David Suzuki, please read this

The good geneticist is a fervent opponent of nuclear power. He loves the oh so green Swedes for reasons such as this: “Finland and Sweden are leading the world in biomass use.” But now Ed Morrissey reveals the awful truth:

Sweden opens for nuclear-power business

Read it and weep, dear David.
Mark C.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “David Suzuki, please read this

  1. Hahaha!! Sweden has both good energy policies *and* bad energy policies! Hahaha that’ll show him.
    Slow news day?

  2. In the early seventies I was a biology major at university. Our genetics course book was written DR.DS and guess what even the top students in the class struggled because the book was impossible to follow. As the class struggled the Proff allowed us to pas based on the paper written on our own observations of assigned fruit fly projects. He did not make sense in his choosen field 35 years ago and he ain’t worth listening tonow!

  3. Biomass is typically pretty capital expensive and the swedish/finnish consumer has been eating that cost for years.
    And there is only so much biomass available unless you include the utlimate biomass sources – Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. And in time you consume all of the peat bogs as they are finite.
    And conservation only gets you so far.
    So nuclear was always going to be the ‘solution’ for these countries in the long run.

  4. I have two major problems with nukes: First, the systems are expensive… the real cost per kilowatt is far more than coal or crude. Second, any nuclear system has an odd gravitational field about it.
    Seriously.
    Look at the locations of nuclear plants, nuke refineries and even engineers… and one will find that the warped field attracts clusters of anything loose and flaky.
    Protesters, enviromentals, econazis, trial lawyers, failed geneticists and a lot of bored Kingsway liberals with too much of daddy’s money.

  5. Dr. Fruit Fly and all his Church Of Climate Scientology buddies must be crapping their pants now that the planet is cooling off.

  6. The ugly truth about renewable energy sources is that you can only pull about 2 watts /square meter out of any of the sources.
    This works fine for small towns and farming but when you apply that energy density to the requirements of a dense city, it gets out of control really fast.
    I doubt, however, that David Suzuki will weep over Sweden. They were already producing roughly half of their electricity from nuclear power and even now aren’t planning new reactor sites, so the overall picture is not changing that much.
    Europe, despite Ed’s first sentence, continues to be heavily invested in nuclear power, something that anybody seriously interested in the subject would know. I would be surprised at the silliness of this post if I didn’t know the motivation behind it.
    Fred, if by “cooling” you mean that the ninth hottest year on record was cooler that the top eight (which have all come in the last decade), then you’re correct.
    I doubt that anybody who is honestly engaged in climate study spoils their pants over year to year variations. Here is NASA’s view on the subject:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

  7. Dan,
    Here are a few other sources for independent analysis finding 2008 to be the 9th hottest year on record.
    National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration:
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081216_climatestats.html
    World Meteorological Organization:
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_835_en.html
    Is this a conspiracy theory meant to undermine the earnest scientific efforts of a bunch of right wing blowhards who have so carefully discerned that winter is cold?

  8. So, we had a “hot” year, what’s your point? By the way, we certainly had a cooler than normal year out here on the West Coast; again, so what?

  9. It was such year that in snowed in Dubai.
    They peddled global cooling 30 years ago, now its warming, next year it will be global corgies.
    Water melons one and all. Green on the outsside, red on the inside.

  10. “They were already producing roughly half of their electricity from nuclear power and even now aren’t planning new reactor sites”
    No big deal really. Nuclear power is only good for base load generation which is the lowest demand during a given period. Nukes can’t be turned up or down to match daily or weekly variations in demand – a real problem where summer demand peaks due to air conditioning. See Lawrence Soloman’s article:
    http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=ebecba71-5ba1-424c-8e54-7243270a3d14
    So what if 2008 is the 9th hottest year on record. What are the trends – more so what are the trends when other external factors are accounted for (e.g. solar activity)? The climate change alarmists are more than willing to massage the data to fit their theories. See “Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig’s Ear”
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html

  11. The Santa Rosa homeowner (in the pic) at least takes his water conservation seriously. Can we assume the boat is in fact a lifeboat-in-waiting for the cataclysmic rising of the seas?
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004131767_chinaseas18.html
    Feb. 6th’s Vancouver Sun carried an article (pg B3) screaming “Massive rise in sea levels forecast”
    Down around the 4th para we see “…is not imminent and may not occur for centuries.” Whew!

  12. “So what if 2008 is the 9th hottest year on record.”
    “On record,” of course, being a whole 158 years. Always useful to remember that when the global warming alarmists use the “on record” screech as though we’re talking about the past 100,000 years, in order to reinforce their never-ending prophecies of our impending death from flood, famine, and spontaneous combustion.

  13. Gee…
    Fred up there said that it was “cold”, and I corrected him and told him that, averaged across the planet, it was the 9th hottest year that he had been on the earth for.
    So what?
    He was wrong, I was correcting him. That’s all, read it again if you don’t believe me.
    John B,
    If you read that NASA link I first posted, you would see that it takes solar irradiance into account in the analysis. The trend is quite clear, rising average temperatures.
    Mike H.
    When you hear someone say “on record” it means that they’re being honest about what it is that they are presenting. There is plenty of data out there to extend temperature records backwards, but we only recently gained the ability to take a full survey of our globe.
    There is actually data that shows that this is the hottest it’s been in 100,000 years. It’s only a single location though so it’s not definitive as climate distribution isn’t static. The Vostok ice core data shows that the present temperatures in Vostok, Russia haven’t been seen for 130,000 years.

  14. “The Vostok ice core data shows that the present temperatures in Vostok, Russia haven’t been seen for 130,000 years.”
    One might amended “Russia” to “Antarctica”.
    Cheers

  15. “When you hear someone say “on record” it means that they’re being honest about what it is that they are presenting.”
    Far from it, Dara. It’s a loaded term, intended to exaggerate the timeline. If it wasn’t, we’d hear “since 1850,” far more than “on record.” Instead, we’re force-fed the opposite.
    “There is actually data that shows that this is the hottest it’s been in 100,000 years. It’s only a single location though so it’s not definitive as climate distribution isn’t static.”
    There is actual data that shows another single location had its coldest day “on record,” 3 weeks ago:
    “Flint (Michigan) broke a 95-year-old record early Wednesday morning when the temperature plummeted to a frigid 19 below zero. The previous record? Minus 10, set in 1914, according to the National Weather Service.”
    http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/how_cold_is_it_flints_95yearol.html
    Hardly definitive though, as you say. I’ll wager Flint was much warmer back when the Arctic was semi-tropical. Same goes for Vostok.

  16. Mike,
    A discussion about the intricacies of the climate would be well served by enough background to know how far back the record goes and, in general, what data is available with which to work.
    Also, one day in Michigan is not the same as the decade long hot spell in Vostok although neither is of very much use in determining climate trends.

  17. Dara:
    No, neither is of much use in determining climate trends. I mean, what relevance is there to Vostok, 100,000 years ago, when a mere 15,000 years ago, the spot in balmy southwestern Ontario where my house currently sits, was buried under a mile high chunk of ice? That time frame doesn’t even qualify as the blink of an eye in the context of the planet’s life span to date. Think of all the non-anthropogenic warming that went into preparing my building lot for habitabilty, Dara.
    Puts the current global warming hysteria in perspective, wouldn’t you say?

  18. Mike H,
    Our climate is metastable and the present state is one that supports human life in many places. When it leaves that metastable state, it won’t be pretty.
    CO2 is an exponential input to the climate, i.e. any time I’ve ever posted on this subject, seasonally corrected atmospheric CO2 levels are at their highest level in 600k years and rising at the highest rate in 600k years. This is true today and it will likely be true for the next decade at least.
    Exponential inputs only do one thing to metastable systems…. they break the stability. An unstable climate would be a major disaster for mankind.
    Now, it’s possible that some unexpected phenomenon, e.g. a meteor or solar instability, is going to pop up and swing our climate to something completely different, but the general consensus is that the state of the atmosphere, particularly the convection (or lack of it) in the air and water has been the key player in our ice ages.
    This convection system, whether it be the Gulf stream or the North Atlantic circulation, is metastable. Increasing the energy in the atmosphere, by adding CO2, has the potential to alter the gradients (going back to the Navier Stokes equations, the gradients are the upside down triangles) and thus result in different flows and thus a different climate.

  19. “Exponential inputs only do one thing to metastable systems…. they break the stability. An unstable climate would be a major disaster for mankind. ”
    Dara, the planet has experienced numerous instances of “unstable climate” during its life span, none of which have had anything to do with human activity. We have far more to fear from the next drastic intervention by Mother Nature than anything humans can muster. The last Ice Age was an hour ago, in the context of the life span of this planet compared to the life span of a human being. We had nothing to do with the occurrence of that event, nor will we be the cause of the next one, whenever it inevitably happens. And when it happens, global warming (along with mankind’s insignificant contribution to it) will be of zero consequence in mitigating what would be a far greater catastrophe than all but the most insane doomsday prophecies of Al Gore and company.

  20. “the planet has experienced numerous instances of “unstable climate” during its life span, none of which have had anything to do with human activity.”
    But, as I pointed out, the best bet is that these unstable periods were fomented in large scale atmospheric changes that occurred when incremental atmospheric change caused a tipping point. In the past, the key movers have been things like new mountain ranges popping up between tectonic plates and sucking up CO2. In other words, the odds are that with current abilities, we would have been able to see it coming.
    Some people are arguing that we do see it coming and that this time, the destabilizing factor is us burning everything we can light. If that is the case, then by curtailing our emissions we can potentially delay a big shift. Any delay buys us a better chance of developing the means to better cope with a changed climate.

  21. “But, as I pointed out, the best bet is that these unstable periods were fomented in large scale atmospheric changes that occurred when incremental atmospheric change caused a tipping point.”
    None of which were influenced in any way by human activity.
    “Some people are arguing that we do see it coming and that this time, the destabilizing factor is us burning everything we can light. If that is the case, then by curtailing our emissions we can potentially delay a big shift.”
    That puts us into the “key mover” category, and that’s where you and I fundamentally disagree, Dara.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s