Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It's really not all that tough ...

I rarely boil water for noodles
or rice

I rarely boil water

I can give you a recipe for boiling water if you like.

Very hazy around here today, Canadian smoke I reckon ... not as bad as NYC.  I run on that track around the softball fields.  Usually.

Sure, it's a political approach to nearly all our issues, national debt, gun control, defense, immigration ... find some small item somewhere and make it into a mole hill, er, mountain, and then pretend to DO something about it.

And that's why, when I replied as I did when CD said that if this was really a "crisis", that everyone would be screaming for more nuclear power. 

I don't trust "the masses" to do so. Because half of them don't think climate change is a problem--if they even believe it exists or is caused by man. And the other half are scared of nuke and apply NO economic reasoning to it, just thinking we can manufacture clean energy freely out of unicorn farts, and if that doesn't work, we'll just "make the rich pay their fair share" and it'll all be fine. 

So I didn't want to reply by using the opinions of these folks:



Instead, I posted the opinions of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS. People who should both be smart enough to have an informed opinion on whether it's a problem, and also smart enough to realize that "hope & change" isn't a strategy to solve it. 

And you know what? They overwhelmingly believe it's happening, it's caused by us, and it's a significant problem. And as such, they are FAR more in favor of nuclear energy than "the masses". In short, their position appears to be consistent that we have to solve this and that nuclear is probably going to have to be part of that solution. 

There is a pretty strong "anti-expert" population in the US today, there's been one for a while, but I think with the Internet etc. it's getting stronger.  We all grant experts can be wrong, but they are wrong a lot less often than non-experts, in my view, on the topic of their expertise.

I think it's tough for the public to trust "experts" when their "expertise" is so commonly horse-traded for political reasons. 

COVID is a very real and very recent example of this.  There were "experts" on both sides, but only one side insisted that if you didn't blindly follow them and fall in behind them in lock-step, you were some kind of anti-science rube who might as well just believe in witch doctoring shamanism.  They brayed the loudest and, as it turns out, made some significant mistakes.

It's pretty easy to see why something like climate change could be viewed with skepticism, when it's a lot of the same loud-mouthed dipshits insisting if you're not 100% on-board with them, then you're the equivalent of the devil.

And I say that as someone that does believe climate change is real, it's a problem, and it's man-made.

I find often the so called experts that make a splash in the media are not the "real" experts on a topic.  

When they carry the same credentials as a  "real" expert-- and they often do-- how is one to know?