Re: zero carbon means a significant amount of nuclear
What constitutes a cast-iron source in this case? Because if what you're really saying is "there is no source that I will consider strong enough unless it confirms my existing beliefs" that would make your post a false invitation, but your requirement for "cast iron" predictions of future events does imply the traditional misapprehension of the scientific method prevalent among creationist ideologues. It's fine to be one of those - you're not going to stop progress in the long run, even if you are contributing to a cruel legacy for which our diminished future generations will judge you harshly - but if you are, why hide behind faux-socratic questioning?
You might claim that you are susceptible to persuasion, but if you can look at the existing evidence and choose to ignore it, then you're already deep into that triangle of Backfire Effect, Confirmation Bias and Dunning-Kruger and nothing is going to change your mind unless you are able to let go of your preconceptions so you can learn and understand the existing science, Most people aren't able to do that and it doesn't really matter- our voices are noise on the digital wind and that is probably for the best because most of use know almost nothing about almost everything and in consequence we are making words with nothing behind them but conceit and ideology. Nothing but our ideas of how the world is supposed to be and no matter how pleasant they are those ideas could not have less bearing on the laws of physics or the way that moisture behaves in an atmosphere.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
