My 'meta' understanding of both lists is that these negative trends are common to all engineering disciplines, and have been an active influence in American technology for perhaps 20 years. As for the the extremes of politicol left and politcol right in the U.S., the reactionaries will always get their 15 minutes. Rational, competent engineers do not make good press and do not make good sound-bites for congressional hearings.
As for nuclear power - we would not need it if there were not too many people, and if the economic system did not require technological heroism to sustain an insane growth rate. But the extreme left and right will never allow an educational system that emphasizes zero growth for population or for the reduction of capitol wasted in western equity systems that does not contribute to GDP. Human population and economic systems have failed - so we must accept the associated risk of nuclear power.
As for the scientists, I do not doubt the concept of global warming, but I doubt their skill set. I have encountered a PhD biologist (USCD), and a PhD etymologist (UCB) that had no higher math, and neither could understand my undergrad-level 2d order PDEs. So I have reason to doubt the efficacy of the timeline, and/or the rate of change, and/or the predicted affects of increased temperatures. Brian April 24 2011, 2:52 pm EDT
| 
One of the advantages of old age is you can say more of what you actually think. Having been in the utility business for over 40 years, I’ve seen many things. I’ve noticed that many ideas are re-invented every 10 or 20 years and my insight into the fate of some of these ideas is misinterpreted as “unusual insight”. I’m thinking “fool me once…etc.”. There have been any number of things which concern me. 
