bestonnet_00

I count seven different questions in which BK has made up a statistic about atheism which contradicts reality and with no link to a source.

Try http://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3Aanswers.yah... for the list.

Any relation to a god that doesn't exist?

When the real problem is that we're not running out of fossil fuels (since running out of them would give us a good economic incentive to switch to real alternatives rather than waste time with the obsolete technologies that pre-dated fossil fuels) and so continuing to put CO2 into the atmosphere.

The solutions that many of those who accept global warming tend to propose are things that have been shown not to be able to replace fossil fuels (e.g. wind power which is only good for pumping water uphill) whilst those who deny global warming if asked how we could reduce CO2 emissions are able to actually come up with workable solutions that actually could replace fossil fuels.

It sure looks like most of both sides deny reality (well all the denialists do, you have to think global warming isn't happening or caused by us or likely to be harmful but even most who accept that global warming is happening are in denial about the limitations of wind and ground based solar and the lack of decent large scale energy storage technology). Is this just a battle between two bad ideologies with reality caught in the crossfire?

With global warming now accepted by essentially every credible scientist (including pretty much every skeptic) and the arguments of those who deny it is happening being laughably easy to refute, it seems there isn't much point in arguing about it (since the few that haven't accepted it have a religious faith in the inability of humans).

What happened with Chernobyl Unit 4 and the design problems with that reactor do not affect any western designed reactors making any arguments about the effects of Chernobyl completely irrelevant to the issue of whether nuclear power should be used (since no one is going to be building reactors anywhere near as bad as the RBMKs). So why then do people think that a defective reactor failing and spewing radiation is an argument against nuclear power? It'd be like calling the Comet 1 an argument against jet aircraft, that's how little sense it makes.

Is it just simple ignorance of what happened there and why other reactor designs (and to some extent the upgraded RBMKs that haven't been replaced yet) won't do that? an attempt to deflect the blame away from the communist political system of the Soviet Union that allowed such a thing to happen? or something else entirely?