Calling The Left’s Bluff On Climate Change Hysteria

May 8, 2016 – 6:35 pm

Is this really all about “science” and stopping the earth from burning to a cinder, or something else?

(Libertarian Republic)  Conservatives should “call the left’s bluff” on global warming by asking why environmentalists oppose using proven technologies like nuclear power or hydraulic fracturing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, according to an article published Thursday in Forbes.

James Taylor points out in the piece that if conservatives pressure the left to accept natural gas and nuclear power by citing their environmental benefits, the left would either be forced to abandon their opposition or risk their political credibility by continuing to claim that global warming is the nation’s greatest threat.

“Global warming is a greater threat to the American people than global terrorism, you say? Fine, then stop obstructing the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process that is responsible for approximately half of our natural gas production,” Taylor writes. “Global warming is a greater threat to the American military than Russian fighters that simulate attacks on our Navy vessels in international waters? Then stop demanding we dismantle hydroelectric dams that produce affordable, emissions-free electricity.

“Global warming is a greater threat to our military than a rapidly militarizing China?” he continues. “Then allow America to generate more of our electricity from nuclear power, as do nations such as France.”

A

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 6:35 pm and filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “Calling The Left’s Bluff On Climate Change Hysteria”

  1. Jeffery says:
    May 8, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    Nuclear is a great idea. It’s not a problem of climate realists blocking nuclear, it’s a problem of costs, safety and liability.

    From Scientific American:

    The low-carbon electricity produced by such reactors provides 20 percent of the nation’s power and, by the estimates of climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided 64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot and other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some 1.8 million lives.

    And that’s why Hansen, among others, such as former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. “We can’t burn all these fossil fuels,” Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned. “Coal is almost half the [global] emissions. If you replace these power plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of [pollution reduction] quickly.”

    … the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and ‘80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. The world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6 percent annually to avoid “dangerous” climate change in the estimation of Hansen and his co-authors in a recent paper in PLoS One. “On a global scale, it’s hard to see how we could conceivably accomplish this without nuclear,” added economist and co-author Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, where Hansen works.”

    Most serious plans for cutting CO2 emissions include nuclear.

    On the other hand, extracting and burning natural gas generates significant greenhouse gases and is a poor choice.

    from Scientific American:

    The Obama administration has supported the natural gas industry, in part for the fuel’s climate benefits. Gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal in the power plant, so the government has promoted gas as a transition fuel to a post-carbon future.

    The fine print, however, is that natural gas may be as detrimental to the climate as coal in many ways. Its climate challenge lies not during electricity generation, but further upstream—during extraction, processing and distribution of gas from the oil and gas wells to gas burners.

    From wellheads, pipes, valves, compressors and various other equipment, gas wells leak raw methane, a greenhouse gas that is 86 times as potent as carbon dioxide over a 20-year time scale, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries, wreaking climate havoc slowly, methane works more rapidly for a short while before decaying into less virulent gases.

    The leading “warmists” support nuclear power, as do most “warmists”, and the “Warmist” in Chief supports (wrongheadedly, it turns out) natural gas.

    So who’s bluff is being called?

    Perhaps the authors need to be introduced to Google.

    It’s clear that so-called “skeptics” don’t understand what they blather on about.

Pirate's Cove