Some of the scientists most often cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have taken the unusual step of warning leaders of G-20 nations that a recent IPCC report uses a double standard when it comes to its treatment of nuclear as compared to renewables.
“The anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to decarbonization than climate denial.”
Other signers of the letter include Tom Wigley, a widely-cited climate scientist who has contributed to IPCC reports on 13 separate occasions, David Lea, professor of Earth Sciences at University of California, Santa Barbara, and Peter Raven, Winner of the National Medal of Science, 2001.
“Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences,” the authors write. “As IPCC itself acknowledges, public fears of nuclear are behind the technology’s slower-than-desirable development.
The letter signers include leading radiation experts who expressed outrage that the IPCC had claimed a link between nuclear power stations and leukemia when in reality “there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature.”
Here is the letter: http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change
If CAGW rent seekers were truly concerned about “evil” fossil fuels, they’d be strong advocates for nuclear power as it would “only” cost about $5~7 trillion to completely replace all global coal/natural gas power plants with Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), compared to $122 TRILLION (2018 IPCC projection) to replace them with insanely expensive, inefficient, unsustainable, diffuse, intermittent and unreliable wind and solar…
Moreover, MSR power costs per kWh would be 1/10th wind/solar, and 50% cheaper than coal/natural gas.
CAGW has always been a political phenomenon rather than a physical one, designed to destroy capitalismism and increase central governments’ control, power and oppression over individuals and society.
The only upside is that when this stupid CAGW Sc@m is finally tossed on the trash heap of history, the blowback against the Left will be catastrophic…
The fact that the IPCC is not actively working a full court press to convince people of the benefits of nuclear power reveals that they themselves do not believe the their own reports justifies the alarmism that accompanies them.
You can understand greenie wackadoodles not jumping on board because they’ve spent a lifetime actively opposing the one possible energy solution to what they say is the great threat facing us today. It’s too hard to admit that they’ve spent a lifetime being wrong. I wonder, if nuclear energy were just now invented, if they’d all feel differently about it.
If the IPCC were to acknowledge that a large-scale, commercially viable, zero carbon energy source already exists, then the game ends. (Oh, we need to convert to nuclear power? Okay.)
If a solution already exists, then there’s no need to fund enormous wealth transfers. There’s no need to call for a “temporary” suspension of democracy. There’s no need for huge increases in taxes, or an massive expansion of state power to regulate people and industry.
It is only predictions of failure that let the game go on.
“The anti-fossil fuel and anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to the ending of human suffering than natural climate change denial.”
There, fixed it for ’em.
“Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences,” the authors write. “As IPCC itself acknowledges, public fears of nuclear are behind the technology’s slower-than-desirable development.”
Amazing how they can’t see how those “public fears” are essentially based on the same type of fear-mongering Eco-Nazi campaigning that the “climate change” twaddle is based on.
Even the French CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique), the state agency in charge of nuclear energy, seems extremely biased against nuclear and radiation, as they simply ignored the report of the French Academies that refuted the extreme fear of low dose radiation, the fear that justifies all the extreme regulatory system that increases the cost of all nuclear operations. The CEA just wants to pretend there is no discussion on the “evidence” of risk of low dose very low dose rate radiation.