Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Reduce Man-Caused Global Warming Contributions!

There. The moonbats should like that headline, no?

Trouble is, they won't like the content of the post.

James Lovelock differs from most global warming fanatics in that he actually believes in it. You can tell, because he advocates heavy reliance on nuclear energy. As Lorrie Goldstein observes:

[A]ny politician who says he or she is concerned about global warming, who is not advocating for nuclear power, does not really believe our world faces an imminent threat, no matter what they say publicly.

The reason is that if burning fossil fuels really has "brought us to the brink of cataclysmic climate change that threatens humanity," nuclear power is "the only energy source that can stave off disaster without plunging us into a new Dark Age."

Yet you don't hear much about nuclear power from Al Gore et al., because the envirokooks who set the agenda don't approve of it. It's not that they're against human activity that causes global warming. They're against human activity, so they pretend it causes global warming. Plunging us into a new Dark Age is very much a part of the agenda, for those who aren't ambitious enough to want to wipe out the human race altogether.

By the time this antihuman ideology filters down to the average citizen, it takes the form of puttering around in a Prius to save polar bears from falling through the ice, as if anyone intelligent enough to operate a motor vehicle could genuinely believe driving hybrids will affect global temperatures.

Lovelock doesn't. As a co-creator of the "Gaia theory" — which views Earth as a single living organism — his moonbat credentials would seem to be impeccable. The problem is that he isn't using global warming as an excuse to raise taxes, hustle a research grant, or advance some other agenda. He truly believes, so he found the only feasible solution. It's been right under our noses for decades: nukes.

Reality: there will be battery developments which will reduce utilization of petroleum for commuting.

But batteries require charging, with actual electricity, delivered at 120v and usually fairly high amperage (compared to a lightbulb, anyway.)

Nukes provide 120v, high amperage, and zero--repeat, zero--fossil-fuel emissions.

HT: Moonbattery


Anonymous said...

It would be nice if we could settle on a method for storing the spent uranium fuel rods when they are done producing electricity. Maybe we could just sell them to Iran..

Dad29 said...

Here's the method, and it's perfectly safe. I kid you not.

Build a double-walled concrete container, buried about 10' under in your backyard. Fill the space between the walls w/water, and run piping to your house for hot-water heat and hot-water sanitary needs. Install a circulating pump to move the water around while waiting your call.

Fill the inner tank w/water and place one used nuke fuel rod inside. Seal it tightly so the water doesn't boil off. (There's a bit more techie stuff here...)

You'll have hot water for about 10 years.

Cost? The system, pipes, heaters, etc., about $40K.

The license? $250K, payable NRC.

But you get an additional bonus: those neat "nuclear zone" signs, yellow and black.

Keeps the riff-raff from visiting your house.

Dad30 said...

you're a fucking idiot.