Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mike Van Pelt Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 21:28:06 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 23:28:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ad4994c02623980e914567900fb0505"; logging-data="4031225"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zNwvlI5967SesOlhNKOMgGse4PRg9YNA=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:utvx8PqUFxtDcl60XkdoPMs3TME= Originator: mike@Mike-Laptop.localdomain (Mike-Laptop) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 4094 In article , William Hyde wrote: >Mike Van Pelt wrote: >> The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who >> are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably >> convinces me that they do not belive it themselves. > >Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate >scientists I know. Good. You make ... what, the third? ... that has come to my attention. In the past, when I've said this, what I've gotten from the global warming folks in the conversation is "Noooooo, nuclear is teh evulzzz!!!" One of several reasons I took "Science Friday" off of my podcast download was that in several years of listening to it, they had many, many overheated (heh) stories about global warming, but never once could bring themselves to mention nuclear in that context. The only mention of nuclear power I recall was one "nuclear is bad" story. (The main reason being that Ira Flatow's questions were those of a scientific *tabula rasa*; I don't think he was as ignorant as the questions made him seem, but I think he was asking the questions he expected a scientifically ignorant audience to ask. "The Naked Scientists", "Quirks and Quarks", and the Science Magazine podcast cover all the same territory far better. The host of "The Naked Scientists" asks intelligent questions, often the question I would have wanted to ask.) >I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be >carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 >to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural >gas. Better than coal, but not good enough). Hydro is great, but as has been pointed out, all the good sites have been taken. (And the greens, of course, are clammoring to have even existing dams torn down.) >Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. There is >no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently >have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's >beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job. Apparently, phytoplankton could absorb a lot more CO2 if it weren't for lack of the limiting nutrient, iron. Some experiements should be done (*CAREFULLY*) along these lines, but they aren't. One group did try something along these lines, and were roundly condemned for doing it. (I did get the impression that their experiment wasn't particularly well controlled, so perhaps they did deserve some criticism, but it's been years, and nobody else is even looking into this as far as I know.) Any solution that doesn't involve shutting down fossil fuel use *right now* generally gets shouted down with chants of "Technofix!" as if that's a bad thing. -- Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts." mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston