tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6135095289254875112.post1807588535191059951..comments2010-03-27T09:25:49.668-07:00Joel Upchurchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11087689650811872292noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6135095289254875112.post-17192095389153776402010-03-27T09:25:49.663-07:002010-03-27T09:25:49.663-07:00The big option that is off the table is a mass new nuclear programme. Any engineer (well any honest one which is most of them) will confirm that windmillery simply cannot provide mas power or baseload. If CO2 free power is required to prevent &quot;catastrophe&quot; nuclear can do it easily &amp; nothing else can do it at all.<br /><br />I therefore regard their attitude to nuclear as a touchstone by which to tell if any &quot;environmentalist&quot; actually believes in catastrophic warming since, if it is a catastrophe nuclear is undeniably, I would say almost infinitely, safer. If they oppose stopping catastrophic warming they simply can&#39;t believe it is coming. Almost all of them fail this test.neil craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6135095289254875112.post-42246044035701138172009-10-16T08:04:40.044-07:002009-10-16T08:04:40.044-07:00What kills me is that the CO2 level has been above 450 ppm in the past. I know it must be our fault, but how did man&#39;s carbon footprint cause those rise and falls of CO2 before the industrial revolution?<br /><br />Rob the scepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6135095289254875112.post-38355694684071569042009-08-13T05:57:29.506-07:002009-08-13T05:57:29.506-07:00Agreed. Scientific publication or reporting on it loses all integrity when people do not accurately report factual findings, methods, and sources, which in turn gets used by others as a source of an argument which compounds errors until you end up with the word of mouth syndrome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com