You know I am critical of the whole global warming full ideology. I don't deny that CO2 warms the planet and that humans put CO2 in the atmosphere, but that's about the extent of my confidence in the so-called science and the policy solutions the global warmers advocate.
It is a pet peeve of mine that gets its own label. Which is a rarity here.
But you'd think that there are ways that global warmers and "deniers" such as myself could agree on some policies that would support their view and not offend mine. Like supporting nuclear electricity generation:
So when the leading science academies in 20 developed countries, along with several major American corporations and the national security community, all tell us that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous changes to the climate, we think it’s time for the United States to get serious about clean energy. It also means supporting safely operating nuclear power plants that produce carbon-free electricity.
Already, 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from the 99 nuclear reactors that dot the nation’s map[.]
I dismiss the first portion of that first sentence, accept with caveats the second part of the first sentence, and support the second sentence in light of the fourth.
Yet I know that global warmers will not join forces on this theoretical area of overlap.
I know because at one time global warmers believed natural gas was a green alternative to oil and coal. They were right.
But as soon as natural gas became cheap and plentiful with the advances in technology, including fracking, that made it profitable to switch, the global warmers turned against natural gas.
It's almost as if the most important thing for global warmers is to make energy expensive in order to punish a sinful humanity for past ecological sins rather than have greener--but cheaper--energy.
There are real scientists doing work on climate change issues, of course. But the culture of the global warming movement is anti-progress and more of a religion than science.
Now go and emit no more.