climate change frauds called out-finally

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

climate change frauds called out-finally

John · Senior Member

That's a great site, I hadn't seen that one before. I've been very skeptical of the whole global warming theory but at least I thought it was a sincere effort and used be a bit bother by those who just called it a scam but it being to look like that is just what it is. It's a sad day for science. If you want to read some of the raw data here is a link http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html.

yales · Member

Controlling GHG is key to nuclear energy new build.

There are only 3 paths to new build:

1) Direct subsidy from GHG cap and trade,

2) Direct punitive taxes on GHG emitters.

3) Direct taxpayer subsidy of new nuclear build.

No one is even remotely considering new build without one or more of the 3.

All three are directly the result of lowering GHG.

The opposition by the US Chamber of Commerce to GHG control was the reason why the country's largest nuclear companies severed their memberships.

John · Senior Member

I understand that the nuclear industry is struggling to get a seat at the alternative energy table by throwing in with the AGW crowd. It makes sense from a business point of view to use the climate hysteria as means to counter antinuclear hysteria. In fact some where in this blog I believe you may even find a post where I suggest such a strategy on the part of the nuclear industry. My theory was that the more moderate supporters of AGW would bolt at the thought they were actually effectively supporting nuclear energy. Or, failing that, we might actually get some new construction going. Sort of a heads we win tails they lose situation.

I have two issues that are overriding.

First, just look at that was going on with the key scientists behind the IPCC. The clearly are distorting the data. One admits that the needs of science and the IPCC arent the same. Another is taking about how he is adding an arbitrary 0.15 degrees C to the data. Other are complaining no matter what they do with the data they cant get what they want (implied a rising trend). We must stand for truth not pseudo-science.

Second, I see the political aspect of AGW crowd going in the direction of limiting our economic activity rather than exploiting nuclear energy. Worse, I see them going in the direction of restricting our personal freedoms and life styles. Consider the resent California restrictions on flat screen TVs as just one example. Far more extreme measures are taking place in Europe that regulates all sorts of personal issues.

Id rather pursue nuclear energy based on its role in energy policy rather than a questionable global warming craze.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Oh...Yes agree here with John.

We need to generate energy on earth and in space with the most applicable, safe and efficient systems possible. Without throwing science under the bus.

Nuclear fission energy production systems can stand on their own feet (gigwatt history) without engaging in AGW marketing.

I also see Sierra Club and Greenpeace the political wing of AGW as drivers of restricting economic activity (cap&trade), inappropriate scaling of certain energy systems etc. Like the gov't fed reserve, and wall street corporatist restrict and funnel finances to cronies.

Free markets and science should be working together without artificial impediment to develop, offer and use clean energy efficiently, safely at a cost savings to the consumer worldwide.