10

Why don't Climatologists Support Nuclear Power?

Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 11 months ago to Science
147 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I am open-minded but skeptical about human-induced climate change. WDonway's - recent post got me thinking again.

If CO2 is really the culprit, and one really believes it, why then are these same people not clamoring for the only presently viable solution to resolve it, Nuclear Power?

Renewables are clearly too far off, and far too ineffective. If one really believes human-induced global warming is a looming disaster, why are they not pushing to solve it. This seems a simple question to pose to any climate-religious-zealot. I suspect a majority would think for a moment where the funding originates, and decide to take a evasive political stance.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and even though the cigarettes were 3.25 a carton
    they still helped me give myself emphysema. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    first wife and I had a 68 camaro with a 2-speed
    behind a 302 which got 33mpg at 75. . no joke! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdmatthew 9 years, 10 months ago
    Environmentalist and Climatologist are just like anyone else, self serving. If a solution were found and implemented for there manufactured calamities then what would they have to collect government money for?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Project Orion: Standard Orion Spacecraft
    4,000 tons/40 meter Dia. Pusher
    Plate.
    60km/sec impulse
    Using Atomic Explosives w/urea
    for radiation mitigation.
    Super Orion: 300 million tons, 10,000 - 60,000
    km/sec impulse.
    400 meter Pusher Plate.
    1000 Hydrogen bomblets @ 2-3
    megatons payload to reach 1/30th-
    plus the sppeed of light.
    Ref : "Project Orion" by George Dyson (son of Physicist Freeman Dyson); Pub: Henry Holt & Co.,N.Y.; first ed.-2002; ISBN: 0-8050-5985-7.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The most common source of 97% is a study by John Cook who runs an AGW promoting web site.

    They surveyed all the papers that had key phrases such as "climate change" and "global warming" in the abstract -- a selection biased in favor of AGW.

    Next they reviewed the 11,000 papers for indications whether the paper made a statement on whether humans caused global warming. Approximately 34% of the selected papers did.

    Of those papers, 97% indicated that humans were causing global warming.

    And they put out that 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming.

    Of course it's also legitimate to say that if you select papers based on warming related phrases such as "global warming" and "climate change" 33% of the papers indicate human causation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Waste is a highly overrated problem -- and one we solved at great expense just to have Obama shut it down.

    There is a relatively small amount of waste. The idea that we have to plan for thousands of years with today's technology is incredible hubris. Captain Kirk will be along in a couple hundred years. Don't you think we'll have better tools then?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have a couple of friends with Lotus Europas. Cool cars. I'm not really a Lotus lover, but I like the minimalist Lotus 7. It is my "not a motorcycle" to satisfy my wife. I was thinking of a Shelby Cobra, but after looking into them, the Lotus 7 will out handle and mine will out accelerate them. I can chirp the tires up to about 70, and it corners like it is on rails.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, my knowledge of this is a couple of decades old, recounted to me by a former reporter for the Rocky Mountain News. As I recall, the threat of a lawsuit was enough to scare off a third party publisher, allowing the Sierra Club to bury the study. Ironically, the Sierra Club was once an advocate for nuclear power and natural gas as "bridging technologies", but since they, along with almost every environmental group, have become captive to a fanatic element that deals less in fact and more in propaganda, only wind and solar are tolerated. After your response I did try to see if I could find any supportive data online, but since there are literally tens of thousands of pro-environmentalist web sites, and it's hard to find any search engine that doesn't use Google at its core, everything is slanted in the Gaia direction. Anecdotal only, at this point, but I'll keep looking.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes starting a fire on a winter's night to keep you and your family from freezing to death will result in summary execution. The EPA's final solution to what they consider Nature's greatest mistake - Man's existence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the sixties and seventies and if in the military overseas one could order all manner of foreign to the USA made vehicles and have them shipped. Flush with money after a non-taxed tour which put $400 a month into savings I ordered a Lotus Europa S2 -which is why I mention this.

    My butt was about four inches off the ground or so it seemed and one had to be on the lookout for any sort of rut, pot hole or whatever. It was not made for US highways. The insurance was ....for those days sky high. Next tour I switched to MGB-GT. Sold both for more than I had paid and the third go round settled for a Land Rover.

    In Panama Canal Zone I joined the motorcycle club and the choices were Triumph, BSA or Harley. One dollar per cc which included shipping. Gas was far far under a dollar a gallon. Do you remember 35 cents to 55 cents? Tax included. Wages were less but disposable income was higher. Three of rented an apartment while attending a school in Washington DC. Groceries were $150 a month minus perishables. For all three The apartment was also $150 a month. Per Diem was $20 a day.

    THOSE were the good ole days
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like that idea as well. Save the old dino's for my 78 Camaro and feed the self-driving cars from nuclear-generated electricity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Or polling scientists prior to 900 ad about the Sun rotating around the Earth.

    Hopefully, this time around, we we look at history, we don't see the scientists that were right burned at the stake or arrested like Bruno and Galileo.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Love that! I have a Lotus 7 kit car, and want a CJ2 jeep, setup with a 302 Ford or other nice light, torquey motor.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Cool stuff. I recall the nuclear propulsion option vaguely. Any idea what the specific thrust is compared to other nuclear propulsion options, e.g. ion?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good comment. Context in learning is critical. I often have to explain how motors work to other engineers or non-technical people. It helps a lot to understand their experience before formulating the manner to make the explanation. I'm very happy when people do that for me. Doctors are a group I often find are patronizing, and many will not make this attempt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They are NOT the same! One of these two assertions does not demand I give up my freedoms to the one making the the assertion. The other wants my freedoms, money and asks impolitely that we change our way of life.

    The bar is higher for that assertion.

    I am pleased to read interesting but irrelevant science about mitochondria, spider husbandry, electric eels, quarks and social behavior. The minute someone want to use this information as a basis for power, it is time to become and expert, or be a lemming, and there is never a time to be ignorant of the facts but assert to others they are correct.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed. I have a problem with the number of articles devoted to polling scientists instead of examining their ideas. From my reading, as a complete layman, none AGW assertions hold up, from the lack of actual warming to the weakness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The critics seem to have the surer argument: the sun did it.
    I'm sure if we polled alchemists in 1400 AD and asked if it was likely they would ever convert lead into gold, 97% of them would have given a hardy YES!, and as proof they would trot out convoluted arguments that no one could understand.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo