This is in the UK Daily mail today, and it’s like sacrilege to the greens to have one of ther own say this:
This sums it up, he writes:
Our environment and energy problems are solvable — but can be tackled effectively only with pragmatism, rather than ideological wishful thinking. And the litmus test for that may well be the issue of nuclear power.
h/t to Barry Woods
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let’s not get carried away here. This guy still ‘believes’ CO2 is a problem when it clearly is not.
Jazznich +1 , its not a U turn just a mild bend in the road, Moonbat has the same view on Nuclear but he is still a fruitbat.
Hearing any ‘viro seriously examining The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (Petr Beckmann, 1976) is encouraging.
Who cares what his religious beliefs about anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) are supposed to be? If he can demonstrate a capacity to think rationally about nuclear fission, it’s proof sufficient that even the clinically brain-dead can be resuscitated.
am distrustful of controversies stirred up by anybody who’s new book is out soon
Well this story By Christopher Booker may have helped some of the people in the UK Government to move an inch towards reality http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8612716/Proof-that-the-Government-is-tilting-at-windmills.html
“Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual.”
I must admit that I find it hard to accept that we here in UK can be governed by people of all parties who almost to a man (and woman) live in a parallel universe or dream land if you like.
Agree JohnH – I also noted that wonderful phrase “In my new book………..”
But his analysis of the Greens is spot on.
At least some in the Green movement appear to be facing reality when it comes to electricity generation, though, not just demanding that we all go back to grubbing in the fields and making candles from beeswax.
it’s a start, Fair play to Lynas.
Jazznick: “This guy still ‘believes’ CO2 is a problem”. True, but for most Greenshirts energy security comes way behind their carbon dioxide obsession. I welcome Lynas’s rethink. Let’s hope that he’ll read Justthefacts’s superb recent posting on WUWT and ditch the carbon monomania.
The process of the evolution/transformation of ones deeply held views is necessarily a slow one.
Necessarily…
I count myself as one who swallowed whole what the green movement generally had to offer. The change over time was a rather uncomfortable one but that’s not unusual. Lynas etc should at least be given due regard for their public change of mind. They will feel uncomfortable too.
I have come to the conclusion that the ‘green’ movement is simply about a different set of power elites running the show and bugger all to do with general eco-wellbeing.
This is not to say that conservation and sustainability are not desirable and appropriate ends (they are) it’s just that the likes of Gore et-al view such things in terms of THEM having the goodies while the rest suffer.
Well screw that.
whilst Mark clearly still believes that CO2 is major problem, what it will allow is some rational debate, ie a recognition that windfarms and solar will not provide the UK’s energy needs.. if the greens just shreak, climate deniar at anybody who discusses this, or say he must be in the pay of big nuclear, the public/politicians will take note
Then that will be yet more evidence to the general public to challenge the green zealotry and to take a hard look at the cliams vs the uncertainties of climate change science. ie it could be aGw, instead of AGW, or CAGW.
Mark Lynas and George Monbiot have allready been called ‘Chernobyl Death Deniers’ by senior greens, and in the pay of big nuclear, I think the general puplic might draw some paralells.
Lynas has engaged with people in a civil and open-minded way; he’s already demonstrated that he won’t act dogmatically where he believes evidence / pragmatism point in a different direction.
His belief in evidence for the problematic nature of man-made CO2 seems honourably held, but based on sources he trusts, rather than his own expertise (and he admits as much). Nothing much wrong with that.
Any change in direction from Lynas, however small, is welcome, but he has not said a word about his former position on disastrously rising seas due to rising CO2 in the atmosphere which he insisted, among other disastrous effects, will swamp the Maldives. Trumpeting his new belief in the use of nuclear energy is not much of a U-turn and I will believe he takes a realistic and non-alarmist view of climate and weather when he makes his thoughts known. I am not holding my breath in anticipation.
He still believes the climate con though. He’s not seen through that yet.
Now here’s a big u-turn in the Daily Mail! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html
Lack of sunspots leads to cooling, perhaps even another little ice age.
… right. Hmm. Pillock!
Churlish lot. If a sinner repents the Heavens sing with joy. Surely one green engaging with reality should be an occasion for charitable responses?
There was a story yesterday about the supposed terrible workmanship at the Dai-ichi nuclear reactors in Fukushima. Claims of cracked pipes, corruption, Yakuza, and cover-ups. The idea was to cast doubt on all of the nuclear power plants in Japan.
It turns out 10 km up the road is the Dai-ni nuclear power site with 4 slightly newer reactors run by TEPCO as well. Nothing has been reported about Dai-ni, because nothing bad happened there. The reactors were shut down without incident. No hydrogen explosions, no meltdowns, no radiation leaks.
There is no systematic problem with Japan’s nuclear power plants.
I’m starting to like this Lynas guy. Ok, yeah, he still needs a little education re CO2’s effect on the climate, but he shows promise.
Until nuclear power is privately insurable, that industry should never be private sector – they’re getting a freebie like the banks, profits privatised, losses socialised.
How much will Fukushima cost to clear up? Nebraska?
This industry seriously needs to clean up its act. That means complete transparency with the general public. TEPCO and the Japanese Government engaged in months of lying over Fukushima.
And Lynas’ endorsement – someone who has demonstrated spectacular failure of judgement in the past – should not be cause for celebration. It should strike fear into any supporter of nuclear power.
@- “Our environment and energy problems are solvable — but can be tackled effectively only with pragmatism, rather than ideological wishful thinking. ”
This sensible admonition applies to both ‘sides’ of the debate.
Both to the green zealot who claims that equatorial temperatures will rise to fatal levels and sea level will flood most of the inhabited coastline in less tha a century.
And dismisses anything but a return to stone-age hunter-gathering societies as ‘unsustainable’.
AND to the rejectionist dogmatic that in the face of overwhelming scientific aggreement still asserts that the CO2 rise is not a problem, despite the fact that it is a bigger impact on the atmosphere than a Yellowstone super-volcanic eruption each month when it comes to CO2.
Both are driven to ignore Nature in favour of an ideological preference.
Give that man a pie in the face
Wrap yer peepers round this also (from yesterday’s Telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8612716/Proof-that-the-Government-is-tilting-at-windmills.html
Nitpick Larry’s stoopid question of the day. Who are we talking about here; Mike Lynas or Mark Lynas? Both names are used in the article.
Leopards do not change their spots. He still believes in CAGW due to man made greenhouse gas emissions. This belief is not supported by the science or observations.
Interesting that Lynas published this in the Daily Mail. Our US brethren may recall this paper being compared to the National Enquirer on this site just yesterday (ps Happy Holidays).
Quite possible that the Grauniad and the Indy refused to print it.