3 ms·
GP was not saying that proponents of nuclear are arguing for "only-nuclear" but that arguing in favour of nuclear might be a net negative in the progress agains
by afiori 6y ago
GP was not saying that proponents of nuclear are arguing for "only-nuclear" but that arguing in favour of nuclear might be a net negative in the progress against fossil fuel.
This happens everywhere, every movement needs to be both diverse (to avoid being too close minded to the complexity of the problem at hand) and focused (to avoid wasting efforts in pipe dreams). You and GP disagree on where to apply the cut off line of this separation.
- godelski 6y ago(G)GP is arguing against the scientific consensus in a extremely complex subject matter. My comment was about the arrogance of people going against expert consensus in complex subjects. We call anti-vaxers out for specifically this reason and I'm tired of pretending like climate (or many other hot topics) is any different. When it comes down to it, if it is some random person on the internet vs someone with decades of domain experience, I'm going with the advice of the latter. It is insane not to. I am perfectly fine (and actively encourage) asking critical questions of the experts. I encourage getting domain knowledge. But there's a large difference between having some expertise and being an expert. We can argue over that line but that's not what the (G)GP was doing, or the vast majority of these threads.
- afiori 6y agoRereading your comment (but not the related, thread) I think there was a slight miscomunication. I guess you cared more about the GMO than nuclear (of both of them), while I considered the GMO as a one-off comment distinct from the main argument and focused on (G^n)P argument against arguing in favour of nuclear.