If climate change were so important, 1) we’d have a lot of nuclear power and 2) the public would be far far more exposed to the actual science itself.
Why? 1) best energy bang for the carbon buck and 2) science is the only means of trust free argumentation.
Critical evaluation of scientific methods and data is not some highly sophisticated endeavor only few people are capable of. At least 10% of society can do this.
drgo / Dr. Bitcoin, MD
npub1fa…nthnd
2024-10-26 15:01:24
Author Public Key
npub1fa8c9prxnrlkdtjl48adfsxyaduz8tas075l2n4f6903y9awjmxqanthndPublished at
2024-10-26 15:01:24Event JSON
{
"id": "db658f4e30f4889e4b3f9de396f362d6ee73c585eac715273dd6d4ba82c53376",
"pubkey": "4f4f82846698ff66ae5fa9fad4c0c4eb7823afb07fa9f54ea9d15f1217ae96cc",
"created_at": 1729954884,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "If climate change were so important, 1) we’d have a lot of nuclear power and 2) the public would be far far more exposed to the actual science itself. \n\nWhy? 1) best energy bang for the carbon buck and 2) science is the only means of trust free argumentation.\n\nCritical evaluation of scientific methods and data is not some highly sophisticated endeavor only few people are capable of. At least 10% of society can do this.",
"sig": "7f8cf33bf97012a7bff4a4ff29b8d674c796d5796b57a2ca9b853a1a8d26c62a82c185fd967146088b6924895427854dd4df6da550227011daad70badcf5ab99"
}