3 ms·
"there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science" 1) The concerns they list are the actual concerns of significant segments of the populati
by spenrose 9y ago
"there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science"
1) The concerns they list are the actual concerns of significant segments of the population. Such as e.g. an overwhelming majority of the German electorate.
2) I personally think that some of those concerns are overweighted. You apparently do as well.
3) Failing to weigh those concerns the way you and I do does not constitute "having an agenda not based on the science", key word "the".
4) They are evenly applying "the" science of GHG reduction to all solutions. It's not their job to follow a specific agenda on the debated science of side topics such as those you single out.
Nuclear power activates identity framing for a lot of people. For some it is anti-, but for others it is pro-. The anti-nuclear people typically own the identity issue. The pro-nuclear people sometimes do, but sometimes want to claim a "these are the scientific facts with which it is irrational to agree" kind of super-identity.
- acidburnNSA 9y agoGood points. I guess "bias" is more of the word that I was looking for than "agenda". My concern is that they're parroting unproductive fears about nuclear energy that society has gone critical with without pointing out some key facts that are pivotal to fighting climate change, such as that nuclear reactors are gigawatt-scale, 24/7 reliable, carbon-free electricity generators that demonstrably have killed fewer people per kWh than almost anything else out there. But you're right that they're parroting what many people would parrot because that's how social memes work. I guess it's on me to expose more people to reasoning that convinces them that atomic energy is a good path in our fight against climate change.