Quote:
Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself
The nuclear industry is unlikely to ever induct me into their Hall of Fame. That said, I tend to take an "all of the above" approach to the global warming issue, so I was interested to learn about recent safety approvals that seem to mitigate some of the inherent safety dangers.
|
There is no global warming.
[Moderator edit]
Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.
[emphasis mine]
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
[emphasis mine]
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/
Those scientific articles from impeccable sources whose reputations cannot be impugned by screaming "
Right-wing Blog!" or "
Koch Brothers" or "
Oil Industry" that debunk global warming.
The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet during an Inter-Glacial Period is perfectly normal and has happened in every recorded Inter-Glacial Period.
That the sea level rises is a normal part of being in an Inter-Glacial Period.
Should current sea levels rise another 3 meters, the only scientific fact you can report is that
sea levels were higher in all previous Inter-Glacial Periods.
In other words,
the sea level should be a minimum of 4-6 meters higher than it currently is.
So, why isn't it?
Even if sea levels rise another 6 meters, the only truthful claim you can make is that this Inter-Glacial Period is
just like all the others.
You have to prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt why this Inter-Glacial Period
should be any different than the previous 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods.
B-b-b-b-but sea level rise and Blue Meanies!
1) sea levels normally rise during an Inter-Glacial Period as proven by science
2) current sea levels are lower than all 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods.
It is neither my fault nor my problem that people were dumb enough to build cities inches from the high tide mark before they had a clue how the Earth works and making my life miserable through a massive wealth distribution scheme is not going to solve the problem.
There is no good reason for Congress to do anything, except stop meddling.
If Congress would stop meddling, then change would be effected. Congress needs to repeal the laws it coerced on insurance companies.
If it did that, then insurance companies would stop insuring beachfront properties and properties in flood zones, or jack the rates so high that households and businesses could not afford flood insurance.
What should we do about that? We should do nothing very slowly, because my function on this Earth is not to subsidize people's flood insurance.
What happens if households and businesses cannot get flood insurance?
Then banks stop financing mortgages and loans to remodel/refurbish beachfront and flood zone properties and no new buildings are built.
What about households and business on beachfront property or in flood zones?
What about them? It sucks to be them, but my function on this Earth is not to subsidize someone's fantasy of living on the beach. That's their job, not mine.
What if they have to sell the property for a loss? Sucks to be them. My function on this Earth is not to reimburse people for the bad choices they made in life. That's their job, not mine.
In any event, they can file bankruptcy. What if they can't get a new mortgage because they filed bankruptcy? Sucks to be them, but my function on this Earth is not to subsidize people's life-styles.
Breaking News: No one ever died because they couldn't own their own home. They can rent an apartment or a condo or a trailer for the rest of their lives. It won't kill them to do that.
What about all the abandoned beachfront properties? What about them? That is a local/State government issue. The local or State government can enact a law that says any structure vacant for more than 7 years must be demolished and the land restored to its original state at owner's expense.
And, why, no, it is not my function to pay for that, either. The people who owned the land can pay for it and if they cannot, then they can file bankruptcy (and at their own expense, because I'm not subsidizing their filing fees and attorney fees).
Having said that, I am a severe critic of the nuclear power industry, but I am also a huge fan of fusion (aka breeder) reactors.
If you're going to go nuclear, and I believe we should, then IFRs (Integral Fast Reactors) are the only solution.
Breeder reactors have no waste to store at taxpayer expense and pose little to no danger to society or the environment.
For safety, that is best addressed through "on-demand" inspections, and even though I despise Greenpeace and others, they should be allowed to have a technically qualified person who has been cleared for a TS/SI to have "on-demand" access to inspect, and any facility refusing access to a government or civilian inspector gets fined and the government takes the facility from them and sells it dirt cheap to someone else.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
