Nah, that's people like me. We say "nuclear has high and increasing costs, requires state-subsidised liability insurance and isn't even getting closer to solving its waste problem" and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem. Even if you disagree, I don't think you'll call it a a low-information attitude.

You proved yourself to be low information on at least one point (the waste problem).

Your other points may be “true” but in a rather hollow way. We’re all subsidizing the impact of fossil fuel waste for example, it just isn’t correctly accounted for.

> and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem

Even if we accept this to be true now, we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. I place blame for that squarely on low information liberals.

> (the waste problem).

The waste problem isn't solved. It's entirely a political problem rather than a technical problem, but it's still a problem.

> we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change.

In 2015, wind&solar was 5.7% of US electricity generation. In 2021 it was 13%. In 2022 it was 16.5%. How can you extrapolate from that and come up with a century?

Nuclear has been stalled in favor of fossil fuels for at least 50 years already.

I think you overlook the central point: The assessment that x>y is based on learned information about x and y, and the assessment that a is a smaller problem than b ditto.

You may argue that the x, y, a and b are wrong, and therefore the conclusions is wrong. Well, fine, as you please. What I'm saying is that learning about x, y, a and b, then forming conclusions, is a high-information mode.