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

In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.

My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.

But ...

We are in a Catch 22.  Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible.  To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.

I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible.  Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line.  Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."

(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)

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.  They
want to impose energy restrictions for entirely other reasons.

(If their flying in their CO2-belching private jets,
individually, to international conferences preaching how we
need to forcibly restrict access to energy for the rest of
us didn't already make this pretty clear.)
--
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