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

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!!!"

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.

(The main reason being that Ira Flatow's questions were those
of a scientific *tabula rasa*; I don't think he was as ignorant
as the questions made him seem, but I think he was asking
the questions he expected a scientifically ignorant audience
to ask.  "The Naked Scientists", "Quirks and Quarks", and
the Science Magazine podcast cover all the same territory far
better.  The host of "The Naked Scientists" asks intelligent
questions, often the question I would have wanted to ask.)

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.)

Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time.  There is
no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently
have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's
beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.

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.) 

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.


--
Mike Van Pelt       |  "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com   |   -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH              |      Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston