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

Diablo Canyon in CA.  I can't fathom building a nuclear plant in such an earthquake zone.  Super isolated, though.  

Stay classy.

Explain to me why you disagree. 

I view it as facile to point to some purported expert who claims, usually on TV, some position related to anything that seems clearly and obviously contrary to "common sense", whatever the topic.  In general, I'd opine anyone claiming to be a scientific expert who is often on "the news" likely isn't.  And when their claimed "expertise" is in some field which is not really scientific, well, have at it.

The fact that some folks are perhaps presented as experts on a topic like say "transition between sexes" doesn't mean there aren't real experts in the world with a useful perspective.  I noted previously the car mechanic, who if he's decent is an expert, on which many of us will rely.

Don't over generalize about experts.  Some do exist, and "we" have to rely on their collective expertise, unless we're willing to spend the time and effort to truly develop our own.  Usually, folks just find some quack expert that provides the opinion they want about some topic.

I used to be one in a couple of very narrow topics.  I think one item a true expert learns is how much expertise he lacks.

I bring it up because there have been lots of experts over time that have been proven dead wrong. Thomas Edison was wrong about DC power being better than AC. Experts ( Dr’s) that claimed smoking was healthy. Medicines that have cleared all the FDA hurdles only to be later found out to have bad side effects. Military experts getting us into wars we cannot win.  

And while I tend not to dwell on this whole transgender craziness now we have all kinds of experts telling us what to think. 

I find it very interesting that Harrison Schmitt, the only real scientist to have walked on the moon, has a different opinion on climate change that echoes a lot of other people. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt#

Views on climate changeEdit
Further information: Scientific consensus on climate change and Global warming controversy
Schmitt has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, which states that climate change is real, progressing, dangerous, and primarily human-caused. He has claimed that climate change is predominantly caused by natural factors, as opposed to human activity. Schmitt has argued that the risks posed by climate change are overstated and has instead supported the notion^[43] that climate change is a "tool" used to advocate for the expansion of the government.^[37]
He resigned his membership in the Planetary Society primarily because of its Mars-first policy,^{[clarification needed]} but also because of its stance on global warming, writing in his resignation letter that the "'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities."^[37] Schmitt spoke at the March 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, an anthropogenic climate change skeptic event^[44] hosted by the conservative Heartland Institute,^[45] where he said that climate change was a "stalking horse for National Socialism."^[46] He appeared in December that year on the Fox Business Network, saying that "[t]he CO₂ scare is a red herring".^[47]
In a 2009 interview with far-right conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones, Schmitt asserted a link between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the American environmental movement: "I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement."^[48]
Schmitt co-authored a 2013 Wall Street Journal opinion column with William Happer, contending that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not significantly correlated with global warming, attributing the "single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas" to advocates of government control of energy production. Noting a positive relationship between crop resistance to drought and increasing carbon dioxide levels, the authors argued, "Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity."^[49]

I’ll give you my opinion and observations.

I believe man-emitted CO2 is warming the Earth a little. I believe we don’t fully understand the consequences, both bad and good. I believe in the short term there is not much we can do about it unless we’re willing to give up most of the conveniences that we’ve come to rely on as a part of every day life. Things like air travel, personal transportation, our food, recreation, basically everything about living in the modern world.

I believe that science and technology will make baby steps towards reducing carbon emissions along with modest govt policies. I think it will be at least 100 years until the first world can reach net zero.  It will never happen in the third world. Unless there is some kind of driver ( cataclysmic event ) it will be very slow and not uniform. There may be technologies along the way, like fusion power, that will create more progress than govt intervention alone.

I do not think CC is the biggest threat to mankind, by far. I believe that will be AI, and ramifications of AI and how fast technology will evolve and become more concentrated in the hands of a few.