is highly appreciated
 
Last edited:
Interesting point: 20-30 years ago, you were strung up in the U.S. for saying nuclear power was a viable alternative.

The US is now several decades behind just about every other developed country in that technology. Sure, we have great science, but the technological base to actually build and operate nuclear plants is hardly there at all. I just read a story recently about the problems of existing power plants, where all the staff is approaching retirement age. No one in their right mind has considered a career in nukes for decades now: it was seen as a rapidly declining industry.
 
twisting_edge said:
Interesting point: 20-30 years ago, you were strung up in the U.S. for saying nuclear power was a viable alternative.
And there were still some of us crazy enough to go work in the industry. :biggrin:

The US is now several decades behind just about every other developed country in that technology.
We're not decades behind. Westinghouse has developed the AP600 and AP1000. GE has the ABWR ( two units at Kashiwazaki Kariwa (6,7) built in partnership with Hitachi and Toshiba and two units at Lungmen, Taiwan) and ESBWR.

Sure, we have great science, but the technological base to actually build and operate nuclear plants is hardly there at all.
We have the technological base to operate nuclear reactors (103 are operating in the US, with another about to come back on-line after being shutdown for more than 20 years). We certainly have lost the capability to forge large components. Such facilities are in France, Japan, S. Korea and China, and perhaps the skilled labor to construct the plants.

I just read a story recently about the problems of existing power plants, where all the staff is approaching retirement age.
The utilities have downsized to do more with less - bascially it means more money in the pockets of management - not necessarily stockholders. It does mean that institutional memory and experience is being lost. The stress can be incredible at times.

No one in their right mind has considered a career in nukes for decades now: it was seen as a rapidly declining industry.
:smile: Business is good - best in years.
 
Last edited:
You have to be careful in this these forums. You can give an opinion, even a well-considered opinion, but you will be met with the statements of an expert in the field who will say something like:

Astronuc said:
And there we still some of crazy to go work in the industry. :biggrin:

and you will be shamed by the brilliance of the light of truth!
 
Last edited:
I'd still rather be doing nuclear propulsion systems for spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and beyond.

But what I do is fun, interesting, fun, very challenging, fun, well-paying, and fun.
 
I think Astronuc hasn't noticed the mistakes in his opening remark yet. :biggrin:
 
Evo said:
I think Astronuc hasn't noticed the mistakes in his opening remark yet. :biggrin:
:blushing: Yeah - I noticed.
It would help if I could write coherently.

And there were still some of us crazy enough to go work in the industry.

I was changing thoughts in mid sentence, and typing to fast.
 
Last edited:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top