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

Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-09-25, Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> 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!!!"
>
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.

 Yes.  I subscribe to _Science News_. Their silence is deafening.
Earlier this year they had a 4 page feature article going into detail
on all the different ways to move towards net-zero carbon
emissions. They didn't mention nuclear energy at all.
 I don't see signs of William Hyde's climate scientists supporting
nuclear power.

We're not politicians.  And we're not unanimous by any means.
  I see complicit ignoring of the issue like above. I see

top climatologists like Mann openly supporting censorship - opposing
scientists must not be given an opportunity to state their views. (I
don't know Mann's position on nuclear power itself,

Mann does not think more nuclear power is necessary.  I disagree, mainly because I think he is underestimating the future demand for electricity. As I said, we're not unanimous.
We can do vastly more with renewables, and we are in fact on that path. I don't think, however, that it will be enough.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.
But I think he would agree that Germany's restarting of coal plants to replace power from shuttered nuclear plants is simple insanity.
A couple of years ago those coal plants had to cut back.  They couldn't get enough coal because the Rhine was too low for the coal barges, owning to lack of rain and high evaporation levels.  So less CO2 was emitted.
This happened shortly after Lovelock's death.  A pity, as its a perfect example of his Gaia hypothesis (don't take that too seriously).
Alas though, warm river water is proving a problem for the French nuclear plants.  Some had to be shut down in the summer as the water was too warm to use in the cooling towers. France had to import electricity from Germany.
William Hyde