So your argument is, if that person is telling you too many neutrinos are released when U235 is split and we need to stop it. And then they say the way we do that is criple the economy, tax people and send it to some fund in Europe, and prevent people from eating meat. A logicial question to that response is wow how many neutrinos is too much? And they say "I don't know". So you say how many are released when U235 is split and again they say "I'm not a scientist I don't know". Are you really going to take them seriously?
Your analogy is faulty. The question wasn't "how much CO2 in the atmosphere is too much." The question was "do you know much CO2 there is in the atmosphere."
It's not my analogy it's OPs. Secondly, it's spot on. Thirdly to address your statement specifically I said this, "So you say how many are released when U235 is split and again they say "I'm not a scientist I don't know"."
Secondly, it's spot on.
Why don't you describe to us what you think makes an analogy valid versus invalid.
(post is archived)