Quote:
Originally Posted by retclt
Hey Stu,
I don't argue most of the science of it. I argue the politics of it. My simple mind hears "Bob - you're evil and destroying the planet. I'm going to force you into submission", and then I think - what a load of crap!
On the last paragraph . . . there should be a bar fight thread to go to. Did you get beat up after school a lot when you were a kid?
|
I'm not saying you're evil. I'm not saying you're destroying the planet. All I'm advocating is a modest change (coal+NG -> nuclear) that we're going to have to do anyway (due to rising energy demand) in the near future. Doing so sooner (~20 years vs ~80 years) should spread out climate shifts over longer time, causing less money to be spent on (acutely) moving climate related infrastructure. It's all about opportunity cost.
As for the last para... I'm really just trying to avoid a hopeless argument. If a person is honestly undecided on the age of the Earth (young vs old) I have no hope of convincing them (of anything) by any scientific argument.