Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Dimensional Traveler 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 18:05:33 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 03:05:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29f7020095eb25b883b9e6f82f3d5922"; logging-data="4085807"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lVLydq2DcE0Aa0htZMHKh" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:nC3OflgZDvupZl6M+3O9a99QGJs= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3948 On 9/25/2024 1:55 PM, William Hyde wrote: > Mike Van Pelt wrote: >> In article , >> D  wrote: >>> Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely >>> contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never >>> taken into account or ever discussed. >> >> My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases >> cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled >> experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing >> unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing. >> >> But ... >> >> We are in a Catch 22.  Trying to run techological civilization >> on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy >> is impossible.  To the extent the attempt is compelled by force, >> the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever >> it is successfully compelled. >> >> I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly >> as possible.  Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts >> of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel >> taken off line.  Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only >> then* does the fossil go offline." >> >> (Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric >> generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars, >> we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.) >> >> 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. > > Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the > warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve > catastrophic economic decline.  But even if we accept that this was > possible then, it isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least for a few > decades. > > 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). > > 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. > Accepting the job would require him to admit climate change is real so.... -- I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky dirty old man.