Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. had a worthwhile guest essay in Foreign Policy titled: Climate of Failure published last year that Dr. Judith Curry has made a post about today that she calls a “good topic for Sunday discussion”. I agree. While I see many of the same things she does, I also see a different path forward. Her last takeaway point is:
… focus on goals that can actually be accomplished and getting people who think differently to act alike.
We have the technology to do that in our hands now, all we need is the will. If it weren’t for the need to make nuclear bombs (of which uranium based nuclear power is a spinoff), we might already have been there. Few people know this, but the demonization of coal didn’t start with environmentalists, it started with nuclear power advocates, but that is a story for another day.
Here are some excerpts from Pielke Jr’s essay in FP:
Environmentalists are just now waking up to the reality that if we’re going to stop global warming, we’re going to have to be a lot more politically savvy.
So what’s the next step? For years — decades, even — science has shown convincingly that human activities have an impact on the planet. That impact includes but is not limited to carbon dioxide. We are indeed running risks with the future climate through the unmitigated release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and none of the schemes attempted so far has made even a dent in the problem. While the climate wars will go on, characterized by a poisonous mix dodgy science, personal attacks, and partisan warfare, the good news is that progress can yet be made outside of this battle.
…
The heady days of early 2009, when advocates for global action on climate change anticipated world leaders gathering later that year around a conference table in Copenhagen to reach a global agreement, are but a distant memory. Today, with many of these same leaders focusing their attention on jump starting economic growth, environmental issues have taken a back seat. Leaders’ attention to climate policy is not coming back — at least not in any form comparable to the plans being discussed just a few years ago. A rising GDP, all else equal, leads to more emissions. But if there is one ideological commitment that unites nations and people around the world in the early 21st century, it is that GDP growth is non-negotiable.
Stabilizing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would require more than 90 percent of the energy we consume to come from carbon-free sources like nuclear, wind, or solar. Policymakers often discuss reducing annual emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels. But emissions today are already more than 45 percent higher than in 1990, so that higher level implies a need to cut by more than 90 percent from today’s levels. Put another way, in round numbers, we could keep at most 10 percent of our current energy supply, and 90 percent or more would have to be replaced with a carbon-free alternative. Today, about 10 percent of the energy that we consume globally comes from carbon-free sources — leaving a long way to go.
Consider this: If the goal is to stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a low-level by 2050 (in precise terms, at 450 parts per million or less), then the world would need to deploy a nuclear power plant worth of carbon free energy every day between now and 2050. For wind or solar, the figures are even more daunting.
…
Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, because it is still carbon intensive, but the rapidly declining U.S. emissions prove an essential policy point: Make clean(er) energy cheap, and dirty energy will be quickly displaced. To secure cheap energy alternatives requires innovation — technological, but also institutional and social. The innovation challenge is enormous, but so is the scale of the problem. A focus on innovation — not on debates over climate science or a mythical high carbon price — is where we’ll make process.
The vast complexity of the climate issue offers many avenues for action across a range of different issues. What we need is the wisdom to have a constructive debate on climate policy options without all the vitriolic proxy battles. The anger and destructiveness seen from both sides of this debate will not be going away, of course, but constructive debate will move on to focus on goals that can actually be accomplished.
Full essay here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/climate_of_failure
Notes from Anthony:
“…the world would need to deploy a nuclear power plant worth of carbon free energy every day between now and 2050. For wind or solar, the figures are even more daunting.”
Given the size of the task presented, and the “herding cats” nature of individual sovereign nation economies, it seems to me that the promise of clean energy alternatives as a solution to carbon emissions is essentially stillborn.
In my opinion, Thorium based nuclear power is the way forward. It has all the benefits of zero carbon emissions, plus it has less problematic fissile by-products than comparable Uranium235 based power systems. Plus, the fuel components of thorium based power systems aren’t generally compatible with current fission and thermonuclear bomb making technologies, making such technology less of a terrorist action risk. Thorium is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth’s crust.
Surprisingly, the US has already had (and discarded) a Thorium based power plant. The very first nuclear power plant at Shippingport , which converted to Thorium and began operating in August 1977:
It used pellets made of thorium dioxide and uranium-233 oxide; initially the U233 content of the pellets was 5-6% in the seed region, 1.5-3% in the blanket region and none in the reflector region. It operated at 236 MWt, generating 60 MWe and ultimately produced over 2.1 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. After five years the core was removed and found to contain nearly 1.4% more fissile material than when it was installed, demonstrating that breeding had occurred
It was decommissioned in 1982 and dismantled, the former site has been cleaned up and released for unrestricted use without any radioactivity issues.
Just think of the good people like Bill McKibben could do if they got behind ideas like Thorium power, rather than wasting their efforts trying to tear down existing energy supplies and replace them with impotent alternatives.
Here are two videos on Thorium based nuclear power, the first is 30 minute documentary,
The second is a 5 minute intro into LFTR reactors for the time-challenged.
In related news, Entergy has decided to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station because the plant is unable to make a profit in today’s power market.
This follows other recent decisions by other nuclear utilities to close Crystal River in Florida, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, and San Onofre in California. Indian Point in New York state is likely the next nuclear plant to be shut down.
Other closings will follow as a combination of natural gas and mandated wind and solar drive coal and nuclear from the US electric power markets. Over the next two decades, a combination of market forces and mandated renewables will push as much as half of the legacy US nuclear generation capacity off the grid. All US nuclear plants will have been shut down by about 2050.
As for new construction, it is probable that the Vogtle, Sumner, and Watts Bar II expansion projects will be cancelled within the next three to five years as rising construction costs and further schedule delays caused by poor quality construction work make these new plants uncompetitive with natural gas.
Over on the Forbes Magazine web site, Dr. James Conca offers his pro-nuclear commentary about this decision:.
Who Told Vermont To Be Stupid?
If you read all the comments to Dr. Conca’s article, you will see a microcosm example of the pro-nuclear versus anti-nuclear debate in the United States.
The Forbes web site does not publish comments immediately. You have to use their “expand comments” feature to see the very latest commentary for posts which have not yet been “called out.”
As for thorium as the future savior of nuclear power in America …… just forget it.
The supposed benefits of the thorium fuel cycle don’t come anywhere close to equaling, let alone exceeding, the true dollar costs and the true financial risks of creating a US thorium cycle infrastructure.
As regards the future viability of thorium, this is especially so in a US electric power market which, for a variety of political and economic reasons, is becoming increasingly more hostile to nuclear power in any form.
Unless the expansion of natural gas production and consumption is deliberately throttled through active government intervention; then for better or worse, natural gas is the future of energy in America.
There seems to be a bit too much nay-saying. I favor an “all of the above” approach.Thor energy doesn’t look like SL1.Much has been learned since then. Faint heart never won fair maiden!
It takes no effort at all to find anti-thorium reactor comments and observations, the most telling is that commercial power companies aren’t jumping in, just government agencies.
Something is off: the theorists or idealist technological believes, of which AW may be one, say thorium reactors are a positive game changer that is proven, while the environmental naysayers say thorium reactors are merely renamed U233 breeders that have all the waste products that the standard uranium reactors produces.
We still haven’t any accepted disposal site for nuclear waste. We still have no accepted way to get nuclear waste from a reactor to a distant disposal site. Although I am one of the geologically based believers in nuclear enerrgy AND the existence of deep disposal sites that are safe for geological-size time periods, until we can accept waste disposal from the current reactors, I cannot see how we can ever agree to the increase in any nuclear energy program.
@Brian
Thanks for pointing out my confusion about these cycles. I have been reading more diligently. It has been a long time… I was raised in the shadow of Pickering’s CANDU construction. The reactor in Pinawa, Manitoba cooled by vegetable oil is amazing. The developments in the ensuing years are fascinating. Given the issues with LWR’s over the years which are inherent in the technology, it seems doomed from a practical point of view if downstream costs have to be covered by electricity sales.
There is a pretty good lineup of the many alternative fuels that can be used in a CANDU reactor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg
The fuels used now seem to be somewhat enriched uranium although a CANDU will work on unconcentrated fuel (whatever that means because it is concentrated). It will also work with just about everyone’s nuclear garbage. Given the protests against nuclear power in Europe and the US why have they not adopted it? NIH maybe?
@Beta Blocker
Regarding Thorium, India and China are working on it together and India may start, or has started, mining their 1m tons of ore.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/canada-and-china-work-on-thorium-candu.html
Thorium may be dead (?) in the USA but it appears others are not going to bend to political factions. A Thorium cycle in a CANDU reactor will clean up the mess produced by LWR and keep us warm for centuries to come. If reliable molten salt reactors are brought on line they can be retired at the end of their life cycle. If the alternative is to have power only when the wind blows or the sun shines society is doomed to freeze in the dark.
We will still have hydro power I guess, until such time that the fanatics protesting modernity work out how to turn off the rain.
@Doug Proctor
While I understand the comments will always be pro and con for anything to do with nuclear power, there really is a difference between a molten salt Thorium cycle, a CANDU cycle and a light water breeder. The waste products you refer to from light water reactors are fuel other cycles in that they can be burned. The energy produced from this ‘waste’ is actually very significant. The root of the efficiency is that they do not produce the same ‘garbage’ and certainly not in the same proportions even if there is overlap on the actinides.
It has been a ‘green protest’ technique to lump all things nuclear into one basket and to try to keep the public focused on an over-simplification that condemns all in one go. Like climate alarmism, it depends on the general ignorance of the public. I have no problem investigating and re-investigating guided by those willing to share. I am sure you appreciate our best protection too is to continuously gain knowledge so we can detect BS and snake oil in whatever form it is presented.
If one waste disposal option is a CANDU or liquid salt reactor, why dig holes in the ground and bury perfectly suitable fuel? They will pay you to take it away!
Roger, thanks for your reply.
The paper you linked (free abstract page) deploys a combination of observations and modeling studies.
Not one of the 18 Figures in your paper includes error or uncertainty bars. For example, the trend differences in paper Figure 1 are scaled to 0.01 C, with no indication of uncertainty in either the measured or modeled temperatures. A claim of (+/-)0.01 C accuracy in either case is insupportable. Measurement error is probably 50x that, and model uncertainty probably 500x. Figure 1 is effectively meaningless.
The physics in your paper is admirable. but let me remind you of your own 2008 post about model tuning and parameterization. Interested readers can refer to the original, but in any case, you pointed out that, “Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics.” and that “parameterizations [are] typically completed for ideal situations … and then applied to climate model situations which quite frequently fall outside of the conditions that were used to tune the parametrization.”
Your comments in that post invalidate the physical accuracy of most model studies.
Your linked paper notes various assumptions and approximations that went into the UAH model you employed. Paper Figure 4 compares the UAH model with the WU-PBL model used in field studies (paper reference Steeneveld, 2006). Although the UAH model is said to compare favorably, Figure 4 shows differences of ~0.1 C to 250 m relative to WU-PBL. Looking at Steeneveld, 2006, Figure 9, their WU-PBL model makes errors averaging at least (+/-)1 C relative to observations. Their Figure 8c shows sensible (atmospheric) heat flux model errors of about 10 W/m^2. The flux errors in Table 2 are all very much larger than the annual GHG forcing increase or even the total anthropogenic GHG forcing. To the extent that the UAH model is similar to the WU-PBL model, those errors transfer.
None of those flux errors are necessarily normally distributed. None of them were propagated through any of the simulations in your paper. What is the meaning of a simulation without any stated physical uncertainty? What is demonstrated about the behavior of climate by any such simulation?
A further example: the delta K in your Figure 15 refers to the data in Steeneveld, 2011. Figure 15 takes its data from Figure 1 in Steeneveld, 2011, which shows a ~(+/-)5 W/m^2 variability of F_H (atmospheric sensible heat flux) at any given windspeed. Eq. 1 in Steeneveld, 2011 uses that data to provide an estimate of the atmospheric temperature difference with wind speed, but ignores the variability in the data. Your Figure 15 uses the Steeneveld estimate, again ignores the observational variability, and shows no physically valid uncertainty bars.
You know all this because you are a co-author on Steeneveld, 2011. Given the ~(+/-)5 Wm^2 variability, which is almost certainly uncontrolled and systematic, one can conclude that despite agreement between the UAH and Steeneveld models, the physical accuracy of the UAH model is unvalidated and unknown.
The Steeneveld, 2011 paper further qualifies their eq. 1 by observing that it, “[does] not explicitly account for the internal [Atmospheric Boundary Layer] dynamics, for feedbacks with the land surface, and for radiation divergence. All of these processes can change the shape and behavior of the [Stable Boundary Layer], especially for calm conditions..”
These qualifiers remove any physical generalization of Steeneveld eq. 1, and imply large uncertainty bars on any attempted generalization. In light of this, the correspondence of UAH and UW-PBL models in your Figure 15 again does not allow any conclusion of physical validity.
All these considerations show that it is not at all, “trivial to show that added CO2 affects the climate both radiatively and biogeochemically…” Model errors and uncertainties are far too large to demonstrate any such thing.
Hi Pat – The paper shows that whatever the uncertainties, there is not a zero effect from adding CO2. As I interpret what you wrote
“the scientific evidence he has to support his strong, positive, zero-doubt averral that human CO2 emissions have had or will have an impact on climate.”
To assume that there is no impact (i.e. a zero effect) from adding CO2, not only is not consistent with our science, but is an unnecessary divertion from the issue as to the magnitude of its effect.
Please correct me if I misinterpret what you wrote, but that is how I read your comment, and why I present one study of many that shows their is an effect.
Roger Sr.
Doug Proctor:
At September 2, 2013 at 10:37 am you say
Novelty risk is the missing factor which explains your point and has been ignored in this thread.
Iinvestors providing funds for a novel technology power station apply high interest rates as insurance against the unpredictable risks of novelty.
A power station has to operate for at least 30 years. The power plant makes little profit over the first ~15 years while it is paying off the cost of its construction. After that it makes a good profit. But a novel technology has not been proved for 30 years of operation. Indeed, it may only last 10 years so the investors would not get all their money back. Hence, investors apply high interest rates to insure against this risk.
Also, the risk is increased for a novel nuclear installation because it needs to accrue monies for its decommissioning at the end of its service life. These monies need to be saved from profits at a high rate for a novel technology because of the risk that the novel plant may not last as long as intended.
These additional costs make it very difficult for a novel nuclear installation – e.g. a thorium plant – to be economic unless a government underwrites the novelty risk.
Indeed, this need for governments to support novel technology power stations is the excuse used to justify windfarms. However, that excuse is spurious because there is no significant novelty risk and the unit cost of a wind turbine is small.
So, the need for government involvement in thorium power indicates nothing about the financial viability that thorium power would have if it were demonstrated. Similarly, the combined cycle coal-fired power systems (i.e. PFBC, ABGC, etc.) need government support to overcome novelty risk if they are to overcome the inhibition to their adoption provided by novelty risk.
The problem of novelty risk is not trivial because it effectively delays the adoption of advanced power systems for decades. Adequate demonstration to overcome novelty risk requires at least 5 power stations using a novel technology to operate for ~30 years.
Will thorium power become economically viable? Perhaps if, for example, China builds several thorium plants and operates them for decades: normal economics do not apply to large commercial operations in China. But it seems unlikely that thorium power can overcome novelty risk in the West.
Richard
Richard I love the way you steer us to where the rubber meets the road. China, were it to build such reactors willy nilly, then runs the same risk that contributed to the fall of the great Soviet Union. History: Huge investment (and much wasted dollars down pocket-lined sink holes) in military buildup that busted the bank.
Hi Richard – I understand your perspective. You are comfortable on the current trajetory (added CO2), while I am more cautious.
In a nonlinear system, such as the climate system, where, as you noted, the models show no skill in predicting changes in climate statistics on multi-decadal time scales, in my view, we should be careful in perturbing this system, especially when we do not know the consequences. Winners and losers will certainly occur, but we really do not know who these will be. We have a better idea of risks in the current CO2 environment.
For example, added CO2 is a benefit to vegetation differentially (e.g. C3 and C4 plants utlize the CO2 differently). Some plants will have a competitive advantage. Some of the response can be positive (perhaps more food per plant) but others might not be (perhaps Kudzu can grow with even more vigor).
Why should we take this risk, if there are win-win solutions better manage this issue?
Roger Sr.
rpielke:
Thankyou for your post at September 2, 2013 at 11:25 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/01/climate-of-failure-how-alternate-energy-dreams-are-pie-in-the-sky-solutions-for-emissions/#comment-1406156
in reply to my post at September 2, 2013 at 7:40 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/01/climate-of-failure-how-alternate-energy-dreams-are-pie-in-the-sky-solutions-for-emissions/#comment-1406056
I quoted your opinion and stated my different opinion in my post.
It seems to me that we differ in our views of how best to deal with risk. This difference possibly results from our having different ‘world views’ and, therefore, it cannot be reconciled. If so, then all we can do is to each clearly state our reasoning for others to assess.
In my post I wrote
I stand by that.
However, in your reply (which I have linked to aid others finding it) you point out that my desire to “avoid precipitate actions” has risks and you state some. I agree, but everything has risks (even getting out of bed). Importantly, any actions would also have risks: please remember the Law Of Unintended Consequences.
My view is that it is best to avoid precipitate actions until we know they are needed. I understand your view to be that we should act to avoid the risk of potential effects. And you conclude your reply by asking me
Well, if I knew of a win-win solution then I would support it. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any such “solution” and that is why I stand by my view that nothing should be done in the absence of a favourable cost-benefit analysis.
Again, thankyou for your reply. And I hope my answer to your question clearly states my opinion.
Richard
Thanks, Roger, but how is it possible to say there is an observable effect despite the uncertainties, when the uncertainties from physical theory are so large it is impossible to know whether the physical model is correct?
Likewise, given significant measurement errors, how is it possible to know that certain observational trends are real? When such errors are due to uncontrolled variables that can be correlated across space and time, inter-station comparisons are invalid tests of accuracy.
You seem to assume that the physics is correct, despite a clear inability to test the physics at the resolution needed for validation.
Please understand: I am not assuming there is no impact. I’m saying that the physical models are completely unable to resolve the purported impact. The physical theory is not good enough, and the errors and uncertainties from theory are far larger than the purported effect. The impact cannot be falsifiably predicted. Physical meaning thus cannot be assigned. Therefore, any such impact cannot be resolved from the available data. No one knows whether there is an impact, or what that impact should look like.
My position is strictly scientific. If the theory is incapable of resolving an observable, one cannot claim physical meaning anyway; a claim made by mere assignment. And yet that’s what you seem to be doing and what in fact is going on throughout AGW-driven climate science.
I’m not sure a meeting of the minds is possible.. The moment the door opens a crack 10 000 delusional green idiots will rush the podium to shout down any views besides their own.. Pragmatic discussions of problems and workable solutions has nothing to do with street theater.. They know it and will block and befuddle with as many interpretive dances as their sore feet will allow..
Thinking you can forge policy when your also running a talent show is absurd..
What we have to do is fire everybody for either gross incompetence or complacency to the incompetence.. With a keen eye on government and our schools.. Elections are for politics and government is for policy.. The two are very different yet the left has merged them together for their own political gain..
So there is not even any ground to stand upon for us to even begin to dismantle this malignant political disease called environmentalism..
Cue the dancers and open the vaults, we are here to save the world is much more hip and fun than dredging a canal or building a sea wall.. Fire them all..
Hi Richard – We have both clearly presented our viewpoints.
As one final comment, you write
“Well, if I knew of a win-win solution then I would support it.”
Please see my weblog posts
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/04/20/a-win-win-solution-to-environmental-problems/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/a-excellent-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado-at-boulder-what-goes-around-comes-around-by-gregory-r-carmichael/
for example, of win-win actions.
Roger
Roger:
In your post at September 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/01/climate-of-failure-how-alternate-energy-dreams-are-pie-in-the-sky-solutions-for-emissions/#comment-1406220
You reply to my having said
saying
I appreciate your taking the trouble of providing those links for me. Thankyou.
Unfortunately, the links do NOT provide what you claim.
The first lists four points of wish fulfillment.
The other discusses air quality (and makes suggestions I applaud) but does not mention methods to reduce GHG emissions.
Neither presents a “win-win solution” pertaining to reducing GHG emissions.
Have I missed something? If so, then what?
As I said, if I knew of a win-win solution then I would support it. Sadly, I still do not know of one.
Richard
Brian says:
September 1, 2013 at 11:33 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
Quoting others. If you don’t like all or part, go write to the authors (follow the links).
======================================================================
To “Godfather of Global Warming” I would prefer “The Wizard of COz”.
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2013 at 1:50 pm
===========================================================
I haven’t said it yet, but I’m glad to see you back.
The question of LENR still needs research. As several stated here many labs have witnessed excess heat. Most now are not calling this effect fusion in the traditional sense. Some type of force is being broken here and it not chemical.
The simple issue is MANY labs have seen excess heat.
Part 1
Part2
In second video – an independent physicist who is much skeptical is asked to look into this effect. He goes from 1% to 99%
What kind of nuclear force is even being broken seems not clear here. However if there is heat then this warrants research.
Stating that this is not fusion is moot. This would be like saying when mankind discovered radioactive materials and saw excess heart for years without fire and without the signature of combustion helps little here.
And when the science community was convinced about heat without fire – the science community stated that such a heat is too weak and not useful – About 50 years later – we built our first nuclear reactor.
LENR MOST certainly warrants research. There is an effect of heat here and it not chemical and it not standard fusion as we know it.
Heat is heat – we need to find out how to harness this effect.
Frank Kotler says:
Well we agree on a lot it seems. The problem with our current time in general seems to be that you can’t trust anyone. Is nuclear really cheaper than coal? I don’t know. I do know that the uranium mine in Australia uses staggering amounts of water and electricity to operate. Is France just paying Australia to run a coal power plant here by proxy to power homes in France by a very convoluted procedure? Who knows? Who even knows who to trust to analyse this properly and tell us an accurate answer?
Re Fukushima, I do know that the hairy scary reports at the time were baloney, the “radiation” they ran about frothing at the mouth over was locally dangerous, but burned itself out quickly. What about the current story? I don’t have the facts to know, but given the fact-free nature of the reports from the same news agencies before, I won’t waste a second worrying about it unless they show proper evidence, which isotopes, how much, where it has escaped to, etc.
For nay-sayers regarding LENR (and acolytes alike), may I direct all to this excellent recording by Dr. Edmund Storms, who was involved in the first tests to prove/disprove the results of Pons and Fleischmann:
http://coldfusionnow.org/edmund-storms-at-peak-efficiency-no-other-source-of-power-will-be-necessary/
Dr. Storms in the author of the book: “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”
And as albertkallal asserts above , LENR certainly deserves a significantly higher level of research.
Hows that $1T dollar bailout working? A big chunk of that could have been used to advance fissile reactors, but wasn’t.
The Fort Calhoun nuclear plant, just north of Omaha, and run by the Omaha Public Power District
(A very sharp organization based on their rates) has been off line two years as a result of the flood of 2012, a refueling just prior to that, some upgrades, and also some possible Mickey Mouse by the NRC due to political influence. HOWEVER, when things were not all FUBAR, this facility would be a huge money maker during the summer months for the OPPD. Part of the problem in operating these plants is that there are almost as many bureaucrats on site as people who actually provide useful work, and of course a great deal of the effort expended involves shuffling paper.
By the way, the spent fuel rod pool throws off 30 Mw 24×7. That would heat a lot of homes in the winter months.
If this country had any sort of long term energy policy with a goal of safety, reliability, lowest possible kwh price and reasonable life cycle costs, it would end the waste sequestration BS and
standardize on the best proven designs.
“… energy efficiency is a good thing…. {in other words} to minimise energy use… .”
(Stacey, 12:55am)
No. Energy-use minimalizing or energy conservation is NOT inherently a good thing. There is no reason to do this (except to save money which should be a personal choice). It is a religious practice, a.k.a., “fasting.”
The Cult of Environmentalism teaches this dogma; it is one of the main ways cult members can become holy (eating holy foods, e.g.., “organic” produce or non-GM produce, is another way to be holy). Also, women should not wear make-up; it exploits animals and/or is petroleum based (or some other holiness reason). There are also holy clothes to wear — no polyester (yes, yes, cotton is great, but, again, this should be one’s personal choice, not a dictate). The Cult wants to do as you suggest, Stacey, impose by fiat its dogma on the rest of the world. They want a State Religion enforced at the end of a gun.
OPPOSE THEM AT EVERY TURN.
There is NO EVIDENCE, i.e, no “science” (i.e., knowledge), only proven-FAILED models’ projections, that human CO2 can cause ANY change in the climate of the earth. None.
There is no REASON to do anything to slow or reduce the growth of human CO2.
The status quo (and EXCELLENT reasoning with evidence from ice core data by Dr. Murry Salby, April, 2013, Hamburg lecture) is ALL IS WELL.
The burden of proof is on those proposing we change our way of living. Until they PROVE their case that human CO2 must be curtailed to prevent imminent disaster, THERE IS NO REASON TO ACT.
Once again, in other words, the Precautionary Fallacy has yet AGAIN raised its hideous head with a leering, drooling, grin.
Cynical statist control freaks along with those whose fears cloud their thinking (including otherwise rational scientists who fear losing funding and or prestige) must not be allowed to impose their agenda on the rest of us.
As was said above (Mike Wryley, 9/1, 10:31pm), argue for nuclear power, but do not use the false rationalization of the Fantasy Science Club’s human CO2 teachings.
As Dr. Essex said in the 50:1 video:
Stop being afraid. And start thinking.
.
.
.
***************************************
@ur momisugly Gunga Din — France sends their nuclear fission waste to the USA, and we happily and safely bury it for a fee. And… MORE POWER TO THEM. #(:))