Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[rambot]

My favourite part of THIS graph is the consistency, scale and labelling of the X axis.

 

[andypro7]

My favourite part of THIS graph is the consistency, scale and labelling of the X axis.

Here, I fixed it so that even warmists can understand:

 

[eclipsenow]

Here, I fixed it so that even warmists can understand:

1. It's not a scientific graph but a rather embarrassing drawing
2. Is this the same Cliff Harris that believes in Chemtrails?
https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress...trails-geo-engineering-in-coeur-dalene-press/

As they said of the Hindenberg, "Oh the humanity!"

 

[andypro7]

1. It's not a scientific graph but a rather embarrassing drawing

Ya got me. You know that's it's not the least bit scientific in any way because it has a hockey stick at the end.

Now go get your shinebox.

 

[eclipsenow]

Ya got me. You know that's it's not the least bit scientific in any way because it has a hockey stick at the end.

Now go get your shinebox.

Ah, another fact-filled post.
Now the bit about your hero endorsing multiple conspiracy theories?
1. Global warming is a conspiracy of the guv-orn-ment
2. Chem-trails are a conspiracy of the guv-orn-ment
3. Here, wear this hat, it will protect you from that there guv-orn-ment

 

[andypro7]

Now the bit about your hero endorsing multiple conspiracy theories?

Never heard of the guy. Seriously. Never.

However, if we're going to play the logical fallacy laden 'here's what the guy on your side did', I think whatever crap you're spewing gets trumped by the HEAD OF THE IPCC resigning over a MULTI-YEAR pattern of sexual harassment.

Again, I wouldn't play that game, since it's a fallacy, but if we must, then you have to beat sexual harassment (and falsifying data, subverting the peer review process, and a host of other stuff).

Look, I get it. There's been no statistical global warming of the planet for 18 years plus, and your side HAS to deflect from the issue, but go play that game with someone else.

 

[eclipsenow]

Never heard of the guy. Seriously. Never.

However, if we're going to play the logical fallacy laden 'here's what the guy on your side did', I think whatever crap you're spewing gets trumped by the HEAD OF THE IPCC resigning over a MULTI-YEAR pattern of sexual harassment.

Again, I wouldn't play that game, since it's a fallacy, but if we must, then you have to beat sexual harassment (and falsifying data, subverting the peer review process, and a host of other stuff).

Look, I get it. There's been no statistical global warming of the planet for 18 years plus, and your side HAS to deflect from the issue, but go play that game with someone else.

Evidence? See, we have evidence that your camp are funded by big oil and king coal, and even pay some of the former 'tobacco is good for you' anti-science FUD crowd. Our 'side' has real peer-reviewed scientists, many of whom are Christians. The former head of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, is a Christian. I thought that would mean something to do? But apparently not. There's this 'conspiracy' you see! (Which apparently involves all those Christian climatologists as well. It's the guv-orn-ment or something.)

Some people are just afraid of their industry going down, and CEO's of big oil and gas and coal earn more in a day than a climatologist does in a year, and so they pay for the anti-science FUD. Then they turn around and accuse CLIMATOLOGISTS of being in it for the money!

In the meantime, fossil fuel particulates kill about 3 million people a year worldwide.

Baseload, reliable, clean energy exists. Nuclear power can supply all the energy we will ever need so we stop polluting our cities, killing 3 million people a year, and remaining addicted to the black gold that sends us to war all the time. (WMD's in Iraq anyone? )

It's running out anyway. Why not prepare ahead of schedule, increase our national security, clean up our cities, shave 10% of the nation's health bill (which in some cases is about the same as burning coal anyway: in other words, coal COSTS YOU DOUBLE when you count the health cost!), and save the climate as well? (Because, as you actually DO know, deep down, climate change is real, the science is real, the threat is real, and your self delusion is real).

 

[andypro7]

....

What you’ve done with your ranting is just proving what we’ve known all along: Global Warming is about propaganda and emotionalism, not about science. Also, the logic you use is so tortured it’s laughable. I thought about not even replying, because it doesn’t deserve one; but I will, if only so that you can learn how to argue your points more reasonably for the future.

Funded by Big Oil and King Coal
Let’s say you owned a business, and then all of a sudden wealthy people worldwide and even the President of the US tried to put you out of business based on ‘science’. Wouldn’t ANYONE in that situation hire scientists to counter the claims? Just makes sense, doesn’t it.
So, Big Oil and King Coal are Evil, eh
I think stealing is wrong, I don’t steal
I think porn is wrong, I don’t watch it
I can’t stand the lies on MSNBC, I don’t watch that either
I think Planned Parenthood is evil, I don’t buy Girl Scout cookies
If you think ‘Big Oil and King Coal’ are so bad, why don’t you vow not to use any of their products?
Former head of the IPCC is a Christian
Again, laughably illogical, even more so when I just mentioned that the current head of the IPCC resigns just this week because of sexual harassment. I thought sexual harassment would mean something to you, you know, ‘as a Christian’.
Fossil fuel kills yada yada yada.
Boy, there’s no where near enough space to go over this whopper. There’s a great book called ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ that goes over it pretty well. But just for a second imagine a world from 1900 on that didn’t include fossil fuels. It’s absolutely staggering the number of deaths averted by the use of fossil fuels and the number of people lifted out of poverty. But again, if they are so evil, why don’t you pledge here publicly not to use them?? Because you can’t, that’s why. You know your life would be 10 times worse without them.

Nuclear power
Now you’re getting at something. I don’t really care which energy we use, just let the free market decide and bring us the cheapest, most efficient kind. It probably should be nuclear, but it’s the same environmental wackos that believe in global warming that have been against nuclear for decades. Our side is fine with nuclear, it’s your side that has been opposing it, with the same exact irrational arguments they are using for global warming.
[FONT=&quot]"I know deep down that global warming is real"
I’ll address that in a separate post. [/FONT]

 

[andypro7]

Because, as you actually DO know, deep down, global warming is real, the science is real, the threat is real, and your self delusion is real).

Here are the facts that I know:

1. Your side has been telling us for decades that the planet is getting warmer because of man made CO2s
2. They have been telling us for decades that it will only get worse and temps will increase exponentially
3. Since the late 80s, they have made MANY bold predictions of where the temperatures would be right now in 2015
4. Not only have they made these predictions, but they've made them with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, telling us that 'the science is settled' 'EVERYONE believes' and if you don't believe you hate science
5. Now, when we look back on their temperature predictions, we can say with utter certainty that they have been fully and spectacularly wrong about just about everything, and that even their lowest temp predictions are much higher than the actual recorded temps
6. And despite their claims of runaway, exponential global warming, we know that as of January 2015, there has been no statistical global warming for 18 years.

Given all these facts, why would anyone believe what they say? Are they going back and admitting they were wrong and trying to fix it? Are they changing their CO2 premise because it's been proven false?

Nope, they are just continuing to repeat steps 1-4.

THAT is what I know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, let's just say for the sake of argument that that's true. (I'm not saying that, because that's a HUGE discussion, but rather what I'm saying is 'even if' it were true)

Are you really challenging the 100+ years of science which demonstrates that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Are you saying that you don't understand the basic physics of how carbon dioxide traps heat?

If that's true, and we look at the long-term downward trend, and historically much higher temperatures,

We see a very obvious upward trend that follows carbon dioxide levels over the last 100 years.

Historically, a warmer planet is much better than a colder planet for everyone involved. Clearly we are no where near past high temperatures, and a little bit warmer planet would be good for everyone.

SO, as in 'so why would we then need to spend trillions of dollars to stop it?'

How was it better for everyone? How are you judging this?

Is it better for the farmer in Kansas if the Midwest turns into a desert?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here are the facts that I know:

1. Your side has been telling us for decades that the planet is getting warmer because of man made CO2s

We have been telling people for over a century that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. We have been telling people for decades that carbon dioxide levels are well above natural levels due to humans burning fossil fuels. We have been telling people for over a century that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap more heat.

What do you think the consequence of trapping more heat in the atmosphere will be?

 

[andypro7]

Are you really challenging the 100+ years of science which demonstrates that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Are you saying that you don't understand the basic physics of how carbon dioxide traps heat?

Uh, I'm pretty sure you don't, that's why I said it's a HUGE discussion. The VERY simplistic version is that CO2 acts logarithmically in the atmosphere, and that eventually all the long-wave radiation that could possibly be absorbed has already been absorbed, and thus the effect of CO2 lessens as the atmosphere becomes more saturated.
But heck, why am I telling you this, I'm sure you already knew it

We see a very obvious upward trend that follows carbon dioxide levels over the last 100 years
And we see that over the last 18+ years as CO2 has increased, temps have remained flat. AND we see a much longer term downward trend in global temps for the last 4500 years


How was it better for everyone? How are you judging this?

Is it better for the farmer in Kansas if the Midwest turns into a desert?[/quote]

According to this study by the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf

From 2006 -2010, cold killed twice as many people as heat. And remember, according to you guys, we're seeing UNPRECEDENTED warmth, so typically cold deaths would outweigh warm death by an even greater extent.

But seriously, you shouldn't even need the CDC report for this, just common sense. Extreme warmth and extreme cold are both potentially fatal, but if you have to choose one, you choose heat. Common sense.

Oh, and by the way, THANK GOD for fossil fuels, because without them, weather extremes would be much more deadly.

 

[Loudmouth]

Uh, I'm pretty sure you don't, that's why I said it's a HUGE discussion. The VERY simplistic version is that CO2 acts logarithmically in the atmosphere, and that eventually all the long-wave radiation that could possibly be absorbed has already been absorbed, and thus the effect of CO2 lessens as the atmosphere becomes more saturated.
But heck, why am I telling you this, I'm sure you already knew it

You say it lessens, but without giving any figures. You also try to act as if CO2 causes no warming, but you now admit that even if the greenhouse effect lessens with concentration, it doesn't go away.

So I really have to wonder why you think that increasing carbon dioxide could not cause temperatures to increase?

And we see that over the last 18+ years as CO2 has increased, temps have remained flat. AND we see a much longer term downward trend in global temps for the last 4500 years

Again, you are cherry picking.

According to this study by the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf

From 2006 -2010, cold killed twice as many people as heat. And remember, according to you guys, we're seeing UNPRECEDENTED warmth, so typically cold deaths would outweigh warm death by an even greater extent.

But seriously, you shouldn't even need the CDC report for this, just common sense. Extreme warmth and extreme cold are both potentially fatal, but if you have to choose one, you choose heat. Common sense.

Oh, and by the way, THANK GOD for fossil fuels, because without them, weather extremes would be much more deadly.

So now you admit that CO2 is causing warming. Thank you.

 

[andypro7]

You say it lessens, but without giving any figures. You also try to act as if CO2 causes no warming, but you now admit that even if the greenhouse effect lessens with concentration, it doesn't go away.

So I really have to wonder why you think that increasing carbon dioxide could not cause temperatures to increase?

The warmist position is that CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures. My competing assertion is that there are hundreds of factors, of which CO2 may be one.
But if we look at the facts, your word CAUSE is unsupported
From around 1910 to 1940, we saw a global temp increase that rivals the current one, however CO2 just went up slightly
Then, from around 1940 to the late 1970s, CO2 and industrialization ramped up, yet temps fell severely enough for Time Magazine to do a cover story on the coming ice age
Now, we see great increases in CO2 for the last 18+ years, but no temp increase.

So, CAUSE? I don't think the evidence supports that theory.



Again, you are cherry picking.

Sorry, went over it three times, and said I wouldn't again. If you can't understand why the last 18 years is perfectly legit from what I said, then that's on you.

But why are you just 'cherry picking' the last 100 years? Why not 4500 or so?

 

[Loudmouth]

The warmist position is that CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures. My competing assertion is that there are hundreds of factors, of which CO2 may be one.

Those assertions are not competing. It is the position of all climatologists that there are many factors other than CO2 that affect global temperature.

But if we look at the facts, your word CAUSE is unsupported
From around 1910 to 1940, we saw a global temp increase that rivals the current one, however CO2 just went up slightly
Then, from around 1940 to the late 1970s, CO2 and industrialization ramped up, yet temps fell severely enough for Time Magazine to do a cover story on the coming ice age

Are you now trying to use the myth that there was a consensus on cooling in the 1970's? Really? You do know that this is a well refuted claim, don't you?

Now, we see great increases in CO2 for the last 18+ years, but no temp increase.

Do you agree that increasing carbon dioxide will trap more heat?

Sorry, went over it three times, and said I wouldn't again. If you can't understand why the last 18 years is perfectly legit from what I said, then that's on you.

It isn't perfectly legit since carbon dioxide has been increasing over the last 100 years, not just the last 18. You don't show all of the data because it refutes your argument.

 

[andypro7]

Are you now trying to use the myth that there was a consensus on cooling in the 1970's? Really? You do know that this is a well refuted claim, don't you?

Did I SAY that there was a consensus on cooling? I don't think so. But let's check:

Then, from around 1940 to the late 1970s, CO2 and industrialization ramped up, yet temps fell severely enough for Time Magazine to do a cover story on the coming ice age

Nope, don't think so, I said three things
1. CO2s increased greatly from around 1940s to the late 1970s
2. Temps declined severely during that time
3. The decline in temps was so severe that Time Magazine did a story on the coming Ice Age.

Which of those three things is untrue?

It isn't perfectly legit since carbon dioxide has been increasing over the last 100 years, not just the last 18. You don't show all of the data because it refutes your argument

I have a perfectly good an legitimate reason why I use the last 18 years. As I said when I explained for the THIRD TIME, I'm not explaining again. Why respond to you if you can't comprehend.

Even so...

Nor do you show all the data from the last 4500 years, because it shows that EVEN IF CO2 does cause warming, the current warming is NO WHERE NEAR warming during that period, and the recent increases in CO2s does next to nothing to reverse the downward trends in temps the last 4500 years.

Thus, my assertion that based on the last 4500 years of temps, and the persistent downward slope, IF CO2s did cause warming, we should spew MORE CO2 in order to try and warm the planet from the 4500 yr cooling.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did I SAY that there was a consensus on cooling? I don't think so.

It is what you are trying to imply.

I have a perfectly good an legitimate reason why I use the last 18 years.

No, you don't. You are trying to claim that there is no correlation between increased carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and increased temperatures. This means that you need to include the entire time period where fossil fuels have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Nor do you show all the data from the last 4500 years, because it shows that EVEN IF CO2 does cause warming, the current warming is NO WHERE NEAR warming during that period, and the recent increases in CO2s does next to nothing to reverse the downward trends in temps the last 4500 years.

Yet another cherry picked graph where you only pick 2 points out of thousands.

No one is claiming that current CO2 is causing the warmest temperatures ever right now. You are putting words in people's mouths.

 

[andypro7]

It is what you are trying to imply.

Not at all. As I already stated, I used those example to disprove your belief that increases in CO2 leads to increases in temps.

No, you don't. You are trying to claim that there is no correlation between increased carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and increased temperatures. This means that you need to include the entire time period where fossil fuels have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Wrong YET again. In responding to you, that is what I'm trying to show. When I used the 18 years, it was to show the 'scientists' failed predictions, predictions which only go back 25 years, and were very sparse until about 20 years ago. And this IS the last time I'm explaining it.

Yet another cherry picked graph where you only pick 2 points out of thousands.

Wrong YET again. The data is graph and a trenline is shown. The exact same way you'd try and prove warming over the last 100 years.

No one is claiming that current CO2 is causing the warmest temperatures ever right now. You are putting words in people's mouths

I would love to have the time to cite dozens of high ranking climate gurus who have said that over the last few decades, but I'm not doing your homework.

Now, enough of your deflection. Please explain away the three periods I talked about that show that CO2 does not correlate well with temperature. Please note that the three periods I spoke about cover approximately 78 of the last 104 years.

And you might want to look up 'correlation does not imply causation' while you're at it.

 

[fargonic]

Then, from around 1940 to the late 1970s, CO2 and industrialization ramped up, yet temps fell severely enough for Time Magazine to do a cover story on the coming ice age[/B]

Time magazine is not a peer reviewed publication. In the peer reviewed science at the time the number of articles talking about GLOBAL WARMING outnumbered cooling by 6:1 (Peterson, 2008)

Nope, don't think so, I said three things
1. CO2s increased greatly from around 1940s to the late 1970s
2. Temps declined severely during that time
3. The decline in temps was so severe that Time Magazine did a story on the coming Ice Age.

Actually the temperatures decrease in the mid-20th century was likely due to human caused sulfate pollution (sulfate aerosols). Read the scientific literature. (Wild et al, 2007)

And in addition, many of the scientists that were talking about cooling in the 70's were also discussing the new science of milankovich cycles which were found to relate to ice ages.

Nor do you show all the data from the last 4500 years, because it shows that EVEN IF CO2 does cause warming, the current warming is NO WHERE NEAR warming during that period, and the recent increases in CO2s does next to nothing to reverse the downward trends in temps the last 4500 years.

If you were more familiar with the actual literature you'd probably know that in the analyses of FORCINGS have found that in the last 60 years the natural forcings cannot explain the warming we've seen. And we know how these forcings work because of our study of forcings from long ago (before human activity could be a factor).

 

[eclipsenow]

Funded by Big Oil and King Coal
Let’s say you owned a business, and then all of a sudden wealthy people worldwide and even the President of the US tried to put you out of business based on ‘science’. Wouldn’t ANYONE in that situation hire scientists to counter the claims? Just makes sense, doesn’t it.​

Are you saying you are in favour of big corporations being able to dump lead and asbestos and dioxins and nuclear waste into your local environment in case the extra costs of preventing these spills put them out of business? "Quick, they're going to ban dumping lead down the road! Let's hire some 'scientists to tell everyone lead isn't dangerous!'"

So, Big Oil and King Coal are Evil, eh​

Not at all: oil and coal and gas gave us the industrial revolution and have shaped history in many ways: eg: Our access to cheap oil helped us defeat Hitler.

But since the 1960's we've had the technology to wean off these things that are going to run out anyway.

I think stealing is wrong, I don’t steal
I think porn is wrong, I don’t watch it
I can’t stand the lies on MSNBC, I don’t watch that either
I think Planned Parenthood is evil, I don’t buy Girl Scout cookies
If you think ‘Big Oil and King Coal’ are so bad, why don’t you vow not to use any of their products?​

First, because I can't just choose to do that! Whether public or private, energy systems are a community-owned infrastructure. It takes a society to wean off fossil fuels, not just a few individuals.

If we go over the evidence again, slightly rephrased, you'll see that fossil fuel corporations are a big government intervention in the energy marketplace! Coal and oil and gas companies are so powerful that they have most governments in their pockets. Annual government subsidies and kickbacks worldwide add up to an eye-watering $528 BILLION dollars (1). They also get to 'externalise' their health costs. The air pollution health costs in America are so high from coal particulate pollution that you should basically *double* the price of coal to cover the outrageous health costs associated with this dirty product (2). The health costs are so immense that fossil fuel particulates kill 2.6 million people a year, and clean energy initiatives in poorer countries could save an additional 3.3 million people a year from indoor wood smoke (3). In other words, if you love the free market you'll be in favour of removing over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS in worldwide kickbacks, 10% off most national health bills, and save somewhere around 7 million lives a year all by phasing out fossil fuels (and wood stove kitchens) as we roll out clean nuclear and renewable energy across the planet. Personally, I'd replace every coal fired power station on the planet with an AP1000 while we fast tracked the development of various 'breeder' reactors that eat nuclear waste, converting the world's stockpile of nuclear waste into about 500 years of clean energy (4).

(1) Data Highlights - 36: The Energy Game is Rigged: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Topped $620 Billion in 2011 | EPI
(2) How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes
(3) WHO | 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution
(4) Reactors that burn nuclear waste are called 'breeders'
Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today's water reactors run at very high pressures, requiring an expensive single cast reactor core vessel. Many breeders do *not* use water as a coolant which lets them run at normal atmospheric pressures, allowing the reactor core to be modularised and mass produced on the assembly line. This will make nuclear technology far cheaper.
My favourite breeders are the "Lifter" (LFTR) which burns thorium (as well as nuclear waste and warheads!)
Liquid fluoride thorium reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And then the Integral Fast Reactor can burn any waste products from the thorium reactor
Integral fast reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China is not waiting for either the LFTR or IFR, but are looking to mass produce water cooled nukes that are as cheap as coal (but of course without the deadly particulates and 10% extra national health cost, so they will be *much* cheaper than coal!)
Next Big Future: China seriously looking at supercritical water cooled reactors - they could be low cost enough to get China to stop building new coal starting in 2025
See also "10 cool things about nuclear waste!"
The Energy From Thorium Foundation10 Cool Things about Nuclear waste

Former head of the IPCC is a Christian
Again, laughably illogical, even more so when I just mentioned that the current head of the IPCC resigns just this week because of sexual harassment. I thought sexual harassment would mean something to you, you know, ‘as a Christian’.​

What's laughable about the facts? "Sir John Theodore Houghton CBE FLSW FRS (born 30 December 1931) is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
He is the president of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation "connecting Environment, Science and Christianity",[2] where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve.[3] He is a founder member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is also the current president of the Victoria Institute."
John T. Houghton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossil fuel kills yada yada yada.
Boy, there’s no where near enough space to go over this whopper. There’s a great book called ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ that goes over it pretty well. But just for a second imagine a world from 1900 on that didn’t include fossil fuels. It’s absolutely staggering the number of deaths averted by the use of fossil fuels and the number of people lifted out of poverty. But again, if they are so evil, why don’t you pledge here publicly not to use them?? Because you can’t, that’s why. You know your life would be 10 times worse without them.​

I agree on their important place in history. But if the Lifter program (LFTR) had been properly funded, America would have energy independence now without any fossil fuels. Also, if you're going to argue that fossil fuels are irreplaceable, what happens when they run out? Did you know it takes 10 calories of oil and gas energy to grow 1 calorie of food energy? With the industrial agricultural practices we use, we are quite literally eating fossil fuels. In the future, we'll be 'eating nuclear energy', or at least the good results of a clean energy infrastructure that gives us abundant cheap energy that can fuel our farming.

Take that away, and what are you left with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akX3Is3qBpw

We've got to wean off fossil fuels one day. The crisis actually hits about half way through the fossil fuel era, not at the end when they run out. Once they peak, and demand for cheap energy keeps rising, the gap just gets bigger and bigger each year and we see the end of cheap oil. This has weird geopolitical ramifications today as we see the price of oil crashing because the Saud's don't like competition from American unconventional oils that are only really economical at higher prices. So the Saud's are flooding the world oil market to kill competition and put all those businesses out of action. Once they're out, the price can rise again and the Saud's will reap the rewards.

Yes, there are lots of fossil fuels left. But no, exponential growth of a finite resource cannot continue forever, especially when we pick the 'low hanging fruit' first and only struggle to get the harder to reach stuff later. Cheap oil and gas and coal are fast running out. Some say peak coal will hit China in the 2020's!

Then there's the Export Land Model which looks at how much oil local oil nations produce when they peak and then how quickly oil exporters can become oil importers in the mad dash for new oil.... and how that plays out on a global scale.

But we can avoid all this: DEMAND that our governments stop choosing stuff that is causing global warming, the deaths of 3 million people a year, an extra 10% on your health bill, and leaves your nation addicted to oil and all the geopolitical and wars that brings. DEMAND that they start a fast tracked nuclear era that can last a billion years! The French increased their nuclear supply to the grid 73% in just 11 years. We can to. Then as the breeders arrive, they'll turn the nuclear 'waste' into an incredible resource.

In other words, you'll clean up your skies, gain energy security, avoid oil wars, decrease your health bill, save lives, and protect yourselves against the VERY REAL threats of climate change all by doing what you have to do anyway as fossil fuels peak and decline, but just doing it a little earlier. As the Scouts say, "Be prepared."