Here’s a graph of average global temperatures from NASA (U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration). We’ve all seen this before; what could possibly be newsworthy about it?
It’s that NASA won’t be in the climate/atmospheric research business much longer, so graphics like this may soon be relics of the past. (more…)
As it’s the 138th birthday of Margaret Sanger, the woman who founded Planned Parenthood and coined the term “birth control,” it seems a good time to mention some of the ramifications of her work. (more…)
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again – English Nursery Rhyme
Here’s an article for the few remaining believers in the U.S. coal industry, a group probably limited in scope to some subset of Trump supporters in the Eastern Central part of the U.S. It’s also a good read for everyone who may be wondering about the most probable trajectory for coal vs. clean energy now, and in the coming years. (more…)
Nuclear energy advocate Rudy Stefenel writes: Craig, Nuclear reactors are getting sabotaged by the distribution of subsidies. According to an EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) report for 2013, solar farms got nearly three times as much subsidies as nuclear and that wind farms got nearly four times as much.
Rudy: (more…)
Nuclear energy proponent Dr. Gene Nelson, whose Ph.D. is in biological radiation physics, takes issue with my statement that wind energy offsets fossil fuels, and he certainly has a point. He writes: (more…)
As noted yesterday, some of these pro-nuke people have a very dim view of renewables; some of the more extreme among them accuse the entire renewable energy enterprise of being a corrupt/criminal attempt to suck down government subsidies, while knowing that they’re contributing to the planet’s demise. If you click on the post linked above, you’ll see that I had some fairly harsh words for the guy who leveled that accusation. (more…)
Do you ever read an article that presents a certain set of assertions that are so noncontroversial that you’re left wondering what you learned and why you invested the time? (more…)
Alex Cannara, the leader of the pro-nuke group of which I am a part, wrote a rebuttal letter to a paper that had claimed (correctly) that wind energy is less expensive than nuclear. He notified the group (about 150 people): “I left a comment there. Like the tobacco folks, the ‘renewables’ scammers will fight to the death (for their subsidies).”
I wrote to him and cc’d the group: (more…)
The image shown here is from a news article (not a scientific paper) on the connection between CO2 concentrations and climate change from 1912, the same year the Titanic sank. Predating it by several decades were the first scientific studies on the subject.
At the time, of course, all this was more a curiosity that anything else; there were no observable phenomena that would serve to support the theory, and every reason to believe that this would never have practical bearing on the outcome of human civilization. (more…)
I came across an article this morning (though I can’t find it now) that referenced a recent conversation that someone supposedly had with legendary environmental activist Bill McKibben, in which the question was posed: “Where do you stand on nuclear, and why?” The short answer is that McKibben himself is not anti-nuke; in fact be believes that it may be vital in lowering carbon emissions in time to avoid catastrophic climate change, but that he doesn’t make this public on the basis that it would “split the movement in half.” (more…)
