Exactly who has their hand in your pocket – the people who want to impose a fee on waste dumping into the environment that is based on the quantity dumped in order to discourage the practice? Are you such a large contributor to the 20 or so billion tons per year of CO2 that it will make much of a difference in your standard of living to actually pay your fair share of the cost of using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

With regard to the original article – I remember clearly a time when I was in an audience of nuclear engineers and scientists at an American Nuclear Society meeting in the mid 1990s. Dr. Michaels had been invited to give a talk. During that talk, he issued a stern warning to the assembled crowd that we should not spend any time or effort emphasizing the fact that our favored power source is emission free. He told us that nuclear technologists took a path of emphasizing environmental benefits in the earliest days of the technology’s development and “look where that got you.” (The mid 1990s were a very dark period in the nuclear energy world; many attendees thought that there would never be another nuclear plant built in the US and most thought that existing plants would all be decommissioned at the end of their initial 40 year license period.)

Michaels instead advocated an alignment between nuclear energy and more conservative business thinking – if we emphasized national security advantages we just might build a few new plants as an insurance policy. That message sat well with those attendees who worked for large utilities and vendor companies that made at least as much – and probably a lot more – money by burning dirty fuels and by making equipment for dirty fuel plants as they did in the nuclear business.

I refused to take that advice then and I still refuse today. Nuclear fission is superior on many grounds, ESPECIALLY on environmental measures of effectiveness.

It is, after all, clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

PS – There really is room to criticize Al Gore for his very obvious efforts to make money from measures like cap and trade policies and CO2 offset programs that do not even do much to reduce actual emissions. He would be a much more effective spokesperson if he did not live in an enormous house and travel so much on private aircraft and in large SUVs.

Exactly who has their hand in your pocket – the people who want to impose a fee on waste dumping into the environment that is based on the quantity dumped in order to discourage the practice? Are you such a large contributor to the 20 or so billion tons per year of CO2 that it will make much of a difference in your standard of living to actually pay your fair share of the cost of using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

With regard to the original article – I remember clearly a time when I was in an audience of nuclear engineers and scientists at an American Nuclear Society meeting in the mid 1990s. Dr. Michaels had been invited to give a talk. During that talk, he issued a stern warning to the assembled crowd that we should not spend any time or effort emphasizing the fact that our favored power source is emission free. He told us that nuclear technologists took a path of emphasizing environmental benefits in the earliest days of the technology’s development and “look where that got you.” (The mid 1990s were a very dark period in the nuclear energy world; many attendees thought that there would never be another nuclear plant built in the US and most thought that existing plants would all be decommissioned at the end of their initial 40 year license period.)

Michaels instead advocated an alignment between nuclear energy and more conservative business thinking – if we emphasized national security advantages we just might build a few new plants as an insurance policy. That message sat well with those attendees who worked for large utilities and vendor companies that made at least as much – and probably a lot more – money by burning dirty fuels and by making equipment for dirty fuel plants as they did in the nuclear business.

I refused to take that advice then and I still refuse today. Nuclear fission is superior on many grounds, ESPECIALLY on environmental measures of effectiveness.

It is, after all, clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

PS – There really is room to criticize Al Gore for his very obvious efforts to make money from measures like cap and trade policies and CO2 offset programs that do not even do much to reduce actual emissions. He would be a much more effective spokesperson if he did not live in an enormous house and travel so much on private aircraft and in large SUVs.

Exactly who has their hand in your pocket – the people who want to impose a fee on waste dumping into the environment that is based on the quantity dumped in order to discourage the practice? Are you such a large contributor to the 20 or so billion tons per year of CO2 that it will make much of a difference in your standard of living to actually pay your fair share of the cost of using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

With regard to the original article – I remember clearly a time when I was in an audience of nuclear engineers and scientists at an American Nuclear Society meeting in the mid 1990s. Dr. Michaels had been invited to give a talk. During that talk, he issued a stern warning to the assembled crowd that we should not spend any time or effort emphasizing the fact that our favored power source is emission free. He told us that nuclear technologists took a path of emphasizing environmental benefits in the earliest days of the technology’s development and “look where that got you.” (The mid 1990s were a very dark period in the nuclear energy world; many attendees thought that there would never be another nuclear plant built in the US and most thought that existing plants would all be decommissioned at the end of their initial 40 year license period.)

Michaels instead advocated an alignment between nuclear energy and more conservative business thinking – if we emphasized national security advantages we just might build a few new plants as an insurance policy. That message sat well with those attendees who worked for large utilities and vendor companies that made at least as much – and probably a lot more – money by burning dirty fuels and by making equipment for dirty fuel plants as they did in the nuclear business.

I refused to take that advice then and I still refuse today. Nuclear fission is superior on many grounds, ESPECIALLY on environmental measures of effectiveness.

It is, after all, clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

PS – There really is room to criticize Al Gore for his very obvious efforts to make money from measures like cap and trade policies and CO2 offset programs that do not even do much to reduce actual emissions. He would be a much more effective spokesperson if he did not live in an enormous house and travel so much on private aircraft and in large SUVs.

Sin City by Graham Parsons

This old town is filled with sin,

It’ll swallow you in

If you’ve got some money to burn.

Take it home right away,

You’ve got three years to pay

But Satan is waiting his turn

This old earthquake’s gonna leave me in the poor house.

It seems like this whole town’s insane

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

The scientists say

It’ll all wash away

But we don’t believe any more

Cause we’ve got our recruits

And our green mohair suits

So please show you ID At the door.

A friend came around.

Tried to clean up this town,

His ideas made some people mad.

But he trusted his crowd,

So he spoke right out loud

And they lost the best friend they had

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

Sin City by Graham Parsons

This old town is filled with sin,

It’ll swallow you in

If you’ve got some money to burn.

Take it home right away,

You’ve got three years to pay

But Satan is waiting his turn

This old earthquake’s gonna leave me in the poor house.

It seems like this whole town’s insane

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

The scientists say

It’ll all wash away

But we don’t believe any more

Cause we’ve got our recruits

And our green mohair suits

So please show you ID At the door.

A friend came around.

Tried to clean up this town,

His ideas made some people mad.

But he trusted his crowd,

So he spoke right out loud

And they lost the best friend they had

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

I am not threatened by clean energy… that is a good thing. On that we can both agree. We do have to get to that somehow and end our dependence on foreign oil. But when it is likely that you are going to bankrupt us and future generations and use contrived reasoning based on faulty and corrupt data then I do have a problem with that. No one that I know wants to “dirty the planet”.

It is stupidity to ask the plumber to increase the pressure in the shower without fixing the leaks first. So let’s start with getting off of foreign oil… then we will have plenty left to work on clean sources.

It’s not the “true science” that is the problem… it is the parts that are a farce that are… they destroy any credibility that true scientist have and you can’t deny that this house of cards, as it stands now, was built on that data. Every day it teeters on the brink of collapse.

Start with a clean slate and try again… and this time find peers without an agenda to study climate change. It shouldn’t be too hard to find all those people who’s “fundamental goal in life is to help the world” without the profit motivation. Otherwise… it will have no credibility with those of us who have to pay for it.

I am one of those skeptics that you are going to have to convince. If you can’t convince me that “it is man made and man can fix it” then you have a very steep uphill battle getting me and people like me to invest in it. There are too many snake oil salesmen out there.

I’m look forward to the volcano capping and subduction zone grease demonstrations.

Point is… catastrophes happen… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop or lessen them. It just means that we need to be frugal with our resources (both natural and financial) and not create man made catastrophes trying to stop natural ones in the process. Otherwise… the funds won’t be there to rescue us from the natural ones when they inevitably occur.

I am not threatened by clean energy… that is a good thing. On that we can both agree. We do have to get to that somehow and end our dependence on foreign oil. But when it is likely that you are going to bankrupt us and future generations and use contrived reasoning based on faulty and corrupt data then I do have a problem with that. No one that I know wants to “dirty the planet”.

It is stupidity to ask the plumber to increase the pressure in the shower without fixing the leaks first. So let’s start with getting off of foreign oil… then we will have plenty left to work on clean sources.

It’s not the “true science” that is the problem… it is the parts that are a farce that are… they destroy any credibility that true scientist have and you can’t deny that this house of cards, as it stands now, was built on that data. Every day it teeters on the brink of collapse.

Start with a clean slate and try again… and this time find peers without an agenda to study climate change. It shouldn’t be too hard to find all those people who’s “fundamental goal in life is to help the world” without the profit motivation. Otherwise… it will have no credibility with those of us who have to pay for it.

I am one of those skeptics that you are going to have to convince. If you can’t convince me that “it is man made and man can fix it” then you have a very steep uphill battle getting me and people like me to invest in it. There are too many snake oil salesmen out there.

I’m look forward to the volcano capping and subduction zone grease demonstrations.

Point is… catastrophes happen… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop or lessen them. It just means that we need to be frugal with our resources (both natural and financial) and not create man made catastrophes trying to stop natural ones in the process. Otherwise… the funds won’t be there to rescue us from the natural ones when they inevitably occur.

I am not threatened by clean energy… that is a good thing. On that we can both agree. We do have to get to that somehow and end our dependence on foreign oil. But when it is likely that you are going to bankrupt us and future generations and use contrived reasoning based on faulty and corrupt data then I do have a problem with that. No one that I know wants to “dirty the planet”.

It is stupidity to ask the plumber to increase the pressure in the shower without fixing the leaks first. So let’s start with getting off of foreign oil… then we will have plenty left to work on clean sources.

It’s not the “true science” that is the problem… it is the parts that are a farce that are… they destroy any credibility that true scientist have and you can’t deny that this house of cards, as it stands now, was built on that data. Every day it teeters on the brink of collapse.

Start with a clean slate and try again… and this time find peers without an agenda to study climate change. It shouldn’t be too hard to find all those people who’s “fundamental goal in life is to help the world” without the profit motivation. Otherwise… it will have no credibility with those of us who have to pay for it.

I am one of those skeptics that you are going to have to convince. If you can’t convince me that “it is man made and man can fix it” then you have a very steep uphill battle getting me and people like me to invest in it. There are too many snake oil salesmen out there.

I’m look forward to the volcano capping and subduction zone grease demonstrations.

Point is… catastrophes happen… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop or lessen them. It just means that we need to be frugal with our resources (both natural and financial) and not create man made catastrophes trying to stop natural ones in the process. Otherwise… the funds won’t be there to rescue us from the natural ones when they inevitably occur.

Climate change is a practical, physical issue concerning the plant and life on this planet. It has nothing to do with spirituality or religion.

I am not a skeptic that God exists, to set the record straight on that matter.

The study from 2009 is the most up-to-date on the differences in views between scientists and the public, but they are probably even wider after all of these pseudo scandals because the scientists have repeatedly affirmed that the science of climate change is just as sound as ever whereas much of the public have been convinced that it has been discredited. The public has been duped, but the scientists much less so.

Your climate science points have been clearly refuted so many times it is just a wonder that you can still hang onto them.

I’m sorry you are so threatened by clean energy and action to prevent extreme climate catastrophes that your children and grandchildren will have to deal with.