Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

In article <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde  <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike Van Pelt wrote:

The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.

>
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate
scientists I know.

>
Good. You make ... what, the third? ... that has come to my
attention.  In the past, when I've said this, what I've gotten
from the global warming folks in the conversation is "Noooooo,
nuclear is teh evulzzz!!!"

Same here. Around me most seem to think that the solution is based only on wind and solar, and aparently if night or no wind, energy will be imported from next door, and they will be based on wind and solar, and if night or no wind... energy will be imported from next door.

One of several reasons I took "Science Friday" off of my
podcast download was that in several years of listening
to it, they had many, many overheated (heh) stories about
global warming, but never once could bring themselves to
mention nuclear in that context.  The only mention of
nuclear power I recall was one "nuclear is bad" story.

You should check out Björn Lomborg. The only climate-positive environmentalist I know. I don't understand why he isn't more positive? A "climate troll" like myself actually listen to him, and if climate activists listen to him, them perhaps there is space for a nice middle ground?
He argues that global climate taxes are the least effective way to handle climate change, and is more in favour of scientific soutions like nuclear and other technology.

I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be
carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4
to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural
gas.  Better than coal, but not good enough).

>
Hydro is great, but as has been pointed out, all the good
sites have been taken.  (And the greens, of course, are
clammoring to have even existing dams torn down.)

I always wondered if it would be possible to build long power cables from iceland to northern europe? Imagine all that untapped geothermal power in iceland being exported to europe. Iceland would become the new norway, with electricity instead of oil.

Apparently, phytoplankton could absorb a lot more CO2 if it
weren't for lack of the limiting nutrient, iron.  Some experiements
should be done (*CAREFULLY*) along these lines, but they aren't.
One group did try something along these lines, and were roundly
condemned for doing it.  (I did get the impression that their
experiment wasn't particularly well controlled, so perhaps they
did deserve some criticism, but it's been years, and nobody else
is even looking into this as far as I know.)

Many people call me naive when I say that we could continue as we do now, and within 100 years, a lot, if not all, our problems will have been solved to everyones satisfaction with science and technology instead of with taxes.

Any solution that doesn't involve shutting down fossil fuel
use *right now* generally gets shouted down with chants of
"Technofix!" as if that's a bad thing.
>
>
>