> It's funny how the conversation have changed now to Climate Change instead of global warming.
What conversation has changed?
These aren't terms of fashion, these are terms used to try to be as descriptive as possible within the best understanding of science (as it continues to learn).
Are you really arguing that the reason we haven't addressed climate change (or global warming) (or increasing CO2 levels) is because some environmental organizations were anti-nuclear power?
On the long term scale, absolutely not. Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,000 years, a length of time 5x longer than all of recorded history. Can you predict what humanity and earth will be like over long time spans like that and that your low environmental drawbacks remain in effect the entire time?
I also have my doubts about your "low environmental drawback" assessment. When have wind or solar, etc. caused anything remotely like Fukushima or Chernobyl?
The conversation used to be about warming now it's about climate change.
I am arguing that the very sorry fact that we are focusing on inferior technologies like solar and wind instead of nuclear is pretty ironic given the claims by anyone who claims co2 emissions and climate change is the biggest threat to our existence. If you can't see the irony I am not sure what to say.
That's just not true though. Did you read the link I provided? Global warming and climate change are two terms with semantic differences.
You are, I think, arguing that it is the fault of environmentalists that our climate is changing as fast as it is. Because they opposed nuclear power. I think that's a fantasy. The oil and gas industry never made a serious push for nuclear power. US "energy-friendly" administrations never made nuclear power a serious priority (unlike the vast amounts of attention and resources that oil and gas have received).
That's very much how your argument reads. In general, people are going to assume that you are most concerned about whatever you choose to address first and the order in which you make your points.
What conversation has changed?
These aren't terms of fashion, these are terms used to try to be as descriptive as possible within the best understanding of science (as it continues to learn).
https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-wa...
Are you really arguing that the reason we haven't addressed climate change (or global warming) (or increasing CO2 levels) is because some environmental organizations were anti-nuclear power?