(Page 3 of 14)
This is not to suggest that increasing our use of nuclear power is a bad idea. Indeed, regardless of the impact of nuclear power on global warming (possibly insignificant) it would in many circumstances be a profitable substitute for other forms of power generation and would be adopted in the absence of scare mongering and destructive regulation by environmental neo-luddites.p>Still, Mr. Tucker has not made his case. Now that he has read the literature on the science of global warming, it’s time he read the literature on the costs and benefits of “doing something” in general and using more nuclear power in particular. br> — David Sisk /p> p> I admire Mr. Tucker’s valor in trying to find a compromise on global warming. But if the two scientists he admires are correct, and humans cause about one-third of current global warming, that means we’re responsible for roughly a third of a degree of warming over the past 50 years. So if we got rid of all carbon emissions, we could reduce the world’s average temperature by a third of a degree? Does that make sense? Also, what about when the next mini-ice age reappears? Wouldn’t the extra third of a degree of warmth be nice? br> — Roger D. McKinney br> Broken Arrow, Oklahoma /p>
William Tucker writes. “So I’m back in business. As far as I’m concerned, both sides have a point.”
Is Mr. Tucker a marriage counselor? Or a climatologist? Solanki and Fligge write one paper that suggests that the sun may not be the only cause of global warming and the inevitable consequence is that those who want to cripple Western Civilization “have a point”?
The one and only scientific way for those who want to cripple Western Civilization to “have a point” is to have a model that reasonably correlates man-made greenhouse gases with global temperatures. Period. The “problem” with that unavoidable requirement is that any model that predicts statistically significant increases in global temperatures as a function of greenhouse gases necessarily predicts relatively large increases in temperature for relatively infinitesimal percentages of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It simply doesn’t work. Our friend the atmosphere is going to be 80% nitrogen and 19% oxygen and 1% other no matter how many coal fired power plants are belching from sea to shining sea.
Mr. Tucker can try to find common ground with “environmentalists,” but I suggest he not waste his time. Those of us old enough to recall the last Huey leaving Saigon also recall that the very next day all the unemployed Vietnam War protesters became nuclear power protesters. Their position has nothing to do with science or fact and all to do with beliefs whose basis are indistinguishable from religious zealots. Their Bible says that any effect man has on the environment, no matter how small, is unacceptable. That is not only unaffordable, but unlivable.p>Please find another business, Bill.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?