Global Climate Change Science News

[Brian Peacock]

Show me on the doll where the socialist touched you.

[JimC]

[macdoc]

The usual retreat to personal insult when rational discourse fails. Tho it's more often a distasteful tactic of the right.

I've always been in favour of mixed economies and have yet to see a pure socialist state in practice or even a theoretical one that made sense.
I'm more than happy to see that .....but all I hear is anti-cap rants without an alternative.

[Brian Peacock]

It was just a light-hearted response to you trotting out a strawman version of my views again.

[pErvinalia]

That doll has definitely been touched by socialism. Look at the state of it!

[JimC]

In Soviet Russia, doll touches you!

[macdoc]

It's not light hearted in the least.

re your stance.
"I want to see a positive" to quote a phrase....indulge me.

[Strontium Dog]

The Soviet Union was of course well known for its environmental credentials

[JimC]

I don't think you're going to find many fans of the Soviet Union or doctrinaire Marxism on this forum, SD...

[Brian Peacock]

... re your stance.
"I want to see a positive" to quote a phrase....indulge me.

I just don't think you've been paying attention - which is probably why you'd like me to arbitrarily prove a negative to your personal satisfaction, to wit; that I don't blame everything on capitalism? Is proving that even possible? I mean, what would you accept as proof?

I've been over some of the specifics of my 'stance' quite a number of times now, but you always fall mysteriously silent when I stretch out the text, or you ignore what I post and call me a Luddite, accuse me of hand-wringing in sack-cloth and ashes, or you'll chide me for not posting science in what you conveniently assert is a science-only thread (even while you don't hold yourself to the same standard). I'm sorry about this, because we should be allies, but I honestly doubt you could fairly represent even an outline of the views I've expressed here over the years - so bound are you to the "he's just a tech-loathing doom-monger who hates capitalism" story you've told yourself.

I'm inviting you to prove me wrong on that one btw.

[Woodbutcher]

It was +4C here today. Freezing rain warning for tomorrow. When I took the dog out for a walk this afternoon it was so hot I had to open the trap door in my Stanfields...

[Brian Peacock]

Bit old for hot flushes ay?!?

[macdoc]

Woodbutcher I could have done without that air conditioning image ....
••••••••

Well Brian you got the doom loving correct.

Stretching out text without providing references supporting the view is just more unsupported opinion.

What would change my view.?...less of the things that are wrong and more ( any) of the positive things civilization is doing or attempting to do to mitigate the AGW problem.'

References to the positive actions the corporations, NGOs, govs, cities, states and individuals are undertaking would support that you have a balanced view instead of doom....there are lots out there if you care to look.
Even talk of peak carbon emission growth is remarkable at this point....might be wishful thinking but has some basis in the science.

A dumpf elected would be a huge step back.
Biden has moved some markers forward.

This tho is not really climate science news.

[Brian Peacock]

Meh. My 'stance' is supported by the IPCC. Global heating, climate change, biodiversity loss, mass extinction, and ecological degradation are well supported facts. We can only start from where we are, not where we wish we were. On the whole you seem to be dismissing my 'opinions' only on the basis that I have some, and that they run counter to your own. I believe that all the 'positives' you so earnestly desire are not and will not be derived from the free market or novel technology but from public education and democratic engagement and reform. This shows your character assessment of me as a "tech-loathing doom-monger who hates capitalism" is misplaced, because my focus is on understanding, challenging, and hopefully reforming the values and attitudes which have got us into this mess towards sustainability, harm-reduction, and enhanced well-being.

[Brian Peacock]

The Union of Concerned Scientists point out in detail how small modular reactors are sucking-up government subsidies and investment that could go into renewables, and that regardless of which model is chosen they have all the drawbacks of existing nuclear power station (expensive to build, maintain, and decommission, unsolved waste problem etc) + plus even if the technology did work as proposed it would still be too little too late to have any meaningful impact on emissions.


Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors

Even casual followers of energy and climate issues have probably heard about the alleged wonders of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). This is due in no small part to the “nuclear bros”: an active and seemingly tireless group of nuclear power advocates who dominate social media discussions on energy by promoting SMRs and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate crisis. But as I showed in my 2013 and 2021 reports, the hype surrounding SMRs is way overblown, and my conclusions remain valid today.

Unfortunately, much of this SMR happy talk is rooted in misinformation, which always brings me back to the same question: If the nuclear bros have such a great SMR story to tell, why do they have to exaggerate so much?

...

1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

...

It's time to put aside the idea that nuclear should be or could be a viable component of the renewable energy mix.