It's not as "black and white" as it seems to people like you and me. I can understand their arguments and why they are appealing to people.

They are talking about expanding the pie and increasing prosperity. That's a positive message. People like that.

Now, in the fine print we know it says.

That this future of increasing prosperity and plenty requires the invention and deployment of technologies not yet in evidence.

That failure to develop these technologies means almost certain global depopulation of 50% by 2100.

You and I think the level of RISK is INSANE.

We not the only people in the world.

They have a right to an opinion and a vote.

I have come to realize these last few weeks that I would ACCEPT a vote to go FULL SPEED AHEAD and bet on FUSION.

I could accept it, even if I didn't agree with it, if I thought it was an "informed' choice. If I thought that everyone really understood the risks and alternatives. Then voted to try this.

I could respect that vote.

It's the deceit and "making choices in our best interests" without telling us the truth that enrages me. Both sides do this.

Which makes me think there may be an opening for a new Climate Organization.

Call it "ClimateChoice.Org".

It's ambiguous so neither side will tune it out

The messaging will not call for any political action directly. Instead it will be "just the facts" and these are the choices.

Including the Fusion path. Including the High RISK paths.

Because "ClimateChoice.Org isn't about telling you what to think. It's about helping you informed choices".

What do you think?

I think it could pull in people from all sides to work together on this issue. Insead Instead of being opposed.