AlexEpstein

I think the modifier "clean" is wrong as a binary classification (clean vs. dirty) but it's true that nuclear has the least harmful emissions end to end of any form of energy.

The fundamental appeal is the energy density that you get from generating energy via nuclear forces (1 million times the chemical forces in hydrocarbons). And in the 70s the evidence I know is that they were able to do it quite economically.

The question is: without all the green, anti-tech controls that made nuclear far more expensive, what would nuclear look like today in terms of cost-effectiveness? My inclination is that it would be extremely competitive if not the best. The way to find out is to liberate it.

It meets opposition for the same reason fossil fuels do. People have a huge bias against man-made things, whether man-made CO2 or man-made radiation. So instead of thinking precisely/scientifically about its nature and magnitude they construct these crazy hell narratives and say we should throw the whole tech out.

Hillary's is awful. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/08/05/the-obama-clinton-one-two-blackout/

Trump gave a speech that outlined some of the right policies but he didn't give a coherent explanation of them. So at this point he doesn't have a policy.

Also I should say that as important as energy is it's not the only issue. Both candidates have a terrifyingly authoritarian bent to them. Trump's has been well-publicized but the Democratic Party recently made part of its proposed platform that the government should go after companies (and think-tanks) whose positions they disagree with!

So I'm planning on voting for neither.

Lower-level candidates there are some better ones but I can't recall at the moment.

This article explains my motivation: http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/06/fossil-fuels-advocate-alex-epstein-denounces-ag-subpoena-fk-off-fascist/

The AG behaved like thug and that is the answer she deserved for stepping outside the boundaries of a civilized society. I hoped it would draw attention to the important issue of free speech. And it did.

Good question.

The need for demonstration applies not just to claims about science but also claims about what scientists believe about science. Consensus is an important concept in science as a guide to what may be true, though of course it has to be thought about independently.

See The Unscientific Consensus http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/

As I mention in the recent Prager U 97% video (and my popular Forbes column on the subject) what scientists believe has been completely misrepresented. That is, you don't have these huge majorities believing in climate catastrophism. So part of the premise of your question is incorrect.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/do-97-climate-scientists-really-agree http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong

Beyond that I do think that most scientists expressing opinions on the subject are overconfident in the degree of warming influence of CO2. There's selection bias there (it's easier and more media friendly to express that opinion). But also people in immature sciences, and climate prediction is pre-infancy in terms of results, have a tendency to overstate their claims. Now their claims may invoke demonstrated science as part of the argument but as an integrated whole their arguments are anything but demonstrated.

That's a big topic, so I'll just say this: if you're concerned about the deaths and mistreatment of innocent blacks you need to look carefully at what the major causes are. That includes injustices by white policemen against blacks and also the scourge of black on black crime. I don't hear the latter mentioned very often. It should be.

In general political correctness prevents us from having honest debates.