4 ms·

The other side of this is that politics won’t stay out of science. We have a number of areas where the scientific consensus has been well established but some p

by acdha 2y ago

The other side of this is that politics won’t stay out of science. We have a number of areas where the scientific consensus has been well established but some people pretend otherwise for political reasons, and while in the past that was somewhat distributed on the political spectrum it has increasingly become concentrated in single parties. I don’t know how we can expect experts not to use their professional qualifications when rejecting false claims, especially when the alternatives being offered under false pretenses will cost lives and significant amounts of money.

gosub100 2y ago
Both sides engage in science denialism. For the far left, it's nuclear power being dangerous or "too expensive" , a problem they manufactured.
- acdha 2y ago
  Nuclear power is dangerous - perhaps you meant to say that it’s manageable but the scientific consensus has been clear since the Eisenhower era – and the expense is similarly not an artificial creation: it’s not like the “far left” theory was real, you’d see nuclear plants in, say, Texas producing power at prices competitive with China. The problems with nuclear have nothing to with science denial and everything to do with being an immensely capital-intensive industry with massive startup costs and results which are marginally competitive with renewables on pricing. If we’d built out Carter’s nuclear program in response to the OPEC price crunch we’d be in a very different place now but it’s a really hard sell now that renewables’ costs have come down so much.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    That doesn't explain why it isn't considered "green" energy. That's a grift. Its only emissions are the carbon footprint of building it, which is no small feat, but given the 40-60 year lifespan, is well in the "green" by my estimation. "Green" is just some subjective label stamped by the far left, meaning sources of energy they can use for handouts like solyndra.

by acdha 2y ago

gosub100 2y ago

Both sides engage in science denialism. For the far left, it's nuclear power being dangerous or "too expensive" , a problem they manufactured.

acdha 2y ago
Nuclear power is dangerous - perhaps you meant to say that it’s manageable but the scientific consensus has been clear since the Eisenhower era – and the expense is similarly not an artificial creation: it’s not like the “far left” theory was real, you’d see nuclear plants in, say, Texas producing power at prices competitive with China. The problems with nuclear have nothing to with science denial and everything to do with being an immensely capital-intensive industry with massive startup costs and results which are marginally competitive with renewables on pricing. If we’d built out Carter’s nuclear program in response to the OPEC price crunch we’d be in a very different place now but it’s a really hard sell now that renewables’ costs have come down so much.
- gosub100 2y ago
  That doesn't explain why it isn't considered "green" energy. That's a grift. Its only emissions are the carbon footprint of building it, which is no small feat, but given the 40-60 year lifespan, is well in the "green" by my estimation. "Green" is just some subjective label stamped by the far left, meaning sources of energy they can use for handouts like solyndra.