FuturePrimitive

Considering the fact that you trekked across potentially-unstable, fucking lava domes to get at an avocado tree, I knew in my heart that this would be your answer.

Found the industry shill.

1. Nuclear power isn't objectively safe, nor is it tenable in the long-term. We still have major issues with waste, contamination, and possible meltdowns. It's not viable for the entire planet long-term, period; unless you're talking thorium or fusion reactors.
2. This rose-colored-glasses notion that we live "in the best time in history" means nothing in the face of the threats that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sounds the alarm on. Nuclear war isn't, exactly, gradual, it's sudden, and the warnings for risk of nuclear war take into account a multitude of factors. As for climate change... the effects have accelerated and we've seen increased catastrophes, crop failures, etc. as a result. The IPCC predictions proved too conservative over the last decade or two. We haven't exactly made a ton of progress in regards to climate and have seen setbacks, even. Considering the totality of factors at play in global geopolitics, the Bulletin is correct in sounding increased alarm.
3. The Bulletin is based upon assessments OF science BY scientists as a MEDIA ORGANIZATION in interacting with the public. Call this "opinion" all you want, but you're way off base when you act as if it's just frivolous opinion, in other words, you speak nonsense.

Your listing, merely, of the logistical/editorial staff is largely irrelevant, but according to your upvotes, seems to, unfortunately, have had an impact. The Bulletin's own FAQ addresses your flawed main contention:

​

Who decides what time it is?

In the early days, Bulletin Editor Eugene Rabinowitch decided whether the hand should be moved. A scientist himself, fluent in Russian, and a leader in the international disarmament movement, he was in constant conversation with scientists and experts within and outside governments in many parts of the world. Based on these discussions, he decided where the clock hand should be set and explained his thinking in the Bulletin’s pages.

When Rabinowitch died in 1973, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board took over the responsibility and has since met twice a year to discuss world events and reset the clock as necessary. The board is made up of scientists and other experts with deep knowledge of nuclear technology and climate science, who often provide expert advice to governments and international agencies. They consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines and also seek the views of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 13 Nobel Laureates.

​

You should be downvoted to a small fraction of your current upvotes for making such, initially, convincing, but, ultimately, bullshit points.

I've personally studied global warming and global warming denial more than most people you'll ever meet. I've argued with countless people about global warming, and I consider myself an armchair expert on the matter; take that as you will. But after EVERYTHING I've read, after EVERY SINGLE DENIER ARGUMENT I've heard and given equal chance to... I've only come out of it even MORE sure that AGW is real and presents serious, serious problems. Not only that, but forecasts/predictions from climatologists just a few years ago were TOO CONSERVATIVE. Meaning, the reality isn't tamer than the scientists said it would be, it's WILDER. I haven't found ONE SINGLE denier argument that holds any weight. And if you trace global warming denial back to its source, almost EVERY TIME you will find fossil fuel money and right-wing think-tanks behind it. It's utterly corrupt and abhorrent.

The science absolutely backs up the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming just as much as it backs up the Theories of Evolution or Gravity.

If you want to know more about global warming denial and how it's a complete load of shit, PLEASE PLEASE check these out:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Skeptical Science: Denier Arguments debunked
Real Climate (run by actual Climatologists)
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: Union of Concerned Scientists (on AGW denial)
PBS: Climate of Doubt

THIS SUMMER

Apollo 14

Starring... Tom Hanks and Vince Vaughn

Wish granted. I'll whip up a screenplay tomorrow for ya.

I was actually randomly compelled to post an AskReddit today for anyone near positions of power/influence/economics/war/etc. to reply with anything they think the public should know about the world that they probably don't with all of the information overload/static we're bombarded by.

So I'll ask you! From what you've experienced/learned, is there anything the public should know that most of us don't already? Is there anything we suspect but don't have first-hand confirmation? Is there anything the public has hope for that you know we're most likely fucked on? Feel free to speak on some of that.

It doesn't have to be specific (though specific is great!), it can even just be perspectives on general outlooks/attitudes and how things really are versus how we might suspect/want them to be.

So... are we fucked?