CO2 is not a pollutant. See the name calling part on the science of propaganda thread I created. CO2 is essential to plant life and is no more a pollutant than oxygen.
I don't need to give evidence of anything. You have no evidence that CO2 is harmful to the climate. It is just a made up BS theory made popular by Al Gore and has since been proven wrong. The ice core samp ...[text shortened]...
Why are you in denial? I proved it with a peer reviewed article long ago. Why do you deny science?
I'd like a logical cost-benefit analysis that led you to believe that fossil fuel burning is the best source of electricity for humanity. Otherwise I will just have to guess. I never said CO2 was a pollutant, I never brought up Al Gore or ice core samples or global warming. That logic is concerning. You love fossil fuels because Al Gore was wrong? What?
Anthropogenic climate change is a real thing and you have admitted to that. Fossil fuel burning contributes to anthropogenic climate change. Climate change represents an extremely large potential cost to mankind, and lots and lots of evidence demonstrates that we can mitigate the anthropogenic contribution of climate change forcings by burning less. Of course the precise contribution and the precise effect of mitigation is debatable, but the overall premise is rock solid.
Fukushima radiation in the Pacific Ocean is evidence that nuclear energy is bad. And yet, the evidence shows that bananas have more radiation than fish caught near the disaster site. The amount of radiation was miniscule compared to what was already there naturally. How can you still claim that as a serious source of concern? Especially in comparison to the lists of costs associated with other energy sources. It seems you're just making stuff up.
It's not that hard.
You think fossil fuels are better than nuclear because....