11 ms·

There's Scientific correctness, and then there's risk. The likelihood is that the science is correct, so the risk is high. Look at it this way, play Russian ro

There's Scientific correctness, and then there's risk. The likelihood is that the science is correct, so the risk is high. Look at it this way, play Russian roulette - you can't prove that you're going to shoot yourself in the head, but that doesn't make it safe. Nope, corrective action should be taken against the risk. The science should continue. Until there's a good body of scientific evidence that what we're doing is safe (and at the current rate, that's very unlikely), there will still be the need for change.

anamax 17y ago
> The science should continue. Until there's a good body of scientific evidence that what we're doing is safe (and at the current rate, that's very unlikely), there will still be the need for change. The question is not "change or not?", the question is "what change?" When the "reduce carbon" folks start seriously pushing nuclear, as in breaking ground for a nuke/month in the US, I'll believe that they think that AGW is a serious problem. As long as they act like it's just a club for political ends and feel-good moralism....
- StrawberryFrog 17y ago
  I'd rather see move money going into the solar/wind/electric ecosystem, but yep, the greens need to get over their primal fear of nuclear as part of the solution, and the mainstream politicians need to rearrange the funding priories.
  - anamax 17y ago
    It's not just nukes, it's a bunch of things that folks who were actually serious would do that they're not doing. Either they're ignorant or they're not serious, and either way .... You don't have to rearrange govt funding priorities to get nukes built. You merely have to significantly fix the approval process. The same is true of the wind farm that Ted Kennedy blocked to protect his view.
    - StrawberryFrog 17y ago
      You don't have to rearrange govt funding priorities to get nukes built. True. But it would help everyone else if western governments being so nice to the (massive, rich) oil industry. The best non-oil technologies would benefit the most, like they should in a competitive market.
yters 17y ago
When global warming proponents spell out the actual danger, usually things don't get bad for a hundred+ years. Seems like we have time to make carefully informed decisions.
- StrawberryFrog 17y ago
  Depends on where you are. They got bad for Australia about 10 years ago.

anamax 17y ago

> The science should continue. Until there's a good body of scientific evidence that what we're doing is safe (and at the current rate, that's very unlikely), there will still be the need for change. The question is not "change or not?", the question is "what change?" When the "reduce carbon" folks start seriously pushing nuclear, as in breaking ground for a nuke/month in the US, I'll believe that they think that AGW is a serious problem. As long as they act like it's just a club for political ends and feel-good moralism....

StrawberryFrog 17y ago
I'd rather see move money going into the solar/wind/electric ecosystem, but yep, the greens need to get over their primal fear of nuclear as part of the solution, and the mainstream politicians need to rearrange the funding priories.
- anamax 17y ago
  It's not just nukes, it's a bunch of things that folks who were actually serious would do that they're not doing. Either they're ignorant or they're not serious, and either way .... You don't have to rearrange govt funding priorities to get nukes built. You merely have to significantly fix the approval process. The same is true of the wind farm that Ted Kennedy blocked to protect his view.
  - StrawberryFrog 17y ago
    You don't have to rearrange govt funding priorities to get nukes built. True. But it would help everyone else if western governments being so nice to the (massive, rich) oil industry. The best non-oil technologies would benefit the most, like they should in a competitive market.

yters 17y ago

When global warming proponents spell out the actual danger, usually things don't get bad for a hundred+ years. Seems like we have time to make carefully informed decisions.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago
Depends on where you are. They got bad for Australia about 10 years ago.