Comments on: Climate change fraud?

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:21:33 +0000

Jim. Thank you!
There is no question of our need to break away from our dependence on imported crude as we transition to alternate forms of energy. While wind and solar have some potential let’s be real here and begin with a known source that is located within 15 miles of our Mission Viejo home. Nuclear power
Data shows that we obtain 39% of our energy from petroleum, 23% from natural gas, 22% from coal and 8% nuclear with only 7 % from renewables such as hydroelectric, wind and solar.
While there is an abundance of coal, unless the industry can demonstate they can provide “clean coal” my vote is for expanded nuclear capacity.

By: Rogue Elephant

Rogue Elephant — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:03:38 +0000

Jim,
I’ve never agreed more with anything you’ve ever written. Like Europe, we can vastly reduce the amount of toxic waste produced by recycling spent fuel rods (which are only 10% spent). (Jimmy Carter banned this through Executive Order during his presidency, resulting in vast amounts of unnecessary nuclear waste.)

By: Jim Benson

Jim Benson — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:31:48 +0000

Simple answer, I support expanding our use of nuclear energy. We must have very high safety standards that are strictly enforced.

I think that it has to be part of the solution, even if it is used as a bridge to get to completely renewal sources.

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:04:51 +0000

Jim. Simple question and solution.
What’s your opinion on expanding our use of nuclear energy?

“(October 2009)

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second. “

By: Jim Benson

Jim Benson — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:06:24 +0000

I cannot see how that the increase in carbon in the air will not affect the enviroment in some fashion. Air pollution over all is not good for life in general.

Oil and coal will run out, better to replace them and reduce thier use, with the effect of reducing pollution as a by product.

Long term it will be cheaper, create jobs here and reduce our imports of oil. I do not support saving a few dollars short term by continuing to give money for oil to countries that really do not like us.

By: Terry Crowley

Terry Crowley — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:40:27 +0000

Typical Warmer ramblings. Scientists stepping down. Australia killing the global tax. People are getting rational.

Oh yeah, does ANON know that Carbon Credits were created by Ken Lay? How does that sit with YOU ANON??

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:53:41 +0000

anon.
While he may be vested in mining companies he is not alone in challenging the validity of the cause of mankind’s contribution to any global warming.

As to the creation vs evolution controversy you are injecting a point that is off base (and off this thread). This post is about the issue of global warming.

If you disagree with professor Plimer simply say so. Thanks.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:26:31 +0000

Yeah, he’s also a critic of creationism.

How does that rest with you, Mr. Gilbert?

He’s also a Director of three mining companies. Gee, I don’t suppose he’d have a vested interest in the energy status quo, would he?

By: JohnsonT

JohnsonT — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:13:02 +0000

Fraud, of course. We also note that the liberal stooges at Liberal OC and OC Progressive haven’t had a word to say about this hoax. Their world is crumbling under the revealed (and more coming) evidence and their Messiah’s still going to Copenhagen to make a bigger ass out of himself than he already is.