The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) discourse is getting more and more pointless by the day. The two camps are more entrenched than ever and the continuous heavy information bombardment serves no purpose.
By "the two camps" we mean, on the one side the warmists (together with the alarmists) and on the other the skeptics (together with the "deniers").
The first camp showers the second with models, anecdotes, all the latest weather news (no matter what happens, they insist it is caused by AGW), etc.
The second camp fights back with more comprehensive historical climate trends and satellite data. Interestingly, the warmists seem to be "satellite deniers."
The end result is that nobody moves an inch and thus all the efforts are wasted.
For the warmists, AGW has become a religion of sorts and the skeptics... well, are skeptics.
Can we all agree that there has to be a better way forward?
Here is a proposal: stop arguing about AGW for good and better focus on the "solutions."
Yes, the skeptics will defend that there is no problem to solve to begin with, but what if we tell them we have an affordable energy source that is dense, reliable, produces almost no pollution and can be located close to current electricity transmission lines?
And what if we tell the warmists the same as above PLUS underline that the mentioned source of energy ADDITIONALLY produces almost no CO2 emissions.
Right, that energy source is nuclear power. What is more exciting is that even better designs are already in the pipeline.
Today, nuclear is the #2 low CO2 energy source in the planet (second only to hydro), but nuclear has more growth potential.
Note of caution for the warmists: don't even try to pitch renewables as the "solution." The push back from the skeptics will be even harder than the push back against the concept of AGW, so this is definitively not the way forward.
Why aren't skeptics enthusiastic about renewables? Well, because they are skeptics. They don't take things at face value, they do the math and thus they know renewables are too weak (in other words, their energy density is too low), require loads of "material," are intermittent and unreliable and thus need a pairing fossil fuel power plant or storage. In other words, for a person with the right level of skepticism, they just don't make financial or even environmental sense.
Bottom line: let's stop our pointless arguments and join forces to aggressively ramp up the "solution" to AGW: nuclear power.
Feel free to join the conversation in Twitter.