Thirty years ago, the case against nuclear power was framed as the 'Zero-Infinity Dilemma.' The risks of a meltdown might be vanishingly small, but if it happened, the costs would be infinitely large, so we should forget about uranium. Computer models demonstrated that meltdowns were highly unlikely and that the costs of a meltdown, should one occur, would be manageable -- but greens scoffed: huge computer models couldn't be trusted. So we ended up burning much more coal. The software shoe is on the other foot now; the machines that said nukes wouldn't melt now say that the ice caps will. Warming skeptics scoff in turn, and can quite plausibly argue that a planet is harder to model than a nuclear reactor. But that's a detail. From a rhetorical perspective, any claim that the infinite, the apocalypse, or the Almighty supports your side of the argument shuts down all further discussion.If you're looking for consistency; if you're looking for rationality; if you're looking for honesty; if you're looking for untainted science; if you're looking for cost/benefit evaluations; if you're looking for any of this in environment movement, you're going to be sorely, sorely disappointed.
And here's the thing about this movement/religion/phenomenon/whatever: I don't have a problem with these people or their religion so long as they are honest about their beliefs--acknowledge that what you believe in is not science, but something else--religion like all the rest of us believers.
Even if you think you worship science, at least have a little humility about your beliefs and pause before you make huge decisions based on findings and research that may very well be turned on their head tomorrow.
