Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

40 Comments

  1. Ouch. I should run screaming from this thread, because I can only imagine the heated debate that may result. Partisan politics soils everything it touches, and turns otherwise sentient humans into mindless braying jackasses.

    You weren’t mayhaps grinning slyly when you posted this, were you Rod? Enjoy an occassional brawl, do ya?

  2. Lots of press about the “Climate Change talk-a thon” on the Senate floor tonight. Looking at the list of 26 Democrat and 2 Independent senators, no one jumps out at me as “pro-nuclear power”, but lots of them are pro-wind & solar and anti-nuclear.

    1. @Paul Lindsey

      Those sound like prime targets for Hansen’s message that it’s time for a rational discussion about the value of nuclear energy.

    2. Almost all politicians are pro-wind. They sniff the air for the popular vote and head in that direction. If you want nukes, get some good propaganda out there to convince the voters, the politicians will follow.

    3. Knowing what they have advocated and done I cant even bring myself to be interested at all in it. I also really dont feel anything for people in congress, even the ones I should like. Usually its just worrying they will get something hopelessly wrong or miss something completely when they discus it anyway. And the whole all night-er thing now seems so political and phony. If not creepy.

      I feel towards them now about like I would feel towards some strange teenager eagerly expressing a desire to date my elderly mother.

  3. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider climate change denial a stance that can also be described as pro fossil/coal?

    Also, Paul Lindsey, how have you determined that some of these Democrats are “anti-nuclear”, and which ones are they?

    1. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider climate change denial a stance that can also be described as pro fossil/coal?

      No as the largest defender of the nuclear/hydro mix of power in Sweden is the skeptical scientists of the Stockholm Initiative.

      1. Well, it just seems to me that climate change denial is a political stance as much, or more, than it is a scientific stance.

        1. @PissedOffAmerican
          That might be true in America, in Sweden all major parties from the right to the left are believers (if we are supposed to use religious terms).

          In Sweden we have the interesting thing that it is the skeptical community that is defending Nuclear power and trying to save our natural reserves and our mountain ranges from wind power.

    2. I wouldn’t say that. A lot of people believe man-made climate change to be possible but do not see concrete evidence of the long-term consequences, if any. Solutions involving government force are certainly off the table to these people.

      I am one of these people. I believe man-made climate change to be a legitimate phenomena, but I am yet to see any model that has come close to accurately estimating impact.

      1. @Smiling Joe Fission

        I have no way to judge the accuracy of impact predictions, but the rising measurements of CO2 concentrations cannot be dismissed. The uncertain consequences of known emissions worry me. Since there is an available, reliable, potentially cost effective energy source that can help us to avoid the unknown consequences of continuing to dump 30+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, I strongly believe is it worthwhile to pursue development with due haste.

        1. @Rod

          I would prefer more electricity come from fission but more so because I believe it to be a superior fuel source that is much less harmful to my health and less destructive to the environment. The CO2 issue is not an overwhelming reason for my support of nuclear power as I’m yet to be convinced of its danger by the current research out there. However, I believe that nuclear power is by far the best way to combat CO2 emissions, if that is ones goal.

          I don’t think we need government mandates or money to increase nuclear’s share of the marketplace. I think reducing the heavy hand of the NRC and placing a larger oversight role in the hands of independent organizations like INPO an WANO could help reduce the cost of nuclear power (and risk of loss of investment) and make it much more of a competitor to NG and coal, without climate change legislation.

          This is just my humble opinion. I am looking for a solution that does not involve adding more bureaucracy to an industry already being destroyed by it.

        2. @Rod Adams
          I must say that my point of view is similar to Smiling Joe Fission. I am not that worried about global warming, to be honest most of the estimates I have seen is that Sweden would gain somewhat if global warming is true. As we already have CO2 neutral electrical production and that only 30% of our total energy consumption comes from fossil fuels I fail to see the problem.

          The reason why I am pro nuclear is that it is the most environment friendly energy source that mankind has invented. The Nuclear industry do not need CO2 to argue for this.

          * Sweden has only four major rivers that has not been dammed to create hydro power. Those for rivers was saved by nuclear power
          * Particle emissions is down since we stopped using oil to heat our houses. Reason nuclear power.
          * No need to stripe mine for ignite as Germany does, because of Nuclear power.
          * No particle emissions from our electrical power production due to nuclear power.
          * No need to build wind power plants in nature reserves due to Nuclear plants

          1. @robjoh

            Sweden would gain somewhat if global warming is true.

            So would Alaska, Canada and many parts of Russia. “Warming” is actually a pleasant thought for people that often experience icy weather. I’ve often thought that was a comforting, rather than a scary moniker.

            The things that worry me about the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere are the unknowns. What are the long term effects of changing ocean pH, even if its only slightly? Though CO2 is described as “plant food” by many skeptics, I’ve been a casual gardener all my life. I want to pick which “plants” to fertilize. I’m not big on enabling invasive plants or weeds to grow faster, but a general increase in CO2 might have that effect.

            Weather pattern changes are also of interest. Agriculture and settlement patterns are based on long term weather; what happens to investments when the pattern changes dramatically?

            Bottom line is that “we don’t know” is a pretty good reason for caution and for taking action to mitigate risk when possible and cost effective.

          2. @Daniel
            “Ocean acidification is more of a concern for me. It is measurable and happening”

            Might be true, might not. I just wanted to point out that even without global warming I think all measurable facts points to that Nuclear power is the most environment friendly energy resource out there.

            @Rod Adams
            Bottom line is that “we don’t know” is a pretty good reason for caution and for taking action to mitigate risk when possible and cost effective.

            Yes however that thought have created some odd investments here in Sweden. For example the rush for wind power to please the greens have created the following. Sweden will until 2020 need to pay around 100 billion SEK in extending the grid and subside wind power. In the same time we can not find the money to expand the rail road network between our three major cities (Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö). The funny thing? According to Trafikverket they would need around 115-150 billion SEK to build a new high speed railroad system for passenger traffic.

            So Sweden is spending money doing nothing meanwhile we can not fund the efforts that actually would make a difference.

            1. @robjoh

              As I said, “taking action to mitigate risk when possible AND cost-effective.” Large scale wind requires special conditions in order to meet the “cost-effective” criteria, especially when it is proposed in a country where the electricity grid is already virtually emission free and supplied with low marginal cost production sources like hydro and nuclear.

              Your situation is similar to Ontario’s. The politics that resulted in decisions to fund wind would make interesting case studies, especially if there was a good way to follow the money.

          3. Though CO2 is described as “plant food” by many skeptics, I’ve been a casual gardener all my life. I want to pick which “plants” to fertilize.

            The biggest beneficiaries of increased CO2 aren’t useful things like trees but weedy plants like woody vines and raspberries and multiflora rose.  I’m seeing this all over; wild grape is trying to take over here, growing over honeysuckle and every kind of tree you could name.  I have a lot of cutting to do as soon as the snow clears enough to get into the overgrown areas.

          4. So would Alaska, Canada and many parts of Russia. “Warming” is actually a pleasant thought for people that often experience icy weather.

            @Rod Adams

            This is actually very far from correct. Warming is happening at a much quicker pace in arctic. They could see as much as 5 – 14 degrees F of warming in the next century (where 2 – 4 may be global average). This makes for very unpredictable ice conditions in the North.

            Erosion becomes a significant concern (when ice is no longer present to protect coastlines from frequent storms). Many community will have to be relocated on this basis alone. Melting permafrost and flooding too. Traditional people have lifestyles adapted to ice conditions, where hunting and traveling are entirely dependent on predictable ice conditions. With cost of transport for goods and provisioning these remote communities being excessively high (for all goods), traditional livelihoods remain a key feature of people’s lives. The only real alternative is to maintain a sedentary lifestyle and rely on funds and goods/services from elsewhere.

            Warming is very disruptive to communities that depend, rely on, and are adapted to predictable icy conditions for much of the year. It’s very alarming and a major concern for these communities. It’s going to cost national governments hundreds of billions to cope with the issue (with relocations being among the most expensive impacts).

            http://web.law.columbia.edu/climate-change/resources/climate-change-laws-world/arctic/relocation-plans

            1. @EL

              You apparently did not understand my point. Most of the people who live in icy weather often wish for a little warmth. Sure, if they are involved in specific enterprises that depend on ice, they may think broadly enough to recognize that too much warmth would be damaging to their environment, but don’t your neighbors pray for warmer weather when they are getting hit with a stiff breeze off of the lake?

              I’m talking about branding here. If people are often cold, telling them that they are going to be subjected to “warming” is unlikely to spur much action.

              It reminds me of the campaign that my wife’s employer ran to warn people about the high level of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay. Sure, the sewage discharges, waste from Eastern Shore chicken farms and fertilizer run-off was causing damage. However, most people think of a “nutrient” as a positive thing.

          5. “I must say that my point of view is similar to Smiling Joe Fission. I am not that worried about global warming, to be honest most of the estimates I have seen is that Sweden would gain somewhat if global warming is true.”

            Nature works in mysterious ways. Why is the climate of Scandinavia so similar to that of the Great Lakes? Why should a place so far North have warmer Winters and cooler Summers? Northern Europe is blessed to have the sweet warm waters of the Gulf stream tempering the climate.

            Some have said that climate change will mess that up. Climate change will alter the Gulf Stream actually cooling Northern Europe. Like many things it’s just another belief until it becomes a reality.

            http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/gulf_stream.htm

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

          6. The most immediately pressing concern I have with the continued unrestricted dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere is the acidification of the ocean.

            As far as actual warming goes, I’m still waiting for a couple of pieces of information to come in. See, there are two competing factors at play here:

            1) If the planet is warmed past some particular tipping point, that’s game over man. Heating continues and increases due to feedback’s, the oceans boil off, movement of the crust locks up due to there being no more lubrication from water, Earth becomes Venus 2.0 Everybody’s Dead Dave.

            2) The supply of fossil fuels within the Earths crust is finite. At some point depletion will make further extraction uncompetitive even with power generation methods currently considered too expensive or impractical. A couple of 200 watt solar panels and a few car batteries to store electricity in starts to sound mighty appealing if natural gas costs as much as helium does now.

            Or nuclear power plants for that matter.

            What no one seems to have a satisfactory answer to is:

            “Which comes first?”

          7. I’m talking about branding here. If people are often cold, telling them that they are going to be subjected to “warming” is unlikely to spur much action.

            @Rod Adams

            I must be the exception. Every extra day I get to go cross country skiing in winter (and I’ve had a lot of very good days this year) is something that makes me feel good and I welcome. I hate dirty and slushy snow (and hazy and cloudy skies). A crisp canadian polar vortex, sunny skies (low humidity), dry and blowing snow … that’s “tall cotton” to me.

            I agree with it is a “common pastime” to complain about the weather. This is true (in my experience) regardless of the conditions: too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, etc. Nobody should be correlating climate change with weather. If they do so, they really don’t understand what folks are talking about.

        3. I am not sure what to make of Patrick Moore’s recent testimony to Congress, in which he said there is no evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change. Moore has been a strong proponent for nuclear energy, though I understand he is no longer in the Clean and Safe Energy alliance. Maybe he just likes being a contrarian.

    3. POA, I hope you were being sarcastic. If not, then you’re a troll. Boxer, Markey, Heinrich, Udall (NM), to name a few that I’ve followed for years. Rod has posted articles about Markey.

      1. “POA, I hope you were being sarcastic. If not, then you’re a troll”

        When are some of your going to drop this asinine BS? Not everbody that refuses to participate in your group think is a “troll”.

        There seem to be a number of you here that don’t mind making idiots of yourselves.

  4. I am worried about global warming, acidification, pollution and rapid depletion of fossil resources. I think anything that can be reasonably done to slow their progress and allow more time for people and other species to adapt, should be done. Of course endangered species come to mind first but that is not the only thing at risk when it comes to habitats. But by 2050 one quarter of ALL species are expected to be threatened by climate change. By 2100 10 percent of all species could be extinct. (at best estimates we have only discovered about half of earth’s species so far.)

    No one here or anywhere has the moral authority or divine insight to dictate the extinction of a single, complex and unrecoverable species as “necessary.” Especially for convenience. It is not something that should be taken lightly either, or theorized then left to chance.

  5. The Democratic Party today essentially opposes nuclear energy and the Republican Party supports it. Obama appointed anti-nuke Jackzo as Chairman and when Jackzo’s denigration of women proved to be an embarrassment to the narcissist President’s pro-feminist re-election campaign he was forced to resign. Then he was replaced with a geologist who knows nothing nuclear and whose husband was involved in the anti-nuclear movement.

    But as long as we are talking about history, which party enslaved human beings in the 1st half of the 19th century, and which today keeps them enslaved to free handouts from the public treasury? Which party opposed voting rights for minorities and Jim Crow Laws and the KKK? You should learn what Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, said about getting black people to vote Democrat, and he did not use the word black.

    I will never ever vote Democrat. Never. And I am not a right wing racist. My fiancee is a beautiful brown skin Filipino. Arrrgggghhh!

    1. Paul Primavera delivers again. Exactly the kind of ignorant partisan drool that has this country so divided and unable to work in the best interests of ALL of us, instead of in the best interests of NONE of us.

  6. Actually, the Republicans opposed voting rights as much as the dems did. In fact, prior to the 1980s, most issues were decidedly non-Partisan. Cross votes and party positions often overlapped each other. And times change…the leaders of the *movement* for Civil Rights and those opposed to the KKK were almost all decidely Democrats (and real socialists thrown in as well).

    The issue here is that many of us have argued that if we can get *both* parties to regard energy issues as they did in the 1950s…see lefty-liberal Adlai Stevenson, the point of this article and that which you fail to address, then there is no “democratic” or “republican” issue. The object is to get both parties fighting over who are the BEST supporters of nuclear energy. Anyone who thinks that this can EVER be solved in a partisan “my party vs yours” is simply a-historical. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been built without a generalized consensus both among the professional politicians and their base.

    David Walters
    PS…you may be anti-racist, Paul but do you wanna guess with the most vile racist, bigoted Tea Party folks are, the ideological decedents of George Wallace and the KKK? In the exact same party you vote for.

  7. “PS…you may be anti-racist, Paul but do you wanna guess with the most vile racist, bigoted Tea Party folks are, the ideological decedents of George Wallace and the KKK? In the exact same party you vote for”

    Ah…..but in these modern times our wonderful fearless leaders on both sides of the aisle have handed us the gift of Islamophobia, so we can be good little bipartisan bigots!

    1. @POA

      Islamophobia is closely related to fear of “terrorists” as a tool of the bipartisan effort to control Americans and encourage them to waste as much money as possible in unproductive enterprises like producing extraordinarily expensive military hardware or supporting large numbers of soldiers on foreign soil.

      There are people who live in the Middle East who dislike Americans, but it has nothing to do with religion. It has a lot more to do with our nasty habit of interfering in their internal decision making, mainly because we think they are living on top of “our” oil and gas.

      This needs to stop — SOON.

      1. Wow….I had no idea your views about this scam known as the GWOT would so closely parallel my own. Its the ‘ol “contempt prior to investigation” thing. I just asssumed that such an attitude or opinion would be unwelcome here.

        And you’re right, we’ve been handed an “enemy” designed to advance DC policy in the mindless minds of the masses.

        And it ain’t gonna stop, soon or otherwise. Its gettin’ worse, not better. “Representation” has become just a buzzword used by both sides to peddle polar political arguments designed to keep us divided and impotent to institute change. This grand experiment in governance has gone hopelessly off track.

        1. @POA

          Don’t be quite so pessimistic about the ability of a free and informed population to force changes on those who have assumed almost overlord status. I spent 9 years working inside the Beltway, but I lived outside. There are many who have seen the evidence of how the “group” thinks and avoided the pull of money and power.

          We just need to openly talk about what we have seen with our own eyes.

          As my brother-in-law pointed out to me when he and my sister visited DC during its post 911 AND post 2008 building boom, “If the rest of America could see what is happening here, there would be a revolution.”

          A bit of background to that observation is useful. My brother-in-law had been a partner in a prosperous business that was dependent on construction, lost his interest in the business during the Great Recession, spent quite a bit of time out of work, joined the National Guard in his 40s because he had enough prior service to give him time to qualify for a pension and medical care, and served a year in the “sandbox” of GWOT.

          He had a solid basis for recognizing the greedy insanity of what some of my inside-the-Beltway acquaintances referred to as “The Long War.” Some of them said it while virtually rubbing their hands in glee at all of the contracts they were landing.

      2. Rod, “Islamophobia” is a propaganda term.  A phobia is an unreasonable fear, and there’s nothing unreasonable about fear of people whose tradition and religion sanctions the enslavement and murder of others.

        As a squid, you should know what the shores of Tripoli were about.  Muslims were attacking the USA from the time it was born; it took “interfering in their internal decision making” to get them to STOP.

  8. “….and there’s nothing unreasonable about fear of people whose tradition and religion sanctions the enslavement and murder of others”

    Hmmmm…hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi non-combatants due to the war launched on false pretenses, to say nothing of the few hundred thousand dead Iraqi infants attributed to the sanctions. I’d say its “reasonable fear” to run screaming from our own policies, eh?

    BTW, your all inclusive use of the term “Muslims” in the accusation of them “attacking” the USA” is the mark of a true bigot. Do you include the Sufis in your bigoted attempt at rationalizing the demonization of quite a few billion human beings, whose faith is as diverse and splintered as that of the Christians?

    You wanna live with a contrived and fabricated boogie man lurking in your closet, thats your business. Makes you a good little gullible bot, I’ll give ya that much. But if your ignorance lowers itself to the level that enables you to subscribe to the myth that somehow our international meddling and imposition of our military will on foreign soil somehow makes us “safer”, I pity you, and lament the fact that there seem to be so many of my fellow citizens that can be so ignorant.

    1. Hmmmm…hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi non-combatants due to the war launched on false pretenses

      Consider it part of the Terrible Legacy of Islamic Slavery™, a slightly different version of which is constantly invoked on behalf of people of a certain racial group inside the USA.

      Unfortunately, the Islamic world keeps re-setting the clock on the “legacy of slavery” thing.  When will Arab racism finally end so that we can all live together in peace?  </sarcasm>

      I pity you, that you are so self-hating that you consider all other groups blameless and your own (which I wish you’d leave me out of, but you won’t) solely responsible for everything currently wrong with the world.

  9. “….. that you are so self-hating that you consider all other groups blameless”

    No. Such is the assertion of one who, unable to defend his own prejudices, places fault on those who do not choose to share them.

    I blame radicalism where radicalism earns blame. And there are no shortage of radicals in all of mankinds’s various religious faiths. Do I blame all Christians because a zealot decides to bomb an abortion clinic? Do I blame all Jews because a zealot in the IDF purposely shoots an American citizen, (engaged in peaceful and legal protest), in the head with an outlawed high velocity tear gas canister?

    So how ’bout it, bigot? You blame all Muslims for the acts of the Muslim zealots? Is that your particular schtick?

    Well, you’re marching just dandy, comrad. You’ve read the program, and you’ve climbed on board. Congrats, you’re a card carrying member of the herd.

  10. And, uh, in regards to your links. Telling that you would dredge up a time in history that was particularly bloody and violent on ALL fronts, in order to rationalize your blatantly racist argument.

    What, shall we now engage in a pissing match, posting countless examples of man’s inhumanity to man, choosing our examples to fit our individual prejudices? Surely there’s no shortage of inhumane travesties to be laid at the feet of ALL of mankind’s religious pursuits. We could waste a month doing so, piling atrocity upon atrocity.

    And please, using the Saudis as an example by which to demonize Muslims is a bit over the top. Thier’s is a particularly detestable sort of Islamic faith, but is not indicative of the Muslim community as a whole. Ironic that we, in an allegedly “Christian” nation, founded “under God” have picked them as allies and compatriots, eh? Pick the most radical of Islamic faiths and befriend those who practice it, while demonizing the whole of the rest of the Islamic global community. Kinda schizo, ain’t it? Didn’t it offend you just a little, seeing that hapless little monkey, GWB, walking arm in arm with a Saudi Wahabist so soon after his countrymen and fellow Wahabis had taken down the WTC?

    But carry on, Comrad. They all look the same to you, right?

Comments are closed.