Science and politics. The 2 vocations where language is critical, and where misdirection is the intention.
Oh, and posting on the BBS,...

I disengage, I turn the page.

That last sentence summed me up nicely, I must be a scientist, thanks Stirling, I tip my hat!

You can tell how gullible the audience she is targeting is by the way she has to explain that Q = 0.7 means that the energy efficiency is 70%.

Knowing that energy cannot be created or destroyed is year 7 physics. The equations she uses are primary school level.

The disingenuousness of this video is obvious, any physicist, or person with a basic understanding of science will realise that the studies are talking about the efficiency of energy transfer in plasma, and not simply creating energy. They don't need to repeat that.

She doesn't talk about why the energy efficiency of plasma is important at all in the video, or why it is an important area of research. She is claiming others are misleading with a series of carefully selected clips and a total omission of discussion around the subject matter.

I'm know nothing about plasma, except for I saw a plasma cutter in action on Monday. It was silent, incredibly bright, and cut through steal like butter.

What's even more obvious is why you posted this video. Desperate to prove you have some intelligences, you searched the Internet for a video dressing up basic physics. As it's critical of the status quo, you'll no doubt try and use it as a single data point from an obscure Internet source that isn't challenged and suits your narrative. From that, you'll criticise the "so called" scientific experts and the government, claim they have got it all wrong. Bore everyone about Powell being right, and declare your support of the PA manifesto.

Finally, you've attempted to change your blunt, wringing, victim mentality tactics, but it's all completely transparent.

You'll probably bang on about IQ tests again soon. In my experience, people who ask about IQ scores tend to be idiots with a false sense of intelligence after successful answering simple questions in a Facebook test.

Too easy.

Called out again Stirlingsays. You titled this thread Nuclear Fusion - The Truth. You chose that title. You made the claim based on a one sided monolog with no reply. Running away again.

I didn't question her credentials. The world of science and academia is full of bitching and infighting. It's expected that scientist will have a dig at each other every now and then. The irony is that it's a sensationalist piece about how people sensationalise research, whilst skipping over the fact the scientist will caveat their claims at some point in their research, but to save time later on they will abreviate terms. Standard practice - unless you want to read anything by Newton, who by all accounts what both nuts and a bit of a dick, and made Principa deliberately difficult. Also he discovered Calculus years before he bothered telling anyone.

More name calling, coming from a guy who tries to pass off an entry level science video as a sign of his intelligence.

It's not factual, it's a carefully selected data from a few supporting documents. There's no indication of sample size or peer review. This isn't science. It's poor journalism at best.

Next you'll be claiming the earth is flat.

Or the compilation of Unemployment figures during the Thatcher years.
And using her own words, .."lies, damn lies ,..and statistics."

I disengage, I turn the page.