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 <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.

This is true and something you never read about in the newspapers. You only hear about how many die due to heat, and how high taxes must be to save the planet.
You never read about the millions dead due to cold (which outnumber deaths due to heat) as well as what would happen if we were 100% solar powered and many systems and services would collapse.

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.)

Regardless of how bitter and heated the discussion here has become, if we put the question of man-made or natural climate change to the side, it might surprise you, but I am definitely not against electric cars and nuclear.
The difference is that I think the technology for electric cars is not yet mature enough for mass consumption, and that electric cars actually risk doing net harm if they are bought and discarded 5-10 years after purchase, compared with a ICE vehicle that is used for 15-20 years.
Give me an electric car that goes as far (or further) than my gasoline car, with a charging time that is equal, at a cost that is equal, and I will definitely buy it.
Add to that (in my part of the world) a robust electric grid, and plenty
of nuclear power any day, and I'm all for it. Without the grid and nuclear, electric cars are doomed at the moment, when it comes to the masses buying them all at once.

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.

Amen! They see climate change as a power grab to increase tax revenue and the salaries of themselves.

(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.)

Another reason for why they don't believe it, and a reason why I don't. They simply don't walk the walk.