3 ms·

This gets brought up a lot but virtually no one in the extreme Warmist community takes this risk seriously, which is weird because a) it isn't entirely implausi

This gets brought up a lot but virtually no one in the extreme Warmist community takes this risk seriously, which is weird because a) it isn't entirely implausible and b) they talk about it a lot. Yet we can tell they don't take it seriously, because they are adamantly opposed to nuclear power, which would defang coal, a major contributor to climate change. One of the reasons otherwise reasonable people don't take AGW seriously is this kind of disconnect, in which the people who make the most noise about it are so clearly, obviously and transparently inconsistent between what they say they believe ("AGW runs a serious risk of creating civilization-ending events") and what they actually believe ("Global industrial capitalism is the root of all evil"). This is unfortunate, because AGW is a real problem, and should be addressed aggressively by both technological (nuclear, solar, etc) and political (carbon tax) means. But neither will happen until people start actually taking it seriously, instead of simply using it as a stick to beat some political hobby horse. Denialists are little better, of course, but I honestly think it would be possible to get them mostly on side--and I have had some success in doing so--by sincere and consistent arguments that separate the science from the rabidly anti-capitalist, anti-industrial proposals for solution.

matthewdgreen 12y ago
First of all, there's no such thing as the 'Warmist' community. If you start by looking for views you disagree with, confirmation bias will produce a view of the community that corresponds to your pre-conceived notions. In reality, many activists understand that nuclear baseload is a huge piece of any decarbonization strategy. As to the methane issue, there are a number of scientists who think about it quite a bit -- and probably don't sleep much as a result. The problem is that two decades of intense lobbying and industry pressure have taught mainstream scientists to be incredibly conservative about their predictions. If the IPCC started including methane releases in their predictions, they'd be quickly torn to pieces for promoting speculative theories. As for the nuclear stuff: if you're just looking for an excuse to not to care about climate change -- then go ahead and don't care about it! You're well aware that the main policy proposal on the table is a carbon tax of some sort and that such a policy would benefit both renewables and nuclear -- basically any technology that doesn't use the atmosphere as a waste dump.

matthewdgreen 12y ago

First of all, there's no such thing as the 'Warmist' community. If you start by looking for views you disagree with, confirmation bias will produce a view of the community that corresponds to your pre-conceived notions. In reality, many activists understand that nuclear baseload is a huge piece of any decarbonization strategy. As to the methane issue, there are a number of scientists who think about it quite a bit -- and probably don't sleep much as a result. The problem is that two decades of intense lobbying and industry pressure have taught mainstream scientists to be incredibly conservative about their predictions. If the IPCC started including methane releases in their predictions, they'd be quickly torn to pieces for promoting speculative theories. As for the nuclear stuff: if you're just looking for an excuse to not to care about climate change -- then go ahead and don't care about it! You're well aware that the main policy proposal on the table is a carbon tax of some sort and that such a policy would benefit both renewables and nuclear -- basically any technology that doesn't use the atmosphere as a waste dump.